Insulting Muhammad is not hate speech

[Kurska]

Nor is it a license to butcher and murder journalists. There is no equivalence between these actions either. No sane or decent human being should use one to excuse or "explain" the other. The only people who would attack and murder unarmed men and women for insulting a historical figure from 1400 years ago is a madman and nothing else.

Even if they had published hate speech. Even if they had outright stated "all Muslims are dirty flithy animals" it would not go one iota further towards excusing what the world witnessed today. There is still no equivalence between speech, even deeply offensive hate speech and outright bloody murder with assault rifles. There is no excusing the latter with the former. Ever.

This a concept DU seems to be struggling mightily with today.

[uppityperson]

1. how and what the insult is, it could be hate speech. but not a license to murder.

[Xithras]

8. I can't think of any insult against Mohammed that would qualify as hate speech.

The guy is dead. Kinda hard to incite violence against him.

Mohammed was a pedophile <-- Opinion about a dead guy. Not hate speech.
Muslims should be sent to work camps. <-- Hate speech. Incites violence or hatred toward a living group.

The fact that someone is offended by something doesn't make it hate speech.

[uppityperson]

12. take any hate lingo and substitute words about M and followers and viola. Problem is

not simply insulting M but insulting the religion and all who are Muslim.

[uppityperson]

73. Edited to say thank you for self deleting.

Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I wrote an initial and you feel the need to curse me out? Shame on you for your language and assumptions. The worst and best of DU is being posted today.

[uppityperson]

79. trying to write more on the thread title, I used an initial and you go off on me

"What the ever living fuck"
!?!?!?

Yes. I used an initial!?!?!?! Seriously!!!!!

[NewDeal_Dem]

108. Maybe he just didn't want to write the whole word. Your response is all out of proportion to

the supposed 'crime'.

[uppityperson]

88. jcoath, excuse me for using an initial in a title

I will go self flagellate

[CanonRay]

150. Why are Muslims beyond criticism?

So apparently I can say I don't believe in historical Jesus, but I can't say a bad word about Mohammed? Give me a break. I won't legitimize their illogical and often silly beliefs.

[uppityperson]

167. Where did I say any of what you say I did? Reading comprehension failure on your part.

It is possible to have hate speech against Islam. THAT is what I was saying, not "can't say a bad word about Mohammed" or "don't criticize Muslims".

[Violet_Crumble]

17. But isn't all hate speech opinion?

What defines hate speech is that it's meant to incite hatred and fear against a minority. While because oF the use by extremists of the Mohammed was a pedophile line, it would come close, I don't think images of Mohammed are. My understanding is it's not offensive to anyone but the most fundy types. If it was offensive to most Muslims I'd consider it the same way as I do a similar thing about not naming or showing images of deceased aboriginals which is its a cultural thing that doesnt offend me but does others so I don't do it.

[Xithras]

22. Mohammed WAS a pedophile with mental problems.

I'll say it all day long. The guy stuck his dick into a 9 year old girl. People can couch that in whatever religious dogma bullshit they want, but it doesn't change the fact that a 53 year old man shoved his dick into an 9 year old child.

The argument that it's hate speech has no validity because the fact that Mohammed was a pedophile has no bearing on todays Muslims beyond the offense that they might take to the idea. I'm not suggesting that Muslims are pedophiles. I'm not suggesting that Muslims are inferior. I do believe that Muslims, like all religious people, are duped by a false religion, but that fairly part and parcel to NOT BEING A BELIEVER. I don't hate Muslims, and I don't want anyone else to hate Muslims. I simply think that people should recognize that these religions were founded by people with "tenuous" connections to the reality that you and I enjoy.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, tossed rocks into a hat, stuck his face to the brim, and claimed that he could read magical writing that nobody else could see. Is it hate speech to suggest that it's MORE likely that his visions were more likely the result of mental problems, if not outright fraud? No, because there's a world of difference between saying, "Joseph Smith was a nut" and saying "All Mormons have mental problems."

Hate speech is speech that is intended to vilify the LIVING.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I'm not religious but I'm betting there's pedophiles in the bible as well

I'm like so what? Both the bible and the Koran are full of bad shit and fairy tales that put in today's context stink. Like you I don't judge religious folk as being guilty of that stuff but unfortunately there are folk that do.

I disagree with you that hate speech is only limited to the living. An obvious example is Holocaust denial, where the attacks on the dead are used as a broadbrush smear on both them and survivors who are labelled as liars. It's the intent to incite hatred that makes something hate speech and whether individuals used in it are living or dead is kind of irrelevant.

[MrMickeysMom]

33. You don't have to be religious to know about the pedophiles protected by the papacy...

Lots of priests sticking their dicks into little boys and girls… Until Francis, swept under the white flowing rugs adorned by all that gold.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. "I'm betting there's pedophiles in the bible as well"

Why would you make an assumption like that?

There are polygamists but none of those relationships are functional.

[jberryhill]

53. How old was the Virgin Mary?

The Bible does not give an age, but some Christian traditions peg her as jailbait when impregnated by the Christian God.

So who needs a pedo prophet when the deity already is one.

[AgingAmerican]

59. Lot empregnated his daughters

After fleeing Sodom and Gomorrah.

Mary wasn't a virgin when she gave birth, that part was added later by the Catholics. The bible was pretty debaucherous.

[jberryhill]

63. I'm talking about common traditions, not the text

Nonetheless, it was a rape.

[AgingAmerican]

175. Yeah, back then

And into the 1900s, girls married at puberty.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. That wasn't a sexual act.

[jberryhill]

182. I thought "sex" had something to do with how organisms reproduce...

...and that if it is a single organism dividing or propagating, then it is asexual reproduction; while if it requires two organisms, it is sexual reproduction.

I'm not a biologist or a theologian, but I did use the word "impregnate". If I artificially inseminate a teenage girl absent a sexual act, I don't know if that would specifically be a sexual offense, but I'm sure it wouldn't win me any awards.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

189. We're talking about the Creator of the universe who spoke the world and all creatures into being.

If he could do that once why assume insemination?

Moreover, it still wouldn't compare to the marriage of Aiasha, which was a matter of sexual gratification

[jberryhill]

55. So was Jehovah

Impregnating a teenage virgin without her consent is one of his celebrated miracles.

[MFrohike]

70. Sure, as long as you don't count the Annunciation

If you're going to denounce the Bible, it does help to get the story right.

[jberryhill]

72. The Bible didn't make her underage - Christians did

I'll go deliver the news to a 16 year old girl that she's having my baby.

But I'm a righteous kind of guy. If I hear a voice telling me to kill an eight day old baby, I'll go sharpen a knife.

[MFrohike]

76. Oh?

I notice you skipped right over the fact you were dead wrong about a lack of consent.

The underage argument is just ridiculous. Mary was 15. She'd be of age in today's Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. She'd also be of age in Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, and Spain. That's just Europe!


Again, if you're going to try to make an argument, it helps to actually know the story.

[jberryhill]

87. Okay, so let's close the loop on this

Whether or not someone is a "pedophile" is, in your mind, defined by the law in the jurisdiction in question.

If, for example, you can have sex with a 15 year old in Croatia in 2015, then it was okay for God to do so in Judaea in 5 BCE or thereabouts.

So, returning to "Muhammad was a pedophile" can you please cite the applicable statute from that jurisdiction?

Because, try as I might, I can't find the Bible verse relevant to age of consent. This is kind of odd, given of course that the Bible assumes sex should be consensual (except of course when one rapes a woman but then makes it good by paying her father the bride price and taking her as a wife).

[MFrohike]

98. Yeesh

Given all you've gotten wrong so far, you shouldn't go for smug.

The age of consent bit is because of your insistence that Mary was underage. You seem to be basing that on modern standards, which largely do not conform to your definition. Whether those standards are right or wrong, you tried judging the story of Christ's conception through the lens of the present. The problem was that the lens doesn't fit. If you're going to condemn that story, try using actual evidence.

We never discussed Muhammad. I have no idea what the prevailing customs were in the 620s and 630s. I figured you would know since you're the self-professed legal scholar of sex laws.

Trotting out the consent bit doesn't make you look smart. You could bother to read the story of the Annunciation, so you wouldn't make mistakes like that. When you don't bother to inform yourself on something like this, it looks less like a reasoned position and a lot more like irrational bigotry.

Biblical age of consent? Haha. I don't doubt you can't find it since you haven't tried to look! You should try harder next time to move the goal posts. It might actually work with someone else.

[jberryhill]

99. You do understand the point of "age of consent" laws, yes?

Your point seems to be that whether a person can validly consent to being impregnated is dependent on whether they consent to it. Since Mary consented, then her age is not relevant.

However, you have inspired me to re-read Luke 1:26 et seq. again as, having been raised Protestant, the Annuciation per se is not that big a deal. In summary, Gabriel shows up and says "Here's what is going to happen." There is no "Is this okay with you?" to it.

So, maybe manners are different in your part of the country than mine, but I think if I sent a buddy over to some girl to tell her "Hey, my boss, who is very influential, is going to make you pregnant", I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be taken as obtaining consent.

It is called the "Annunciation" and not the "Proposition" for a reason. Gabriel announces to her what is going to happen. It is a done deal, a fait accompli, before the chick gets a word in edgewise in the discussion.

[MFrohike]

104. heh

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Why hey there, whatever could that be? You should really try reading further next time, it might help

Man, the age of consent thing was a goof. I brought it up to make you realize just how silly your e-lawyering looks when compared to actual facts. I didn't realize you'd double down on it. That was my mistake. Since it was my mistake, I'll give you a very quick answer. Age of consent laws deal with penetration.* Since there was no penetration in this case, your entire rant about Mary being underage is completely irrelevant. You did know that, right? See, maybe they don't teach it in e-law school, but for a charge to stick, there has to be a real foundation in the law. It's asinine to even have to mention all this, because, like I said, it was a goof.

Now, I get that you're going to try to double down on this and continue to prove that you have a point. Save your time. We're done here. There's no clever points left to be made, no more goalposts to move, and no more jokes to be missed. Have a nice day.

*Generally speaking, they deal with penetration. It actually depends on how the particular law in question defines the particular act that is prohibited. It's simpler to use penetration as a shorthand, rather than prohibited practice, but I wanted to make this clear so that there's no misunderstanding. In short, the issue is the particular practices that may be prohibited by law due to age.

[NewDeal_Dem]

113. joseph smith also married a 14 year old.

insulting long-dead religious leaders is intended to insult living adherents of the religion.

and I doubt you actually know how old anyone was whom mohammed "shoved his dick into" as there's no solid history there.

“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time.

Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be.

This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call.

All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation.

Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” [4]


2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” [6]

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.


http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

[bravenak]

157. Bull.

Joseph Smith was a convicted con man who defrauded people. Period.

[NewDeal_Dem]

159. He was more than that. He married a 14 year old.

In 1843 Apostle Heber C. Kimball had an important talk with his only daughter, fourteen-year-old Helen Mar. She wrote: “Without any preliminaries [my Father] asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives...The first impulse was anger...my sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure; for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, ‘No I wouldn’t!’...

Then father “asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph...[and] left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours...I was sceptical-one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions.” Unknown to Helen Mar, Heber and Joseph had already discussed the prospect of Helen Mar becoming one of Joseph’s wives. Heber now sought her agreement. Helen recalls, “Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the altar”

by HELEN MAR KIMBALL

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-HelenMarKimball.htm


Mormon Church Admits For First Time That Founder Joseph Smith Had A 14-Year-Old Bride

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/mormon-joseph-smith-teen-bride_n_6054272.html

[bravenak]

164. And he married other people's wives.

[NewDeal_Dem]

168. and a 14 year old virgin who didn't want to marry him -- and it's modern history, not more

than 1000 years ago.

predictably, however, the outrage is about the 1000 year old somewhat dubious history.

[bravenak]

169. I know.

I concentrate my derision on L. Ron Hubbard.

[VScott]

2. EVEN if it was...

it should still be protected and allowed.

[DavidDvorkin]

50. Right

Speech is not action. Speech must be protected.

[Shoulders of Giants]

3. Correct

And by modern morality, Mohammad would be despicable for marrying a child.

[SunSeeker]

4. Exactly right. nt

[FreakinDJ]

5. Hate Speech is all around us every day

It does not provide a license to murder at will

[cwydro]

6. Agree. nt

[CrawlingChaos]

7. Take a look at the cartoons

They are very reminiscent of hateful propaganda against other groups from particularly ugly chapters in human history.

And I have not seen one person on this forum claim they are justification for murder.

[Kurska]

9. I have

They are frankly middle and timid compared to depictions I've seen of Jewish and Christan holy figures and followers (while being on par with the magazines own depictions of such individuals).

And as I Jew, I want to make this perfectly clear, I have avoided the inpluse to murder the cartoonist behind any of them.

[CrawlingChaos]

15. Then I assume you have not seen the worst of them

Check out the "Innocence of Muslims" cartoons and tell me that's "timid". These cartoons are demeaning and dehumanizing by any reasonable standard. If you find them acceptable then I strongly suggest you reexamine your double-standard.

And once again, NO ONE has said they are justification for murder. That is a manufactured issue.

[Kurska]

16. What double standard do you seem to think I have?

If someone wanted to make a movie about moses raping and murdering his way across the Sinai peninsula, I would find it offensive. I wouldn't think it was unacceptable for society.

I would accept that it is just something that we have to allow in the name of freedom of expression.

I wouldn't murder anyone over it, because I am not a god damn psychopath.

[CrawlingChaos]

23. You're attempting to frame this to suit your specious argument

If you saw a leering, grotesque caricature of a Jew engaged in demeaning acts, I tend to think you would condemn it. And you should.

And again with that strawman about justifying murder, when NO ONE has said that? Will you admit that not one person on this forum has claimed the murders were anything less than heinous?

[Kurska]

28. You mean like this?

Nope not condemning it. It is bloody satire used to demonstrate a point. I don't think it represents all Jews anymore than I think the pope/bishop there represents all Christians.

I can understand this, because I think religions are open to criticism and ought to be criticized.

[CrawlingChaos]

60. No, not like that

I can't even paste the worst of the anti-Muslim cartoons here - they would be hidden, I'm sure.

If this was as far as the Charlie Hebdo cartoons went, I doubt there would have been any reaction from Muslims at all.

[joeglow3]

39. Does it have their prophet in elephant shit or in a jar of piss?

[CrawlingChaos]

61. I am not shocked by "shocking" art

I'm an artist who has participated in dozens of exhibits, and attended countless museum and gallery shows. I've seen every gross thing you can imagine involving every kind of bodily fluid and substance.

Context is huge. "Piss Christ" is not neatly analogous to grotesque caricatures of a specific group in a weekly publication.

[joeglow3]

66. So, there would not have been outrage if Muhammed was substituted in this "art"?

[Nye Bevan]

145. Oh, I'm sure immersing the Koran or an image of Muhammed in urine would have been just fine,

and caused no controversy whatsoever.

[jberryhill]

64. That wasn't even the point of the work

Do Christians still drink blood?

[joeglow3]

65. Do you think they do?

[jberryhill]

69. They do it whenever I check in on them, yes?

I travel internationally a lot, and have gotten into the habit of using weekends to do touring. Consequently, Sundays often find me in cathedrals when I am on business trips.

I've been to mass at Notre Dame, Il Duomo, The Sacre Couer, and at the basilica housing the Shroud of Turin.

I am not a believer, but do tend to end up at these culturally important places on Sundays.

Now maybe it's just a coincidence, but every time I have been in one of these places, a man professes to be drinking blood out of a big chalice. I'm not there to argue, so I take him at his word.

[joeglow3]

80. So you truly believe he is drinking blood.

Good to know.

[jberryhill]

84. Is the doctrine of transubstantion no longer a thing?

He says "This is the body of Christ which is broken for you."

I don't sit on the outside and shout "liar".

It has been some time since I last checked, have Protestants won the argument with Catholics on the Doctrine of Transubstantion or not? Honestly, you tell me.

[joeglow3]

85. I asked you your opinion and you said you believe it is blood

I know Catholics believe it is blood, but wanted your opinion.

[jberryhill]

90. Okay, so the Christians believe they are drinking blood then

I have not obtained nor have I tested a sample. It has consistently looked like Chianti to me when he pours it in there. But then he covers it up, waves his hands and a bell rings.

I saw an act like that in Vegas once. But it was an empty cage and a tiger instead of an empty cup and blood. It sure looked like a tiger showed up in that cage.

But, I'm there as a tourist, and out of basic civility don't go making a nuisance of myself at these kinds of places. They say they are drinking blood. Okay, so if that's what makes them happy, I'm not there to argue.

[MADem]

183. They do? I thought they believed it was a nice Cabernet, supposed to "symbolize" or something..? nt

[treestar]

46. You'd have to link that

No one said it was justification for murder. You're trying to head off discussion of the content by making that straw man.

[uppityperson]

14. yup and yup. thank you.

[YoungDemCA]

162. +1000

[SidDithers]

10. DU rec...

Tim Minchin does a great bit about what is sacred:

Warning - contains language that grown-ups use, and is not reverential of religion.

Sid

[MohRokTah]

20. Brilliant

Shared on Facebook.

[F4lconF16]

62. He does some really good stuff.

Mildly amusing when believers listen to him and I liked the story thing he did about a dinner with a woo enthusiast.

[closeupready]

11. So then Charlie Hebdo, itself, is politically correct.

As in Maurice Sinet's termination (in 2008) from Charlie Hebdo for "inciting racial hatred" by merely implying that Sarkozy's son was becoming Jewish.

No?

[NewDeal_Dem]

161. not so much fuss over that one, indeed.

[closeupready]

172. Yes - I've posted that question three times; accused others of double standards twice.

Yet, someone asks, ' you keep saying double standards, why?' and my question about Maurice Sinet remains unaddressed. Oh, well, just another day here on this 'progressive' board, lol.

[NewDeal_Dem]

177. inconvenient truth

[Kurska]

181. Here I'll answer it.

That was a bigoted statement directed at individual person not a religion.

I personally love how now there appears to be anti-charlie hebdo talking points starting to float around. This continued desire to do anything possible to attack the victims of terror is truly amazing.

[MohRokTah]

13. Worshippers of Jesus are actually worshipping Loki's penis.

They fail to recognize Odin as their savior, so they're really worshipping Loki's penis.

I was actually threatened with death by members of the Phineas Priesthood over that satirical statment on an AOL message board in the 90's. The FBI was brought into the situation at the time.

Religious nutters have thin skins.

[Scootaloo]

18. Here, let me show you something Kurska...

according to you, this is not hate speech:


However, with the application of two strokes of photoshop's clone stamp tool and a one-pixel brush, we can transform it into something every DU'er would instantly recognize as hate speech, and rightly denounce as such:


So the question isn't whether Charlie Hebro published hate speech. They absolutely did, it's not a question.

So then is killing them okay? Nope. and despite your blatant lie to the contrary, no one on DU has said otherwise.

The only DU'ers struggling with concepts seems to be you and your cohort who are, even still, struggling with the reality that hatred of Muslims is not a progressive virtue.

[Mass]

19. Only one problem, the drawing you posted is contextual and about the killings by the military

government in Egypt.

The top title says "killing in Egypt".

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[JI7]

26. the al sisi govt against muslim brotherhood ?

[Mass]

29. Yes. It is fuzzy on the picture, but says " tueries in Egypte".

This is the problem when you judge something without understanding, and so distressing to see these types of rash judgements on DU.

Charlie Hebdo is very anti-religious (as are many French people in general), but they are equal opportunity haters (think Maher).

[Kurska]

21. Calling the Torah or Quran shit isn't hate speech.

You can hate Islam all day. Just like you can hate Juadism all you want and you can hate Christianity all you want.

Hate speech is directed at people, individuals of a particular faith. Not their symbols, texts or prophets. That is blasphemy and blasphemy ought to be protected.

Oh and that image isn't directed against all Muslims nor does it depict a French Muslim. It is related to the fundamentalist reactions against the government in Egypt.

So yes, this is a concept you are still clearly struggling with.

[closeupready]

24. You have such an obvious double standard.

Nobody here should take you seriously at all.

[Kurska]

25. What is my double standard?

I've been accused twice of having a double standard.

Accusations aren't automatically true, just because you keep saying them over and over.

What religion do you think I hold uncriticizable?

[Mass]

35. It would be interesting to see, but I would not hope an answer.

Attacking without understanding the context is easy and the total lack of understanding of the French culture vs religions in general has been a tradition on DU.

[Kurska]

42. Okay I must confess

I'm a militant Zoroastrianist.

If that had been a cartoon about big daddy Z. I'd be down there tomorrow with my Kalashnikov.



Or ya know, I just believe in freedom of speech. Unpossible I know.

[MADem]

49. I don't think Zoroastrians, who are a persecuted minority in Iran, would appreciate

your flippancy with regard to their faith, either. Sure, you have the "right" to snark about them, but I'm sure they -- like I --might wonder why you feel a NEED to do so?

[Kurska]

51. "why you feel a NEED to do so? "

Clearly I'm a massive Zoroastrianphobe.



Please point out where I actually said anything negative about Zoroastrians.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. You literally can't say anything while mentioning any religion without trampling on someone's delicate feelings.

[MADem]

58. You got the name of the faith wrong, and you called their founder "Big Daddy Z."

You trivialized and marginalized them, using them as a vehicle to prove how "liberal" you are with regard to your views about varying religions, but in actual fact you came off as insulting and intolerant.

What did they ever do to you that you feel a need to mock their beliefs and their founder? Because plainly, you did feel a need--otherwise you wouldn't have singled them out, and then doubled down by insisting that you weren't snarking about them, when you were?

They are one of the more persecuted faiths on the planet, so it's kind of interesting that you'd pick them instead of, say, Jews, or Episcopalians, or Lutherans or even practitioners of Obeah or Santeria...I suppose the odds of anyone from the Zoroastrian faith popping up on this board is small, so it's easier to pick on them.

Delicate feelings? Really? Is that the "progressive attitude" DU is so well known for showing itself in your post?

There is a lot of sensitivity and outrage today as a consequence of the utter HORROR that happened in Paris. You'd think the "sensitive" thing to do would be to be cognizant of the tender feelings surrounding this sad event, rather than stomping your foot and demanding your "right" to trample on people's "delicate feelings."

Your bellicose attitude says so much about you and it's not terribly recommending, frankly.

[Kurska]

78. You know what I'll be honest

Whatever religion, faith or text you hold sacred means nothing more to me than any book on history does. It has no more value than any book on philosophy or architecture or gardening. People going through their lives expressing incredible umbrage at the fact that someone would dare treat their religion as a source of humor is exactly what caused this mess. Treat it like ya know, the way we treat every other concept or idea on the planet .

So I refuse to sit here and be lectured by someone advocating that I'm not allowed to be flippant about religions. I don't hold bigotry against anyone for their religion. I wouldn't treat someone differently because they are part of one faith or another. That doesn't mean that their beliefs, whatever they are, get special privilege I wouldn't afford any other topic on this planet. One can clench this fist and pound their feed or shoot up a room full of innocent journalists. It won't get you an inch closer in my book to the type of instant reverence that religious people seem to demand these days as some kind of birth right. I can most certainly sympathize with the suffering of oppressed religious minorities, but I will not bow to this idea that this status elevates their beliefs above criticism (which I empathize I never even leveled at them in my post). If that is the level of respect you demand I show all religions, you're going to be very disappointed with the end result.

Does that offend you?

Well then I refer you to Stephen Fry's brillant quote on the matter

"It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so ****ing what?"

[MADem]

184. This is not grammar school.

You can be "flippant" all you'd like, if that floats your boat. You should understand, though, that your thoughtless flippancy might not be taken too well by people who have a personal investment in the thing you are mocking.

And my point stands--it's very easy to mock and deride a group that has few voices, it's alot tougher to get in the faces of people with a large constituency, a big lobby and deep pockets.

Trying to flip the script from your commentaries to what "offends" me isn't on, and we're not going there. What offends ME is unimportant to this conversation--what we're talking about here is something else entirely.

You've got every right to indulge in rude or unkind or even hate speech--those things are protected in America. Hate "speech" is not a crime in America, though it might be in other nations. But just because we have the right to do things doesn't mean that we have to go out of our way to take the opportunity to offend, just because we can.

[Kurska]

185. I refuse to treat religion as is if has to be dealt with as if it is a delicate flower.

Religious people can have their religion treated like every other topic on the planet or they can pound sand.

The hyperbole never ends. How on earth did I deride them? What negative thing did I say about them? Again, it is clear the standard is you need to treat their religion as holy as they do or you are being "disrespectful".

[MADem]

186. Yes, yes, of course, everyone understands that you have the "right" to

stomp on the flowerbed and kick the heads off the daisies. Everyone "gets" that this is your prerogative. The one engaging in hyperbole, though, is you. I already told you how your remarks could be seen as unkind and insensitive. You don't want to acknowledge that, because your "rights" are the most important thing to your mind, and being unnecessarily unkind is less important, plainly.

The fact that you feel you MUST exercise those "rights" of yours, though, with your refusals and sand pounding, tough talk and huffing and puffing, even at times when restraint is probably a better option, is certainly a character study.

Do carry on, though! No one is stopping you--knock yourself out! It's all about your feelings!

[Kurska]

187. People were just murdered for engaging in that right.

I feel every deep obligation to practice it.

So I repeat, go pound sand if you find that offensive.

[MADem]

188. I don't think you can compare your snarky little comments to their work in any way, shape or form.

Mouthing off on an internet message board is not a risky venture for you at all--you are safe at home, behind your keyboard. Your comments are not in response to any political upheavals involving the followers of that small and obscure religion you gratiutiously mocked. Nor do your comments express much if any awareness or understanding of the issues affecting the followers of that faith. Again, you have the right to snark at Zoroastrians and "Big Daddy Z," but I think you're entirely safe from retribution by gun toters shrieking "Thus Spake Zarathustra" as they unleash their weapons. Rest easy, tough guy!

But hey, you showed THEM!


Don't wear out that "Go pound sand" comment--it doesn't sting in the way you perhaps hope.

It does serve to vividly illustrate your capability for argument, though!

[Dr. Strange]

155. "Double standard"

You keep using that phrase...

[uppityperson]

31. self deleted, you aren't worth it. nt

[Kurska]

32. Oh come on don't hold back

Tell me what you really think of me

[joeglow3]

44. But putting a crucifix in piss or shit is art, right?

[Warren Stupidity]

143. yes it is.

It actually is quite beautiful.

[joeglow3]

149. Yeah, it is not a scream for relevancy and attention at all.

Just like the Virgin Mary covered in dung isn't. Why don't these "artistic" people substitute the Koran or Muhammad instead?

[NewDeal_Dem]

163. Because they're american and live in a majority christian country?

[joeglow3]

173. Exactly. It is a cry for attention and not an expression of anything.

[NewDeal_Dem]

174. I'd say it's a way of making their 'art' stand out from the pack. and given there are

rich people into promoting atheism, voila.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Decried but no response of mass murder, so no hypocrisy.

[Solindsey]

34. Charlie's next risque Holocaust Cover

"Satire" the hell out of that one.

Oh wait, they never will. There are some lines that could - but - shouldn't be crossed by anyone with the an ounce of sense and moral decency. Hate speech? Mocking/Satirizing the Holocaust for example, would incite a very raw memory that is not totally banished to history and its imprint is still very much felt by many. But who cares? Free Speech! It's disgusting Speech that should be denounced for what it is: Hateful Propaganda that fuels the extremist both violent and non-violent.

[Bonx]

43. So don't read or buy it.

Problem solved.

[Solindsey]

47. Other people will.

Propaganda spreads, whether I buy or not.

I'm sure those nice peaceful Jews who went about their day didn't buy those leaflets or newspapers with those vile cartoons and depictions that reflected the air of anti-semitism all around. It's not like these anti-Islam cartoons just happened out of nowhere and their impact not clearly felt by those they aim to demonize and those they aim to raise up and validate. The National Front is probably buying a shitload of copies as we speak.

[Bonx]

48. So the cartoons should be illegal ?

[Solindsey]

52. It's Hate Speech and Anti-Islam Propaganda

Exactly what this OP is claiming otherwise.

The increase in hate crimes against Muslims is not a big ol' coincidence either. There are people who live in fear in a way that is errily reminiscent. Add the fact there are a lot of really dumb people out there who can't seem to work their brain beyond single digit IQs, believing the shit they read isn't that hard. Propaganda is powerful. Speech without a fucking point is meaningless and that's what these cartoons are demonstrating perfectly.

[Bonx]

57. I get that you think that, but, should the cartoons be illegal ?

[NewDeal_Dem]

166. "The increase in hate crimes against Muslims is not a big ol' coincidence either."

No, it's not, & there are historical precedents for that as well.

[NewDeal_Dem]

165. +100

[kelly1mm]

36. Let's assume it was hate speech. So what? Hate speech is protected speech. (in the US)nt

[msongs]

38. dead people and religions can't be insulted nt

[treestar]

40. I don't agree that anyone is saying or thinking that

It's becoming a straw man here.

It isn't NOT hate speech just because they were killed. No one says they can be killed for it, but now that we've heard about it (and likely without this attack, no one here would be talking about the magazine itself) I don't think it's fair we have to agree with what they published - we can still question whether it is hate speech or not. It may or may not rise to that level, but it can be discussed. It's people who don't want to have that discussion who inflame into an accusation that questioning the cartoons mean you think it's OK they were murdered.

[TorchTheWitch]

54. I'm interested to know why every cartoon of a guy in a turban

with a beard is considered to be Mohammad rather than a cartoon of a Middle Eastern man who is likely a Muslim just like their cartoons of a Hasidic Jew, the Pope or bishop or priest or some guy in a dress wearing a big cross on a chain around his neck.

Charlie is an staunch atheist magazine that uses ugly cartoons of regular people recognizable as believers of certain religions to try to tear them down because they themselves believe any belief in any god or some sort of higher being is stupid/crazy. It's no different than religious persons tearing down atheists which we have long since considered to be hate speech.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that their pictures of people of recognizable religions is a form of hatred to people that believe in those faiths. No, they don't mean Mohammad or the Pope or a Hasidic Jew they're just the most obvious way to get across in a cartoon which particular faith they're hating on. How else does one depict a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim than by using the characterizations that they do?

For heaven's sake, of course it's hate speech, and hate speech against people of certain religious beliefs isn't tolerated in this country or other civilized countries. Somehow they get away with it by calling it satire. Anything can be called satire apparently. I suppose Westborough Baptist Church can wave signs saying "God Hates Fags" and call it satire or someone spray painting "Fuck Jews" on a wall can call it satire as well. It's straight up hate speech of atheists toward people that identify with any religious beliefs... much like we see right here fairly regularly from atheists toward people that identify with any religious beliefs.

How very different this conversation would be if they were white supremacists publishing a magazine depicting people of certain races the same way they do of people of certain religious beliefs and labeling it satire.

[freshwest]

102. Comment on your last paragraph. Religion is a choice, gender and race are not.

So these are arguments about the freedom to believe, not the liberty to be free in one's own body from oppression.

I feel that classifying such things as religion, politics and other mental activities as choices is a liberating thing. But they are not the same as what we are born, in which we had no choice.

And people often demean others' dreams, as a matter of ego or not being on the same team they chose to be on.

I agree that what you say in the paragraph is not like what the argument seems to be in the media. They want to go with memes that affect the choice of people to say, think or do as they think is best for themselves.

Does that make sense to you?

[TorchTheWitch]

160. so what if it's a choice - and for most people it isn't

Attacking anyone because of their religion whether they chose it or not is still hate speech. People are usually steeped in a certain religion since birth and live in families and even whole communities or countries where not being a believer in that religion is so dire they'd be cast out or even killed. When one grows up being immersed in certain beliefs it's no easy thing for most people to even personally review those beliefs and decide whether or not to continue the beliefs particularly when they're taught that questioning them is unacceptable... that whole "faith" thing.

And of course the majority of people also believe that homosexuality and transgender is a choice when it isn't. Even if it was a choice how is it not hate speech to demonize someone because of it? Hate speech is about demonizing an entire group of people for something that they are or believe whether they chose it or not. If the hate speech were directed toward liberals or atheists you and everyone else here would not be making excuses for it because they were chosen beliefs.

[Fumesucker]

190. There are constitutional bans on atheists holding office in several states

Something tells me those constitutional bans weren't written into the documents in question by atheists.

So your idea that that speech "tearing down atheists" is considered hate speech rings just a bit hollow.

[TorchTheWitch]

191. how is it not hate speech just because some states might

be so bigoted as to ban atheists from holding office? Do you believe those bans are ok? That it's acceptable to degenerate atheists just because they don't hold any religious beliefs?

[Fumesucker]

192. I said it wasn't "considered" hate speech and it's not

That was a poor choice of minorities to use as an example of a group it's not politically correct to insult and belittle .

Take this thread for instance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218176249

[liberal_at_heart]

56. No excuse for murdering the cartoonist, but it is hate speech.

Would anyone on this board be so accepting of a Holocaust cartoon or a carton of a KKK member hanging a black person?

[Adrahil]

146. Not even CLOSE to equivalent....

Neither European Jews, nor American Blacks were blowing up people or beheading them in public.

You seem to feel that any satire directed at a specific ethnic or religious group is "hate speech."

[dissentient]

68. Yup. And one man's "hate speech" is another man's brilliant satire

In other words, hate speech is a pretty meaningless term.

Just because Mohammed is some kind of sacred religious figure does not mean that he should be protected from satire, insult, and being made fun of.

I don't care how many religious fundies get mad about it.

Newsflash: a lot of people don't believe in that shit, and they have freedom of expression to say so, by various means, such as political cartoons.

And those who are saying otherwise, well, I bet they don't mind the satire of Christianity that has taken place, such as a cross in urine, and cartoons making fun of fundamentalist Christians in general.

It seems to me that if you want Mohammed protected, and claim its hate speech when he is made fun of, you better want Christianity and Jesus protected the exact same way. Unless you just want to be a hypocrite, of course.

[MFrohike]

71. Um, what?

You should have stuck to it not being a license to murder. That's rock solid ground. When you claim that deliberate insults to the Prophet himself aren't quote unquote hate speech, you're way off base. It's no different from Louis Farrakhan describing Judaism as a gutter religion. It's intended to insult and wound. That is very much the definition of hate speech.

Hell, it's no different from the wingnut pastor back in the 80s who said antisemites are people who hate Jews more than they're supposed to hate them. It's the sort of thing scumbags do, but, and this is a really big but, not even scumbags deserve to be shot for it.

[sabrina 1]

77. I don't see anyone struggling with that concept. I see people trying not to blame one billion

innocent people for the actions of a few. And I see a few here doing just that. There is a name for that kind of thing.

[uppityperson]

86. "ALL of Islam" is extremist terrorist fundamentalists? Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity

[freshwest]

103. All and everyone statements never make it. And Liberty, Equality and Fraternity is beautiful.

I wish we had more of it in our own country. Especially the Fraternity in this context. Which is supporting each other because of Equality that which gives all the Liberty to live and create.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. "hate speech" is a meaningless concept. Or at least so wildly subjective that it might as well be.

[Kurska]

89. No it has a perfectly defined objective definition

It is when things I personally like are not treated without the automatic respect I think they deserve.

See not subjective at all, everyone just has to start holding all my beliefs as sacrosanct.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Exactly. And once everyone agrees that The Grateful Dead are the best band of all time, period,

end of discussion, the world will get along splendidly, including my kids come car stereo song-picking time.

[Kurska]

92. But Warren my favorite band is an Indie rock group called Cursive

Hmm, we might have underestimated the task ahead of us.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. Hmmm, Name sounds familiar

I like "Can", their name starts with a "C" too.

Seriously, I'm not just an old hippie, I usually have my toes wigglin' in a variety of genres, actually. Based upon your recommendation I will have to check em out.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Isn't the term bigotry rather than hate speech?

Something doesn't have to be hate speech for it to be bigoted.

Just to test the water, do you think the comments in this post upthread a bit are bigoted?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026054888#post81

[Kurska]

94. You can be bigoted against people who practice religions

You can't be bigoted against a religion.

That person seems to be attacking Muslims as people, so yes bigoted. I also suspect he won't be posting here much longer.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. We're pretty much on the same page...

On both counts. Nice to see you again, btw

[Kurska]

97. Same hope you've been having a wonderful time

[ecstatic]

96. Regardless of what we think, a lot of people

(1 billion plus?) find it offensive.

Do I get it? No. But even when I don't understand or agree with what's offensive to other people, I try to be empathetic and avoid hurting people's feelings when possible because that's how I want to be treated.

Perhaps insulting Muhammed is taken as a personal insult in the same way that someone in the West would receive a racist / sexist / homophobic slur.

[Marrah_G]

136. I guess the question really is "where is the line"

and should there even be a line? The same people getting offended by the cartoons are the same ones that think I am a whore for not covering my hair or wearing clothes that are to revealing.

Insulting language is not hate speech. Criticism is not hate speech.

[Jesus Malverde]

100. It's not hate speech to make fun of any fundamentalist nuts.

Be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist or Jewish. All extremist nut jobs are fair game for ridicule and derision. Fundamentalists of any stripe are not worthy of respect, you cannot possibly coexist with their dogma from their perspective.

Insulting someone's god or belief will be inconsequential unless they are extremists. Normal people living in and embracing a secular worldotherwise would take it in stride.

[NewDeal_Dem]

171. how about atheist fundies?

[WhiteAndNerdy]

101. You're right.

Even if it were hate speech, the appropriate response to speech is more speech, not slaughter of the speaker(s). It's disheartening that so many people seem unable to grasp such a basic truth, or if they do understand it, that they are unable to stand up for it. There's nothing liberal or tolerant about making excuses for attempts to crush free speech.

[Kurska]

106. I'm a gay Jew

Who are you to assume who I am or what I am about?

I guess I'm just a few oppression points short of being allowed to have an opinion. Oh and I never told people what they are allowed to be offended by. You can be offended by literally anything. You could be offended by bananas or boybands, or anything in the whole world. However if you expect society to bend to your whims and limit free speech, because you are offended you will be very disappointed.

By all means be offended if you see a depiction of Muhammad or poorly drawn fruit or whatever. Don't expect that offense to hold any legal authority and don't think you'll be viewed as anything but a monster if you start shooting people because you're "offended".

[Kurska]

111. Did you just imply that all Jews (at least gay Jews) are white?

For a supposed advocate of love and tolerance, you sure love to chuck around tired stereotypes. I know black Jews. I know Jews that look more like most Muslims than the Ashkenazi Jews you ignorantly assume are the only kind.

Regardless, don't you dare imply you know the least thing about what it is like to grow up a gay jew in a small southern town. Of course, you're entirely qualified to completely dismiss my experiences as a sexual and religious minority, while asserting I am doing the same thing to other religious and ethnic minorities (which I am not), because I suppose reasons.

And I'd be singing the same song. I believe in absolute freedom of speech. I won't like or respect someone who has awful things to say about gays or Jews, but I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society where such people are gunned down at their place of business merely for having an opinion.

[Behind the Aegis]

116. Jews come in ALL hues.

As do gays!

[Kurska]

119. I am denying all Jews are white, which is what you implied

By assuming that just because I'm Jewish I'm white.

"As a gay Jew you benefit from white privilege" At no point prior to this did I ever mention the color of skin.

You meanwhile, more than likely benefit from hetronormative privilege. Of course I am making an assumption about your sexuality (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I think that hetronormative privilege is on raging display when you offhandedly dismiss my experience as being a gay man in society.

[Kurska]

124. You're being incredibly dense here, so let me spell it out

Not
all
Jews
are
white.

This is not a difficult concept.

[Behind the Aegis]

112. The poster doesn't think Jews are an oppressed minority.

Panuj (10 posts)

167. You will find covers like that attacking Christian extremists or Jewish extremisms.....

False equivalency. Christians and Jews are not an oppressed group like Muslims.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6055732

Really? Jews aren't oppressed? Somebody needs to take a look at hate crimes against Jews...

[Behind the Aegis]

118. Or looking at hate crimes against Straights and comparing them to gays.

Or Christians and comparing them to Jews.

Please, tell what power gays have over straights?! I am dying to know.

[Kurska]

120. Jews have a several thousand year long history of oppression.

To claim they aren't an oppressed minority is asinine.

[Kurska]

125. So you're saying that today in America Jews are not an oppressed group?

Gee, whatever happened to respecting minorities when they talk about their struggle. That appears to only apply to groups you like, I guess.

[Kurska]

129. Are gays? Cause I'm one of those.

Gee this really makes me feel good about all those times I had to defend myself for being Jewish against ignorant hicks. Apparently it was all in my mind.

[Kurska]

132. Oh boy

I am going to enjoy when you receive your well deserved pizza for that one.

Oh and in light of the fact that you said this "Very dishonest of you, but what else should anyone expect from a Jew".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026055776#post15

I'm entirely confident in calling you a bigoted piece of shit. Enjoy your incomming ban and have a nice day.

[stevenleser]

153. And that now PPR'd poster now conveniently disproved his own point that Jews are not an oppressed

group by leveling bigotry at a Jewish person.

[NewDeal_Dem]

107. It is hate speech.

"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html


Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[77]

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[78]

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[Kurska]

109. Do you think the speech they engaged in should be illegal? n/t

[NewDeal_Dem]

126. i think the misconception comes because people think if it's hate speech, it must be

illegal, but it's not the case. only hate speech intended/likely to incite immediate violence has been deemed 'illegal' (or something like it) by the courts.

I have no particular opinion, just trying to correct the misinterpretation (as I understand it).

[NewDeal_Dem]

126. i think the misconception comes because people think if it's hate speech, it must be

illegal, but it's not the case. only hate speech intended/likely to incite immediate violence has been deemed 'illegal' (or something like it) by the courts.

I have no particular opinion, just trying to correct the misinterpretation (as I understand it).

[Kurska]

130. You posted that article and highlighted the areas about what makes it illegal

You're saying you did that yet you DON'T have an opinion on whether that is the case here?

[Kurska]

179. Crickets eom

[Albertoo]

114. Then it is time to remove religion (not believers) from hate speech protection

Religions are ideologies. As such, they can be equally nefarious and should be critiqued.

Should one have the right to say Nazism is bad? Or Soviet Marxism? I hope so.

Should it be different for a doctrine that recommends death for adulterers and blasphemers?

The protection given to religions is ridiculous. Or apply it fully.

The Inca religion included cutting hearts out of live females as offerings to the Sun God.

If someone witnessed that today, would it be hate speech to say the inca religion must stop?

Is it hate against the Inca people, or a call to the Incas to realize their religion must evolve?

Or be consistent. Nazism was a kind of pagan religion. Antinazism = hate speech?


Freedom of religion was an erroneous consequence of the European Thirty Years War.

But not all religions are equal. As Sam Harris noted, Jains do not stone or behead.

But you seem to think that that mere statement of fact constitutes hate speech.

Truth is Hate, Chocolate rations increase from 20 to 10 grams, welcome to 1984.

[NewDeal_Dem]

122. "you seem to think that that mere statement of fact constitutes hate speech"

since my post consisted of quotes from two theoretically reputable sources, a student lawyers association and a Wikipedia post quoting legal precendent, I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

which is why I question your ability to determine 'fact'.

along with your definition of Nazism as a 'pagan religion'. stupid and ahistorical.

[Albertoo]

133. you obviously did not read/understand my answer

I did not challenge the fact that the definition of hate speech you quoted was accurate.

I wrote that it was time to redefine hate speech and exclude religious doctrines from it.

(while my title stressed that believers themselves should not be maligned)

Therefore your questioning of my understanding of the word fact stems from your illiteracy.


As for Nazism as a pagan religion, that's what Himmler was pushing, notably among the SS.

Go buy books.

[NewDeal_Dem]

134. I both read and understood it, and indeed, quoted it.

go buy books yourself. people who feel the need to insult the intelligence of others merely show their own lack of intelligence.

[Albertoo]

135. people who feel the need to insult the intelligence of others?

Coming from someone who started calling me stupid while not understanding what I had written,

that's pretty rich.

Anyway, I wouldn't insult something you don't appear to possess.

Over & out.

[Bluenorthwest]

152. France has hate speech laws, Charlie Hedbo was sued under them and the case was decided strongly

in favor of the magazine.

[Jappleseed]

138. Well do the same thing to the jewish community here and see how it goes.

Go ahead have at it. I want to see how long those post last.

[Kurska]

139. Insult Moses or Abraham?

It happens all the time.

[Jappleseed]

140. Then have at it.

Post some. See how it goes.

[oberliner]

141. Here's a favorite

[shaayecanaan]

147. here's a better one

[NewDeal_Dem]

170. Please link me to the wealth of DU posts insulting moses and abraham.

Then to the magazine devoted nearly exclusively to insulting moses, Abraham and other jewish or Christian religious figures.

Like "Charlie," such a magazine wouldn't have a large circulation ('Charlie' reportedly has less than 30K subscribers) and would require outside sugar to sustain it. One wonders who sends the sugar.

[Kurska]

178. They were actually about to go bankrupt

But please don't let reality interrupt your fantasy of secret cryptofascist fundings a leftwing magazine.

Oh and they are all around you in this sub-thread, don't you look silly.

[Warren Stupidity]

144. Moses was a murderous misogynist. Says so right in the big book of fairy tales.

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Numbers 31 -18 NLT
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

[Kurska]

180. Oh no, you've run afoul of the secret DU Judeo-Christian Cabal

Surely your days are numbered for insulting the great Jewish prophet moses.

[Bluenorthwest]

148. Here's Christian Bale on Moses, he just played Moses in a big movie...

“I think the man was likely schizophrenic and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life."


Wholly Moses:

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

151. I think hate speech is defined by the viewer/reader/listener.

What's 'hate speech' to you is not necessarily 'hate speech' to me or anyone else.

I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh don't consider what they say 'hate speech' either, and neither do their followers. But they probably think Democratic Underground and Daily Kos are chock full of 'hate speech'.

[Coventina]

154. I cannot believe this thread has this many responses.

The concept is so self-evident that when you initially posted the thread I didn't even feel the need to respond, I just recc'ed it.

[NCTraveler]

156. Seems so simple.

Fundies suck.

[MosheFeingold]

158. There is a remarkable double standard

No sane person would say a woman dressed provocatively was "asking to get raped."

Ask anyone who blames the cartoonists if they blame women who are dressed provocatively for being raped.

It reveals their double-standard.

[LordGlenconner]

176. I find it helpful to view all religions with an equal amount of disdain.