PaulS

Interestingly enough, Freedom Of Speech doesn't appear to extend to this forum (or so it would seem according to the rules). For instance, under the explanation for participation in the Debate & Dialogue section it is stated "De-meaning or putting down other religions accomplishes nothing and will also not be tolerated here". Neon, I would ask you, do you agree with this rule or not? I don't mind which way you swing on it, but I mean it to point out that laws curtailing Freedom of Speech are in place usually for a genuine reason.

I suspect there are Mormons that want to spend the money internally on their own community, others who want to spend it externally, and a range in between. The following news clipping suggests to me that some Mormons are community-minded so I find it hard to digest that they then say "Do not spend our tithing outside of this Temple". Just my thoughts (but I must admit that my experience with Mormonism is limited to the occassional knock at the door). Almost 100 Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently served as volunteers at the 10th Annual Joy to Life Foundation’s “Walk of Life” in Alabama. The walkathon, sponsored by the Joy to Life Foundation, raises money to provide mammograms to women under fifty in portions of Alabama who can’t afford to get them. The volunteers, who are often called Mormons due to their belief in the Book of Mormon as a companion to the Bible, helped with registrations, assisted with set-up and clean-up, assisted with sponsor booths and helped to guide runners. John Enslen oversaw the Mormons who volunteered and said they felt it was a worthwhile project because it helped to prevent breast cancer in a time when government was less able to fund such programs. The project was part of a Mormon tradition known as Day of Service and the Mormon Helping Hands program. Helping Hands began in South America as a way for Mormons to serve their communities and has since spread world-wide. In 2011, Mormons are being asked to provide a day of service in their communities around the world.

It could also be that early Christian's got carried away with this 'sacrifice' stuff, when they were left to figure out what Jesus was all about after his execution. Clearly he had an impact on many in his day, and then he's put to death very abruptly by the authorities. What to make of it all? It seems some reached back into their scripture and came up with passages from hundreds of years before that they than adopted and made fit into the current situation. If your cultural understanding is that God needs sacrifices to be made happy, then it's not suprising that the theologians of the day came up with linking Jesus' death to some sort of sacrifice for God. Personally, I'm not comfortable with all this sacrifice talk, whether it's about Jesus or us. I don't see my life as a sacrifice if I choose to try and live it fully. To me, I don't need some sort of God-will to determine that loving one another is a responsible and reasonable way to live. I don't see that as a life or service, but rather simply a life of sense. The fact that it is often so hard to keep on this path when challenged, demonstrates to me that there is no ideal world that we somehow need to find, but rather we are humans who are learning to do the best we can with what we have.

Certainly there is a possibility that this life has something to do with a next, I just don't see any reason to believe in a 'next'. If I don't think there is a kingdom hereafter then I don't concern myself with the argument that we are currently not fit for it. I do agree that we can and do learn life lessons along the way, but that's simply the nature of the beast IMO.

George & Dutch, I've loaded my iPad and am ready to roll. Cheers Paul

Hell is who knows what, if anything. Certainly some people believed in a physical Hell either during Jesus' life or shortly thereafter, just as there were people at the same time convinced the universe revolved around the earth. Do we have to take everything for gospel that is talked about in the bible - not literal, but that somehow it means something when quite possibly it could simply be an ignorant cultural understanding? Even if Jesus did firmly believe in a heaven and hell and a sepration of the saved and unsaved - so? Could it be that even Jesus didn't get his theology 100% right? I certainly don't believe in a hell as an eternal place of punishment, and I'm highly skeptical that it exists out of this dimension somehow whatesoever. So then I'm left with considering is this life hell. Well, is it? I mean many of us have great lives dotted with bits of pure bliss and bits of pain and unhappiness. Some people have more or less of one or the other. But I don't think calling this life Hell and viewing it as some sort of training ground or something to 'get through' so as to move on, makes any sense. It is what it is and we deal with the good and the bad - sometimes the really bad and sometimes the really good. As far as the Lazurus story goes I think it is simply a folk tale using appropriate resources available at the time to get the message across. The message being to look after your brother - whoever wrote it might have believed in a real Hell of may have simply thought such a reference would help get the message across.

That's good for me. Dutch?

I'll rustle up a copy too and advise when I have it.

If you're interested Neon, this is a link to a pretty interesting article that discusses some of your concerns and some of the requirements for such laws. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11892 Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

I guess one should never say never in politics, but in Australia it's being reported that the wheels have well and truly fallen off the Romney cart. Secret video recordings and internal infighting seem to be pretty harmful.

Because a law is misused or perhaps 'tested' against community standards, doesn't mean we shouldn't have such laws. There are plenty of excellent criminal laws out there (think murder, rape, etc) that get abused and misused, sometimes deliberately, sometimes out of misunderstanding. But that's not an argument not to have such laws. The skill is in the designing of the laws and the interpretation by the courts that represents societal expectations. It's not a perfect system.

Then you would have been relieved Neon when the case was tossed out and police were ordered to cover his costs of about $11,000. It seems justice can prevail.

Dutch, I don't think it would in Australia (I could be wrong) simply because with our laws one has to demonstrate that they were a 'victim' of the speech/behaviour. Simply wishing out loud that Obama was dead, or that 'God would take him' probably wouldn't stand up to the test that Obama experienced victimisation. I imagine if it could be demonstrated that he suffered as a result of the speech, for example somebody refused to employ him only on the grounds that he was about to be killed by God, then perhaps action could be taken. This is where I think the law appropriately addresses the difference between hurt feelings/offence and genuine harm caused by actions/speech.

I agree with Raven in that the Bible can't be 'blamed' for what people do today - if people choose freely to adopt the view that things that were written by different cultures, over 2000 years ago, precisely applies to modern society, then that is them and not the Bible saying so. The Bible doesn't say "this is what you must do in 2012" - only some of its proponents do. Clearly much in the Bible does demonstrate bigotry, racism, vilification, sexism, discrimination etc. It is possible that such may have been the hate speech of its day and that there were alternate voices which simply didn't make it into the book. But that aside, the book is what it is. It does contain stories, language and laws that many of us find ignorant these days. Some of it doesn't align with what many in our modern society have come to learn of other cultures, sexual orientation, equal rights, etc. If people want to adopt such beliefs, they have every right to. To some extent I think they even have a right to say they're right and I'm wrong. What I personally don't agree with is that anybody thinks that because their book or set of rules says it is okay, that they think they are allowed to denigrate and/or harm another. I don't think people should have to experience or tolerate that sort of behaviour in a modern society. Obviously I don't have a problem with laws that say certain responsibilities must accompany the right to freedom of speech. One shouldn't be allowed the right if they don't accept the responsibility the communtiy expects, along with it.

Perhaps, or perhaps some people do take notice of the standard the law sets, so we have less trouble than we would otherwise. Without getting too technical, such laws are technical, and there are very specific elements that have to be met for prosecution to be initiated and successful. You might say such elements are there to protect people from the sort of airy-fairy, my-opinion-is-better-than-your-opinion type concerns you have about such laws and potential for abuse.

I did say earlier that Australia is no utopia. Here's a headline from our eastern seaboard today: VICTORIA Police have declared they will deploy record numbers to manage a proposed demonstration in Melbourne on Sunday after an explicit anti-Islamic text message urging a violent uprising began circulating across the state. Deputy Victorian Police Commissioner Tim Cartwright says police will be out in force "above and beyond our standard response to a peaceful rally." "We are not just talking about people who would be people who are a part of the protest, we would be also very concerned about anyone who is visiting the protest to start violence," Deputy Cartwright said. The text message calls upon non-Muslim Australians to attend the protest in response to the brutal riots in Sydney last weekend. The message, its sender so far unknown to authorities, urges people to be "ready for a battle for our rights and our land," and threatens: "They thought the Cronulla riots were bad." The Facebook page for the pro-Islamic protest "Stand up against racism and rally in defense (sic) of Islam," has already received swarms of threatening messages slandering Muslims, calling Islamic people "hairy dogs" and other profanities. The text message reads in part: "ATT: All Australians, this Sunday these Muslim DOGS are planning a protest in OUR city. I call on all brothers and sisters to meet at (location and time deleted) on Sunday for a united march to the state library. '' I don't know Neon, I think sometimes maybe it's best to silence some people.

Perhaps so...and perhaps an excellent example of how societal attitudes and 'inalienable rights' can change over time. It seems to me that some things that I'm sure those cultures once considered fundamental rights, were adapted/modified/disregarded as society continued on its path.

Neon, incidentally the mother of this child came forward today. I don't expect charges to be laid. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/mother-of-toddler-holding-up-beheading-poster-at-sydney-protest-turns-herself-in/story-e6frg6nf-1226476342768

Perhaps so Neon, but never say never! Australia is liberal in some ways, archaic in others. Ours is by no means a utopian society. We don't have the history of your founding fathers of course which clearly plays a huge part in this issue and your Constitution. Rather than a society that resulted from breaking free of its British controllers, many Aussies take pride in the fact that our society grew from being England's dumping ground for its criminals (who it must be said were often very unfairly deported here).

In Australia we currently DO have laws criminalizing hate speech but as I have mentioned, they are not restricted to religion (which is actually probably one of the lesser areas of concern for us with hate speech). These laws (sometimes criminal, sometimes civil, sometimes both depending on jurisdiction) give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, and/or injury on account of their ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Incidentally, this picture is from the Sydney protest I mentioned and has certainly concerned the community and authorities. I don't think it is illegal (I could be wrong) until it is demonstrated that there is a victim. A wide range of penalties are available to our judiciary. Depending on the seriousness of the speech and/or harm it may cause, courts can impose penalties including community service orders, fines, suspended sentences, or in extreme cases jail time. Naturally like a number of laws (think drug possession) arresting all those in breach of the law can prove logistically difficult, but catching people is only one aspect of the law. Another aspect is that the law sets out what behavior a society expects of its people. As for the US examples you cite, I'm not familiar with them. Like any breach of the law I see jail as a last resort, yet sometimes a necessary punishment.

I certainly didn't mean it to sound like the people make flippant decisions about what they will accept as acceptable speech, but rather that the community over time moves in a certain direction which sees old laws overturned and new appropriate ones implemented. Gay marriage used to be illegal (talk about a minority suffering tyranny) but more and more of the US's citizens are seeing the laws beginning to change and overturn the old. Similarly it seems to be the case here that Australians have voiced what they see as destructive in their society and have moved to curtail it, when it comes to hate speech that is. It seems to be fair and just and I have confidence that our society still protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority without allowing some to cause harm to others by espousing hate speech.

Neon, Naturally hate-speech laws are used to discriminate against a viewpoint - a viewpoint that the community has said has no place in their society. For instance, in Australia there have been several arrests and convictions for race hate speech inciting hatred and discrimination against others. I would argue that there are a number of examples here of hate speech law being executed fairly and justly. Our society has decided such speech is not what we want here and we feel it does nothing to add to sensible debate over issues. To the contrary, such speech can misinform people and causes anger and angst which our community doesn't want. Ultimately, in a democracy, it is the pople that should decide what particular speech is hate speech. They get to make the decisions. I am certain that if unfair laws were used to unjustly silence opinion in Australia, those politicians responsible would suffer. A prosecution is one thing, a conviction is another. I think our justice system works similiar to yours where a person can be charged but is innocent until proven guilty, and subsequently the defence provides arguments to the court as to just why there speech is not hate or otherwise. Similarly there is an appeals process to overcome poor decisions. I think it's too easy to play down hate speech by saying it simply 'hurt somebody's feelings'. I think what I regard as hate speech goes much further than such a simple definition and I would regard speech that should be limited as speech which incites hatred, discrimination, is designed to cause angst, fear, stress, etc. Saying "I don't believe what you do" and providing reasons is not hate speech in my book. The Pakistani girl you mentioned who was framed - well, framing can occur with many laws. Possibly if a knife used in a murder had been dropped in her bag by the Cleric then sdhe may have been charged with murder, yet we don't fail to legislate against murder because somebody might be framed. "Hate speech laws in Australia" in Wikipedia might explain to you better detail of what we utilise here. Cheers Paul

Neon, I don't think it's a case of giving the government the permission to tell individual citizens when and where they can speak what beliefs the government approves of as being acceptable, but rather giving the government the power to curtail harmful speech that is used irresponsibly. We have laws to say you simply can't wee wherever you like (in the street, against a shop window, etc) - it's not that government is restricting people's right to wee wherever they like but rather government has the power to stop people from weeing in inappropriate circumstances. I do wonder what freedoms Australians are missing out on for not having the right to hate speech enshrined in their legislation? Cheers Paul

Welcome Ginger, Others here may be better placed to provide you with advice. I would just offer you my hand in friendship and hope that you might find some peace and answers from the many wide and varied topics and resources found around here. As others have said, you are in no way alone in your thoughts and discovering a mismatch with your church - but I'm sure it will all work out in the end. Enjoy. Cheers Paul

Such laws certainly can be abused by a corrupt or misguided government, but I wonder if that is less a risk that the harm protected hate speech causes? I don't have an answer specifically.