One of the things I like about blogging is that it allows you to exercise your freedom of speech (to the extent you have it).

There is an old joke from the Cold War era where an American tells a Russian, “You know, I can stand in front of the White House and hold up a placard that says ‘The President of the United States is a complete idiot’”. The Russian replies, “Big deal. Even I can stand in front of the Kremlin and hold up a placard that says ‘The President of the United States is a complete idiot’”.

There are places in the world where there is absolute freedom of speech. There are places where there is absolutely no freedom of speech. There are places where there is absolute freedom of speech so long as your speech is not about that place itself and there are places where freedom of speech is curtailed, to ensure that nothing is said that may be ‘offensive’ and cause social disturbance.

It is interesting to examine what is ‘offensive’ and what is not. I am mainly looking at expressions of opinion and not referring to factually incorrect statements or libelous material. Most of the time, it is easy to distinguish between an expressed opinion and libel. “Aditya is a lousy writer” is an opinion. “Aditya had a roaring affair with Anna Kournikova” would be libel. (Against Anna).

At an individual level, there are many things that people may find offensive, depending on their own points of view and the extent of their own sensitivity. Comments against their dress, criticism of their work or even an opinion against the football team they support may be considered offensive. Generally, we would advise individuals to dispassionately see if there is any merit to a statement they find offensive. If there is, accept it. If not, disregard it or take other appropriate action.

I find that, at a personal level, we tend to get most offended when someone says something about us that we feel may be true but have not fully admitted to ourselves. If we have accepted it or are comfortable with it, we do not feel so offended. If we know for sure that it is not true, it is also easy to dismiss.

And then there are statements that we may find personally offensive that are also generically considered as offensive by most people. For example, derogatory comments on race, sex, physical disability or sexual orientation would be considered offensive in most civil societies.

I am not sure if anyone has carried out any analysis to determine why comments on race, sex, physical disability or sexual orientation are considered offensive. My own opinion is that they are classified as offensive because the underlying factors are all factors over which no individual has control. We do not choose our race or our sex at birth. We do not choose to be born with a physical or mental disability or choose to have accidents that cause them. Modern scientific opinion is that sexual orientation is also a function of the way an individual is wired from a biological point of view. Since these are not matters of choice, most people would agree that it is unfair to discriminate against any individual on these grounds. Therefore, there is general agreement on what is considered to be ‘politically correct’.

Most people also extend this ‘political correctness’ to religion. That is where I have a different opinion.

Unlike race, sex, physical disability or sexual orientation, religion is entirely a matter of choice. Let us not forget that all children are born atheists. It is the adults who bring up children who indoctrinate them with religion. It is possible that a child may be brought up by someone other than its biological parents and ends up following their religion. It is also possible that a child may not be made to follow any religion at all. The possibility that a child can be brought up without religion may not even occur to many people. Those who find the concept hard to visualize only need to look at China, where they will find a billion living examples of people who have been raised without any religion.

Since the religion a child is made to follow is purely a function of the actions of the adults who raise the child, it is, as Richard Dawkins says, meaningless to refer to a child as a “Christian child” or a “Jewish child”. That would be just like referring to a child as a “capitalist child” or a “Republican child”.

Therefore, given that religion is something that adults choose to follow or choose to indoctrinate their children with, I believe it is fair game for open discussion. An opinion based on religion is just like any other opinion that a person may have. If I disagree with the political views an individual expresses or an economic view he expresses or even an opinion on a sportsman or sports team, I am allowed to argue with that individual and express my own opinion. Why, then, is it considered politically incorrect to argue with an individual over an opinion he holds on religious grounds?

I find it hard to accept the reticence on the part of most people to have frank discussions on the subject of religion, especially because many actions taken (or not taken) on religious grounds have a significant impact on the day to day lives not just of the followers of a particular religion but also on the rest of the world.

Refusal to practice birth-control on religious grounds leads to over-population which is a threat to the whole planet. Refusal to use condoms on religious grounds increases the risk of spreading disease and endangers large sections of society. There are places where there is open discrimination on religious grounds against fifty percent of the population (women). And, of course, there are many instances of violence that are linked to religion.

There are religious texts that are considered by believers to be inerrant wherein Paragraph D says “Do X” and Paragraph P says “Do Y” and, on plain reading, an overwhelming majority of human beings would find Y to be the exact opposite of X and would also find Y to be socially unacceptable. It is possible that someone with a PhD in Theology may have some convoluted interpretation that attempts to reconcile the paragraphs that most people would agree are contradictory. Frankly, the interpretation of the guy with the PhD does not matter. What matters is the interpretation of the priests on the streets who are preaching to the masses. If many of them are urging their followers to simply “Do Y”, the world has a problem.

Handling such issues with kid gloves will only perpetuate and aggravate the problems. What is needed is frank and open dialogue and not ‘political correctness’ that sweeps such issues under the carpet or fails to confront them directly. We cannot hope to bring about the reform that the world desperately needs by holding back our comments on religion just to avoid causing offence.

P.S: Those who are interested can also read this article on the evolution of religion.