Religious freedom, free speech and hate

By Steven L. Shields

Not long ago, an ultra-right-wing, so-called "Christian" broadcaster in Korea won the right in the courts to continue to preach hatred and incite violence against the LGBT community. The courts sided with the broadcaster under its interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of "religious freedom."

The broadcaster argued that the government is constitutionally prohibited from restraining the free and fair practice of religion. Similar cases in the United States and elsewhere have also succeeded in fostering hate speech. Where is the boundary between religious freedom, the practice of free speech and inciting hatred of others?

We often argue that we are entitled to our opinions. I cannot disagree. Each person develops their own opinion about any given topic. Opinions, remember, are not scientific conclusions but asserting the right to a position, often without evidence. Many people hold to their opinions against all other information that might come along, demanding the right never to change their minds. Such people often assert their opinion as fact, rarely have justification, and few take accountability for the outcome of actions that might have been based on or influenced by their opinion.

In the case of the religious broadcaster, although they argued their beliefs suggest only one approach to persons of the LGBT community, they implied that any disagreement with their opinion is disrespectful of their "religious freedom." Religious freedom permits each to believe whatever they will and to interpret the tenets of their faith according to their understanding. Of course, religious freedom allows one to do that.

However, what if religious freedom meant enshrining the basic Christian value of love of neighbor in an outward expression rather than a selfish, inward grabbing of perceived rights? Rather than pushing what "I" or "we" believe, how about making a safe space for all to embrace their beliefs, whatever they may be, if they don't infringe on the rights of others and if they don't incite hatred and violence toward others? True Christian believers ought to understand this, for it is the model Jesus embraced as recorded in the Four Gospels.

Jesus never preached hate. Quite the opposite, Jesus said to love our enemies and to go the extra mile when forced to do something. Such was especially important for survival during the Roman occupation of Judea. Such is still important in modern community life.

To the imposter Christians who are so vocal in Korea and elsewhere, you can interpret the Bible however you wish, even though I believe you are wrong. Likewise, you believe I am wrong, but the principle of religious freedom insists you allow me that right. The same principles apply to the LGBT community and the various "hated" cults that are somewhat infamous in Korea these days. I may think they are wrong, and I can state that, but to "hate" them is anathema to Jesus Christ and his teachings.

When challenged by religious authorities of his time, accusers asked Jesus to rank the commandments of God from greater to lesser. His response is classic Christian belief and a real example of religious freedom. Rather than chastise his questioners for asking such a question, "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The church I attend in Seoul is in a minority of communities that strives to embrace all. We strive to be a "welcoming church" for everyone, especially members of the LGBT community. We weren't always so. Like most Christian denominations in the world, we were meticulous in our old interpretation of the Bible and our understanding of the norm. It took decades to realize that the two great commandments were not just cozy sayings by an ancient teacher 2,000 years ago.

When asked to define "neighbor," Jesus told the story of a man who had fallen victim to bandits on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. The "good" religious priests of the time passed by on the other side, selfishly protecting their perception of holiness. Then a Samaritan traveler came along. Remember, the Jews despised the Samaritans. He offered help. Jesus asked his listeners, "Who was the neighbor?"

I think the courts, in this case, by siding with the broadcaster in question, are not wrong in that each person or each group has the inherent right to believe what they will. But has their ruling given carte blanche to the incitement of hatred and possible violence against the community being targeted by this so-called Christian group? The constitutional principles of freedom to practice one's religion and speak one's mind have never extended to protecting bigotry, misogynism, sexism, racism and all the other "isms" that attend. Freedom of religion is not freedom to hate. Hate is not a Christian value ― just the opposite.

At Jesus's death on the cross, the veil in the temple at Jerusalem, a huge curtain that separated the main sanctuary from a special room not open to the public, was torn apart. I think the metaphor is powerful. No longer is there a gatekeeper at the front door of the church. No longer is "proper religion" a private club open only to a special few. Jesus tore down walls and broke open doors. Those who claim to be his disciples today ought to do no less. In a true spirit of religious freedom, when a church proclaims at its front door that "all are welcome," they ought to mean it.

Rev. Steven L. Shields (slshields@gmail.com) has lived in Korea for many years, beginning in the 1970s. He is the president of the Royal Asiatic Society Korea. He served as copyeditor of The Korea Times in 1977. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect The Korea Times' editorial stance.