Buff Scott Jr.
Sophomore
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2023
- Messages
- 297
- Reaction score
- 99
- Points
- 43
D I S S E N T
[Is It Acceptable?]
[Is It Acceptable?]
Kings & Popes
If we had been Protestants and lived in England during the reign of King James I (1566-1625), we would not have had the freedom to openly and publicly disagree with his religious decrees. He believed in the “divine right of kings.” As King, he became the authoritarian ruler of England and Head of The Established Church of England. He even persecuted other Protestant groups. His affirmation to divinity was self-proclaimed.
If we had been Roman Catholics and lived in Rome during the reign of Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903), we would have been compelled to adhere to the following edict:
“That the unrestrained freedom of thinking and of openly making known one’s thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens, and is by no means to be reckoned worthy of favor and support” (Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, page 126).
Have Times Changed?
As we can ascertain from these bits of history, both Protestant and Catholic leaders of yesteryear have denied their disciples the freedom to openly and publicly dissent. And each authoritarian ruler claimed divinity. Have times changed that much? Not really. The late “Reverend Moon” of the once Unification Church alleged to be divine and his devotees may not openly and publicly disagree with his “divine” proclamations.
Jehovah’s Witnesses may not take issue with the teachings of The Watchtower Tract and Bible Society of Brooklyn, New York. Mormons and “Latter Day Saints” dare not oppose the dictates of their “Twelve Apostles” in Utah who claim to receive “divine revelations” from God. Pope John Paul laid claim to “divine revelations” and sternly warned his people they were not to disagree or take issue with “church doctrine.”
Romish Popes have taught and continue to teach “complete submission and obedience of the will to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself” (Pope Leo XIII, in his “Sapienteae Christianae,” 1890). The popish system declares, “A Catholic State will not shrink from repressive measures to secure the domination of Catholic principles” (Monsignor Ronald Knox, quoted in “Proud To Be A Protestant,” by Alan Campbell, p. 14).
Dissent Is Healthy
The “no dissent” clause is contrary to all logic and common sense, for man was born with both the ability and the urge to dissent in cases where injustices are prevalent. His Creator granted him an unfettered will, and no man, whether Pope or King, has the God-given right to deny him the freedom to think, to question, to take issue, to dissent.
Even the early Christian believers differed. The apostles Paul and Peter are a case at hand. Paul took issue with the apostle Peter, and stated, “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to the face, because he was clearly in the wrong” (Galatians 2:11). And according to the Catholic hierarchy, Peter was the first Pope! But in this case, we have the lesser opposing the greater—the exact reversal. What goes here? Simply, Peter was not the first Pope.
Free Speech vs. Slavery
Can we imagine what the world would be like if no one were permitted to take issue with the “powers that be?” Freedom would yield to slavery. Free speech would surrender to intellectual conformity. The right to dissent would be lost to authoritarian rule. This is counter to the very nature of man.
The freedom we inherited by virtue of being born would be forfeited. Anyway we peel the orange, the “no dissent” clause is infantile and out of touch with reality. Let us never forget that our great Republic was founded upon dissent. Unity in diversity, yes; in dictatorial conformity, no. I suggest that if we treasure conformity, be patient until heaven becomes a reality.
