• 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.

Free speech is an illusion. If a person takes a position on certain controversies, publishes their opinion, they can be incarcerated. Holocaust denial is an example, and I seem to recall that France is among the first and foremost to incarcerate people for this. Even when the deniers are only explaining themselves.
 
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...

um you can insult and make of faith 1 question is dose the faith deserve it or not

and another is what's an appropriate response
 
WCH said:
I'm saying that other religious groups don't kill you if you're not one of them.
Click to expand...

You equated dissent and critique of Islam to yelling fire in a theater, trying to see if you think that because of the irrationality of a few, we should bend to their desires. And if so, how far that should then go.
 
Manny said:
Free speech is an illusion. If a person takes a position on certain controversies, publishes their opinion, they can be incarcerated. Holocaust denial is an example, and I seem to recall that France is among the first and foremost to incarcerate people for this. Even when the deniers are only explaining themselves.
Click to expand...

actually it is Austria.
Holocaust denier jailed | Guardian Weekly | guardian.co.uk

however the person that was jailed has along been a neo-Nazi supporter and trying to re-write history.
he was jailed on an abuse of free speech in Austria.

I personally don't agree with it. should he be ridiculed and no one buy his book? sure but not jailed.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There is a good reason why the First Amendment affirms and protects freedom of the press as well as freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
It is peculiar that you fail to explain whatever that "good reason" might be, as if you must think it is so obvious that there is no need for any explanation - well FYI - it is not, because especially with those French publishers there is no justifiable reason for their dirty hateful and provocative trash to be protected by the law.

And one person's freedom is not to over ride the freedom of others, as in there is no right to harass people and call that harassment as freedom, and the publishers are harassing decent Islamic people and there is no freedom in that.

Explain how the freedom of speech and freedom of press means that decent Muslim families can be harassed and degraded, so the government and laws do not protect decent people in their own homes. Explain that? or give good reason for that?

Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is just exaggerating the reality as it is taking it way too far.

There are already laws against harassment, see link here = Hate speech - Wikipedia

The problem is in democracy acting like a lynch-mob because the dominating view is to hate the scary Muslims and to attack Islam so our laws that protect religion from the hate speech is not being enforced.

This is not a matter of just anyone heckling or of some petty offense because it is religious hatred and bigotry against religion (against Islam) and Islam makes up nearly a fourth (1/4) of the population of the entire earth so no, this is not some little heckler concerning some minor offense.
 
JP Cusick said:
I can not believe that kind of hateful mentality is in the majority, and in due time then decent people will suppress the hate speech and rightly so.

At least now the Muslims and Islam are no longer alone on the higher moral ground, as now we have Pope Francis to share in this call for decency in our ignorant society.
Click to expand...

In what screwed up world have the Muslims ever held the high ground. Killing innocents, advocating for pedophilia and taking slaves are examples of Islam but are hardly the high ground.
 
ludin said:
actually it is Austria.
Click to expand...
Several European countries have such laws. France enacted the law beginning around 1990, others soon followed suit.
(looked it up...)

I remember reading the news at that time, thinking it wrong that they should silence the deniers through prosecution on the basis that some words, ideas, pictures (pamphlets advocating that 6 million didn't really die, etc.) are harmful to society and therefore criminal.

But then, perhaps they are.
My view is, if we choose to adopt hate speech laws at all then the ridicule of religion should be included in that.
 
Ikari said:
They find anyone who isn't Muslim to be insulting. Are you saying we should all be Muslims now?
Click to expand...
That is not true, not accurate.

The fact is that millions of Muslims live peacefully in France and millions more live here in the USA and Muslims live peacefully in every Country throughout the entire world as it is a huge and powerful religion.

We have Muslims who are Doctors and they treat us and they are not insulted by us being non-Muslim, and Muslim cab drivers who are not insulted by non Muslims, and people of Islam are mingled all through society and there are many Mosque throughout the land, and for the most part they are extremely decent people who actually reject crimes and drugs and immorality as it is a really strict and wholesome religion. This is why so many people are converting to Islam because right now Islam is the moral giant in this world.

Plus in fact I have read the Holy Qur'an several times and it specifically repeats that they view Judaism and Christianity as their sister religions, and no where at no time do we ever find Muslims disrespecting our religions because in Islam that is a unarguable taboo.

They will fight back against Christians and Jews and rightly so, and they will argue religious doctrine yes certainly, but insulting the religions is totally a Western thing being done.


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


ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lots of people believe that way because that hateful propaganda has been shoved down our throats for a long long time, but it is not accurate and is not true.

As an individual being that ignorant is not such a big deal, but Newspapers and magazines and TV reports are expected to be accurate and true in their reports and when those places preach such lies then they can often be held accountable by law, and the point of the laws about hate speech are meant to be a legal weapon against such lies and hate speech, see link HERE.

For you to be an individual religious bigot is not illegal, but a magazine preaching religious hatred is to be illegal.

ludin said:
Decent people don't walk into a building and start shooting people from making a cartoon of Mohammad.
Click to expand...
The cartoons were not criticizing the criminals as the publishers were insulting decent people.

If the publishers were criticizing or mocking the criminal activity then that would be acceptable, but no, they are degrading and insulting the religion of decent people and that is intolerable.
 
JP Cusick said:
That is not true, not accurate.

The fact is that millions of Muslims live peacefully in France and millions more live here in the USA and Muslims live peacefully in every Country throughout the entire world as it is a huge and powerful religion.

We have Muslims who are Doctors and they treat us and they are not insulted by us being non-Muslim, and Muslim cab drivers who are not insulted by non Muslims, and people of Islam are mingled all through society and there are many Mosque throughout the land, and for the most part they are extremely decent people who actually reject crimes and drugs and immorality as it is a really strict and wholesome religion. This is why so many people are converting to Islam because right now Islam is the moral giant in this world.

Plus in fact I have read the Holy Qur'an several times and it specifically repeats that they view Judaism and Christianity as their sister religions, and no where at no time do we ever find Muslims disrespecting our religions because in Islam that is a unarguable taboo.

They will fight back against Christians and Jews and rightly so, and they will argue religious doctrine yes certainly, but insulting the religions is totally a Western thing being done.
Click to expand...

It was the context to the post I was responding to.

In the end, religion is no more special than anything else and gets no special treatment. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech, they both need to be upheld. It may be rude to mock, but it's no call to violence. One should be respectful of other religions, and on whole that is likely to happen. But we cannot use force of government against it, and there will be a non-zero number of people who do it. But even so, it is not rational nor justified nor allowable to react to mockery with violence. That's when this goes one toke over the line. That is the act you may legitimately use government force against.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the French case it was not an insane reaction as it was a determined act of retaliation and of enforcing right against wrong.

And the hate speech (you call criticism) was directed against the 1.6 billion Muslims, so hate speech against religion has a right to protection, see HERE.

The religious bigots promoting their hate speech have no right to any legal protection or any kind of protection.

If you walk down any street in the middle of any town in the entire world with a sign promoting hatred then the common citizens will shut you down, and the French publishers were hiding away feeling protected with their ignorant hatred spewing out and that was their cowardice.


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


gilbertc1908 said:
This statement of the Pope is no more than saying do unto others, most certainly not a call for the repeal of free speech.
Click to expand...
Nobody said to repeal free speech as it just needs to have certain limits, as in hate speech needs to be against the law.

The Pope made that clear too, see the OP, or this:

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
 
JP Cusick said:
In the French case it was not an insane reaction as it was a determined act of retaliation and of enforcing right against wrong.

And the hate speech (you call criticism) was directed against the 1.6 billion Muslims, so hate speech against religion has a right to protection, see HERE.

The religious bigots promoting their hate speech have no right to any legal protection or any kind of protection.

If you walk down any street in the middle of any town in the entire world with a sign promoting hatred then the common citizens will shut you down, and the French publishers were hiding away feeling protected with their ignorant hatred spewing out and that was their cowardice.


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



Nobody said to repeal free speech as it just needs to have certain limits, as in hate speech needs to be against the law.

The Pope made that clear too, see the OP, or this:

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
Click to expand...

I take great pleasure that the law in this country has nothing in common with your vision of free speech.
 
Ikari said:
But even so, it is not rational nor justified nor allowable to react to mockery with violence. That's when this goes one toke over the line. That is the act you may legitimately use government force against.
Click to expand...
I say you are either missing or just ignoring the reality that in France the use of assassination was the last resort after a long series of non violent efforts.

1) They (not just Muslims) told the publishers to stop their hate speech.

2) They had large protest around the world and in France telling them to stop their hate speech.

3) They made publicly known threats against the publishers telling them to stop it.

4) There was a fire bomb attack on the building and the publishers continued onward.

5) Then at last some few attacked and targeted only the guilty persons and then left the scene.

6) So too the Government knew of the hate speech from the beginning and refused to protect the offended people.
===

As such the French gov failed in its duty, and the publishers asked for what they got, and the assassins payed with their own lives.
 
JP Cusick said:
Lots of people believe that way because that hateful propaganda has been shoved down our throats for a long long time, but it is not accurate and is not true.

As an individual being that ignorant is not such a big deal, but Newspapers and magazines and TV reports are expected to be accurate and true in their reports and when those places preach such lies then they can often be held accountable by law, and the point of the laws about hate speech are meant to be a legal weapon against such lies and hate speech, see link HERE.
Click to expand...

actually it isn't propaganda as much as it is historical fact. you don't even know what you arguing against and just making base assumptions.
given the fact that the newspaper in question is a satire magazine similar to The Onion or something then yes it is perfectly acceptable for them to do something.

thinking that someone drawing a picture or a satire of mohammad is offensive or hate speech doesn't know what they are talking about.
For you to be an individual religious bigot is not illegal, but a magazine preaching religious hatred is to be illegal.


since to you criticism = hate speech.
Thank goodness that we have the 1st amendment in this country to protect us from people like you. if you and the pope had their way almost all
of the athiests in this country would be locked up in prison for hate speech.

The cartoons were not criticizing the criminals as the publishers were insulting decent people.

If the publishers were criticizing or mocking the criminal activity then that would be acceptable, but no, they are degrading and insulting the religion of decent people and that is intolerable.
Click to expand...

You have to take an extreme leap in logic to uphold this point.

the only thing that is intolerable is walking into a building an killing innocent people. yet I don't see you condemning those actions.
I find that hate speech against innocent morale people. you are the very thing that you hate.

your morale ground slips when you start defending murder.
 
Last edited:
Manny said:
Several European countries have such laws. France enacted the law beginning around 1990, others soon followed suit.
(looked it up...)

I remember reading the news at that time, thinking it wrong that they should silence the deniers through prosecution on the basis that some words, ideas, pictures (pamphlets advocating that 6 million didn't really die, etc.) are harmful to society and therefore criminal.

But then, perhaps they are.
My view is, if we choose to adopt hate speech laws at all then the ridicule of religion should be included in that.
Click to expand...

please tell me how a cartoon of mohammod did any of the below and what group other than muslims reacted.

speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group,

if I hang a sign that says hang all muslims then yes that could be considered hate speech because it can incite violent and action again a protected person.
going mohommad was a roving bandit that killed thousands of people for not joining his gang is not hate speech.

drawing a cartoon of the man is not considered hate speech.
 
Ikari said:
You equated dissent and critique of Islam to yelling fire in a theater, trying to see if you think that because of the irrationality of a few, we should bend to their desires. And if so, how far that should then go.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying we should bend at all just that these people tend to back up their threats with action.

They don't like what I say, come over and we'll discuss it. 8)
 
ludin said:
please tell me how a cartoon of mohammod did any of the below and what group other than muslims reacted.


drawing a cartoon of the man is not considered hate speech.
Click to expand...
The hate-speech aspect has nothing to do with the format of cartoons, but the information it conveys to the public.
 
Paschendale said:
I take great pleasure that the law in this country has nothing in common with your vision of free speech.
Click to expand...
The thing is that in this Country the USA - that our laws really do support my position and what was said by the Pope - that religious bigotry is against the law.

See link here = Hate speech - Wikipedia



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


ludin said:
actually it isn't propaganda as much as it is historical fact. you don't even know what you arguing against and just making base assumptions.
Click to expand...
Your hate filled claims are NOT historical fact and far from it.

Link Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet . Life of Muhammad: HTML Timeline | PBS

You viewing your own hateful bigotry as being real - is your problem.

ludin said:
if you and the pope had their way almost all
of the athiests in this country would be locked up in prison for hate speech.
Click to expand...
It is a sad reality that so many who claim to be Atheist are also so full of hatred and bigotry.

Just because the hate speech needs to be rightly suppressed then that does not need to mean that the haters need to be locked up.

If the license was taken away from those French publishers then that would have been enough and they would still be alive.

ludin said:
yet I don't see you condemning those actions.
Click to expand...
I certainly do not condemn those actions against the French publisher.

I condemn the French government for its failure by allowing that hate speech to continue.

ludin said:
I find that hate speech against innocent morale people. you are the very thing that you hate.
Click to expand...
Those French publishers were not innocent - they were far from being innocent.

They were trashy hateful religious bigots.
 
JP Cusick said:
The thing is that in this Country the USA - that our laws really do support my position and what was said by the Pope - that religious bigotry is against the law.
Click to expand...

Hi, I'm an actual attorney and know how hate speech laws work beyond looking them up on Wikipedia. The United States has some of the most powerful protections of free speech in the entire world. What you are suggesting shouldn't happen is absolutely legal in the United States and it is paramount that it remain so.

It is a sad reality that so many who claim to be Atheist are also so full of hatred and bigotry.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have any idea what it is to suffer bigotry at the hands of others. Not liking your religion because of the awful things it does is not prejudice. It is judgment based on the facts. You have no idea what you're talking about and no amount of whining about the mean atheists who hurt your feelings on the internet will change that. Tell me, how many states have it in their constitutions that you cannot hold public office because of your religious affiliation?
 
Shame on you, Mr. CuSICK.

JP Cusick said:
It is peculiar that you fail to explain whatever that "good reason" might be, as if you must think it is so obvious that there is no need for any explanation - well FYI - it is not, because especially with those French publishers there is no justifiable reason for their to be protected by the law.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps no there isn't, except for the fact that if you give license for one person's views to be labeled as “dirty hateful and provocative trash”, and a person to be punished for expressing that view, then you give license for someone else who doesn't like what you have to say to demand that you and your view be treated the same way.
 
Last edited:
Shame on you, Mr. CuSICK.

JP Cusick said:
As such the French gov failed in its duty, and the publishers asked for what they got, and the assassins payed with their own lives.
Click to expand...

So, if someone who objects to your hateful disrespect of the essential human right to free speech decides to kill you because of it, would it then be fair to say that you only brought that on yourself? What gives you any more right to engage in such hate speech, than those who you condemn for it, and whose murder you defend?
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Congratulations, in a simple OP you have confirmed that both Islam and Christianity view special limitations on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression even showing support for the notion by a "high moral ground." A call for Theocracy to determine what is off-limits to criticism and within the confines of religion defining what is and is not hate speech. Well done, that undermined just about every principle this nation was founded on and went a great length in validation of responding to hate speech in the most terrible way. Censorship and oppression.

That is not a call of a "real man" or someone of moral high ground... just a call for forced obedience by determining what is off-limits simply because you do not like what was said. Society just stepped backwards with this brilliance.
Click to expand...

I agree, for the most part with this, but don't think the Pope or the OP speaks for all Christians. Neither speak for me.
 
Shame on you, Mr. CuSICK.

JP Cusick said:
The thing is that in this Country the USA - that our laws really do support my position and what was said by the Pope - that religious bigotry is against the law.
Click to expand...

The highest law in this nation is our Constitution, and as part of it, the First Amendment absolutely and completely refutes your position.

Is it possible that you are somehow mistaking some of George Orwell's writings for this nation's laws?
 
X Factor said:
I agree, for the most part with this, but don't think the Pope or the OP speaks for all Christians. Neither speak for me.
Click to expand...

While true, I cannot dismiss the position the Pope has and the numbers who hear what he has to say. The precedence is something troubling, that freedoms have limits when it comes to talking about religion. That is a major problem.
 
OrphanSlug said:
While true, I cannot dismiss the position the Pope has and the numbers who hear what he has to say. The precedence is something troubling, that freedoms have limits when it comes to talking about religion. That is a major problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, totally. I do not understand, at all, how anyone can stand up for cowards and murderers and basically argue how justified they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom