Re: Challenging Church Compassion – 20: Kicked Out for Animal Beliefs
We all seek church communities where we feel comfortable, and there can
be different components that determine whether or not we are comfortable. I
can only speak for myself, but I would be very uncomfortable in an
environment in which neither I nor others could speak their minds because
their views deviated from that church’s orthodoxy. It has been my strong
impression that the main effect (and probably the main intended purpose) of
suppressing dissent is to defend victimization. Those who benefit from
victimizing vulnerable individuals do not want their evil deeds to come to
light, and they defend their malevolent actions with self-serving
interpretations of religious (or secular sacred, e.g. the Constitution)
texts. This strategy requires that dissent, which would expose their lies,
not be allowed. The main risk of permitting open discussion and debate is
that silly or irrelevant views will be voiced. While this can waste people’s
time, it is a small price to pay for the benefits of free expression of
ideas.
As Mike notes, churches are free to control the discourse within their
walls, but I wouldn’t want any part of that. As an aside, this freedom of
churches to suppress viewpoints is a good reason to question whether
religious institutions (or perhaps any institutions) should be tax exempt
and have contributions be tax exempt. It seems to me that the U.S.
Constitution forbids the state from promoting any religion (“Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion”), and the favorable tax
status of religious institutions constitutes a form government sponsorship
of religion.
Steve