Neon Genesis Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Seeing homosexuality as a sin or sickness was not only Christians thinking. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that psychologists decided it was not a mental illness. The Bible wasn't the issue for them. Being homophobic doesn't necessarily grow out of the Bible. Many more read the Bible and came to the opposite conclusion. I think your railing against the Bible obscures your argument. Dutch I'm not railing against the bible. My point is that in today's politically correct society where people get too easily riled up by words anything remotely rude could be construed as hate speech. It's not just my view that the bible has been used to spread hate but Bishop Spong has a whole lecture up on youtube where he discusses the long history of Christians quoting the "sins of scripture" to justify their intolerance: 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. There have been other cases over non-religious issues in the UK too. Like there was that man who got sued by homeopathic advocates just for saying he thought homeopathy was a hoax. While he ended up winning the court case, he still lost tons of money from all the pointless court cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 I don't think the Bible causes people to behave hatefully although it is sometimes used as a rationale. Humans don't need religious texts to motivate hateful behavior. This has occurred throughout history within religions and outside of religions and before religious texts were in existence. Some of the worst behavior in recent history occurred in secular societies (USSR and Red China) and in non-Bible believing societies such as Cambodia. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 but Bishop Spong has a whole lecture up on youtube where he discusses the long history of Christians quoting the "sins of scripture" to justify their intolerance A cause-effect error and part-whole error. The intolerance comes first and then the justifying and religion. We choose the religion that agrees with us. Although Spong talks and writes like he is confronting all of Christianity, he is confronting only a part. So we need to be specific. Man who got sued by homeopathic advocates just for saying he thought homeopathy was a hoax. While he ended up winning the court case, he still lost tons of money from all the pointless court cases. I don't think these are pointless caes.This is how the world works. This is part of the conversation; it is one way we discover truths for our time. Homeopathy has many critics and is fighting to remain in NHS. They are fighting on all fronts. This is not about political correctness but about science, medicine, and money. I think we need very specific cases to explore the boundaries between hate speech that is just ugly and hate speech that harms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 There have been other cases over non-religious issues in the UK too. Like there was that man who got sued by homeopathic advocates just for saying he thought homeopathy was a hoax. While he ended up winning the court case, he still lost tons of money from all the pointless court cases. I don't think these are pointless caes.This is how the world works. This is part of the conversation; it is one way we discover truths for our time. Homeopathy has many critics and is fighting to remain in NHS. They are fighting on all fronts. This is not about political correctness but about science, medicine, and money. I think we need very specific cases to explore the boundaries between hate speech that is just ugly and hate speech that harms 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 A cause-effect error and part-whole error. The intolerance comes first and then the justifying and religion. We choose the religion that agrees with us. Although Spong talks and writes like he is confronting all of Christianity, he is confronting only a part. So we need to be specific. I also think that Spong is wrong in his analysis of cause and effect. He seems to think that if one would just change theology, one's behavior would change. I think the change is needed in worldview which then motivates the theology and behavior. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 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. And there are plenty of laws that are so inherently corrupt or easily open to abuse that they can never be revised to be more humane, like the Texas sodomy laws. I have yet to see an example of a law restricting free speech that was used in a fair and just manner. I also think that Spong is wrong in his analysis of cause and effect. He seems to think that if one would just change theology, one's behavior would change. I think the change is needed in worldview which then motivates the theology and behavior.While religion is not inherently evil like Dawkins and .co would suggest, I think what people believe about reality does influence how they behave in life. I don't think it's a coindence that the vast majority of the people who deny the real age of the Earth or the existence of evolution also tend to be the same people who also want to ban abortion even in cases of incest and rape and it's not a coincidence that people with higher levels of education also tend to believe strongly in liberal social justice values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 And there are plenty of laws that are so inherently corrupt or easily open to abuse that they can never be revised to be more humane, like the Texas sodomy laws. I have yet to see an example of a law restricting free speech that was used in a fair and just manner. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 And there are plenty of laws that are so inherently corrupt or easily open to abuse that they can never be revised to be more humane, like the Texas sodomy laws. I have yet to see an example of a law restricting free speech that was used in a fair and just manner. I am waiting for a specific law applied to a variety cases in the last 5 years. Laws and government are always expressions of their time. Hindsight always suggests that we are smarter than someone who lived and made laws 100 years ago. In 100 years people will be saying the same thing about you and me. If you will read your state's criminal statutes you will see evidence of continuing changes as they rewrite the definitions of the crimes and the severity (petty, misdemeanor, felony, 1,2,3,4,5,) Sections deleted, Revised, etc. There are occassionally references to court cases which clarify the application of the law. Laws are a work in progress. Sometimes they show us at our best and sometimes they don't. Attitudes about sex offense change and the laws changed. If you committed a sex offense in 1978 in Colorado you did not have to register regularly for the rest of your life. after 1994 you do. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 While religion is not inherently evil like Dawkins and .co would suggest, I think what people believe about reality does influence how they behave in life. I don't think it's a coindence that the vast majority of the people who deny the real age of the Earth or the existence of evolution also tend to be the same people who also want to ban abortion even in cases of incest and rape and it's not a coincidence that people with higher levels of education also tend to believe strongly in liberal social justice values. I think that education and social milieu are much, much more influential in determining our worldview than theology. And, it is one's worldview that determines one's theology, not the reverse. George 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 <quote>like the Texas sodomy laws. I have yet to see an example of a law restricting free speech that was used in a fair and just manner.</quote> Many of your examples which are short on details are examples of the fallacy of vividness. I believe since it is you that are making the argument that all laws regarding speech have not been been applied fairly and in a just manner you must bring forth an example. I am waiting for a specific law applied to a variety cases in the last 20 years. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I guess the burden is on us to provide an exception to your global assertion. I offer the law regarding threats to kill the president. I believe that is an example of a hate speech law that is fairly and justly administered. I assume that the courts are part of figuring out how to apply the law. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 I offer the law regarding threats to kill the president. I believe that is an example of a hate speech law that is fairly and justly administered. I assume that the courts are part of figuring out how to apply the law. Actually, I think it is illegal to threaten the life of anyone. But, I guess, threatening groups gets hazier and veiled threats hazier yet. Many laws are difficult to administer. Juries have to carefully sort out the facts and intentions in murder cases then decide guilt or innocence, first degree, second or manslaughter. But, even with these difficulties, no one, to my knowledge, advocates revoking laws that prohibit murder. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 That a law is difficult to administer is not an argument against the fact that it is a fair and just law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 As society changes, so (often) do our laws. If not, imagine the world we'd be living in! This is why I struggle when people take the Bible too literally. If you read through all the shalls and shalt nots in there, there's a lot going on that probably doesn't apply to you today. (Cutting hair, mixing fabrics, all the rules relating to sex and menstruation - it's a lot to take in!) Many people claim to live "Biblically," but I don't think they too often mean literally. "Living Biblically," at least for me, means being inspired by scripture and living as life as closely to Jesus' teachings as I am able. It probably means something different to everyone else. Are there parts of the Bible that are negative? Of course. Violent, too. It doesn't mean we have to be negative and violent. We live in a different world, and we as people have changed in many, many ways. Some things simply don't apply anymore. IMHO, anyone who uses the Bible to support a violent, hateful action is not reading it with a good intent. We see what we want to see and we take what we want to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I don't think using this film, as offensive as it is, is a particular good case for banning hate speech. There is much evidence suggesting this film doesn't even exist at all, that the attack was planned months ahead by terrorists marking the anniversary of 9/11, and that this doesn't really have anything to do with an offensive video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I don't think using this film, as offensive as it is, is a particular good case for banning hate speech. There is much evidence suggesting this film doesn't even exist at all, that the attack was planned months ahead by terrorists marking the anniversary of 9/11, and that this doesn't really have anything to do with an offensive video. I can quite easily believe that this film exists. Unfortunately, there are hateful, angry people out there who do stupid, ignorant things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain I read that one of the masterminds behind thing was the same pastor beind "Burn a Koran Day" - ? It's also possible that the terrorists had something planned for the anniversary of 9/11 - why wouldn't they? Perhaps this idiotic film was a nice bonus for them. The whole thing is very, very sad. I'm so tired of people using religion to hate and be violent, while preaching that theirs is the religion of love and peace. Enough already. Extremist Muslims and extremist Christians are like those two kids you always see in the sandbox, throwing sand and crying they've got sand in their eyes. I'd like to hose them both off and send them to their rooms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I can quite easily believe that this film exists. Unfortunately, there are hateful, angry people out there who do stupid, ignorant things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain I read that one of the masterminds behind thing was the same pastor beind "Burn a Koran Day" - ? It's also possible that the terrorists had something planned for the anniversary of 9/11 - why wouldn't they? Perhaps this idiotic film was a nice bonus for them. It was initially reported that the man behind it was an Egyptian Christian but now it looks like even the man behind the video doesn't even exist either: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0912/There-may-be-no-anti-Islamic-movie-at-all The online 14-minute clip of a purportedly anti-Islamic movie that sparked protests at the US embassy in Cairo and and the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is now looking like it could have been ginned up by someone sitting a basement with cheap dubbing software. Full credit goes to Sarah Abdurrahman at On the Media and Rosie Grey at Buzzfed who appear to be the first to highlight (there may be others, but they're the ones who caught my eye) the fact that almost every instance of language referring to Islam or Muhammad in the film has been dubbed in. That is, mouths are mouthing but the words you're hearing don't match. There have already been a bunch of lies associated with the alleged film. A man named "Sam Bacile" was identified as being the writer and producer. He claimed to be an Israeli citizen. The Israelis say they have no record of him. He claimed to have spent $5 million on the movie. The clip online doesn't look like even $100,000 was spent. There is no record of a "Sam Bacile" living in California, and his strange insistence on the fact that he was Jewish and that he had exclusively Jewish funders for his film in an interview with the Associated Press now looks like something of a red flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Interesting, Neon. Thanks for providing that information. I know after the video was out there and everything started, what I'd mentioned was the proposed theory at the time. The bottom line is, people will do ignorant, arrogant, violent things, and it's really unfortunate. It's too bad that more people can't adopt a "live and let live" philosophy, instead of trying to control what other people believe. It breaks my heart every time someone uses faith as a reason to do something evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Good point Paul, True Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to this forum. It doesn't extend to my home also. One cannot say anything they wish and remain a member here nor a guest in my home. . Same with churches and other organizations of which we may be a member that have rules set up for acceptable speech behavior. Even movie theaters here limit free speech by the audience. Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 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. TCPC is a privately owned website that can make up its own rules as to how it should be regulated and I'm fine with privately owned organizations and such making up their own rules. But there's no law that says you couldn't go off and make an offensive neo Nazi site like the infamous Storm Front forums where they could make their own rules if you wanted to. Likewise, you have the freedom in the country to make a website criticizing neo Nazi sites as well and no one can tell you not to. I have a libertarian take on freedom of speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I was more making the point that most of us do actually take restricting Freedom of Speech in our stride daily with our clubs, churches, organizations and websites. We don't seem to bat an eyelid about restricting this 'fundamental human right' when we see restricting it making sense for our purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) And my point is that these are all individual choices we make for ourselves but the government should have no role in making our decisions for us as to what speech we should approve of and not approve of. When Christ was hanging on the cross and all the people were throwing obscenities at him and persecuting him, he didn't order his apostles to forcefully silence his enemies even though he could have told them to fight back if he wanted to. Instead Jesus prayed to God to forgive them because they didn't know what they were doing and Jesus told his apostles to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, not to demand the Romans to intervene and silence anyone that bad mouthed them. If Jesus didn't silence his enemies by force, surely people of faith could do the same. As the classic hymn goes, he could have called ten thousand angels but he died for us instead. Edited September 25, 2012 by Neon Genesis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 And my point is that these are all individual choices we make for ourselves but the government should have no role in making our decisions for us as to what speech we should approve of and not approve of. When Christ was hanging on the cross and all the people were throwing obscenities at him and persecuting him, he didn't order his apostles to forcefully silence his enemies even though he could have told them to fight back if he wanted to. Instead Jesus prayed to God to forgive them because they didn't know what they were doing and Jesus told his apostles to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, not to demand the Romans to intervene and silence anyone that bad mouthed them. If Jesus didn't silence his enemies by force, surely people of faith could do the same. As the classic hymn goes, he could have called ten thousand angels but he died for us instead. But in a representative democracy aren't you doing exactly that - giving reponsibility to your elected representatives to make laws on your behalf? Or only some laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 hate speech (in legal terms not vernacular) and free speech are not the same. To restrict one is not to restrict the other. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.