I am not a psychologist but rather a researcher and writer. I want to express in the clearest language possible that all statements made in this website are meant to be taken not in malice towards any identifiable people group but rather as discussion on issues of public interest, for public benefit, in good faith. I believe that my views on the issues contained here are also consistent with our faith beliefs which are contained in our statement of faith which can be viewed on our website. Whether you agree or disagree with what I have stated here we bless you.I and we at freedomandsocialorder.com accept no responsibility or liability for any harms or losses that may occur as result of following any information found on this site. Do not use information found here if you don't agree to these terms. Iam not a psychologist and do not propose to be viewed as such. My articles are meant to be read with an open mind. If you are offended by Christian, Pentecostal, Evangelical viewpoints on sexual ethics, do not read these articles. By reading these articles you may find material that you find objectionable. By viewing the material, or any part of the material, posted on this website, and any part of the website and its pages, you agree to wave any legal or equitable rights or remedies you have or may have against Shawn Stevens or Ramona Stevens in respect to material that you find offensive or objectionable contained in this website. By viewing the material of this website, or any part of this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Shawn Stevens and Ramona Stevens and you specifically acknowledge and agree that Shawn Stevens and Ramona Stevens will not be liable for comments deemed defamatory, offensive or damaging and agree to dismiss any legal claims that you may have against Shawn Stevens or Ramona Stevens relating to the contents of this website.No statement made in this article or found on this website was made to foment hatred or incite violence or cause psychological harm. I do not wish for any of my statements included here or on this website to be received or taken as the detestation or vilification of anyone. For anyone to interpret my words as the incitement of hatred or of the promoting of hatred, is to misunderstand my position, which I am trying to make perfectly clear: I promote love not hatred. I love those who take a different position than I do on sensitive issues. Everything I have said here, I want to be understood from the context of love, not hate and I want for it to be received in the spirit that it is given, that is one of love. Every statement that I have made here expresses my honestly held religious beliefs and is meant to encourage honest discussion about subjects of general public interest. If you disagree with what I have said, I still love you and wish the best for you and your family. Shawn Stevens
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
When most people think of human rights, they commonly think of concepts such as the right to pursuing sustenance, happiness and, perhaps, the right to education. Another freedom which is high on the list of human rights is the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is something that we often hear professors and activists demanding. However, if freedom of speech is a basic human right, then all people in society have a right to use it, including Christians.
True freedom of speech allows for the free flow of ideas, including the expression of contrary ideas. This is often useful in determining courses of action in many different arenas. Even though freedom of speech is useful and constructive in many ways, freedom of speech is under attack in our postmodern world, as well as in postmodern Canada.
A major idea which is set in opposition to freedom of speech is “inclusivism.” Inclusivism, or inclusive speech, is simply perceived “political correctness.” It is the refusal to speak things that would be divisive or offensive. It has the motive of including as many people as possible in something, without saying something that would push some person away. Inclusivism has been applied to not only the refusal to speak divisively but, in many areas, the refusal to let others speak what they sincerely believe.
While in many contexts it is a positive thing to be inclusive, it is unrealistic and impossible to be inclusive in all things. We live in a real world. We live in a world with real issues that hotly divide society. We live in a society with contrary and conflicting values. Once we require one segment of society to be silent on the values that it holds, we are violating the principle of freedom of speech.
Today, there are possibly no greater examples in of the stifling of free speech as the prohibition in many workplaces, institutions and public forums on critical objections being raised to the homosexual lifestyle and towards the abortion-on-demand movement. Those who come to these issues with heart-felt concerns, and convictions which do not support these movements, are often called “bigoted” or “homophobic” and are sometimes subjected to prosecution or disciplinary action.
Inclusiveness, many times, is just a code word for “group-think” (either coined by or used by Irving Janis).1 It is the pressuring of individuals to adopt the views of a group, without any expression of opposition or dissent being allowed. The dynamics of group-life are such that pressure is placed on individuals to abandon their personal views, or values, for the perceived good of the group.
In some contexts, inclusiveness and group-think may be constructive as teams work towards a common goal. However, when well-meaning, conscientious objections towards issues are being interpreted as hate towards people, and banned as such, then inclusiveness has gone too far and is being abused. In such cases, freedom of speech is being violated.
What is “hate” and should people be allowed to speak it? Hatred must be carefully qualified when evaluated in relation to free speech. I think that people should not direct hatred at individuals or groups of people. However, hatred may, quite rightly, be directed at issues or lifestyles. For example, few would argue against hating the practice of slavery or against hating the vice of racism. It is right, and good, to directly speak out against these evils. If someone participating in the practice of slavery, or racism, was offended by such remarks, they have no real right to be prosecuting such speech. In a similar way, practices, such as the homosexual lifestyle and abortion, should be spoken against. To do so, is not the same as hating individual people, or people-groups, involved in these practices.
Christians make a careful distinction between hating the sin while loving the sinner. This distinction must be recognized when addressing the issue of hatred and free speech. Christians are called to love and show Christ-like compassion towards others. Christians are also called to stand for what the Bible teaches on moral issues. On the topic of same-sex lifestyle, the Bible says; “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22). Christians, and people in general, have a moral obligation to hate what is evil and to love what is good.
Historically, other regions in our 21st-century world have forbidden freedom of speech and freedom of dissent. Communist parties and totalitarian regimes crush and punish dissent and deny freedom of speech. By doing so, in many cases, regimes have streamlined their political operations, but at what cost? They have done so at the sacrifice of human rights and this is horribly wrong. Sadly, Canadian society has taken some steps down this same road of banning public dissent.
Restricting freedom of speech and banning dissent may, in some ways, streamline Canadian politics and make society more inclusive but it ignores the larger issue of personal freedom. Instead of valuing its citizens as free people, who have a right to their own opinions, society and governments sometimes view them as problems and obstacles to progress, as they define it. More seriously, they regard people's human rights and freedoms as problems and obstacles to their course of perceived progress.
What is fair play in the field of freedom of speech? Fair play allows for objections. Fair play also responds to objections to issues with responses to issues. That is to say, that when someone speaks out in objection to an issue, then that person's position should be heard and response should be made to the position, not necessarily to the person.
However, all too often, when someone speaks out against the homosexual lifestyle or abortion, the response to their objection, instead of being directed at the issue in contention or at conservatism in general, is directed at the individual. The person raising the objection is often called a bigot or homophobic, instead of response being made to the issue objected to. In such cases, it is the name-caller who is guilty of hatred, not the one objecting to the issue of the homosexual lifestyle or abortion. We need full freedom of speech to expose and respond to the weak arguments put forward in defense of the gay lifestyle and abortion-on-demand.
This distinction, of separating the issue from the person, must be made if we are ever to regain freedom of speech in Canada. It is wrong for governments, or institutions, to crush dissent or force conformity on conscientious objectors regarding controversial activities. Many would allow for freedom of thought in private life but would ban it in public life. However, thought in private becomes speech in public. It is a form of mind-control to take away a person's freedom of speech when in public life.
To take away freedom of speech is to shut the door on reform. Human societies, institutions and countries cannot grow and progress without reform. Canada needs reform. Canada needs freedom of speech.
To deny a people freedom of speech is to deny them their very identity. It is to demand a surrender of their identity and to insist that they conform to something foreign to their very beliefs and values. Freedom of speech, even in democratic nations, is a precious freedom that is becoming fragile. When governments take steps to limit the freedom of speech of their citizens, it shows that those governments view their citizens as anomalies and even obstacles to their national plans. Without the freedom to express dissent, there is no possibility for reforming our world. This is too important a freedom to let go of. 2
Freedom of speech is directly connected to freedom of conscience. In the early days of settlement in North America, Puritans left England in search of freedom to practice their faith and speak its truths. They found this freedom on the shores of North America. This is one of the great virtues of colonial America. Modern-day America and Canada must decide if they will again be known for this essential freedom.
Freedom of speech allows freedom of belief and the profession of it. A Christian's profession of faith is the most important profession he or she will ever make in their lifetime. Freedom of belief is a fundamental human right and the freedom to profess that belief is every bit as fundamental and foundational to a person's humanity. To disallow a believer the right to profess his or her faith is to reject that person's humanity. How? It is rejecting a person's humanity because a Christian's faith is the foundational thing by which he or she defines themselves; it is their very identity.
Canada is a country which has a long history of extending freedom to its citizens. However, in recent history, for a time, activists and special-interest groups had been successful in establishing “hate speech” legislation in Canada. Hate speech laws were set up in the 1970's and were codified in section 13 of the human rights act. Since that time over 100 Canadians have come under fire from this legislation. Conservative reforms led to revisions being made. Canadian hate speech legislation, after being revised, did make some provision for religious doctrine and did allow critical speech directed toward an identifiable group on religious grounds. The first revision established that free speech was not to be prosecuted “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. ” 3 Many activists were upset by this provision and would like to have seen it changed. For a season, freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country depended on this provision. The situation changed again when Conservative MP Brian Storseth put forward Bill C-304, which having passed, has repealed the section 13 hate speech clause from the Human Rights Act. This is the single greatest victory for freedom of speech that our nation has ever seen. This does not mean that the battle over freedom of speech is completely over. This does not mean that speech cannot be prosecuted in Canada. There are also federal restrictions on certain content allowed on public broadcasting.
Freedom of speech in Canada is still tenuous. Liberals have long favoured hate speech laws and former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould’s office has said that they are considering reviving section 13. Canadian parliament also passed an Islamaphobia motion that calls for government to condemn anti-IsIslamic rhetoric.
Sometimes people can't express in print all that they would like to because of copyright laws. This is regarding quoted material I think that this is a form of denying freedom of speech. I would like to see reforms come to copyright law which would expand the boundaries of "Fair Use" and the Public Domain. I also think that publishers should not be allowed to hold rights over works that they allow to go out of print.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right, as fundamental as any, within a democratic society. Freedom of speech allows for the free flow of ideas and the expression of both affirmation and dissent. In our country of Canada an on-going battle is being fought as the boundaries of freedom of speech are hotly debated. May God keep our land glorious and free.
Shawn Stevens
ENDNOTES:
1. Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police – Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds (Roseville: Prima Publishing, FORUM, 2001).
2. Thomas R. Berger, Fragile Freedoms (Toronto: Irwin Publishing, 1982).
3. Section 319 of Canadian Criminal Code. info@cipme.org
REFERENCES :
Berger, Thomas R. Fragile Freedoms. Toronto: Irwin Publishing, 1982.
Brasch, Walter M. Social Foundations Of The Mass Media. Lanham: University Press of America, 2001.
Bruce, Tammy. The New Thought Police. Roseville: Prima Publishing, 2001.
Canadian Criminal Code, Section 319. info@cipme.org
Cookson, Catharine. Ed. Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Levant, Ezra. Shakedown. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2009.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-reviewing-option-to-revive-controversial-hate-speech-law-repealed-in-2013
“Hate Speech Laws in Canada” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate speech laws in Canada
Scripture taken from the King James Version.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE LIKE A MODERN DAY HUMILIATI OR MAYBE A WALDENSIAN?
Would you like to be like a modern-day Humiliati? Did you say Illuminati? No. I said Humiliati. I think you said Illuminati. No. I said Humiliati. I have never heard of that. Are the Humiliati the brothers of the Illuminati? No. They are not.
The Illuminati was an enlightenment-era secret society that was founded in 1776. Conspiracy theorists would tell us that they have continued from that time until today, are fantastically wealthy and control the world. Is that true? I cannot say. However, if it is true, then the Humiliati were the opposite of this. They stand in sharp contrast. Who were they?
Just who were the Humiliati? The origins of this group are obscure. They were a religious order dating back to the 12th century. The first glimpses of them are of a group of captives, abducted by Emperor Henry V, a German king. During captivity, they gained a reputation for piety. After the Humiliati's many deeds of serving the poor, the Emperor released them to return to their homeland of Lombardy.
The Humiliati lived very modestly, dressed in plain grey cloths, lived communally, refrained from telling lies and were obsessed with living a minimalistic life of simple piety. They soon grew into three groups. These groups were: the original Humiliati, a group of Humiliati priests and a female version of the same order. They approached the pope and asked him to confirm their way of life. The pope agreed but with the condition that they could not hold private meetings or to presume to preach in public. In essence, they were allowed to be who they were as long as they wouldn't meet privately and speak openly. At this, the Humiliati rebelled and chartered their own path. They insisted on staying together in community and openly speaking what they believed. The pope subsequently excommunicated them.
The Waldensians are a little better know group. They were a 12th century religious order that was also excommunicated by the pope for their pre-reformation beliefs. The ancient German chronicler, Burchard of Ursperg, claims that one of the Waldensian sects was in fact Humiliati.
Waldensians believed in such tennants as “The atoning death and justifying righteousness of Christ; The Godhead; The fall of man; The incarnation of the Son; A denial of purgatory as the "invention of the Antichrist";[14] The value of voluntary poverty;
1. Perhaps, the universal priesthood of believers,[15] as according to de Bourbon they claimed that all good men are priests.[16]”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians) They did not regard relics as sacred. They believed prayer was just as effectual if it was offered in a barn as if in a cathedral. In time, they came to reject transubstantiation. They practiced baptism by emersion. They rejected the veneration of saints and prayers for the dead. They considered the Pope to be the anti-christ. All of these things put them out of favour with the Catholic Church and they were fiercely persecuted. They amazingly endured hundreds of years of persecution and in the 16th century, were absorbed into the Protestant Reformation.
Where did the Waldensians come from? We don't know much about Waldo of Lyons. What we do know of him is that he was a merchant dwelling in Lyons, France and around the years of 1173- 1176 he had some translations made of several books of the Bible, as well as some texts from Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and Gregory into the common vernacular, an early form of the French language. He also had strong convictions which he did not hesitate to preach openly. Because, at that time, only clergy were allowed to preach, the archbishop of Lyons threatened him and he was expelled from Lyons. In no time he drew a following (the Waldensians) and they spread their pre-reformation beliefs throughout the border region between France and Italy.
How did Waldensians spread their pre-reformation beliefs? They had a secret weapon, the Barba. The Barba were elite evangelists who would pose as traveling merchants. To the masses they appeared to be business men who were ignorant of spiritual things. However, when they zeroed in on a convert, they opened up and were found to be walking encyclopedias of gospel, pre-reformation knowledge.
How did the Barba become so knowledgeable? They had extensive training, schooling and communal living with other Waldensians. They carried on their person pocket-size manuscripts of pre-prepared sermons, tracts and grammar lessons. Some of this material was from Hussite sources. The Hussites, followers of the pre-reformation martyr John Huss, and the Waldensians were great friends. Few Barba were ever captured for they were masters of evasion.
From a rare historical source we actually have a copy of the Barba Oath, it reads;
Thou (such an one)swear upon thy faith to maintain, multiply and increase our law, and not to discover the same to any person in the world; and here promise that thou wilt not swear by God in any manner, but observe the Lord’s day; and that thou wilt not do anything to thy neighbour, which thou wouldest not have him do to thee; and that thou doest believe in God, who made the sun and the moon, cheribim and seraphim, and all that thou sees,&c
(taken from The Ecclesiastical History Of The Ancient Churches Of Piedmont And Of The Albigenses, pg 301)
The Barba, the Waldensians, the Hussites and the Humiliati were all non-conformists of their day.
What happened to the original Humiliati? At their height, they grew to 97 monasteries. However, they were eventually hunted down by the Catholic Church and the civil authorities and their assets were given to other orders such as the Jesuits. However, the female Humiliati were allowed to stay within the Catholic Church and lived on and continued all the way up to the early twentieth century where in Italy, there were still five independent houses of Humiliati nuns operating.
By giving this bit of history, I am not suggesting that anyone become Catholic. I am saying that there are things about the Humiliati and about the Waldensians that I admire. I love their sincerity, their minimalistic simplicity, their communal living, their defiance of Papal bullying, their refusal to bow to evil authority, their insistence on speaking what they believed, their bold refusal to be silenced and many of their reformation beliefs that were ahead of their time.
I think that the Humiliati, the Waldensians and I would have gotten along very well. Is there place for groups like this today? Is there place for similar values?
Shawn Stevens
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humiliati
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians
“Remembered By Their Enemies” In Christian History, Issue 22, Volume VIII. Christian Today Inc. IL, 1989.
“A PROPHET WITHOUT HONOR” In Christian History, Issue 22, Volume VIII. Christian Today Inc. IL, 1989.
“An Ancient And Undying Light” In Christian History, Issue 22, Volume VIII. Christian Today Inc. IL, 1989.
The Ecclesiastical History Of The Ancient Churches Of Piedmont And Of The Albigenses. Originally published 1690. Republished 1989 by Church History Research And Archives, Tennessee.