Haters, hate speech, phobia and morality - Everyone can fall. Everyone can be raised.

In the ongoing debate over hate speech, freedom of expression, and the limits of discourse, one pattern emerges repeatedly: many who advocate for criminalizing certain forms of speech do so with the assumption that they themselves will never be subject to the same scrutiny. The preferred noun for that context is often "phobia". The reason is that they believe that their own words, perspectives, and values are intrinsically virtuous and morally correct, therefore, they are immune from censure. If they thought that their thought could be subject to condemnation the way they condemns divergent voices, their virulence and desire of punishment would immediately become more evanescent.

At the same time, a striking contradiction emerges in the way some phobia contenders approach justice. As they seek to criminalize words and opinions—for example, regarding gender, religion, and political discourse— they often argue passionately in favour of people convicted of different, some of them violent, crimes. They speak of human rights, rehabilitation, and second chances for offenders who have committed grievous acts but deny those same principles to people whose only offence is speech that they dislike. 

This inconsistency is not just an ideological paradox; it reveals something deeper about human nature and our struggle with judgment, power, and grace. It raises important questions about justice, consistency, and the nature of human fallibility.

The trap of Moral Superiority

History is filled with examples of people who, convinced of their own righteousness, sought to silence, punish, or destroy those who did not align with their views. From religious inquisitions to political purges, the impulse to eradicate opposing voices often stems from a belief that we are above reproach. But fallen humanity tells a different story: none of us are immune from error. The very moment we set ourselves as arbiters of morality without humility, we risk becoming the very thing we oppose—unjust, oppressive, and blind to our own shortcomings.

It is not to say that words do not have consequences. Speech has power, and inflamed rhetoric can indeed lead to real-world suffering. 

But the answer to bad speech is not less speech—it is more speech. 

The principles of free expression exist not to protect only popular or agreeable ideas but to ensure that society can engage in the kind of discourse that allows truth to emerge, even when it means difficulty and disagreement. Criminalizing speech under the excuse of combating hate does not eradicate hate; it only silences the dialogue that can promote understanding and growth.

The use of "Phobia" as disrespect and lack of empathy

The term phobia refers to clinical conditions rooted in real, debilitating fear for people who have them. However, it has been co-opted as a rhetorical weapon, stripped of its original psychological meaning and redeployed to pathologize dissension now casually—and strategically—attached to any view that challenges a certain ideological narrative. It has become a narrative not about diagnosing fear but about delegitimizing disagreement. 

And in doing so, the users of this label are, often unknowingly, mocking, disrespecting and showing lack of empathy with those who actually suffer from true phobias—individuals who face genuine mental anguish and wish they didn’t. For them, a phobia is not an identity or a slogan; it’s a painful, life-altering struggle. To take that word and wield it in political discourse as a badge of moral indictment is not just misleading—it’s cruel. 

Disagreement is not a disorder. Divergent views, especially when expressed with civility and thought, deserve engagement—not caricature, not patronizing and condescension, and certainly not a hijacked, completely misplaced clinical label meant to silence rather than understand.

Redemption and Respect

Rather than adopting an attitude of immediately "phobizing" and condemning those we disagree with, we are called to something greater. The biblical perspective reminds us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). If we believe redemption is real - that no one is beyond saving—then our approach to both speech and justice will reflect it. We can advocate for grace and rehabilitation for those who have done wrong. And much more, we need to extend that same grace to those who hold views we oppose. 

Jesus is the Only One Virtuous and morally correct, and yet, he practised patience and understanding with people of all walks of life, even when they in their worst mistakes. His message goes out to draw people near to Him, not to them push away. His Gospel promotes faith and connection in a world that promotes disconnection through a self-granted materialistic higher ground that pretends to fight phobias with an inflamed hate-filled rhetoric.

When it comes to haters, hate speech, phobia and morality, everyone can fall. And everyone can be raised.

This does not mean passivity in the face of harmful ideologies - which are in and of themselves a threat to the right of speaking and diverging. In faith we respond with engagement, persuasion, and—above all—love. We do not win battles of ideas by force but by conviction.

Instead of joining the modern trend of labelling and condemning, we can embody a different approach:

_Recognizing that we all have the potential to fail.

_Realizing the hope that we all can be redeemed.

_Stop utilizing hate and phobia as buzzwords that are completely unrelated to the act of discussing, diverging and respecting.

_Practising mutual respect that allows for honest dialogue.

Ideological battles are often fought not with reason but with outrage. On our end, we resist the temptation to assume moral invulnerability, though, for the desire to criminalize speech is often rooted in fear—fear of ideas that challenge us, fear of perspectives we cannot control, and fear of losing power. But fear cannot be above freedom. We don't need a world where words are tossed around to deligitimize and silence speech. We need a world where speech is met with counter-speech and moral superiority is met with humbleness in listening and speaking.

We believe that moral superiority is found only in Christ, and He sends us to articulate our differences with humility and greatness, clarity and respect. For everyone can fall. And everyone can be raised.