“For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please.” – C.S. Lewis

Years ago, in The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis cautioned that as a society lets go of an objective basis for morality, a society ends up conditioned to believe the values and preferences of a few men. He called these men, “The Conditioners.” They are those men with power, a voice, and the platform to spread their message. While his warning sounds like the introduction of a fictitious dystopian novel, it appears that our society has reached the dawn of dystopia.

In The Abolition of Man, Lewis’ social conditioners are those who prescribe for everyone the values they have chosen for themselves. These are not values chosen through means of any objective basis or standard, rather these are subjectively chosen values. Yet, anyone who disagrees with the conditioners could be labeled as bigoted, ignorant, and perhaps, dangerous. In our society, we have come to the point of understanding what it means when the few decide what the rest of us may or may not think or even discuss. It’s emanating, in part, from a redefining of the term, “hate speech.”

The definition of “hate speech” as described by the US Legal website is,

“a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.” (http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/. Emphasis mine.)

Notice that hate speech is communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred. One website described these words as “fighting words,” or words meant to intentionally incite violence. Fighting words have a different motive from public debate on a hot or controversial topic.

With so many different views in our society, we must walk the hate speech line carefully or we could propel ourselves towards a society that is no longer truly free, or truly concerned for freedom itself. The social redefining of hate speech language knowingly or unknowingly affects at least one foundational doctrine of the United States, the separation of church and state. The separation was not intended to persecute people of religious beliefs for their views on abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc.; it was meant as a safeguard from discrimination, bigotry and persecution, in so far as possible within the social contract.

I recently read an article written by Frank Turek and Michael Shermer about their debate on whether God or science better explains morality at Stony Brook University. The article is in response to an article written mostly against Frank Turek, claiming that Turek is guilty of hate speech and should not be allowed a public platform. The claim was made due to an exchange in the debate in which Shermer questioned Turek on his view of Biblical morality, including discussion of same-sex marriage: Turek does not support same-sex marriage. In Turek’s response, there are no “fighting words,” there’s no communication without meaning, and there’s no communication with the sole purpose of expressing hatred toward another group. Yet, the article written against Turek redefines hate speech to include Turek’s explanation of his civil dissention concerning a controversial topic.

This article is an example of social and verbal bullying. It demonstrates a concerted lack of tolerance. A tolerant and appropriate response to Turek would have included: a lack of negatively charged wording including slander and accusatory terminology, a positive case made for the opposing position to Turek, a thoughtful analysis of and engagement with Turek’s ideas, a utilization of evidence, and a utilization of logical argumentation. Yet, there’s the rub with the redefining of hate speech: the ill-regard of basic logic. When a person can no longer offer logical arguments to the contrary of another person’s view, we find ourselves in a despotic society.

In response to the shutting down of debates and of public speakers on controversial topics, I’m calling for a new rebellion. The new rebellion is for those who will actually stand up for logic, reason, and for the search for truth. To be sure, there are many sound bytes in our day about using logic and reason. Equally certain is the lack thereof. Currently, the social redefining of hate speech threatens the use of logic and reason in the public realm and threatens mankind’s pursuit of the good, true, and the beautiful. We presently need everyday people to stand up for the search for truth. We, as responsible citizens in a free society, must civilly rebel against any change of the definition of hate speech that alters hate speech to encompass meaningful discussion of a potentially offensive topic. If we do not purposefully and carefully recognize and teach the difference between debating controversial topics and slinging empty “fighting words,” then the powerful, vocal few in our society—Lewis’ social conditioners—may begin to define anything as “fighting words” that differs from their own set of values.

Legally, the dissenter’s voice has not yet been shut down. Socially, the bullying has begun. Allowing the few to define what should or should not be discussed publicly to fit their own values and preferences is the height of intolerance. It also reflects a double standard by those who do so in the name of tolerance. Essentially the message is, “We are the tolerant ones, yet we will only tolerate that which is in agreement with us.” This message is no tolerance at all. Redefining hate speech cuts out the heart of democracy and hands over the rule of the people to the rule of the few.

Will you be a part of a new rebellion, one in which you thoughtfully engage in arguments on controversial issues in the face of bullies who would shut down critical thinking and argumentation? Will you stand for true tolerance that protects the free exchange of ideas, even for the person with whom you disagree? Will you do so with gentleness and respect, even when you are misrepresented and verbally attacked? If so, tweet or post something today about how you value the ability in our land to dissent with public opinion and/or to openly and thoughtfully discuss controversial issues. #newrebellion #truetolerance

Example tweets or posts: 

I stand for true tolerance: the ability to civilly and publicly dissent on controversial topics. #newrebellion

I value the freedom to disagree with others on controversial topics. #newrebellion

I value the use of logical arguments in discussing controversies. #newrebellion

I do not believe in shutting down civil public dissension and discussion on difficult moral subjects. #newrebellion

Disallowing a public platform for dissenting views on morally controversial issues is not tolerant. #truetolerance

Shutting down or shouting down public dialog on controversial issues is not tolerant. #truetolerance

Using logical argumentation is vital to discussing sensitive and emotionally charged topics. #newrebellion

Shutting down or shouting down dissenting voices on controversial issues is not moral progress. #truetolerance