Exactly....what I see is that intolerance comes from all sides....but to the progressive...they beleive in free speech as long as it aggrees with their ideals..we all saw that in the firing of Juan Williams!
Top court to hear case on anti-gay leaflets
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
This is where the issue of freedom begins to get foggy. Karrie makes a good point in bringing:
1.) Religious zealots should not have a forum for diverting gay right freedoms.
2.) and so atheists should not have a forum for diverting religious doctrine.
That is a sound argument to the extent that diverted doctrine would be inherently good for society or if the abolition of the diverted doctrine would be harmful for society. It falls apart, if we can use the same argument in the opposite case, such as:
1.) Atheists should not have a forum to divert religious doctrine
2.) and so religious groups should not have a forum for diverting rapists and pedophiles
When we recognize whatever action as being harmful for society, it should be clear that the freedom to do that act should be impeded or diverted. Of course, again, this rests upon the laurels that we have defined the act as being harmful for society.
That is how one gets around your observation of hypocrisy, Karrie. Further, if it can be shown that the actions of these religious groups are harmful for society, then it is not hypocritical to impede their development while it would still be wrong to impede the development of something like gay rights, for instance. But again, that is only if in this case, that one can show the religious doctrine is inherently bad.
1.) Religious zealots should not have a forum for diverting gay right freedoms.
2.) and so atheists should not have a forum for diverting religious doctrine.
That is a sound argument to the extent that diverted doctrine would be inherently good for society or if the abolition of the diverted doctrine would be harmful for society. It falls apart, if we can use the same argument in the opposite case, such as:
1.) Atheists should not have a forum to divert religious doctrine
2.) and so religious groups should not have a forum for diverting rapists and pedophiles
When we recognize whatever action as being harmful for society, it should be clear that the freedom to do that act should be impeded or diverted. Of course, again, this rests upon the laurels that we have defined the act as being harmful for society.
That is how one gets around your observation of hypocrisy, Karrie. Further, if it can be shown that the actions of these religious groups are harmful for society, then it is not hypocritical to impede their development while it would still be wrong to impede the development of something like gay rights, for instance. But again, that is only if in this case, that one can show the religious doctrine is inherently bad.
Last edited:
What's an ok case? Fighting against Hetrosexual Marriage?
Considering I've never suggested in the past (in a serious manner that is) that all religions should be abolished/banned and religious beliefs and practices are protected by existing laws and rights..... yes, those people should be charged just as much as the next person for the same hate speech issues mentioned in this topic.
However in regards to having a voice in the Government, religions shouldn't have a voice in the government in the first place.... nor should atheists. The only voice, the only rules, the only laws and the only beliefs to be voiced in our government should be those that can be equally applied, agreed upon and believed to be justified by all, regardless of their religious affiliations or lack there of..... let people do what they want to do in their own personal lives with their own personal beliefs, but don't force those beliefs unto others as if everybody should or will agree with your position simply because your religion says so.
And the reason why I don't believe religions should have any involvement in government has mostly to due with the fact that once you start bending over backwards for one religion, you have to do it for all.... which means Christian values and beliefs/laws/rules will be applied to everybody...... which also means Jewish values, beliefs/laws/rules will be applied to everybody...... which also means Muslim values, beliefs/laws/rules would be applied to everybody as well (among all the other religions out there)...... and I already know a number of people in these forums alone would have issue with things like Sharia Law being enforced across the country.
And I doubt some religious people in here would also have an issue with Atheists forcing their beliefs and values onto others to follow by law too..... which is why there should always be a separation of church and state, always...... because things get way too messy, way too confusing and would cause more problems then they would solve.
I'm what one would consider as atheist, but I have no issue with people believing what they want to believe and practicing what they want to practice...... and I know for a fact you wouldn't like me to shove my way of life and my personal beliefs onto you to follow without question, because I wouldn't want you to do that to me.
I have no issue with Religious organizations interacting with the government and passing certain things which relate solely and directly to their religion and to their followers.... same with atheist..... but not when it comes to laws and practices that everybody in this country are supposed to follow.
Not quite..... The difference is that I don't see swaths of homosexuals fighting to take down religions or ban certain people with certain religious beliefs from working certain jobs or making false claims that religious people are somehow unequal to everybody else.
What I find hypocritical is when one group does one thing that's wrong for such a long period of time without any consequences and has had years of government protection to allow them to continue to do these things and that group continually plays the hate-speech card whenever things don't go their way..... but then when another group get's fed up and starts playing the same game and the other group cries foul..... yet keeps doing what they're doing as if they're entitled to do so when the other isn't..... that's not just a double standard, it's hypocritical..... a Do as I say, Not as I do situation.
For me, it has more to do with who starts the mess in the first place and who's willing to end it.
I see the hypocrisy you speak of on both sides..... but when it's a comparison between one group just trying to get to equal status as everybody else compared to another group who's always had equal status, if not more status, for so long and uses their position in society to continually keep that other group down because of their ignorant and prejudice views with no legal or factual basis to back up such beliefs..... in my eyes, one's far more worse then the other.
Or another way to put it, is the old Eye for an Eye.....
Some people think executing someone for murdering one or more people is wrong and is no better then what the murderer did.... yet when looking at the bigger picture, the Execution is the execution of a guilty person who has been proven to have committed grave offence towards an innocent person who is no longer alive, and therefore, not the same. It would be the same if the state executed another totally innocent person for the crimes the murderer committed...... but linking it back to the topic at hand, for people using their religious beliefs to keep down a particular group of people in an unjust manner and then using the hate-speech or freedom of religion card to further expand on keeping that group down is not the same as people in that group being kept down using hate-speech arguments to defend themselves.
One is using it for offense, the other is using it for defense and because of that, while similar, I don't believe they're exactly the same.
Added:
I might not have nice things to say about one particular religion or religion in general, I might even say a few things that may or may not offend a few in here towards my views of religion, but it's usually due to how I'm feeling at that moment or responding to something that was said that I really don't agree with or usually, something I found just as offensive..... You don't see me going around sticking leaflets on people's cars, in their mailboxes or in their email promoting these things and/or suggestion methods of oppressing said religion or making religious people 2nd class citizens and unable to obtain certain job professions.... nor do you see me going around telling people to talk to their MP's to force some stupid law that would do any of the above.
Nor do I see any homosexual groups doing the above to religious groups..... that's the difference.
Last edited:
This is a personal observation, I think each of us, is who we say we are by our own actions, deeds
and vocal expressions. I ask who wants to be viewed as, or in fact be a person who wants to
engage in verbal bullying, hateful statements and actions that try to tear others down to build their
own personal image. I love a good debate, an exchange of ideas and even to disagree. I personally
believe also that if you want to be respected by friend and foe alike, first you have to be respectful.
Without seeing the pamphlet I reserve judgement of the actual material. If the person in question is
making the statements he did, I wouldn't put too much credibility in anything he said. In a democratic
society we can disagree and make counter points to arguments without venom and hatred.
In a democracy it is said majority rules, but within the definition of democratic society there is a second
part that is rarely mentioned. In constitutional democracy the majority rules but the rights of the minority
are to be respected. If the poster contravened that spirit it would be hate speech.
Someone said, the current generation of gays are the pioneers to achieving equality and that is true to a
great extent.
and vocal expressions. I ask who wants to be viewed as, or in fact be a person who wants to
engage in verbal bullying, hateful statements and actions that try to tear others down to build their
own personal image. I love a good debate, an exchange of ideas and even to disagree. I personally
believe also that if you want to be respected by friend and foe alike, first you have to be respectful.
Without seeing the pamphlet I reserve judgement of the actual material. If the person in question is
making the statements he did, I wouldn't put too much credibility in anything he said. In a democratic
society we can disagree and make counter points to arguments without venom and hatred.
In a democracy it is said majority rules, but within the definition of democratic society there is a second
part that is rarely mentioned. In constitutional democracy the majority rules but the rights of the minority
are to be respected. If the poster contravened that spirit it would be hate speech.
Someone said, the current generation of gays are the pioneers to achieving equality and that is true to a
great extent.
Naw, not really appropriate and probably won't solve all their problems...... but what else would you suggest be done?
History has shown things like this, racism, sexism, and other forms of intolerance towards all sorts of groups, when ignored, tend to not just spread through society, but the level of their prejudice increases exponentially to the point where something needs to be done in order to keep people safe and to maintain social order.
Sweeping it under the rug and acting as though it never happened doesn't solve anything and those people allowed to continue doing what they're doing who are being ignored will eventually step up their game and do something people can't ignore.
It's only when people like this are exposed, brought out for all to see and the public as a whole shows that this sort of thing will no longer be tolerated, that our societies can finally move forward.
A recent example would be Bullying...... for years it was swept under the rug or just passed off as something people had to deal with, that it was just something kids had to deal with..... but it wasn't until a hand full of kids stood up and brought it in front for the public to see, started wearing pink shirts, and speaking out against such things, that now we have more and more students, schools and communities fighting more and more against bullying and making it clear that bullying isn't a "Cool" thing and will no longer be tolerated.
And it wasn't until a number of gay kids committed suicide (one in particular) from bullying and what they had to go through in their lives that campaigns were created via creating videos for other gay teens going through similar situations to watch and listen to people who went through the crap they're going through tell them that it does get better and there's more to life then just what they're going through right now.
And I thought ignoring what's truly going on was what helped Nazi Germany wipe out so many Jews during WWII...... yet another injustice towards a group of people in society.
The cycle of this is never ending, the Jews were persecuted by the Nazis during WWII then several
decades later the Palestinians are subject to persecution by Israel. Some of the control is about the
need for security that is true, but I find it hard to believe that a deal could not be reached by now in order
to have some kind of recognition of the Palestinians in the Middle East. If that were to be accomplished
the healing could begin over the next hundred years. How long did the participants fight over Northern
Ireland? It has been a decade or more since that quarrel ended and only now are we seeing the first
signs of a willingness to get along.
Hate is a powerful thing, it consumes both the hated and the hater over time. I think hatred is the single
most incurable disease afflicting mankind. And the most destructive.
decades later the Palestinians are subject to persecution by Israel. Some of the control is about the
need for security that is true, but I find it hard to believe that a deal could not be reached by now in order
to have some kind of recognition of the Palestinians in the Middle East. If that were to be accomplished
the healing could begin over the next hundred years. How long did the participants fight over Northern
Ireland? It has been a decade or more since that quarrel ended and only now are we seeing the first
signs of a willingness to get along.
Hate is a powerful thing, it consumes both the hated and the hater over time. I think hatred is the single
most incurable disease afflicting mankind. And the most destructive.
Do you really think that publicly shaming people like this is going to have any effect? Opinions and beliefs do not change because the government thinks they are wrong or outdated. If anything, it entrenches their opinions and attracts followers.
Bullying is nothing new, it will start occur regardless of the do-gooders intents. Example being the internet.
They stood up for them selves and were pro-active in developing solutions. What does that have to do with the government?
You really sink your argument when you invoke the Godwin.
What is it called when you compare the predicament of african americans in an argument?;-)
History is an interlinked experience we all share. Human history is ever changing. Whoever it was that said,
bullying will continue regardless of the actions of do-gooders, is right. Examples are set buy the way adults,
and reasonable people act, and not by what they say.
Ignorance will not be cured by words. ignorance comes about by fear, and fear is overcome by education
and understanding and that takes a long time. When governments become involved it often does more harm
than good because people become polarized in their opinions a them against us mentality.
The courts and governments are two different things however, but some are not educated enough to understand
that, unfortunate but true. The good thing is most people in a society do understand it. and that leave the bully and
the hate monger marginalized and outside the norm. Most people have moved beyond the gay debate, and most
people have moved on
bullying will continue regardless of the actions of do-gooders, is right. Examples are set buy the way adults,
and reasonable people act, and not by what they say.
Ignorance will not be cured by words. ignorance comes about by fear, and fear is overcome by education
and understanding and that takes a long time. When governments become involved it often does more harm
than good because people become polarized in their opinions a them against us mentality.
The courts and governments are two different things however, but some are not educated enough to understand
that, unfortunate but true. The good thing is most people in a society do understand it. and that leave the bully and
the hate monger marginalized and outside the norm. Most people have moved beyond the gay debate, and most
people have moved on
The simple fact is that these pamphlets are obviously within the realm of free speech.
Liberals, of course, believe in free speech only as long as everyone agrees with them.
Liberals, of course, believe in free speech only as long as everyone agrees with them.
Spoken like a truly unbiased conservative. I think just about anybody who takes politics seriously can wear that handle.
Not only, but heck, it seems to me they suffer from it more than those on the right.........
I mean, right wingers don't have tribunals and prosecutors to tackle you if you print a leaflet in favour of homosexuality.......
