Just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving the abortion pill, abortion advocates have “canceled” peer-reviewed science (and the scientists) that disagree with their abortion-on-demand worldview. The facts, which highlight real risks to real women, matter less to the abortion advocates than the opportunity to silence their opponents. It’s not a stretch to say this latest episode of cancel culture might kill innocent women.
Cancel culture is dangerous, stifles free speech
The more our society (and mainstream media) normalizes this attitude of bullying toward differing points of view, it’s important to distinguish between the constructive nature of civil disobedience and the destructive tendencies inherent in cancel culture.
Civil disobedience, at its core, is a principled stand against authority or actions that goes against our conscience or, in the case of Christians, against God’s Word. Like a boycott, it’s a way to express disagreement respectfully, without adopting an attitude of hatred toward the opposing perspective. History bears witness to the effectiveness of civil disobedience, such as the Montgomery bus boycott and the Anti-Apartheid Movement, in bringing about meaningful change. However, boycotts are often not successful or sustainable.
What is Cancel Culture?
Cancel culture deviates from this form of dissent dramatically. Unlike a boycott, cancel culture is not geared towards constructive change but rather seeks to punish those with whom one disagrees. The targets often include individuals or businesses based on their thoughts or past actions, leading to consequences that can be disproportionate and long-lasting.
Take, for instance, the case of comedian Kevin Hart, who faced the wrath of cancel culture for past tweets. Despite expressing remorse and a commitment to change, Hart felt immense pressure to withdraw from hosting the Oscars in 2018. Cancel culture even extends beyond individuals to powerful tech companies, exemplified by the suppression of conservative satire site Babylon Bee on social media platforms following their statement that “a man is not a woman.”
Whether someone is canceled because they supported a certain candidate or because they were bold in standing for biblical values or they were against the COVID-19 vaccine, no matter the issue, it really boils down to this: it’s not the little guy trying to stop the bully, but the celebration of the bully winning. Cancel culture is dangerous; it stifles free speech and discourages the open exchange of ideas.
The effect on public debate is undeniable. People are hesitant to voice opinions that may challenge popular narratives, hampering the discovery of biblical truth or the productive exchange of diverse ideas. People who may have great ideas, ones that could literally save someone else, may not want to risk their reputations and livelihood to speak out against popular opinion. Conservative Christians, in particular, have become increasingly tempted to shy away from the convictions of their faith because of societal backlash. It’s undeniable that along with this epidemic of cancel culture, people who uphold biblical values are often characterized as aggressive, unbending and uncaring toward progressive and liberal perspectives.
It’s important to acknowledge that free speech has its limits. No one should be allowed to call for the extermination of the LGBT community nor call for genocide of Jews. All speech is not free, but the free expression of ideas should be allowed without fear of retribution. Cancel culture, with its tendency to silence dissent, threatens the very essence of democratic dialogue.
I wonder why some people have an intense need for canceling if they truly believe their ideas are genuinely superior? In a society that values intellectual diversity, the onus should be on engaging in meaningful conversation rather than stifling opposing viewpoints. Consider the relatively recent conservative boycott against Bud Light. It highlighted the need for alternative avenues of expression that foster dialogue rather than division.
As we navigate the complexities of today’s world, it is important to preserve the sanctity of civil disobedience while rejecting the pitfalls of cancel culture. There’s a critical need to have purposeful discussions on topics such as God’s love, disagreement does not equal hate, the dangers of remaining silent and how fear can be a driving force in action. Only through open dialogue and a commitment to respectful expression can we hope to maintain a society that thrives on the exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives and preserves our foundation as a God-fearing nation.
Peter Demos is the author of “On the Duty of Christian Civil Disobedience” and the host of “Uncommon Sense in Current Times.” A Christian business leader from Tennessee, Demos uses his biblical perspective and insight gained from his own struggles to lead others to truth and authenticity in a broken world. To learn more, visit peterdemos.org.
