Freedom of speech is under attack, but perhaps not from the direction you might imagine. A few vignettes.
1. Muslim university students protest the showing of “American Sniper” on campus because it promotes negative images of Arabs and Muslims.
2. Hillel, a Jewish campus ministry forbids its local campus affiliates from inviting certain pro-Palestinian (they would say anti-Israel) speakers.
3. University students object to lectures and even classroom discussion that may “trigger” the return of memories of traumatic events.
4. Almost daily advocacy groups for different religions press that against what they regard as “hate speech” on university campuses, effectively seeking to censor particular viewpoints from appearing in public discourse by pressuring organizations to drop speakers to whom they object.
What these events seem to indicate is a declining commitment to free speech on campus by both students and special interest groups. And along with this there seems to be an increasing resistance to involvement in public discourse that is emotionally uncomfortable or complex.
There is a danger that authentic inter-religious dialogue will become impossible in this climate. Dialogue almost always involves disagreements about beliefs and persons for whom there are deep emotional attachments. And so emotional discomfort is a constant companion to dialogue.
It seems increasingly obvious that advocacy groups, while they have a role in keeping the particular concerns of different religious groups in the public eye, may be a hindrance to inter-religious dialogue. Or perhaps they need to recognize that their freedom to advocate can exist only in a larger framework of an openness to be offended.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In