Hate speech

[Compassionist]

From https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/no-y ... f-context/

The Abrahamic holy books—respected and revered by billions worldwide—prescribe the killing of disbelievers (Quran 8:12-13, 47:4; Leviticus 24:16); order their adherents to fight and enslave those with differing beliefs, a la ISIS (Quran 9:29-30, Deuteronomy 20:10-18); endorse wife-beating (Quran 4:34) and the stoning to death of non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20-21); order women to quietly submit to the authority of men (1 Timothy 2:11-12); and mandate the public lashing of fornicators (Quran 24:2) and the killing of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13).

Who should really be offended here? If hate speech were really the issue, these books would be the first to go.

[Dave B]

There was an imam on the radio who said that many of these quotations are taken out of context - they were applicable when related to the events in which they were "spoken". I am sure that deep in the OT (not that that is any rational authority!) there are places where their god demands all kinds of things that would be considered illegal if modern believers used them as authority.

The usually quoted passages are "historical" accounts, in that imam's ideas, that have no meaning in the modern world. This is why he said (paraphrased) that any person that used such is not a true follower but using the book as an excuse.

It makes little difference to the events happening now I know, "justified" or not by some book written over a millennia ago the actions of the so-called fundamentalists are still barbaric. But that does not make the religion itself barbaric and many Muslims use this in support of their more liberal ideas.

I am becoming more and more convinced that, if not genetic, this is a conservative/historical/traditional/cultural problem that only education can solve. Though I wonder how many generations it will take and how many deaths. Boko Haram is the very antithesis of this idea, the actions of IS also indicate an extreme recalcitrance, a hate of anything they consider unMuslim.

[Compassionist]

There was an imam on the radio who said that many of these quotations are taken out of context - they were applicable when related to the events in which they were "spoken". I am sure that deep in the OT (not that that is any rational authority!) there are places where their god demands all kinds of things that would be considered illegal if modern believers used them as authority.

The usually quoted passages are "historical" accounts, in that imam's ideas, that have no meaning in the modern world. This is why he said (paraphrased) that any person that used such is not a true follower but using the book as an excuse.

It makes little difference to the events happening now I know, "justified" or not by some book written over a millennia ago the actions of the so-called fundamentalists are still barbaric. But that does not make the religion itself barbaric and many Muslims use this in support of their more liberal ideas.

I am becoming more and more convinced that, if not genetic, this is a conservative/historical/traditional/cultural problem that only education can solve. Though I wonder how many generations it will take and how many deaths. Boko Haram is the very antithesis of this idea, the actions of IS also indicate an extreme recalcitrance, a hate of anything they consider unMuslim.

There are nice verses and nasty verses in both the Bible and the Quran - nice followers follow the nice verses while nasty followers follow the nasty verses. Our choices reveal who we are. Sadly, we live in a reality where might is right. The good are not protected from the evil. History shows again and again that those with enough power can and do get away with any and all evil acts.

[Dave B]

Philosophically I think that holy books are weapons - the weapon itself is amoral, it is the human that misuses it who has all the guilt.

Having said that some weapons are designed only to kill other humans, a rifle can at least be used for hunting, obtaining food whereas a pistol is pretty useless at that task and intended for human targets, ecen in self-defence.

This, of course, does not solve the problem . . .

[Compassionist]

Philosophically I think that holy books are weapons - the weapon itself is amoral, it is the human that misuses it who has all the guilt.

Having said that some weapons are designed only to kill other humans, a rifle can at least be used for hunting, obtaining food whereas a pistol is pretty useless at that task and intended for human targets, ecen in self-defence.

This, of course, does not solve the problem . . .

That's true.

[Alan H]

Street preacher fined for using “abusive” language after quoting Leviticus

[Compassionist]

Street preacher fined for using “abusive” language after quoting Leviticus

Thanks for posting. I have heard such sermons in churches. Religious delusions produce self-rightious blind spots which causes people to fail to see the harm they are causing to others.

[animist]

Street preacher fined for using “abusive” language after quoting Leviticus

must admit I have to laugh a bit when reading stuff like this. "Homophobia" and "Islamophobia" - two PC words which minify incredibly the loathesomeness of the Abrahamic religions. What gets me talking this way is that any fundie, Xian or Muslim, inevitably gives out hate speech aimed at virtually the entire population of the planet, past and present, not just homosexuals or competing interpreters of the Abrahamic books. As David Cameron would say, we're all in it together! But I bet that this preacher, if he had just condemned the whole class of non-believers as deserving of eternal punishment rather than focusing on gays or Muslims, would not have been prosecuted - strange.

What actually is hate speech? Is it just "I hate you" or does it include "God will punish you (and I love God)"? Could bankers claim to be the victims of hate speech?

[Tetenterre]

If the Huff is to be believed, across the pond we have the bigoted Matt Mclaughlin's Sodomite Suppression Act. He wants to make it legal to kill gay men .

[Ron Webb]

The judge in Alan H's link referenced Leviticus 20:13, which I think provides a good illustration of (what I regard as) hate speech: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

For some reason the judge specifically pulled out the word "abomination". I don't think that is hate speech. (I think rap music is an abomination too. Should I be arrested for that?)

However, the verse then goes on to say that "they shall surely be put to death", which is a clear incitement to violence and should be illegal.

If the Bible or the Quran were new books just published, I would agree that they ought to be banned. However, we can't rewrite history, nor can we ban books which are inextricably intertwined with our culture, for better or for worse. The books will remain extant as historical documents, and that's as it should be.

On the other hand, I believe that when people quote words the words of others, they need to take responsibility for them. IMHO saying that gays should be killed is equally offensive and equally dangerous, whether they are your own words or a quote from scripture or some other source. Unless the quote is immediately followed by a disclaimer saying you personally disagree with it (and even then you're on shaky ground IMHO), it is hate speech and should be illegal.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[Ron Webb]

If the Huff is to be believed, across the pond we have the bigoted Matt Mclaughlin's Sodomite Suppression Act. He wants to make it legal to kill gay men .

Snopes says it's "partly true". It's true that McLaughlin (may Allah be enraged with him) has proposed a law to make homosexuality punishable with the death penalty in California. It is not true that the Act has even made its way onto a ballot initiative, let alone having a hope in Hades of becoming law for various reasons.

[Tetenterre]

<snip> It is not true that the Act has even made its way onto a ballot initiative, let alone having a hope in Hades of becoming law for various reasons.

Indeed. Hence my "He wants to make it legal". The point was that there are still people who "think" hatefully like McLaughlin does.

[Altfish]

Street preacher fined for using “abusive” language after quoting Leviticus

I think this is a dangerous decision by the judge, it is reducing Free Speech. What the street preacher said was hurtful nonsense but he has a right to say it. Other people should debunk his preaching with arguments and reason.

[thundril]

+1

[Ron Webb]

I think this is a dangerous decision by the judge, it is reducing Free Speech. What the street preacher said was hurtful nonsense but he has a right to say it. Other people should debunk his preaching with arguments and reason.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. If the preacher was urging his listeners to kill innocent people, then he ought not to be free to say such things.

Do we know what he was actually saying? Was it just "hurtful nonsense", or was he endangering others?

[Altfish]

I think this is a dangerous decision by the judge, it is reducing Free Speech. What the street preacher said was hurtful nonsense but he has a right to say it. Other people should debunk his preaching with arguments and reason.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. If the preacher was urging his listeners to kill innocent people, then he ought not to be free to say such things.

Do we know what he was actually saying? Was it just "hurtful nonsense", or was he endangering others?

As I understand it he was NOT inciting others. As you say though, if he was it is a different matter and I suspect the £250 fine would have been larger.

[Dave B]

Part of the problem is that different people react in different ways.

If a preacher merely quotes the bible on something with death as a punishment - and does not negate the meaning of the text in some way - and there is, unfortunately, a fundamentalist, or psychiatric case, in the audience who takes them literally . . .

Is the preacher to blame, in any way, for inciting any action taken by another? I would say that merely quoting the passage, without modifying comment, is very dodgy.

[Ron Webb]

As I understand it he was NOT inciting others. As you say though, if he was it is a different matter and I suspect the £250 fine would have been larger.

I think the only thing we know for sure is that he quoted Leviticus 20:13, which does advocate killing gays.

Let's turn it around. Suppose you lived in Egypt, and heard a preacher there quoting the Quran, saying "kill the unbelievers [i.e., secular humanists] wherever you find them." Would you feel threatened by that? Is it fair comment, or incitement to violence? Depends on what else he says, right? But as Dave B put it below, it's certainly "dodgy".

Part of the problem is that different people react in different ways.

That's right. Making inflammatory remarks in a public forum is like tossing lit matches around, blindfolded. Sure, you can blame the guy who left a gasoline-soaked rag on the sidewalk ("pavement" in Britspeak? ), but it's still a reckless thing to be doing.

Is the preacher to blame, in any way, for inciting any action taken by another? I would say that merely quoting the passage, without modifying comment, is very dodgy.

I suspect that the plaintiff couldn't quote the context verbatim either, in which case even the judge wouldn't have had evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a crime had been committed. I also suspect that the defendant could have got off if he hadn't antagonized the judge.

But who knows? Not enough information...

[Compassionist]

If the Huff is to be believed, across the pond we have the bigoted Matt Mclaughlin's Sodomite Suppression Act. He wants to make it legal to kill gay men .

Snopes says it's "partly true". It's true that McLaughlin (may Allah be enraged with him) has proposed a law to make homosexuality punishable with the death penalty in California. It is not true that the Act has even made its way onto a ballot initiative, let alone having a hope in Hades of becoming law for various reasons.

[Altfish]

As I understand it he was NOT inciting others. As you say though, if he was it is a different matter and I suspect the £250 fine would have been larger.

I think the only thing we know for sure is that he quoted Leviticus 20:13, which does advocate killing gays.

Let's turn it around. Suppose you lived in Egypt, and heard a preacher there quoting the Quran, saying "kill the unbelievers [i.e., secular humanists] wherever you find them." Would you feel threatened by that? Is it fair comment, or incitement to violence? Depends on what else he says, right? But as Dave B put it below, it's certainly "dodgy".

As I understand it, he was NOT inciting others to kill gays. He was quoting scriptures, in his mind to justify his views and bigotry. Are you saying that the Bible should be banned?
I believe we are on a very slippery slope if this sort of preaching leads to a court case and a fine. People should be able to express their views openly, then we know who they are and we can keep an eye on them, we can argue with them and hopefully expose their bigotry. If we have these sort of prosecutions, these people go underground and become more sinister and dangerous.