Fundamental Principles

Christians using the right to freedom of speech: But how long will it last?

The reason why the State and the Church cannot co-exist happily in an era of liberalism is that fundamental principles mean very little to liberals.

In fact, fundamental principles mean nothing to liberals. Firstly, because they do not believe they exist and secondly, because even if they do believe they exist, they are there to be destroyed.

In the 1960s, the fundamental principle of freedom of speech won liberals the freedom to promote abortion under the banner of 'women's rights'. Now that abortion is all across the West and it has been accepted by Parliament and society for a long time, liberals wish to do away with the fundamental principle of freedom of speech for those who disagree with it. UCLU is a microcosm of this dynamic taking place on a broader scale in the future.

I don't believe that, in any way, liberals 'won' the argument in the 1960s and 70s. The fact of the matter is that when perfectly reasonable moral, ethical, even medical objections were raised to the legislation, that these objections were summarily dismissed. That isn't winning an argument. That is just beating or ignoring the opposition.

The idea that legalised abortion was the answer for society was sold not based on any fundamental principle at all, but instead the idea that the fundamental principle of the right to life was worth forsaking in order to improve maternal health for women. It all began with the destruction of a moral principle.

The fundamental principle that we shouldn't take life in the womb was discarded because the abortion lobby and its supporters believed that it could and should be abandoned for the sake of decreasing risks to women in pregnancy and by improving (or dare I say sanitising) the abortive 'treatment' process.

At every stage of the liberal dismantling of the legislative moral order it was believed by them that 'might = right'. The fundamental principle of the right to life was overridden by a spurious argument that in this situation 'might is right'. That is why objections raised by many at the time were dismissed. That is why when objections are raised today they too are dismissed. You can see this for yourselves on the comments section of Christina Odone's blogpost on the subject of the Catholic Society at UCL. The objections were dismissed because to liberals and moral relativists 'might is right'. To many commentators, it doesn't matter that the Student Union of UCL have decreed that the Catholic Society must now always have a pro-abortion representative, should any pro-lifer come to talk (presumably to the Catholic community and anyone else who wants to listen), because Catholics and pro-lifers are obviously talking 'gibberish' anyway.

Do you see what they did there? What they are saying is that the fundamental principle of freedom of speech is worth destroying for Catholics and pro-lifers because they don't agree with Catholics and pro-lifers. Now we see how quickly and easily the fundamental principle of freedom of speech can be abandoned!

It goes without saying that the unborn child is the necessary and easibly forgettable victim when 'might = right'. The unborn child, however, is not the only victim. The women who procure abortions are also victims because the injustice done to the child is also an injustice done to themselves - to their own flesh and blood. The other victim in abortion is the fundamental principle itself - that we all have the right to life.

Having abused the first fundamental principle of freedom of speech, distorted it, twisted it and used it to evil ends, that fundamental principle loses value. The second fundamental principle of the right to life is not just twisted or distorted, but destroyed. It only makes perfect sense that in a society in which the first and most natural fundamental principle of the right to life is destroyed, that the second principle, freedom of speech, will too be destroyed for those who oppose the first. This is what is being witnessed quite brazenly at the UCLU.

Presumably, also, one of the reasons why the UCL is so against pro-life speakers is because at the UCL is a 'Fetal Tissue Bank' which receives 'fetal material' from all over the country. Where is a great deal of the 'fetal tissue' from? Let's guess...

Finally, I do hope that the Archbishop of Westminster will soon speak out publicly, since this Catholic Society is in the Archdiocese and lend His Grace's considerable weight and authority to supporting the students whose fundamental right to freedom of speech is being destroyed at UCLU. As one commenter on Christina Odone's blog said, 'When the Labour club meets, a representative of the Conservative club must always be present.' That is how ridiculous this ruling is.