The Thinking ‘Kat: Freedom and Consequences

In my recent online travels, I have come across the same topic via a couple of very different sites. Ark is an atheist, and very-much opposed to organised religion. Barabbas is a Christian, and from what I can gather, quite passionately so. Both have presented posts on the matter of people being arrested outside an abortion clinic. Needless to say, Ark’s post and Barabbas’ post have very different takes on this subject.

It goes without saying that abortion is a difficult and challenging subject, and passions can run very high. A lot of people have very charged opinions, and powerful motivations behind their opinions. I am not going to get into this with this post, though it’s possible there will be some references.

Convicted for Praying?

This is the premise that a number of Christian sites and commentators have seized upon. They suggested what happened outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth was a sign of erosion of freedom, specifically Christian freedom. Religious conservatives have long asserted their rights and freedoms are being eroded (rather ironically in my view), and this incident has provided fuel to their fire. However, what exactly happened?

Firstly, the gentleman in this case, Adam Smith-Connor, was not convicted of praying. This is a misleading claim, and a sensationalist one. It creates exciting headlines, but in the place of honesty. In 2022 the local council in Bournemouth introduced a a public space protection order around an abortion clinic. To quote part of the order (via The Independent):

“protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”, whether approving or disapproving, and “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”.

Note that the terms of this order are clearly spelled out, and prevent people from either side of this debate from encroaching upon the clinic. It also worth noting that this order was introduced after a public consultation.

In November 2022, Mr Smith-Connor took it upon himself to violate this order. He encroached upon an exclusion zone, and it’s my view that he did this despite knowing that the rules stated. He cannot have failed to be aware that his presence could be be construed as intimidating to people attending the clinic, but he did so anyway. What is of further interest here is that Mr Smith-Connor might have overlooked a Biblical instruction as well. Matthew 6:5:

“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men … but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father who is unseen.”

An Entitlement Complex

In a previous post of my own, I lamented my experiences with people intruding upon my personal space. These people are invariably religious, and they believe they have an absolute right to push their beliefs upon passers-by. This is not necessarily a breach of laws, but it is certainly a demonstration of an entitlement complex, and taken to an extreme, some of a religious persuasion believe their ‘moral’ authority outweighs the rules of the land. There appears to be a deeply-held notion that they can be above the law, if they believe the conditions are right.

This sort of entitlement spreads. Religious conservatives desire imposing their beliefs upon everyone they meet. They wish to involve themselves in the private lives of everyone, hence their interest in women’s bodies, same-sex relationships, and the trans community. They seek to control information, via book bans, and media manipulation. The sensationalist headlines regarding Mr Smith-Connor are a case in point. Often, political parties associated with the conversative right claim to be the parties of freedom, whereas in reality, they are the ones most interested in conformity, and in stifling the freedoms and expressions of anyone who does not share their values. They believe they have the right to do this.

Freedom from Consequences

Conservatives – well, some of them – operate under the idea that they should be free from any form of consequences for what they say and do. They hold to the idea that their freedoms are absolute, and that they should not face consequences for their actions, even when they knowingly disobey the law. The irony is that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Many American religious conservatives will cite the 1st Amendment, but they have no right to walk into a crowded room and shout ‘bomb!’ They cannot incite violence, not without facing repercussions. Everything has some form of restriction, and that is often for the protection of others.

What religious conservatives desire is complete freedom, freedom to do what they please, at the expense of others if necessary. They believe they should face no consequences of any kind for their words, deeds and behaviour. After all, they believe they have an unquestionable moral right to do what they want. This is not how reality works, but it is something that they are working hard to sneak into society. They are trying to blur the lines between Church and State in the USA, and elsewhere in the world as well. With the encroachment of a theocracy, they can render themselves free from consequences, and without any apparent self-awareness, restrict the freedoms of those they do not agree with or approve of.

This is one of the reasons why tomorrow’s US Presidential Election is so vital. Conservatives would have you believe they are the party of freedom and individualism. They are in fact more interested in freedoms for those who share their beliefs, and more interested in conformity. Do not be fooled by their rhetoric.

Back to Deep Meerkat Thoughts