|
Monday, 03 May 2010 23:42 |
|
First, let me say that I generally agree with the comment above. We had one of those evangelical nutters wondering around our town recently moaning on about the homosexuals. I wonder why they never want to talk about the evils of shellfish, or clothes made out of mixed cotton-poly blends? I suspect that the reason is that homosexuality is an EASY topic to preach on. If they attacked divorce or greed, this might disconcert their audience (many of whom will be divorced or a little too fond of their BMWs). When a straight preacher denounces homosexuality to a straight congregation, everyone can feel smug about how much better they are than 'unsaved' sinners.
However, the comparison of inhaling carcinogenic chemicals to hearing views you disagree with is invidious. Hearing views you disagree with doesn't necessarily harm anyone ('upset' is not harm), providing that it is short of inciting violence or riots in a fairly direct way. Having a restricted set of "acceptable" views that can be voiced is ineffective and illiberal. In fact, it just supports the idea that the other views are somehow powerful or profound. Sunlight is a good disinfectant for foolishness.
So I would not, at all, in any way support this preacher's medieval worldview, but I would defend his right to voice his shitty viewpoint in what is supposed to be a free country. I realise I have just agreed with Melanie Phillips and am off to drink heavily.
|
