• 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.

Tim the plumber said:
If I say I find JP Cusack a prat and a fool for the reasons given above. That is OK.

If I tell others to attack JP Cusack and to do him harm, that his relatives should be killed and his dog spat upon. Then I am inciting violence and that is out of order.

Easy.
Click to expand...

Nice, but does not quite capture the intentions of what the Pope seems to be saying. "Hate speech" seems to include more than calls to harm someone, insults happen to be in the mix.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Nice, but does not quite capture the intentions of what the Pope seems to be saying. "Hate speech" seems to include more than calls to harm someone, insults happen to be in the mix.
Click to expand...

Which is why the Pope is an idiot.
 
tessaesque said:
I don't entirely agree with his statement. We should ALWAYS provoke. Unless we challenge, question, investigate, deny, support, explain, etc...how can we ever make progress? The truth is, there are a lot of aspects of Islam that are unpalatable to many people. And since those aspects are often front-and-center among the hateful radicals who do harm, it is perfectly acceptable to challenge those aspects of the faith. Blindly tolerating another religion is not going to keep people safe or promote respect. It only provides tacit acceptance of unacceptable behavior.
Click to expand...

Great to see you around, Tessa! How are you? How's married life?

I don't presume to speak for the Pope, but I think that maybe what he was trying to get at was not mocking the Holy Spirit. And I do think it's important to be respectful of other religions and to try to find common ground where possible. But I can't say that I entirely agree with Francis here either.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Then do it, define how you would go about making certain speech off-limits by legislation or otherwise. The exact wording of whatever you need for Theocracy to have what it needs.
Click to expand...
I say you and others are misunderstanding the law, as in any individual can say whatever one wants unless they get smacked by the person they are saying it to, so the laws are only intended to stop Magazines and Newspapers and TV and Politicians, but it does not stop the normal average citizens.

As like marijuana has been mostly illegal but the people use it anyway, but they are not to use it in front of a cop or a snitch.

Link = Hate speech - Wikipedia

We already have laws against hate speech, and all we need to do is include the hatred against the scary religion of Islam and that would do it.
 
JP Cusick said:
I say you and others are misunderstanding the law, as in any individual can say whatever one wants unless they get smacked by the person they are saying it to, so the laws are only intended to stop Magazines and Newspapers and TV and Politicians, but it does not stop the normal average citizens.

As like marijuana has been mostly illegal but the people use it anyway, but they are not to use it in front of a cop or a snitch.

Link = Hate speech - Wikipedia

We already have laws against hate speech, and all we need to do is include the hatred against the scary religion of Islam and that would do it.
Click to expand...

Don't back away now, you said clearly in the OP you supported the Pope saying "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." So, tell us how you would craft those limits as clearly the pope is talking about more than hate speech.
 
You have the right to offend, but you don't have the right to not be offended.
 
JP Cusick said:
We have jails and prisons full of people who get offended at other people and that is not the issue here.

Even in Islamic Countries they too have jails and prisons full of citizen criminals who got offended at others.

The issue here is taking cheap hate speech and publishing it for profit and having that hate speech as empowered by the laws.



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




The French publishers were not and still are NOT trying to discuss the merits of faith or of religion with anyone.

It is fine to question and to challenge religion - yes, but we can not view insults and hate speech as trying to communicate like decent people - certainly not.

Go to any person of any religion and ask them about their religion and they are all happy to talk and debate and argue about their faith, and the Islamic people are open to real communications too.

You are trying to polish up the hate speech as if it was just trying to discuss the religion which their hate speech was NOT trying to discuss anything.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the French newspaper's actions. I was talking about the Pope's comments, which were general, and my opinion on provocation, which was general. I did not endorse nor condemn the actions of the newspaper, so your assertion that I am trying to "polish up hate speech" is a bit presumptive and patently false.

I will say, however, that regardless of what the newspaper published, there was absolutely no justification for a violent reaction.
 
nota bene said:
Great to see you around, Tessa! How are you? How's married life?

I don't presume to speak for the Pope, but I think that maybe what he was trying to get at was not mocking the Holy Spirit. And I do think it's important to be respectful of other religions and to try to find common ground where possible. But I can't say that I entirely agree with Francis here either.
Click to expand...

Married life is great! Posted about how things are going in the Tavern...and I'm glad to be back as well.

I think we're on the same page regarding Francis' statement, ultimately. :)
 
OrphanSlug said:
Don't back away now, you said clearly in the OP you supported the Pope saying "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." So, tell us how you would craft those limits as clearly the pope is talking about more than hate speech.
Click to expand...
I can not give specific wording for the laws, as I am indeed grandiose but even I have my limitations.

But the words you are saying are hate speech, so I do not see how you are making those words as different.

If your insults against Islam provoke some one to violence then "You can not provoke" as that is hate speech, and insulting the faith of people is hate speech, and making fun of their faith is hate speech.

There is no civilized reason why Islamic people can not live in peace in our society without being harassed by people who disrespect them based on their faith.

You see your self as free because you can insult decent people then your concept of freedom is severely misguided.
 
So happy that you're doing well. I'm not a member of the Tavern, so I missed your update.

And, yes, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
 
JP Cusick said:
I can not give specific wording for the laws, as I am indeed grandiose but even I have my limitations.

But the words you are saying are hate speech, so I do not see how you are making those words as different.

If your insults against Islam provoke some one to violence then "You can not provoke" as that is hate speech, and insulting the faith of people is hate speech, and making fun of their faith is hate speech.

There is no civilized reason why Islamic people can not live in peace in our society without being harassed by people who disrespect them based on their faith.

You see your self as free because you can insult decent people then your concept of freedom is severely misguided.
Click to expand...

I am sorry to harp on it but Freedom of Speech is important enough to explore when someone says there should be limits, so here is my issue.

Freedoms of speech comes with the consequence that I will not agree with everything said, but I need to support someone's right to say them anyway. The Pope said very clearly that "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." The way I interpret that statement means that someone of religious authority is to suggest what is and is not insulting. Islam feels the same way granted they may have a lower threshold for what is insulting and may prescribe a more harsh response because of. But that does not remove the similarity that we now have two dominant monotheistic faiths suggesting limits to freedoms. That is a problem from my chair no matter how well intentioned the Pope's message may be.

For arguments sake say one was to argue against Christianity in a very flippant way. Say someone said... "Christianity - The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman made from a man was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree." Some would consider that insulting, and I might agree. While I would consider that a flippant argument against Christianity, it is also something one is within their right to say.

Now back to my question everyone seems to be ducking. For the Pope's message to have any validity at all someone somewhere needs to define the "limit" that the Pope is talking about. If it is just "hate speech" as defined by existing legislation so be it, but I sense that the Pope is talking about much more. So, what is that much more?
 
tessaesque said:
I wasn't talking about the French newspaper's actions. I was talking about the Pope's comments, which were general, and my opinion on provocation, which was general. I did not endorse nor condemn the actions of the newspaper, so your assertion that I am trying to "polish up hate speech" is a bit presumptive and patently false.
Click to expand...
The discussion was about the French publisher so you needed to make it clear if you were diverging from that subject - we can not read your mind.

And I do not see the Pope's comments as so "general" when the entire planet earth is talking about the French publishers.

If one is just talking about a football game where both sides yell insults at each other then that is NOT talking about the same subject here.

tessaesque said:
I will say, however, that regardless of what the newspaper published, there was absolutely no justification for a violent reaction.
Click to expand...
I see it as misleading to view that attack as a reaction when it was a long running series of events leading up to the grand finale.

The publishers were told that it was out of line.

There were riots and protest against that publisher's hate speech and their hateful pictures.

They gave the publishers widely known threats for them to stop.

There even was a fire bomb on that place to let them know that the threats were real.

Then at last the place was attacked and only the guilty were targeted, and then the attackers left.

So it was a police action against the haters.
 
JP Cusick said:
The discussion was about the French publisher so you needed to make it clear if you were diverging from that subject - we can not read your mind.

And I do not see the Pope's comments as so "general" when the entire planet earth is talking about the French publishers.

If one is just talking about a football game where both sides yell insults at each other then that is NOT talking about the same subject here.


I see it as misleading to view that attack as a reaction when it was a long running series of events leading up to the grand finale.

The publishers were told that it was out of line.

There were riots and protest against that publisher's hate speech and their hateful pictures.

They gave the publishers widely known threats for them to stop.

There even was a fire bomb on that place to let them know that the threats were real.

Then at last the place was attacked and only the guilty were targeted, and then the attackers left.

So it was a police action against the haters.
Click to expand...

wtf?... a police action against the haters?..what kind of bull**** are you trying to sell here?

it was premeditated mass murder....

just stop talking, your hate speech bothers me.
 
OrphanSlug said:
But that does not remove the similarity that we now have two dominant monotheistic faiths suggesting limits to freedoms. That is a problem from my chair no matter how well intentioned the Pope's message may be.
Click to expand...
If the Pope is speaking for the entire Catholic Church with 1.2 billion members along with the 1.6 billion Muslims then that makes up 40% of the human population, and they are not alone, as the world is not dominated by those who hate or those who cheer on hate speech.

You say you see it as a problem no matter how well intentioned and I say that is because your own intention is not so well.

OrphanSlug said:
Now back to my question everyone seems to be ducking. For the Pope's message to have any validity at all someone somewhere needs to define the "limit" that the Pope is talking about. If it is just "hate speech" as defined by existing legislation so be it, but I sense that the Pope is talking about much more. So, what is that much more?
Click to expand...
Clearly the present legislation on hate speech is NOT being enforced sufficiently.

What I say is that the laws against hate speech does include religion as protected, but the religion of Islam is being made as an exemption to the law, in that hate speech against Islam is not being prosecuted and that is the problem.

The existing laws are sufficient but the law is just not being enforced when it is hate speech against the religion of Islam.
 
Does anybody know the original source of the cosmic Jewish zombie thing? I've gone Googling but can't find the primary source, only many repetitions, including in a Wiki explanation of "quote." :roll: Quote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
JP Cusick said:
I say you and others are misunderstanding the law, as in any individual can say whatever one wants unless they get smacked by the person they are saying it to, so the laws are only intended to stop Magazines and Newspapers and TV and Politicians, but it does not stop the normal average citizens.
Click to expand...

There is a good reason why the First Amendment affirms and protects freedom of the press as well as freedom of speech.
 
JP Cusick said:
I can not give specific wording for the laws, as I am indeed grandiose but even I have my limitations.

But the words you are saying are hate speech, so I do not see how you are making those words as different.

If your insults against Islam provoke some one to violence then "You can not provoke" as that is hate speech, and insulting the faith of people is hate speech, and making fun of their faith is hate speech.

There is no civilized reason why Islamic people can not live in peace in our society without being harassed by people who disrespect them based on their faith.

You see your self as free because you can insult decent people then your concept of freedom is severely misguided.
Click to expand...

So, really, what you're arguing for is the legitimacy of the heckler's veto—basically, that anyone can legitimately have the use of government force used to suppress the expression of anything he doesn't like, by threatening to commit acts of violence if that expression is allowed and unpunished.
 
JP Cusick said:
The discussion was about the French publisher so you needed to make it clear if you were diverging from that subject - we can not read your mind.

And I do not see the Pope's comments as so "general" when the entire planet earth is talking about the French publishers.

If one is just talking about a football game where both sides yell insults at each other then that is NOT talking about the same subject here.


I see it as misleading to view that attack as a reaction when it was a long running series of events leading up to the grand finale.

The publishers were told that it was out of line.

There were riots and protest against that publisher's hate speech and their hateful pictures.

They gave the publishers widely known threats for them to stop.

There even was a fire bomb on that place to let them know that the threats were real.

Then at last the place was attacked and only the guilty were targeted, and then the attackers left.

So it was a police action against the haters.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with wackadoodle ideals. I won't engage in the future.
 
JP Cusick said:
Link = BBC News - Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." ~ Pope Francis

This was the 2nd time in my entire life that I was truly proud of the Catholic Church and in particular proud of the Pope.

So finally there is a real Man in Pope Francis who speaks boldly and honestly, and on top of that he speaks like a true Christian by having compassion and consideration for other people.

The freedom of speech does not mean some right to throw around provocative insults at any one.

And his defense is for the sake of persecuted Muslim people which is taking Pope Francis into the territory of being a true Holy Man.

Before this the high moral ground was only being promoted by the Muslims and the powerful religion of Islam.

My one other time of pride for Catholicism was when the Church defied President Clinton 1993 pushing abortion onto the rest of the world, LINK.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't do those things, but you can do those things. There's a difference. I don't think we can use the force of government to stop people from critiquing or dissenting against religion. There's freedom of religion and freedom of speech, those need to be upheld. Kowtowing to irrational terrorists won't lead us to a better place, merely to a place where the terrorists get to decide all the rules. We should certainly be respectful of each other, but we don't have to be. And if someone is insulting to a religion, it is not OK for practitioners of that religion to start blowing up buildings and people. We cannot subjugate ourselves to the irrationality of a few, if we pander to the lowest common denominator we will be left with nothing.
 
WCH said:
Do you not believe that, in the case of these jihadi bastards, that insulting them is tantamount to hollering fire in a theater.

That wouldn't be acceptable under the First. IMO
Click to expand...

They find anyone who isn't Muslim to be insulting. Are you saying we should all be Muslims now?
 
JP Cusick said:
I can not give specific wording for the laws, as I am indeed grandiose but even I have my limitations.

But the words you are saying are hate speech, so I do not see how you are making those words as different.
Click to expand...

if you are going to make the argument then you need to be able to define it. if you can't then you don't have an argument.

If your insults against Islam provoke some one to violence then "You can not provoke" as that is hate speech, and insulting the faith of people is hate speech, and making fun of their faith is hate speech.
Click to expand...

I think Mohammad was a bandit that did nothing but terrorize innocent people and slaughtered 1000's of people simply because they didn't want to follow his religion.
there how is that for ya? what are you going to do about it? nothing why? look at the 1st amendment.

There is no civilized reason why Islamic people can not live in peace in our society without being harassed by people who disrespect them based on their faith.
Click to expand...

see the 1st amendment.

You see your self as free because you can insult decent people then your concept of freedom is severely misguided.
Click to expand...

Decent people don't walk into a building and start shooting people from making a cartoon of Mohammad.
 
JP Cusick said:
That is contrary to the reality that there was a blood bath massacre in France which indicates that the insults were indeed provocative.
Click to expand...

An insane reaction to speech does not make the speech unacceptable. That religious people can't handle criticism is an indictment of the religion, not of the criticism.
 
matchlight said:
The Pope is free to say whatever he wants about the morality of insulting a religion. He is free to shame himself, and to advance the rule of the jungle, by making excuses for Islamic supremacist mass murderers. So are the many leftists who, for reasons known best to themselves, are always ready to carry water for these savages. But nothing he, nor they, nor anyone else says about the matter changes the First Amendment. Thank God for that.

Anyone in this country is perfectly free to insult any religion he wants, in the most scathing terms, and to insult it as loudly and as often as he pleases. No damned Muslim jihadist bastards are going to cow Americans, through the threat of violence, into letting them dictate what we can and cannot say. They can go straight to hell. And if they want a fight, let us give them violence on a scale they have never even imagined.
Click to expand...

The Pope does not dictate "rights", his statement is not about legal rights. His statement is, as they almost always are about personal responsibility.
What is legal is not always moral.
The Pope is doing nothing more than stating an ideal, or in fact simply stating the obvious.
If he had simply said for example "you should treat a [Insert religion here] as you would want him/her to treat you what would your reaction be?
This statement of the Pope is no more than saying do unto others, most certainly not a call for the repeal of free speech.
 
Ikari said:
They find anyone who isn't Muslim to be insulting. Are you saying we should all be Muslims now?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that other religious groups don't kill you if you're not one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom