Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2014, 06:36 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
The way I see it you can say I'm going to Hell, you just can't try to send me there
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 11:33 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 02:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(10-01-2014 01:54 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  There is a difference between "kill the Jews" and "embrace Jesus or face Hell".

Absolutely.

So.....would you think it right for the German government to step in on a new Hitler? Just asking. Does Hitler "mark 2" have a right to make public speeches?

I don't know who is in charge of making that characterization of someone as Hitler 2.0?

The line is drawn where the actual threat or a call to violence is made.

"Kill all non Christians" is over that line, but "embrace Jesus or face Hell" is not even close.
"Embrace Jesus or face Hell" is just an religious advertisement (admittedly in very poor taste) , but it's not more of a threat then some toothpaste manufacturer posting a placard saying "Brush your teeth with ****** or face caries"

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
That may not be a threat. If someone on death row accepts God into their heart, that person goes to heaven. So guess where all the murderers are. It seems the non-believers who led pretty decent lives must be in hell, according to the bible thumpers. Hell must have some pretty classy people who'd be great to spend eternity with. Albert Einstein, Christopher Hitchens, many scientists. If I'm going any place that's where I want to go. Besides, it's supposed to be warm there and I love warm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(08-01-2014 03:16 AM)PigMonkeyandFrog Wrote:  Today I saw a placard on a bike in the main public square in Melbourne Australia
It did the “embrace Jesus of face HELL type of thing “
I am for freedom of speech
I am against freedom of threat
Under the laws here it does seem this is HATE speech and I rang the city to report this
Making clear that the right to threaten others is not freedom of speech
It also encourages other threats and violence and might explain the level of violence in the USA

You do not combat bullshit like this by calling it "hate speech".

Why? Do not tell me you do not have things you like to bitch about, WE ALL DO.

Hate is a very natural and normal emotion. Just like love and jealousy.

I HATE Pat Robertson. I hate Muslims who think women are property. I hate even si fi fans who think Gene Rodenberry invented the modern cell phone.

You can hate whomever you like. It is absurd on a planet of 7 billion to expect everyone to only say nice things about each other. You do not have the freedom from being offended.

The way you combat this ignorant stupidity isn't by saying they cant say that. You simply argue that if they want to be assholes in public, you also have the right to counter their bullshit with your own protest.

If an asshole wants to put up a display condemning me to hell, let them. I'd simply put up a display next to it of a Jefferson quote like "Question with boldness the existence of a god, for if there be one surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear"

Or, "whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idol to say, as some do, that no such thing exists" Thomas Jefferson.

Muslims threaten both atheists and Christians with hell don't they?

The only reasonable common law civil society has isn't forcing people to only say nice things about each other. The only thing civil diverse humans have is banning calls to violence.

I could give one rats ass if a Muslim or Christian threatens me with hell. It would be the same to me if they threatened me with Lex Luthor. I'd only want them arrested if they act out in physical violence, no different than if my neighbor beat me up for my wallet.

"I hate muslims" is not the same as "Kill all muslims"
"I hate Jews" is not the same as "Kill all Jews"
"I hate atheists" is not the same as "kill all atheists"

If I had a nickle for every time a believer, not just Christians, threatened me with hell I'd make Bill Gates look like a wino bumb.

Hating something or someone is not a crime, otherwise if thoughts were crimes we'd all become genocidal maniacs.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2014 06:06 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
This is worth a look...

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/...-children/


I also have a blog discussing the psychological damage that can be the consequence of fundamentalist religious beliefs, including belief in hell. 1300 people have bothered to "like" it
http://www.markfulton.org/the-psychologi...ristianity
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 06:05 PM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 11:33 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(10-01-2014 02:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Absolutely.

So.....would you think it right for the German government to step in on a new Hitler? Just asking. Does Hitler "mark 2" have a right to make public speeches?

I don't know who is in charge of making that characterization of someone as Hitler 2.0?

The line is drawn where the actual threat or a call to violence is made.

"Kill all non Christians" is over that line, but "embrace Jesus or face Hell" is not even close.
"Embrace Jesus or face Hell" is just an religious advertisement (admittedly in very poor taste) , but it's not more of a threat then some toothpaste manufacturer posting a placard saying "Brush your teeth with ****** or face caries"

"The line is drawn where the actual threat or a call to violence is made."

Ok, that's a reasonable way of looking at it. Yet, that still allows fundamentalist Christian types to teach hellfire to children in school or Sunday school. What is your opinion on that?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 06:21 PM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 05:54 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 03:16 AM)PigMonkeyandFrog Wrote:  Today I saw a placard on a bike in the main public square in Melbourne Australia
It did the “embrace Jesus of face HELL type of thing “
I am for freedom of speech
I am against freedom of threat
Under the laws here it does seem this is HATE speech and I rang the city to report this
Making clear that the right to threaten others is not freedom of speech
It also encourages other threats and violence and might explain the level of violence in the USA

You do not combat bullshit like this by calling it "hate speech".

Why? Do not tell me you do not have things you like to bitch about, WE ALL DO.

Hate is a very natural and normal emotion. Just like love and jealousy.

I HATE Pat Robertson. I hate Muslims who think women are property. I hate even si fi fans who think Gene Rodenberry invented the modern cell phone.

You can hate whomever you like. It is absurd on a planet of 7 billion to expect everyone to only say nice things about each other. You do not have the freedom from being offended.

The way you combat this ignorant stupidity isn't by saying they cant say that. You simply argue that if they want to be assholes in public, you also have the right to counter their bullshit with your own protest.

If an asshole wants to put up a display condemning me to hell, let them. I'd simply put up a display next to it of a Jefferson quote like "Question with boldness the existence of a god, for if there be one surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear"

Or, "whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idol to say, as some do, that no such thing exists" Thomas Jefferson.

Muslims threaten both atheists and Christians with hell don't they?

The only reasonable common law civil society has isn't forcing people to only say nice things about each other. The only thing civil diverse humans have is banning calls to violence.

I could give one rats ass if a Muslim or Christian threatens me with hell. It would be the same to me if they threatened me with Lex Luthor. I'd only want them arrested if they act out in physical violence, no different than if my neighbor beat me up for my wallet.

"I hate muslims" is not the same as "Kill all muslims"
"I hate Jews" is not the same as "Kill all Jews"
"I hate atheists" is not the same as "kill all atheists"

If I had a nickle for every time a believer, not just Christians, threatened me with hell I'd make Bill Gates look like a wino bumb.

Hating something or someone is not a crime, otherwise if thoughts were crimes we'd all become genocidal maniacs.

Ok...this sounds reasonable. You've made the same points as a few other people.

I suppose the fundamentalist Christian waving a placard about burning in hell is probably not going to cause any serious psychological logical issues, And even if it is I suppose he or she has the right to do it.

Let's move the conversation on a little. How do we protect the vulnerable in our society from stuff like this? For example, should we allow teachers to preach hellfire to 5-year-olds?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 06:48 PM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
Sure, as long as I also maintain the right to call them a stupid cunt!

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Crulax's post
10-01-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 06:48 PM)Crulax Wrote:  Sure, as long as I also maintain the right to call them a stupid cunt!

Thank you and agreed. It is absurd to expect 7 billion humans not to say ignorant bigoted crap. The only expectation I have is don't physically harm me and don't be shocked if I call you an ignorant asshole.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 08:19 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2014 11:42 PM by Chippy.)
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 06:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You've made the same points as a few other people.

Yes because you appear to be too thick to understand the earlier expositions of the key ideas.

Quote:I suppose the fundamentalist Christian waving a placard about burning in hell is probably not going to cause any serious psychological logical issues, And even if it is I suppose he or she has the right to do it.

No, don't be half-assed in your concession. There is zero evidence that street preaching causes any psychological harm to anyone and even if there were it would be irrelevant.

Quote:Let's move the conversation on a little.

Your crypto-fascistic position has been defeated so you want to clean up the mess and move along quietly.

Quote: How do we protect the vulnerable in our society from stuff like this? For example, should we allow teachers to preach hellfire to 5-year-olds?

What you can't seem to understand through the fog of your crypto-fascist worldview is that we don't want a government bureacracy deciding what is true and proscribing any communications that it has deemed false. As Slowminded has already stated, who is it that will decide that a given person is Adolf Hitler 2.0? You?

Should Scientologists be allowed to indoctrinate their children with Hubbard's deranged ideas?

Yes unfortunately, because the consequence of giving a government bureacracy the power to decide what is true and allowing it to extend the concept of welfare to include the content of thought is much worse than the alternative.

Parents currently enjoy the privilege of raising children poorly and they always have and always will. The state can and should only intervene in cases of demonstrable physical or psychological injury. Holding false ideas does not constitute being psychologically injured.

There is nothing special about false ideas that are religious such that law is needed to prevent parents from passing them on to their children. What of parents that are conspiracy theorists and fill their childrens' heads with nonsense about the Illuminati, 9/11, Freemasons and a cabal of hook-nosed Jews that control the world? Why aren't you girding your scrawny loins to combat them also?

Parents--and by extension their parent appointed teachers--can and do what they please with their children within the boundary of demonstrable physical and/or psychological harm. That is a necessary consequence of a liberal or libertarian society. Loosening the concept of psychological harm such that it comes to encompass the content of thought--which you arbitrarily deem "bad"--is thoroughly anti-liberal and plainly fascistic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: