• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion against hate speech.

ludin said:
doesn't sound like it to me. As Christians we are also called to defend the word of God as well.
Click to expand...

Yep...no contradiction here. Why do you think the two contradict?
 
Hard Truth said:
Hate speech and expressions of religious bigotry are not illegal in the USA and few people want them to be.
Click to expand...
Those who spew out hate speech and religious bigotry certainly do not want it to be illegal.

The people who are being harassed by the hatred and the bigotry surely wish that the laws would protect them self and their families from it.

We have cities like New York and Paris France where there are large diverse communities and so the Muslim people who just want to work their jobs and raise their family and to keep their religious faith - they can not live in peace without being harassed and bullied because the hatred and the bigotry is protected by the law.

Anyone who sees that as your FREEDOM while trampling over the security of decent Muslim people is thereby just being evil.

There are far too many Americans and French who really do want to be hateful and bullies and trashy and the population (not just Muslims) need to be protected from that human scum.

And to protect decent people from any kind of harassment is the point and purpose of having a legal system and of having a government.

Any government that fails to protect the entire community (not just protect the privileged class) is a government which needs to be overruled.

Hard Truth said:
Bigotry is most effectively reduced by criticism, not use of the law. Criticism of bigotry has been very effective in the USA during the last fifity years.
Click to expand...
So those two wrongs make a right - I say not.

There is no effective communication or debate against the hatreds and such bigotries and it is very clear NOW that a hand full of bullets shot into the correct individuals is the most effective way and then there is no arguing with trash for trash.

I wish you would give some example of effectively using criticism in the USA for the past 50 years as I know of none.
 
Hard Truth said:
Good governments of the people have always been the only effective power against the corruption and abuses of religions.
Click to expand...
That is true, as government and religion are powerful opponents and the struggles between the two go onward.

It appears that government has become far too bloated and too cocky as they must taste the blood as if they view its old adversary religion to be mortally wounded and ready to die, but that is a huge mistake.

What really happened is that Christianity has been knocked down and trampled, and Christianity shows itself to be weak, and Christianity has become very weak as they failed to repair the defects of the orthodox doctrines, and so Christianity has become vulnerable.

The problem with secular government is that they do not have any moral standard and no ethical integrity, and by crushing Christianity the Western governments have destroyed our own foundation in the common people.

But this is not the case for the religion of Islam, and Islam has grown powerful and it is escalating, and it has already proven that it will not be suppressed by any government force.


=====================================


Luftwaffe said:
False, Islam can go **** itself, I can go out on the street right now, yell that and raise a picket sign saying it, and no one will do anything to me.
Click to expand...
Yes you can go out yelling about Islam because you live here in the trashy West.

But you go out and burn an American flag or rightly call "The Sniper" as a coward and then the reality will pop up at you.

Luftwaffe said:
But hey, since you're so pessimistic, why not go live where the "power" is?
Click to expand...
Now we are all living in the "power" because the hate speech against Islam will stop because if not those who do it will die.

Of course the ignorant people can still talk your hate and bigotry, but the magazine will be no more.

So yes - we are in the power now - or indeed - under the power.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You would certainly appear to be an exception to this claim. You certainly want to be allowed to spew your hate speech.
Click to expand...

yep I have to agree he doesn't realize that he is violating his own rules.
 
ludin said:
yep I have to agree he doesn't realize that he is violating his own rules.
Click to expand...

It is amazing, at times, the degree to which wrongists are able to to remain so oblivious to the obvious implications that the policies which they advocate to suppress the rights of others would have, if implemented, on their own rights.

Here is a link to an article which demonstrates this with exceptional clarity.

Its author, Tanya Cohen, is calling for criminalization of “hate speech”, with prison time for convicted offenders. She gives several examples of what she considered to be “hate speech”. Pay attention to the three points that I have bolded in items 6, 7 and 11…

  1. Speech which offends, insults, demeans, threatens, disrespects, discriminates against, and/or incites hatred or violence against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or sexual activity, gender identity or gender expression, disability, language, language ability, ideology or opinion, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and/or any other comparable distinction. In cases where hate speech is aggravated – such as incitement to genocide – prison sentences should be even longer.
  2. The spreading of misinformation, including climate change denial, denial of war crimes and genocides (especially Holocaust denial), conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine propaganda, and general nonsense.
  3. Anti-feminist, anti-multicultural, anti-immigration, and/or anti-equality ideology.
  4. Insulting, disrespectful, and/or offensive speech in general and speech that violates the dignity of people. This would include, for example, jokes about tragedies along with insults and derogatory/disrespectful comments about any person, group, place, or thing.
  5. Speech that disparages the memory of deceased persons.
  6. Speech that voices approval of oppressive, anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and/or totalitarian ideologies. This would include, for example, speech that opposes a woman’s right to have an abortion and speech that approves of Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
  7. Speech that opposes any human rights. This would mean that anyone saying that hate speech shouldn’t be against the law would be prosecuted, since hate speech is universally recognized as an injustice and a human rights violation. It would also include propaganda for war, which is illegal under international human rights law.
  8. Speech that incites, instructs, assists, condones, celebrates, justifies, glorifies, advocates, or threatens violence and/or law-breaking and speech that undermines the rule of law. This would include, for example, the advocacy of gun ownership (which would be classified as incitement to violence in any civilized country). In a civilized society, advocating violence is no different than actually committing the violence yourself. Only in the US is inciting violence and murder – even inciting violence and murder against minorities – considered to be “free speech”.
  9. Speech that undermines the authority of the state and/or interferes with the state’s ability to properly function and do its job. This would also include speech that undermines the authority of the United Nations and/or international law.
  10. Speech that objectifies women and/or reduces them to their sexual dimension, such as pornography and catcalling.
  11. Speech that promotes unacceptable ideas, such as un-democratic ideologies and ideologies that oppose freedom. This would also apply to promoting people who promote or promoted unacceptable ideas. For example, in the case of The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ruled that glorifying Hitler not only constitutes incitement to Hatred, but also incitement to violence.
  12. Speech that harms and/or divides society in general, including speech that damages social cohesion.
  13. Symbols associated with hateful and/or un-democratic ideologies, such as Nazi swastikas and Confederate flags.
  14. Gestures and salutes associated with hateful and/or un-democratic ideologies, such as fascist salutes.
  15. Speech which constitutes microaggressions against vulnerable minorities.
  16. Images or recordings of any crimes.
  17. Speech which may lead to tensions with other nations and/or upset people in other nations.
  18. Speech which is found to be blasphemous towards minority religions.
  19. Depictions of indecent violence (especially violence against women) and/or other offensive content.
  20. Speech which is found to be irresponsible, unethical, antisocial, hurtful, impolite, uncivil, abusive, distasteful, and/or unacceptable in general.

Continued next post…
 
…Continued from last post. I had to break this up due to the 5000-character limit that this forum imposes.

Do you think that any rational case can be made that criminalizing “hate speech”, defined by the enumerated points above, does not in itself violate the parts that I highlighted in points 6, 7, and 11? I do not think any such case can be made. Ms. Cohen is clearly voicing approval of oppressive, anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and/or totalitarian ideologies; is opposing the basic human right to free speech, and promoting an ideology that opposes freedom. I do not think that this can be rationally denied. On these three points alone, by her very own words and her very own rules, Ms. Cohen is guilty of exactly the “hate speech” that she wishes to have criminalized.

Her support of abortion, as implied in #6, in my opinion, constitutes a violation of her point 8, inasmuch as it incites violence and murder against a minority, that minority being unborn children.

There is quite a bit more that is disturbing about what Ms. Cohen considers to be “hate speech”, but I'll leave that for another discussion, should we get to a deeper discussion of this article.

The point, really, to this posting, is to demonstrate a certain kind of blindness that seeks to be inherent in wrong-wing thinking. Ms. Cohen obviously imagines a world in which a Ku Klux Klan member or a Neo-Nazi can be prosecuted and imprisoned for doing nothing more than openly and peaceably expressing their opinions. What she amazingly fails to get is that in that world, under the very same rules that she advocates, she, herself, would also be prosecuted and thrown in prison for exactly the same offense, perhaps sharing a cell with a KKKer or a Nazi.


Mr. Cusick is really in a similar boat, though not quite as spectacularly so. Like Ms. Cohen, Ms. Cusick would be subject to prosecution for “hate speech” for what he has written here, under the policies that he advocates.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
Bob Blaylock said:
You would certainly appear to be an exception to this claim. You certainly want to be allowed to spew your hate speech.
Click to expand...
yep I have to agree he doesn't realize that he is violating his own rules.
Click to expand...
That is just misunderstanding the point.

It is not a matter of outlawing the emotion of hatred, as my hatred of hate-speech is just my human emotion, but the hate speech itself is a hostile action which stirs up violence.

The action or activity is the problem - while the emotion of hatred is not.

It is really very likely that the hate speech from the French publishers was not even fueled by hatred as far more likely those publishers were just feeling fear and trembling against the scary Muslims, so that it just looks like they are expressing their emotion of hatred when the hatred was really just fueled by their cowardice.

The emotion of hatred is not the same thing as the expression of hatred as in hate speech.

The mahatma Gandhi put it best in this way = Hate the sin but not the sinner.

The French publishers were asked and then they were told then they were warned and the publishers refused so they were assassinated as the last resort just to stop the hate speech.

There was no reason to hate those publishers, but there was huge reason to shut them up.
 
JP Cusick said:
That is just misunderstanding the point.

It is not a matter of outlawing the emotion of hatred, as my hatred of hate-speech is just my human emotion, but the hate speech itself is a hostile action which stirs up violence.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter hate speech is hate speech whether it is human emotion or something else.

The action or activity is the problem - while the emotion of hatred is not.
Click to expand...
what do you think leads to the action or activity it is the emotion.

It is really very likely that the hate speech from the French publishers was not even fueled by hatred as far more likely those publishers were just feeling fear and trembling against the scary Muslims, so that it just looks like they are expressing their emotion of hatred when the hatred was really just fueled by their cowardice.
Click to expand...
Good thing it wasn't hate speech under any definition of the law.

The emotion of hatred is not the same thing as the expression of hatred as in hate speech.
Click to expand...
when you put that emotion into writing then yes it becomes and expression.

The mahatma Gandhi put it best in this way = Hate the sin but not the sinner.
Click to expand...
unfortunately you go a step further

The French publishers were asked and then they were told then they were warned and the publishers refused so they were assassinated as the last resort just to stop the hate speech.
Click to expand...

they have freedom of speech to print what they want to print. muslim have to right to get offended if they want to. muslim's don't have the right to kill people simply because they are offended.

There was no reason to hate those publishers, but there was huge reason to shut them up.
Click to expand...

They didn't shut up did they. they turned right around and printed another picture of mohammad.
I say good for them.

you say shut them up. how about you follow your own advice. then the rest of us can live without the meme of just because someone gets offended that we should be silenced.
what you say offends me how about you follow your own rules that you want to arbitrarily set for others?

ol yea that is not how it works is it. you don't have to follow your own rules.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It is amazing, at times, the degree to which wrongists are able to to remain so oblivious to the obvious implications that the policies which they advocate to suppress the rights of others would have, if implemented, on their own rights......
Click to expand...

This liberal and many others oppose hate speech laws. As I have said before, they can censor legitimate criticism of religions and other organizations. The proposal you posted is insanely extreme and is unlikely to be supported by more than a handful of people.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Here is a link to an article which demonstrates this with exceptional clarity.

Its author, Tanya Cohen, is calling for criminalization of “hate speech”, with prison time for convicted offenders. She gives several examples of what she considered to be “hate speech”.

Mr. Cusick is really in a similar boat, though not quite as spectacularly so.
Click to expand...
I am not in the same boat with her, but she does have the general idea and she is on the right track.

My point here is that she does not have the backing of any religion (no moral high ground) and that makes her self as the authoritarian and thereby she is far too weak to succeed or even to be influential.

The religion of Islam is gigantic and powerful so that any individual Muslim is expendable and no individual can speak for the whole, but each individual is empowered by the whole religion.

Christianity use to have such power but over the past 200 years Christianity was slowly crushed and now it has become irrelevant. When the Pope spoke up then that could have been a real change, but now we can see that the Catholic Church has failed to back up its Pope.

Those French publishers were similar to that woman because those publishers had no backing and they stood alone and vulnerable and now they are scattered to the winds.

The sayings or "rights" of freedom of speech or freedom of expression are man made rubbish which can only be backed up by force, and when force is rightly used to defy them then those sayings falter - and rightly so.

If I speak for myself as that woman is doing then I too would have no power or substance, but I jumped onto the moral high ground and that is what empowers my position.


============================================


ludin said:
they have freedom of speech to print what they want to print. muslim have to right to get offended if they want to. muslim's don't have the right to kill people simply because they are offended.
Click to expand...
That kind of "freedom" and of "rights" have proven to be worthless and powerless.

Those that want to print or publish that hate speech now just inherited the objection of assassins, so we could call that as the right or the freedom to be shot down dead.

:surrender:stop::blastem::2party::gunner:

Now you can say that those have the right and those others do not have any right but you can not enforce either.
 
In terms of free speech and responsibility I think the Pope says it well -

The Pope said he wasn’t justifying violence when he said if a friend insulted his mother he could “expect a punch” in return.
Pope Francis said violence contradicts the teachings of Jesus “to turn the other cheek,” but in practice people must be prudent enough not to provoke others.

“In theory we can say that we have the freedom to express ourselves and that is important. We all agree in theory,” he said. ” I cannot insult and provoke a person continuously because I risk making them angry. … For this reason I say freedom of expression must take into consideration human reality and therefore, I say, it must be prudent.”
 
JayDubya said:
Since this is the religious forum, may I remind you of your religion's sayings about "turning the other cheek?"

I don't recall Christ ever advocating flying off the handle and seeking violent revenge for perceived slights.
Click to expand...
A lot of people make that mistake of viewing religious doctrine as the "word of God" but I do not make that mistake.

In this case "turning the other cheek" has been rightfully done by giving the world the option of publishing more of the hate speech against the religion of Islam.

It is telling the other publishers to slap them again.

Most people have never really ever "turned the other cheek" and it is a way of challenging another slap and it is an act of defiance against the first slap of the cheek.

The concept that "turning the other cheek" meant to be passive and permissive and docile was NEVER the message of Jesus Christ who wore a crown of thorns in defiance of His executioners.

The action taken against those French publishers was NOT an act of "revenge" nor was it a "perceived slight" as it was a police action to put a stop to the ongoing crime of blasphemy and sacrilege.

One can not simply believe in Christianity in order to understand the correct doctrines, because first a person must have a real understanding of the living God in order to get the doctrines correctly, and that includes the knowledge that the religion of Islam is God's people too.

JayDubya said:
This comment from the pope is inappropriate; it excuses aggressive violence, which is inexcusable and immoral.
Click to expand...
I myself excuses the violence as justified and as righteous, but the Pope doe NOT.

Let us not get myself and the Pope confused.

If the Pope did rightfully condemn those French publishers and give pardon to the two assassins then that would be the DAY, but the Pope does not.

We could say that the Pope implied that, and I like that implication, but implication is NOT near the same as saying it.
 
Since you declare murdering someone in coldblooded aggression for their speech to be a justifiable "police action," we will have no more words.

In no uncertain terms, your words are monstrous and you are an enemy of humanity.
 
JP Cusick said:
...because first a person must have a real understanding of the living God...
Click to expand...
How is that even possible? What can be the source of such understanding? How can man understand something that far exceeds any capacity to understand something that defies everything that is observable and measurable?
 
You know what, I take it back Cusick. As repugnant as your words are, at least you haven't killed anyone yet, unlike some of the folks I deal with daily around here.

You're just defending violent, needless, aggressive killing, which puts you in a much larger peer group.
 
JayDubya said:
Since you declare murdering someone in coldblooded aggression for their speech to be a justifiable "police action," we will have no more words.

In no uncertain terms, your words are monstrous and you are an enemy of humanity.
Click to expand...
All I am really saying is that this one (1) incident against those French publishers was justified, and a huge reason for that justification is that those publishers were first told then protest then they were warned and there even was a fire bomb attack and those publishers remained defiant and stuck to their evil so to kill those guilty was a last resort.

And me being viewed as an enemy to the vast majority of humanity is a badge of honor to me, because I see most of humanity as barbaric and sub-human.

The very idea of the correct use of "police action" is as a necessary evil to be used because humans are so ignorant.

JayDubya said:
You know what, I take it back Cusick. As repugnant as your words are, at least you haven't killed anyone yet, unlike some of the folks I deal with daily around here.

You're just defending violent, needless, aggressive killing, which puts you in a much larger peer group.
Click to expand...
I thank you for that, and that is generous of you.

I see those who cheer on Drone bombings and human torture and the senseless wars against Muslims to be far more violent than I.
 
prometeus said:
JP Cusick said:
...because first a person must have a real understanding of the living God...
Click to expand...
How is that even possible? What can be the source of such understanding? How can man understand something that far exceeds any capacity to understand something that defies everything that is observable and measurable?
Click to expand...
That is done by changing the criteria.

We need only go by the observable and measurable and exclude whatever is not.

It is fine to view religions as wrong and religions as evil and etc etc, but the questions about God are (or can be) separated from the organized religions.

Albert Einstein said it this way = "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"

But Einstein worded that incorrectly and it haunted him ever after.

A correct wording would go like this = Science without God Is Lame, and viewing God without Science Is Blind.

Religion is a different subject then is God, and science is correct to reject the popular religions but NOT to reject God.

When Einstein spoke then many people jumped onto his words by saying it meant that they need to accept Jesus as their personal savior - and that was never what Einstein meant as Einstein saw a science based God but he could not get people to separate the science from their ideas about religion.

The real God does not "defies everything that is observable and measurable".

Our own understanding about life and about God must come from our self and within our self, based on everything that is observable and measurable.

Anyone can know that there are Ghosts and spirits and Demons because with very little effort then anyone can experience such things in vivid details.

There is science like the "Big Bang" which is a proof of a real creation day where life sprang from nothing, and THAT is a huge proof of the real Creator.

There is also Bible prophesy which simply can not be faked, link one here = US & Britain in Prophesy.

And there are lots more ways which are observable and measurable, and every person is quite capable of understanding because it is NOT out of our reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom