Denigrating Other Faiths

[PaulS]

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.

 

Neon,

 

Jesus didn't say we should jail paedophiles or rapists either. I simply can't imagine jesus standling idly by whilst somebody is raped or beaten and repeating the mantra "forgive them God for they don't know what they do". I find it hard to imagine that such aJesus would just stand by. I don't want to get into a debate about whether the bible argues for or against Freedom of Speech (like most bible interpretations, I think boths cases could be made), but I do think you would agree that theBible is filled with examples of how standing against the oppressors is a righteous, holy and godly thing to do.

 

Where freedom of speech violates social responsibilities and encourages or directs harm, discrimination, racism, homophobia, or even sexism, I would say there is a place for somebody to stand up and say, "Hey, we don't accept that in this community. You are free to have your opinion as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else."

 

And that's the distinction I want to be clear on. I'm not arguing concerning 'hurt feelings', I'm arguing against speech that causes harm to people, either physically, mentally, or financially. Just where the line is drawn as to what constitutes harm may be difficult, but that's no reason not to try and confront it.

[glintofpewter]

Where freedom of speech violates social responsibilities and encourages or directs harm, discrimination, racism, homophobia, or even sexism, I would say there is a place for somebody to stand up and say, "Hey, we don't accept that in this community. You are free to have your opinion as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else."

Well said, Paul

[Neon Genesis]

Neon,

 

Jesus didn't say we should jail paedophiles or rapists either. I simply can't imagine jesus standling idly by whilst somebody is raped or beaten and repeating the mantra "forgive them God for they don't know what they do". I find it hard to imagine that such aJesus would just stand by. I don't want to get into a debate about whether the bible argues for or against Freedom of Speech (like most bible interpretations, I think boths cases could be made), but I do think you would agree that theBible is filled with examples of how standing against the oppressors is a righteous, holy and godly thing to do.

Jesus himself was a victim of hate speech laws. The Pharisees were offended by Jesus' teachings that they accused of being heretical blasphemy so they framed him for state sedition and had him executed by the Roman authorities.

 

 

 

And that's the distinction I want to be clear on. I'm not arguing concerning 'hurt feelings', I'm arguing against speech that causes harm to people, either physically, mentally, or financially. Just where the line is drawn as to what constitutes harm may be difficult, but that's no reason not to try and confront it.

So how exactly were Muslims harmed by this video if they were harmed by some other reason than hurt feelings? As far as I can tell, the only ones who suffered any actual physical harm were the people in the U.S. Embassy who were killed by terrorists. Here's an article on hate speech laws by the ACLU that more adequately expresses my feelings on the subject: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.

[PaulS]

Jesus himself was a victim of hate speech laws. The Pharisees were offended by Jesus' teachings that they accused of being heretical blasphemy so they framed him for state sedition and had him executed by the Roman authorities.

 

So how exactly were Muslims harmed by this video if they were harmed by some other reason than hurt feelings? As far as I can tell, the only ones who suffered any actual physical harm were the people in the U.S. Embassy who were killed by terrorists. Here's an article on hate speech laws by the ACLU that more adequately expresses my feelings on the subject: http://www.aclu.org/...e-speech-campus

 

...and daughters were stoned to death outside the city gates if they weren't found to be virgins on their wedding day. Yep, power & laws can certainly be misused and abused, but I'd like to think that as society matures such laws are refined.

 

Incidentally, I never said people were harmed by this video. Perhaps I sidetracked the post when I questioned what this seemingly US concern about Freedom of Speech overriding other rights, meant.

 

I think I clearly understand your feelings Neon, and I have no doubt that our cultures and the historical development of our nations affects how we view this matter.

[Raven]

Watching this conversation evolve has been really interesting.

 

I don't think Freedom of Speech is limitless. I don't know if it truly can be, in a civilized society. We have laws that protect people from slander, for example. We expect people to watch their language in front of children, the elderly, in the work place. (And I wish people would do so in more places, but perhaps that tramples on their rights?) While it may not be outright illegal to use words like f****t, people around you will likely speak up against you if you do.

 

What does the Bible say about Freedom of Speech? Like PaulS says, it seems to play to both sides of the issue. The Bible does mention, right in the 10 Commandments, that no one is to bear false witness and say things that are not true. I suppose it might be a slippery slope from there, to exaggeration and mockery. I'm not sure.

 

In my mind though, if you go out of your way to provoke people, part of the responsibility for their reaction lies with you. The person(s) who made the video on question, for example, could not have expected a different kind of reaction - it's no secret what type of reaction(s) radical, extremist Muslims have to what they perceive as insults to their faith. From where I'm standing, the intent of the person making the video is pretty clear, and so some responsibility is theirs.

 

Of course, those who riot in the streets and kill still ultimately own their own actions, and bear the brunt of the responsibility. That goes without saying.

 

I find hiding behind presumption of "Freedom of Speech" to be a bit immature. People often want the right to say whatever comes into their mind, but they don't want to bear any responsibility for it. You may have the right, I guess, to call someone a stupid sack of garbage, but what's the purpose? To what end? And don't forget - if you have the freedom to say what you want, so does everyone else, regardless of what you may think about it. A lot of people forget that part.

[GeorgeW]

In my mind though, if you go out of your way to provoke people, part of the responsibility for their reaction lies with you. The person(s) who made the video on question, for example, could not have expected a different kind of reaction - it's no secret what type of reaction(s) radical, extremist Muslims have to what they perceive as insults to their faith. From where I'm standing, the intent of the person making the video is pretty clear, and so some responsibility is theirs.

 

As I understand it, the guy who made the film, is an Egyptian-American Copt. He clearly would know what kind of reaction the film would provoke. What is additionally disturbing, is that this could well put Coptic Egyptians in greater danger.

 

George

[Raven]

As I understand it, the guy who made the film, is an Egyptian-American Copt. He clearly would know what kind of reaction the film would provoke. What is additionally disturbing, is that this could well put Coptic Egyptians in greater danger.

 

George

 

Good point, George. I wonder if he thought of that before making it?

 

To be clear, I don't think the world should be held hostage out of fear of wild reprisals from extremists. In an ideal world, people would be capable of having a discussion without flipping over cars and beheading people. In an ideal world, everyone would be able to deal with dissent gracefully. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

 

Part of me says, in an ideal world, this "filmmaker" would be able to make whatever kind of film s/he wants, and people would find non-violent ways to respond.

 

The other part of me says, in an ideal world, this "filmmaker" would find a much more intelligent way of stating his/her opinion.

[Neon Genesis]

For those who support hate speech laws, do you think Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy should be banned under hate speech laws? In the His Dark Materials series, Philip Pullman portrays God as an evil dictator, the Catholic church is portrayed as a power-hungry organization out for world conquest that would abuse children to further their goals, and all Christians in the series are portrayed as violent fanatics. One could argue that Philip Pullman's children's book series is denigrating Christianity and many Christians tried to censor The Golden Compass film when it came out. So should the His Dark Materials series be banned then for its offensiveness towards Christianity?

[JosephM]

Neon,

 

No, i don't think he should be banned under hate speech laws.. I believe he is free to express his opinions in his films. People are offended by many film makers and they have the right to not watch films which may be offensive to them. No law is broken by portraying God as an evil dictator. Most adult movies have a message that could be offensive to some but i think most people go to the movies to be entertained. Movies are reviewed in advance from which appropriateness for the viewer can usually be discerned in advance. Attendance is not mandatory.

 

Perhaps the issue here is being 'beat to death'.

[PaulS]

For those who support hate speech laws, do you think Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy should be banned under hate speech laws? In the His Dark Materials series, Philip Pullman portrays God as an evil dictator, the Catholic church is portrayed as a power-hungry organization out for world conquest that would abuse children to further their goals, and all Christians in the series are portrayed as violent fanatics. One could argue that Philip Pullman's children's book series is denigrating Christianity and many Christians tried to censor The Golden Compass film when it came out. So should the His Dark Materials series be banned then for its offensiveness towards Christianity?

 

I don't know anything about this work, but based on what you have said Neon, I don't see how it 'harms' any person. As I've mentioned a few times, there is a difference between offence and harm as far as I'm concerned.

 

As Joseph suggests, perhaps this topic has run it course. It has for me anyhow. I agree we disagree.

 

Cheers

Paul