Religious Defamation and Political Correctness

The greatest civil liberty granted is the freedom to express individual views and beliefs regardless of the consequences that may transpire. As famously phrased by John Stuart Mill, the freedom to express concern, against any who oppose or affront, is the only way to progress further ideologies and evidence inadequacies in whatever has been challenged. To vilify religion, in the 21st century, is perhaps one of the most difficult expositions to endeavour in. Whenever a religion is opposed, even questioned on its veracity, the guise of racially charged political congeniality, leaves those who wish to oppose regimes of bigotry, oppression and degradation, categorized as racial discriminates poised on self motivated agendas. But this surely cannot be the case. It seems evident that in today’s modern civility religious defamation is not only being vilified, it is be quashed by marginalised conservatism and political correctness gone mad. It is time that freedom and civil rights be safeguarded, it is time that we live in a free society with unconditional freedom of speech, it is time, not for revile and digestion on religious defamation and political correctness, but time, to stand against the big brother of limitation and take action before all our rights are attenuated.

The world became fearful of not only terrorists, but religions inciting anything outside western normality in 2001. The birth of the ‘war on terrorism’, a ‘war’ pitted against the unknown, forbore not only trepidation of religious uncertainty, but validation to segregate and discriminate at a higher echelon. Fear, uncertainty and intimidation are the key principles which the ruling class uses against those beneath to curtail the rights and liberties of citizens. The guise of protection, the perseverance of freedom and that of civility, have enabled the boujousie not only greater power through legislation, but also over the will of the people. It has been through the hysteria of public uncertainty over terrorism that such propaganda has flourished. The semblance of public interest and sanctity of societal structures is nothing more than a derisory claim for those in power to exert more over those inferior, all awhile, proclaiming its desolation of sovereign autonomy and coherent alliance to those in need.

The ability to defend religion against those who oppress is not an option but a necessity. It is only through constant questioning that ideas, concepts and ideologies have chance to grow, and through this, become accepted truths, which also must be challenged on occasion. For if no one challenges a truth it becomes dormant, loses its coherency and becomes imprinted without question. The freedom to question all is not an evil but an obligation of everyone. If we defended only the freedom of expression of those likeminded, it would be an empty gesture in defense of freedom. Ironically, this is what most endeavor as their conjecture. To campaign to burn books, destroy rights of individuals and silence those who do not accept a desired view point helps no one. If anything, it disillusions society, and in doing so harbors mendacity, which is an undeniable characteristic few wish to employ.