On the Left it’s PC, on the Right it’s RC. And I can’t find either in the First Amendment.

In response to Rick at Shark and Shepherd stating that the Vatican was

…wrong to say that the freedom of thought and expression cannot imply the right to offend the sensibilities of religious believers.

Dad29 (of Dad29) left a comment saying:

It is very dangerous to regard “freedom of expression” as an absolute right. While I don’t think that S&S goes that far, cialis generic sick the argument is really over ‘religious sensibilities.’ That’s what the Vatican’s statement is all about.

There is NO good reason to offend religious sensibilities, period.

Now let’s replace the phrase “religious sensibilities” with “racial sensibilities” or “gay sensibilities” or “liberal sensibilities.”

How is Dad29’s position any different than any other form of political correctness?

PC is about protecting the feelings of racial and sexual-orientation groups.

RC (religious correctness) is just the same principle extended to members of religious groups.

(With the added issue that pretty much anyone can define their own religion.)

Are “religions” that profess that a comet is coming to pick believers up also exempt from criticism or ridicule?

What about Scientology’s contention that we’re all descended from aliens?

Or will Dad29 and other same-thinking individuals release a list of which religions are privileged and protected and which are not?

A prohibition against speech that merely offends members of any religion is unworkable, unneccessary, and undemocratic.

And lastly, I better NEVER see any of the people arguing that free speech takes a back seat to religious sensibilities EVER attack another group for wanting to censor free speech because it offends that group’s sensibilities.

Hypocrites are the lowest form of life.

And I won’t apologize if that hurt anyone’s sensibilities.

6 comments February 7th, 2006