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 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. Yet they are quick to call for severe consequences for those who express views they find offensive. This raises profound questions about justice, consistency, and the nature of human fallibility.

At the same time, there exists a striking contradiction in the way some people approach justice. Many who seek to criminalize words and opinions—especially regarding gender, religion, and political discourse—are often the same individuals who argue passionately for the release or leniency of those convicted of 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 offense 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.

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 harmful 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 through difficulty and disagreement. Criminalizing speech under the guise of combating hate does not eradicate hate; it merely forces it underground, unchallenged and festering.

Redemption and Respect

Rather than adopting an attitude of condemnation, 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 truly believe in redemption—that no one is beyond saving—then our approach to both speech and justice will reflect that belief. Just as we advocate for grace and rehabilitation for those who have done wrong, we must 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 desire was to draw, not to push away, to promote faith and not phobia. 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.

_Practicing mutual respect that allows for honest dialogue.

Conclusion

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 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 in the ability to articulate our differences with humility and greatness, clarity and respect.