It became a thing over the last week not to say “Christ is King”, unless you really meant it, but not in a way that others knew you really meant it. Or something. The flap perplexed me, likely because I didn’t follow the debate closely, since I had to catch up on my beauty sleep (and boy did it work).
Today is Good Friday, the day Christ, who is King, was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He rose again from the dead on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures.
This rising is what is known as The Resurrection, a Historical Event.
It ought to be illegal to question or demean or disparage or ridicule this Historical Event.
There is, is there not, historical precedent for this kind of criminalization? Yes, sir, there is, as we shall see below. So once again, I propose that enlightened countries invoke this precedent and make it illegal to question what is inarguably the Historical Event in all of history.
Consider that historians historically have demarcated all of history by referring to The Resurrection, a Historical Event, by the terms and initials Before Christ (BC) and Anno Domini (AD). You have seen them.
Lately, historians have switched from BC and AD to BCE and CE, which I believe stand for Before Christ’s Empire and Christ’s Empire. An open and avowed acknowledgment that Christ is King.
Can we therefore question this most important Historical Event? Of course we cannot. And we must not.
Let’s first discuss the precedent of criminalizing denying historical events.
Perhaps you recall that historian David Irving was arrested in 2005 by Austrian police for a speech he gave sixteen years earlier, in 1989. He was charged with “trivialising, grossly playing down and denying” a historical event. These were crimes. I mean, it was illegal to question this historical event. But he did it anyway, which made him a criminal. He went to jail—they locked him right up—for three years.
Then there was the case of an eighty nine year old grandmother who was charged with denying a historical event. Before they could bin her, she went on the lam—this is a true story, my friends. Yet the law is indefatigable. They tracked down this old lady and chucked her in a cell. For denying a historical event.
Denying historical events has been called a form of hate speech. Which the woke will tell you ought to be vigorously stamped out.
We won’t have to work hard to create a law which makes criticizing The Resurrection illegal. There is already a wealth of legal language used in countries that outlaw denying historical events from which we can draw.
These laws say things like “whoever denies, grossly plays down” historical events commits a crime. Variants are “denies, grossly minimises” and “denies or grossly palliates”. Then there is “condoning, denying or downplaying” historical events, which can get you two years inside in Canada. Just for downplaying. Germany also uses the “downplaying” language.
In Italy, the “spreading” of “denial” can put you away from two to six years.
England says material “grossly offensive” to historical events is criminal. France says denying historical events falls under “crimes against humanity”. Other well known countries echo this.
That’s enough. You get the idea. The precedent is there, the laws are already on the books. We need merely add The Resurrection to the list of non-deniable events.
You must understand we are not today talking of evidence for–or. God forbid, against—The Resurrection. This is a complete distraction. And, if our law passes, it will be illegal to have any public discussion in any critical or negative way. As is proper.
The Resurrection is a documented historical event. It would be difficult to find anybody who disagrees that this Event was at least as important as any other event in history. And, indeed, some billions of people alive today say it was the most important Event. I am one of them.
Not all agree with the outcome of The Resurrection. That is, they are indifferent or hostile for its reasons. But this is not relevant. Even these people see that the Event is of civilizational and monumental historical import.
Nobody will be forced to say The Resurrection happened, nor will they have to swear to any of the details surrounding it (like, say, how John got to the empty tomb first). Everybody will still be absolutely free to believe what they want, in their hearts.
But any open questioning of The Resurrection should result in jail.
https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/it-should-be-illegal-to-question?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
