I came across a piece in which five clergy of different faiths/denominations are asked if censorship is appropriate in a religious context. I find it interesting that four of the five respondents seem to indicate that for the most part, censorship is unnecessary as we should support choice in life. Unfortunately, not all clergy feel the way these writers do, as can be seen on a daily basis. I will present short vignettes in between each one’s idea. All five ideas have merit, though some are more challenging to me than others. It is a fascinating coming together of minds.
Faith Forum is a weekly dialogue on religion coordinated by Rajan Zed.
We posed to our panel of religious leaders of the region the following question:
Religious censorship: Should we control freedom of expression, basing it on religious doctrines and raising concerns of blasphemy, sacrilege, impiety, etc? Should the organized religions attempt to suppress contrary views?
Here is what they have to say:
Choice is mine
Matthew Cunningham, Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno chancellor
Anyone paying attention to technology and commun-ications is aware that controlling flow of information in today’s world is nearly impossible. Anyone with a modicum of training and Internet access can have an audience with the stroke of a key. We cannot always control what information we receive and thus it becomes our personal decision whether to accept the message. We must make personal judgments about the suitability and value of communications. It is at this point that our religious beliefs must guide us.
It seems that what is more important than control of information is concern for the content of the message. Our focus should be on civility, common decency, truthfulness and respect when we communicate by any means. Parents, especially, have a responsibility to educate children about appropriate ways to communicate. We must learn to be discriminating readers and listeners. Our faith communities can assist us in this effort.
According to our first writer, it seems that religion cannot censor so much as people should self-censor based upon religious sentiment. He does promote choice, though with limits. We have to make choices not to see certain things.
No Censorship in Buddhism
Jikai’ Phil Bryan, Reno Buddhist Center priest and meditation guide
Siddhartha’s teachings of the four noble truths and all subsequent Buddhist teachings emphasize tolerance, patience and understanding. There is no such thing as censorship in Buddhism. All views are open for discussion, debate, empirical testing and analysis in terms of the Middle Way. Buddha advised all followers to consistently respect other religions, but also not to react negatively to criticisms or disparagement by others. With only anomalous exceptions, Buddhism has welcomed engaged criticism aimed at alleviating suffering and improving conditions of life. Buddhism is a “religious” way of life, not a divinely revealed religion, so there is really no controlling Buddhist god to blaspheme, and nothing so divine in Buddhism to protect from sacrilege. A famous line by Hakuin, one of our greatest Zen masters, says, “Outside sentient beings, where do we find the Buddhas.” Buddhism’s concern is not in defending views, but in improving life for all.
Being human is about being exposed to life. Ideas should not be supressed because they could be formulated as a means to reach the “path.” to equanimity. Tibetan Buddhism under the Dalai Lama especially has exemplified the idea of confrontation.
Contrary Views Welcome
ElizaBeth W. Beyer, Temple Beth Or rabbi
Contrary views in Jewish thought are welcome, as long as they are “for the sake of Heaven.” A good example of this is one of our longstanding traditions, which is to study Talmud, a compilation of works that includes opinions of various rabbinic sages over many centuries. Talmud is more than 1,500 years old, and it overflows with arguments between one rabbi and another or one group and another group. It is a multivocal document recognizing the validity of many perspectives in the search for truth on a vast number of topics. In contrast to a dispute for the sake of Heaven is one purposefully done to disrupt or create havoc. This type of dispute is unwelcome and would likely be censured. Recognizing and allowing creative, penetrating discussions while discouraging agitators is sometimes challenging.
Alas, I wish it were so simple. She is basically rehashing an idea in Ethics of our Fathers (5:16). The Mishnah states:
ה,טז [יז] כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמיים, סופה להתקיים; ושאינה לשם שמיים, אין סופה להתקיים. איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמיים, זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי; ושאינה לשם שמיים, זו מחלוקת קורח ועדתו.
Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will have a constructive outcome; but one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not have a constructive outcome. What sort of dispute was for the sake of Heaven? – The dispute between Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute between Korach and his entire company.
Unfortunately, Jews of all stripes do not live out this ideal today. Most argument we find now is harsh and tend towards disparagement and hate. Some might try to justify themselves as doing it for the sake of Heaven, but the vitriol is such that I would be hard-pressed to believe our argumentation is merely for the betterment of the Jewish people.
Love Allows Freedom of Choice
Stephen Bond, senior pastor of Summit Christian Church, Sparks
Jesus said our love for one another is the most important evidence that we are truly his followers. This means Christians are to be known for their love. This makes sense especially when we consider the Bible says that God himself is love. The Bible also defines love. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
Clearly, love does not manipulate or coerce people. Love grants the freedom of choice — even when those choices are morally wrong. As a result, it would be contrary to Christ’s teaching to seek to control the expression of religion or to suppress contrary views.
I am troubled by this theology because the same love of which they speak has been used as a means to argue for conversion. “We love you, we don’t want you to suffer the fires of hell, so convert or die.” I am not saying that these words would automatically apply today, but a doctrine of choice through love is wrought with dangerous precedent.
Church should preserve freedom
Nicholas F. Frey, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints area public affairs director
The freedom of expression found in the Magna Carta contained guarantees of civil and personal liberty, which later found fuller expression in the Constitution of the United States. We hope such guarantees eventually sweep the world. The church, which also enjoys guarantees under the Constitution, should not infringe those guarantees by attempting to suppress contrary views. Without imposing censorship, when confronted with attacks on our own or others’ religions, we church members and leaders should insist on the right to be heard, responding within a framework of self-imposed tolerance, good taste and common sense. The church has a great stake in freedom. It must zealously act to preserve and maintain it. The forces of the church are applied through kindness and persuasion. In God’s plan, the inalienable rights of the individual are strictly and jealously protected. What the individual does, he does voluntarily, not by force.
Choice is valued because everyone wants his/her voice heard. This last opinion is driven by modern Enlightenment sentiments of liberty. We all have liberty to believe what we want, just allow us to all have a say at the table.