Speech an the Sacred: Does the Defence of Free Speech Rest on a Mistake about Religion? by Andrew March

Speech and the Sacred: Does the Defense of free Speech
Rest on a Mistake about Religion
by Andrew March
Name of Student
Name of Institution

Guilt as a moral compass; this is more so often used by religions in determining whether or not an individual could be considered acceptable or morally proper. The capacity of speech to impose guilt is a very important factor that becomes a determinable source of tension among individuals who may think differently about religion as a moral compass. Liberal thinkers often consider religion to be a binding unit that makes a definite sense of impact on how people live their lives as they are bounded by rules [both necessary and unnecessary]. Liberalists, however, think that humans ought to live freely; using their knowledge of good and right in order to make decisions that will mark their being and the personality they present as primary foundations of their personal worth. The contemplating thoughts between these ideas with regardreligion and morality has long been a source of conflict among thinkers. This is what the article of Andrew March is all about. Trying to identify the consideration over the capacity of speech to make or break a soul, the article tries to present basic idealisms that amplify the effects of language and semantics in proving how humans make it certain that words spoken to them be a resolute source of weighing compass for the soul.
In the article, March specifically takes note of the three most influential beliefs in the world; namely Islam, Christianism and Protestantism.

These beliefs have been noted through history to have led several generations of individuals into accepting the moral standards that have been presented to them with the emergent existence of these thoughts of moral measures. March insists that when it comes to moral standing, religions have noted the fact that human individuals cannot make up for what is right and wrong unless they do have a firm basis in a form of guideline that tells them of what is acceptable and what is not. Not every religion is dependent on the Bible or a singular source of a compass. It could be realized that somehow, The influence of these religions are strong enough to have created a particular sense of settlement to morals that have lead several generations to follow a certain pattern of rule through the years of existing in the world.
Nonetheless, amidst the strength of religions to build up a moral compass, it could not be denied that it also has the strength to break the thoughts of its members due to the massive imposition of rules that are considered by sociologists as somewhat destructive especially when it comes to determining the moral disposition of one person apart from the other. The diversity that exists between individuals as well as between religions set apart the condition of moral recognition that humans tend to embrace. This is what language barrier based on moral standards is all about. For instance, a person coming from a different religion might not view a particular situation to be morally damaging while an individual from another religious sector might think otherwise. Insisting the moral measures of each other towards the other person makes the manner of moral weighing rather stressful for both parties to consider.
This is what hurtful beliefs make up of a person; an individual becomes pressured to follow the rules just so to be accepted. Among liberal thinkers, this indicates that the barriers set by religion makes it harder for individuals to cope; barring them from doing what they please, religious factors tend to make it harder for individuals to realize the realities of being alive and being able to decide on their own. The marring language used by religious sectors and religious leaders in measuring the capacity of their members to follow the rules of what is right and what is wrong often leads to identifying the rule as a measuring tool rather than a guiding matter that would provide the society with better options of accepting what is good and what is not. In short, religion has often used language to determine its power over its members, often causing confusing and self-destructive options of living their lives, according to their will.