Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

This appears to be an explicitly internal religious matter.  A major different here would be that the gay rights movement is not attempting to claim any religious status.  The FRC is going out of its way to explicitly label them as evil.  In the quote from John 8, it is a matter of the jews specifically asking Jesus something.

Is it hate speech? Yes or no.
You try to duck from answering by saying "it appears to be an internal religious matter".
He specifically stated that they were sons of satan because they did not believe him.
He said the language they spoke was lies, because their father was a liar.
He also said they were not sons of Abraham - basically rejecting their claim to judaism, so no - it is not an internal religious matter.

If everyone knows by kindergarten that calling someone a freak is hate speech, is what Jesus (is reported to have) said hate speech?

Hate speech as it is most commonly understood is directed outward.

That said, John was probably finalized after christians became a distinct sect and animosity was built up between christians and jews.  There is a strong anti-semitic cast to large sections of John.  So it wouldn't surprise me if it was intended as hate speech.

resedit wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

resedit wrote:

Is it hate speech? Yes or no.
You try to duck from answering by saying "it appears to be an internal religious matter".
He specifically stated that they were sons of satan because they did not believe him.
He said the language they spoke was lies, because their father was a liar.
He also said they were not sons of Abraham - basically rejecting their claim to judaism, so no - it is not an internal religious matter.

If everyone knows by kindergarten that calling someone a freak is hate speech, is what Jesus (is reported to have) said hate speech?

Hate speech as it is most commonly understood is directed outward.

Jesus was directing it outward to the Jews.

That doesn't make sense in the context of Jesus' ministry.  He pretty much exclusively ministered to the Jews (a few notable exceptions), considered Himself a Jew, and those asking the question in John 8 were obviously asking in the context of within their religion.

resedit wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

That doesn't make sense in the context of Jesus' ministry.  He pretty much exclusively ministered to the Jews (a few notable exceptions), considered Himself a Jew, and those asking the question in John 8 were obviously asking in the context of within their religion.

A religion which he said they were not part of - by saying they were not sons of Abraham.

Yes, that is obviously an internal religious matter.  And its also the jews who believed in Jesus actively going out and seeking his opinion.

Read John 8:31  Assuming the NIV is correct, the people asking are those who are interested in Jesus.

So is being a lesbian like eating crumbs off the floor or not?

kb5zhh wrote:

So pharisees are not jews?

That's what Jesus was saying - they were sons of Satan, not sons of Abraham, because they did not believe him.

I don't know about you - but I would take much more offense to being called a son of Satan and explicitly excluded from the religion I was suppose to be a teacher in and dedicated to, then being called a freak.

-=-

The entire point of this exercise - what is hate speech is being defined by those who want to consider certain things hate speech so that they can blast it and criticize it.

They make up definitions, such as "calling someone a freak" is hate speech in order to defend their position and look better than the group they are targeting - when in reallity, they are being just as judgemental themselves - and defining things in such a way as to prove their point.

This is something that has alarmed many Christians who fear that this kind of behaviour will result in the Bible being labeled as hate speech - but when they voice that fear, they are ridiculed for doing so.

But that is exactly what is going to happen - the requirements being put onto stuff for it to qualify as hate speech is so low in order to justify political cause - that yes, the Bible fits those qualifications - which could get the government into constitutional danger with the first amendment.

Now I stated in the beginning of this thread that I didn't know if they were a hate group or not.
Since they do want to give employers the right to fire people for personal choices that have nothing to do with the job, I have to agree that they are. But the reasons given initially in this thread were the dangerous kind - the kind that can be used to define just about anything as hate speech, including the Bible, which brings in a constitutional dilemna.

resedit wrote:

I don't know about you - but I would take much more offense to being called a son of Satan and explicitly excluded from the religion I was suppose to be a teacher in and dedicated to, then being called a freak.

That's you.  Great.

The entire point of this exercise - what is hate speech is being defined by those who want to consider certain things hate speech so that they can blast it and criticize it.

They make up definitions, such as "calling someone a freak" is hate speech in order to defend their position and look better than the group they are targeting - when in reallity, they are being just as judgemental themselves - and defining things in such a way as to prove their point.

What?  Not each and every use of the word "freak" represents hateful speech.  However, shouting "freak" at someone or referring to someone as a "freak" because they are unlike you could absolutely be done in a hateful manner.

Look, the point is that if one's only interest were to refer to the fact that they disagree with the actions of another person, there are far more diplomatic ways to go about it than referring to them as a "freak."

This is something that has alarmed many Christians who fear that this kind of behaviour will result in the Bible being labeled as hate speech - but when they voice that fear, they are ridiculed for doing so.

Who cares if someone refers to the Bible as "hate speech?"  Nearly all "hate speech" is protected in this country.

But that is exactly what is going to happen - the requirements being put onto stuff for it to qualify as hate speech is so low in order to justify political cause - that yes, the Bible fits those qualifications - which could get the government into constitutional danger with the first amendment.

Now I stated in the beginning of this thread that I didn't know if they were a hate group or not.
Since they do want to give employers the right to fire people for personal choices that have nothing to do with the job, I have to agree that they are. But the reasons given initially in this thread were the dangerous kind - the kind that can be used to define just about anything as hate speech, including the Bible, which brings in a constitutional dilemna.

They say terrible, nasty, and untrue things about homosexuals–all in an effort to stir up dislike and fear of them. 

Perhaps you simply can't comprehend it because it isn't direct at you (others have this ability, but I suppose not everyone does).

No "constitutional dilemma," though.

Last edited by bratboy (2006-03-12 1:25 pm)

resedit wrote:

What?  Not each and every use of the word "freak" represents hateful speech.  However, shouting "freak" at someone or referring to someone as a "freak" because they are unlike you could absolutely be done in a hateful manner.

I agree 100%.
Some of us must have gone to better kindergarden programs than others.

So you acknowledge that use of the term "freaks" when referring to homosexuals could be hateful?

kb5zhh wrote:

resedit wrote:

What?  Not each and every use of the word "freak" represents hateful speech.  However, shouting "freak" at someone or referring to someone as a "freak" because they are unlike you could absolutely be done in a hateful manner.

I agree 100%.
Some of us must have gone to better kindergarden programs than others.

So what resedit, you get shown to be wrong on a point and you act like a smurfing whinny baby for days afterward?  Grow the smurf up.

At least I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.
Some people here aren't. Yes, I specifically mean you.
And what's a shame - your false statement is so trivial, it should be easy.

Oh - and for the record, what I was wrong about is the rights for employers to fire people because they are Gay. That is what I was wrong about (from the start of this thread, I explicitly stated that I didn't know if they were a hate group).

The two states I have lived in - California and New York - I am correct.
You can't be fired because of sexual preference.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

The two states I have lived in - California and New York - I am correct.
You can't be fired because of sexual preference.

True . . . in a minority of states, such protections are there.

In 13 states. 8 additional have protection for public jobs.

13 is 25%. Well, just barely over.
Of the remaining 37 states - many of them have protection at the lower than state level.

Just so we are clear, I think the protection should be federal. I think it should be constititional.
Not because I'm a "gay rights" activist - but because what happens outside the workplace, unless it directly effects your job (such as baseball players gambling on baseball) is not of the employers concern - be it sexual preferences or entering nose picking contests.

ResEdit wrote:

At least I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.
Some people here aren't. Yes, I specifically mean you.

A opposed to "woman enough", and therefore inferior?

Not "oh please". I consider the "man up", "man enough" rhetoric to be sexist.

I like pie.