Roman s 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
55 comments:
It probably already is illegal here in Canada. Or at least one risks being hauled before a human rights tribunal.
Yes, reading certain things in certain public places can certainly get you arrested. Remember Granny D?
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grannyd.htm
It really depends on the venue it is spoken.
It should most certainly be legal, and I hope every one of those people who tweeted "I am Charlie!" would unhesitatingly defend anyone in legal trouble for quoting it.
Personally, I can think of more appropriate passages to quote. This, for instance (think about the connection):
And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."
Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Rise, take up your pallet and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins", he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"
Jezu, ufam tobie!
Randal Rauser's suggeston of the Weak Harmony Thesis seems to allow us to quote the Romans passage and avoid the accusation of hate speech.
"Haters gonna hate, and ain'ters gonna ain't!"
There is a clear difference between discussing or quoting a passage that expresses a hateful idea, and using rhetoric to stir up hatred or violent action. The former should never be banned. The latter can be quite harmful, and restricting it may be justified.
"and restricting it may be justified"
Details, please.
"Details, please."
How about the "wanted" posters that have incited anti-abortion idiots to commit murder. I think things like that should be banned. They are not so much free speech as triggers for violent and criminal behavior (and please note that that is their intention).
I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. (My fault.) I meant, what restrictions do you think should be put on quoting the passage that Victor placed as the starting point of this conversation?
I agree with you that the examples you mentioned clearly ought to be illegal, as they are explicit incitements to criminal activity.
Jezu, ufam tobie!
"what restrictions do you think should be put on quoting the passage that Victor placed as the starting point of this conversation?"
None. That's why I said they are different things.
"I could see it being classified as a form of hate speech."
And I could not. However, (in that context) I would definitely classify it as stupid, inappropriate, counterproductive, boorish, and unmannerly speech.
Jezu, ufam tobie!
Is it possible today to disapprove of another's beliefs and/or behavior without hating them? I am confused about the definition of "hate speech."
"Is it possible today to disapprove of another's beliefs and/or behavior without hating them?"
Depends. You question has two ambiguous terms in it: "today" and "them".
Today - In the current uber-PC climate, you may disapprove of a particular belief or behavior without the least shred of hatred, yet get accused of it nevertheless. In fact, you can count on it. Case in point: the automatic labeling of anyone who disapproves of homosexuality as a bigot or homophobe.
(Two side notes: 1) I chose the word "automatic" deliberately. I could just as easily have written "thoughtless". 2) My favorite response to being labeled a homophobe was by the comedian Lewis Black. "Who me?" he said. "I fear no man - no matter how buff!")
Them - By "them", do you men the beliefs and/or behaviors, or those persons who hold and/or engage in them? There are quite a few beliefs and/or behaviors that I will unhesitatingly acknowledge that I "hate" them, but I wouldn't be able to say the same thing about the people associated with them. (For instance, I genuinely hate smoking, gambling, heroin use, and Islam but not smokers, gamblers, drug addicts, or Muslims.)
Jezu, ufam tobie!
"(For instance, I genuinely hate smoking, gambling, heroin use, and Islam but not smokers, gamblers, drug addicts, or Muslims.)"
In my opinion, what earns you the label of 'hater' or "__phobe" is whether you do something to harm or deny the rights of those you disapprove of, or you support those who do. If you run a public accommodation, and you refuse to serve gay people, you are a hater. Similarly, 'hate speech' is that which is intended to rouse hatred or provoke hateful actions.
If I am a politically progressive running a small print shop, am I a hater if I refuse a job to print campaign posters for a Republican candidate?
According to Skep's logic, you are.
A better analogy, however, would be if you were a writer known for your strong political views, who refuses to write an op-ed piece for the opposing viewpoint. Then, according to Skep's logic, you are a hater and a bigot.
Jezu, ufam tobie!
"If I am a politically progressive running a small print shop, am I a hater if I refuse a job to print campaign posters for a Republican candidate?"
- If you run a public accommodation, you are required to serve all.
"A better analogy, however, would be if you were a writer known for your strong political views, who refuses to write an op-ed piece for the opposing viewpoint. Then, according to Skep's logic, you are a hater and a bigot."
- Writing opinion pieces is not a public accommodation. That is moronic.
Skep,
Just as (at least for now) we have Freedom of Speech in this country, we also have the freedom to not speak. Writing an opinion piece is speech. The Supreme Court has already ruled multiple times that the various forms of artistic expression are speech (even to include flag burning and lewd dancing!). Photography and baking are also artistic endeavors, and are therefore also forms of speech.
Therefore, just as we cannot (or at least should not) be compelled to write op-eds contrary to our own views, a person should not be compelled to engage in any other sort of expression (to include baking or photography) that violates one's principles or beliefs. That's straight First Amendment.
Serious questions for you: Why do you hate freedom so much? Why are you such a bigot towards persons who simply wish to say only what they believe to be true? Why are you so eager to force people to violate their own consciences? Why are you so determined to bring down the full force of state compulsion upon people who simply wish to be left alone? Why are you so completely intolerant of dissenting opinion? How would you like it if you were ordered (under threat of losing your livelihood) to print banners for the self-styled Westboro Baptist Church?
Jezu, ufam tobie!
Bob,
"Serious questions for you: Why do you hate freedom so much?"
Did you ever hear the saying "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"?
"Why are you such a bigot towards persons who simply wish to say only what they believe to be true?"
If you don't want to swerve the public, then you have no business running a public accommodation. It's your choice. If you wand to open a "Catholic Wedding Cake" shop that expressly serves only Catholics, then go ahead. Nobody says you can't do that. If you want to have a shop that ostensibly serves the public, then you can't pick and choose which part of the public you refuse to serve. It's the law.
"then you can't pick and choose which part of the public you refuse to serve. It's the law."
But, Skep, the people I referred to are not refusing service to anybody! They'll provide services for any and all weddings. But if what is being asked is not for a wedding, but only for what somebody is erroneously calling a wedding (which doesn't make it one), then there's no discrimination. None at all!
And as for, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", why then are you so intent on banging the long fist of the state into the face of someone who is harming no one? Just who is the photographer "hitting"? Seems to me they're the ones being beaten up.
Jezu ufam tobie!
Hate speech qualifications are generally a bad idea. I'm all for LGBT rights and marriage equality but am not in favor of making hate speech illegal. Those who are in favor of it do not understand what freedom of speech or expression is.
"why then are you so intent on banging the long fist of the state into the face of someone who is harming no one?"
Harming no one? If your civil rights were being violated, you would not consider it harmless. See my response.
Skep,
Let me express this as clearly as possible: NO ONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!
Actually, let me qualify that a bit: THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHERS, ETC, WHO ARE BEING COMPELLED TO VIOLATE THEIR CONSCIENCES ARE BEING VIOLATED!
I won't bother repeating myself here. You can just re-read the first 2 paragraphs of my posting above at March 31, 2015 5:48 AM. You have yet to answer that, other than by insisting that you'd like to see their First Amendment rights trashed. How is that justice?
(And yes, Linton, I am frustrated enough here to use ALL CAPS. Maybe I'll actually get Skep's attention.)
Jezu ufam tobie!
Bob shouts out his depraved sense of conscience: "THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHERS, ETC, WHO ARE BEING COMPELLED TO VIOLATE THEIR CONSCIENCES ARE BEING VIOLATED!"
Let me paint a scenario for you, Bob. Let's say you have been chosen as the godfather to the young daughter of your lifelong friend. You wear your best suit to the ceremony, but as you arrive at the church, an unfortunate accident ruins your tie. So you run quickly across the street to the clothing store to get a new tie. And the store owner doesn't believe in Catholic religious ceremonies, so he refuses to sell you a tie, claiming that it's a violation of his conscience. He won't sell a tie to a Catholic if it is to be worn in a Catholic religious ceremony. That is a violation of his rights. Being a religious bigot yourself, you must agree that he is correct, and you happily participate in the baptism ceremony without a tie, and without the slightest sense that you have suffered any injustice. Because that's what your logic demands.
I have presented an alternative view. But I don't expect to get your attention.
"I have presented an alternative view. But I don't expect to get your attention."
Oh, you did all right! You have some nerve accusing others of hatred when such a hate-filled composition as your posting (which you unaccountably seem to actually be proud of) I have not seen since I read Mein Kampf. Yes, you got my attention. You demonstrated to me that your mind is so warped and poisoned by venom and bile it's no wonder you've never been able to think straight in any of your "contributions" to Dangerous Idea. It's never possible to have a clear thought when you're choking on your own spittle.
Your "alternate view" (how appropriately labeled!) made it crystal clear that you are so far gone into your alternate (un)reality that no reasoning by the more sane amongst us has any hope of reaching you. You are in need of serious professional help, and ought to seek it out.
Before now, when engaging with your postings I knew I was dealing with a sad, sad case - but I wasn't aware I was conversing with a such a bigot. Do you remember the "Paps Challenge"? Well, it's time for a "Skep Challenge". This will be my last comment addressed to you - ever.
You may now have the Last Word.
Jezu ufam tobie!
Love the practitioners, hate the practice.
"There is a clear difference between discussing or quoting a passage that expresses a hateful idea, "
Oh please. The passage Vic tossed out doesn't express any "hateful idea" whatsoever you nitwit. You can *disagree* with it, but it doesn't express hate.
"In my opinion, what earns you the label of 'hater' or "__phobe" is whether you do something to harm or deny the rights of those you disapprove of,"
Ha! Then you're a theist-hater, because you use rhetoric to deny us the right to be accepted as intellectual equals (even though most every theist here is way smarter than the atheists who comment here).
"Your "alternate view" (how appropriately labeled!) made it crystal clear that you are so far gone into your alternate (un)reality that no reasoning by the more sane amongst us has any hope of reaching you. You are in need of serious professional help, and ought to seek it out."
Glad to see you finally caught on, Bob. This fool was talking loud like every other Gnu about "show me the evidence" blah blah blah but then when you give something legit Skep tucks his tails and cries "Liar."
I've been around a little lately, but y'all know my comments are sporadic at best. I don't know how you guys can stomach Gnu soup 24-7.
It's too much for me.
"Do you remember the "Paps Challenge"? Well, it's time for a "Skep Challenge". This will be my last comment addressed to you - ever. "
Ha!
LOLOLOL!!!!!
I will *unabashedly* take all fame and credos for setting that challenge off. No shame.
And yeah, totally in on the Skep Challenge. We can talk *about* Skep, but not *to* Skep. Got it y'all?
I think that from now on, whenever anyone accuses a person of bigotry or hatred because they support the right of photographers to photograph only what they approve of, I will respond as follows: "Why are you such an anti-Semite?"
"Huh? How so?" they might ask? Simple - just follow the logic. By their reasoning (the "public accommodation" gambit) an Orthodox Jew who runs a kosher deli ought to be run out of business if he refuses to serve a ham and swiss sandwich to a gentile customer. "But", the poor deli owner protests, "it is against my religion to handle pork, and I find it personally offensive. Besides, I serve everybody who comes in. I just restrict what I offer to kosher items." "What a gentilephobe you are!" answers the offended customer. You ought to be compelled to serve me whatever I wish, or otherwise be closed down by the strong arm of the State."
See the problem here? The deli owner is not refusing service to anyone. He is simply limiting what sorts of service he offers. An auto mechanic can't be accused of hatred if he doesn't cut your hair. A plumber can't be called a bigot for failing to fix your electrical wiring. In the same way, a photographer who advertises that he photographs only traditional marriages ought not be condemned if he refuses to provide a service which he doesn't offer. After all, this is not about the identity of the customer, but rather the nature of the service. Anyone, gay or straight, who asks the photographer to photograph a traditional wedding, will be served. No discrimination whatsoever!
"See the problem here? The deli owner is not refusing service to anyone. He is simply limiting what sorts of service he offers."
Bob, I'm glad you brought this example, because it illustrates EXACTLY what I said in my post. You obviously didn't understand it because you were so intent on finding fault with it. The Kosher deli owner is not a bigot because of the service he offers, as long as he treats everybody the same. The photographer would not be a bigot either, unless she chooses to treat her customers differently, which she does. And that's what maker her a bigot. If you read what I said, you will find that I spoke about restricting the services one offers, just as the deli owner does. This is one way that a public accommodation can avoid doing anything that he is religiously opposed to. That is better than the bigoted practice of offering a service to some people but not to others.
BOB -
What happened to the challenge?
Bob, flip this thing on it's head. If you're going to waste the breath to talk to Skep, put HIS bigotry on blast. Here is what Skep writes about anyone who claims to have witnessed a miraculous and/or supernatural event:
"...anyone who believes in any kind of supernatural phenomena. Those are the people I called 'blinkered' above. And those are the only ones who report these "miracles". So, Billy Squibs, if you think I'm being sloppy in my assertions, go ahead and show that I'm wrong. I'm waiting."
And yet, 3 seconds on Google is all it took to prove Skep wrong:
http://atheisttocatholic.com/
A former atheist -- remember, atheists are the rational ones, not the "blinkered" ones -- experienced a miraculous event that caused her to convert.
Right there, Skep is wrong, and unless Skep says "you guys are right, I overstepped my comment there and I didn't actually mean that" … then Skep is a bigot with prejudiced opinions against other people based on nothing more than Skep's hatred of religion.
And that's bigotry!
"What happened to the challenge?"
Nothing happened to it. My comment was addressed to the public at large. I note that you responded to it, as well as some other person. I can't control who decides to respond to my comments. It's not my blog.
Jezu ufam tobie!
"A former atheist -- remember, atheists are the rational ones, not the "blinkered" ones -- experienced a miraculous event that caused her to convert."
Right. A FORMER "atheist" - a blinkered Catholic - reports a miracle. How surprising. What did I say tat was wrong?
So, the only way we will take an atheist seriously if they see a miracle is if they remain an atheist, and hence reject from there ontology all possible miracle-workers.
Makes perfect sense.
"So, the only way we will take an atheist seriously if they see a miracle is if they remain an atheist, and hence reject from there ontology all possible miracle-workers."
No, Victor. What I said is that atheists don't report seeing miracles (at least not rational ones). People who don't believe in supernatural phenomena don't ever witness them. The person in cl's story was a theist who reported some kind of miraculous event. The fact that she didn't always believe in God is irrelevant.
But we might also look at what kind of atheist she was before her conversion. She recalls, long before she became a theist: "I remember saying, “It wouldn’t have mattered if I had been aborted, because my soul would have jumped into another body.” A vague belief in reincarnation hovered at the edges of my darkened mind."
This shows clearly that before she ever considered converting, she already believed in supernatural things. She was never a rational atheist, as I call them. She was more like CS Lewis, just searching for an excuse to believe in God. It's no surprise, then, that she was able to find that excuse.
Just to be clear about this "miracle", a believing Catholic prays to the Virgin Mary that she might be blessed with a child, and then she becomes pregnant. It's a miracle!
And cl thinks this story disproves my claim that only believers report miraculous events? I don't understand his logic. But then, I don't think he understands his logic, either.
Skep, I wouldn't worry too much about Bob's "Paps Challenge" to not respond to you any more but only about you. It was, as you can see, delivered on April Fool's Day.
We don'y usually subscribe to supernatural superstition about April Fool's day but with the religiose one can never be too sure. Because as you well know, supernatural superstition is equally the epistemic foundation on which the religiose believe in gods, satans, devils, evil spirits, nephilim and other disembodied omni-max putatively live non-human entities that go bump in the night.
Interestingly, cl has reached the very limits of his explanatory capacity for reasoned discourse and now resorts to bolding comments to distinguish them from whatever stream of consciousness is radiating straight from the top of his head that, dandruff-like, then blankets the discussion.
I say, well done.
Incidentally, Bob's Jewish deli example falls flat on its ear. The kosher deli is open to all comers. The deli owner does not discriminate against his customers. They can buy whatever they want that's in his store. Not supplying a ham and swiss sandwich is not discriminatory for the fact ham and swiss is not a product he sells.
The example says little about discrimination but speaks volumes about the lengths to which the religiose seek to disguise or camouflage their osculating the rump of religious prejudice.
"Bob's Jewish deli example falls flat on its ear."
Absolutely. It shows that Bob completely fails to comprehend the issue of discrimination, and how it affects the victim. It is also telling that in everything he has to say about this, his sympathy lies entirely with the bigot, and he can't manage to find an ounce of compassion for the victims of discrimination.
As for cl, I'm tempted to use the term 'muddled thinking', but I think that is giving him entirely too much credit. Let's just call it 'muddled'.
cl,
I enjoyed your link, until she wrote "Any book I would not want a nine-year-old to read had to go. That included most modern romances, science fiction, and detective novels." Oh, no, I thought. I care nothing for modern romances or detective novels, but science fiction??? That's just a Bridge Too Far. What would my bookshelves look like without my first edition hardcover Lensman novels (with original dust jackets, mind you), or A Canticle for Leibowitz, The Weapon from Beyond, or Time is the Simplest Thing? Oh, poverty, poverty...
Other than that, no issues with the story.
Jezu ufam tobie!
"I enjoyed your link"
Bob, cl used Google to find the words 'atheist' and 'miracle' in the same article, and posted that link here to supposedly show that I was wrong about a claim I made. He didn't bother reading the article. If he read it, he would have realized that it does not show what he thought it did. Your comments on this article are lost on him. He has no idea what you're talking about.
I am quite suprised that no one noticed the responses to B. Prokop's Jewish Deli argument basicly affirmed his point by offering counter examples that mirrored his instead of refuting it.
They then went on to accuse him of "muddled thinking" and claim that his example "falls on it's ear".
Quote: "Not supplying a ham and swiss sandwich is not discriminatory for the fact ham and swiss is not a product he sells."
The Photograhper does sell the service of "traditional wedding photography".
The Photographer does not sell the service of "non-traditional wedding phoptography".
As non-traditional wedding photography is not a service that is actually offered it is logically inconsistant to label such as discrimination.
To force someone to offer services that they don't normally offer is coersion and could in itself be considered a form of religious bigotry.
Ken,
Oh, I noticed (and laughed heartily at) the irrationality and inconsistency of the responses. But I have now sworn to take the advice of Sirach to heart, namely, "Do not argue with a fool, nor heap wood on his fire" (Ecclesiasticus 8:3), as well as Augustine's caution that it is not always necessary to get in the last word, once one has spoken his piece.
Jezu ufam tobie!
The Photograhper does sell the service of "traditional wedding photography".
The Photographer does not sell the service of "non-traditional wedding phoptography".
Now there's real muddled thinking. The photographer takes pictures of events, including much more than weddings. The only thing that distinguishes the service he refuses to offer is who the customer is. On the other hand, the deli owner sells Kosher food to any customer, but he doesn't sell non-Kosher food at all. Your confused example misses the concept of discrimination altogether. It's not what service you offer - it's who you offer it to. That's what distinguishes a bigot from the rest of us.
To force someone to offer services that they don't normally offer is coersion and could in itself be considered a form of religious bigotry.
... says the bigot.
I'll use another example to clarify:
The same photographer offers portraits. He does not offer nude portraits. What is the difference? The type of service offered!
It matters little who get their portrait taken the difference is in the "type of service offered".
You are basing your assesment of the "bigotry" of the Photographer on the wrong catagory.
"To force someone to offer services that they don't normally offer is coersion and could in itself be considered a form of religious bigotry.
... says the bigot."
Nice ad homniem :)
Can often be a sign that an opponent is running out of logical arguments.
A "non-traditional wedding" fall under the same catagory compared to a "traditional wedding" as kosher food compares to other food food or nude portraits to "clothed" portraits.
Ken Stone,
You still don't understand the concept. It's very simple. If you don't serve someone because you don't offer the service they request, that's not discrimination. That would be the case with your our example of the photographer who doesn't do nude portraits. Fine. He doesn't do them for any customer. If, on the other hand, he chooses to do a service for certain customers and not for others, he is practicing discrimination.
Nice ad homniem :)
- This remark was not directed at any particular individual. It was intended to illustrate that bigots will twist logic and definitions in order to justify their bigotry. Sorry, but it doesn't work with me. But if the shoe fits, wear it.
A "non-traditional wedding" fall under the same catagory compared to a "traditional wedding" as kosher food compares to other food food or nude portraits to "clothed" portraits.
- No, it doesn't. I already explained that the only thing that distinguishes this so-called "non-traditional wedding" is who is involved, not what service the photographer is performing. Your lame attempt to twist the definition of discrimination doesn't work. Everybody will be clothed or unclothed at different times. That doesn't define a segment of society, and obviously, the photographer doesn't hate people on that basis. Gay people are an identifiable segment of society, and they are the target of discriminatory behavior on the part of bigots. And if you want to keep trying to justify this discriminatory behavior, it's probably because you are a bigot, too.
I do fully understand the concept and I agree it is very simple.
1) It is discrimination to refuse service based on WHO is requesting.
2) It is not discrimination to refuse sevice based on WHAT is being requested.
3) A Gay wedding (marriage) does not fufill the fundemental definition of WHAT a wedding (marriage) is.
4) Therefore it is not discrimination to refuse service because the distinction is a question of WHAT and not WHO.
It clearly was an ad homniem. I wrote a sentence and you added "... says the bigot."
Since I was the one writing you clearly labeled me as a bigot. This was not an attempt to generalise it was directed an me personally. I could care less what you call me, I wish to show that you used a logical fallicy in your argumentation.
I don't twist the definition of discrimination in any way. I simply used YOUR definition and showed that it was logicaly inconsistant to label this case as discrimination. There is no discrimination because it is a distinction of WHAT and not WHO.
Bonus question:
Since when does someone have to be a part of a "identifiable segment of society" to be discriminated against?
The question was rhetorical, there is no need to answer.
I do fully understand the concept and I agree it is very simple.
- Clearly, you don't. The photographer obviously takes pictures of many things that don't conform to his definition of a Christian marriage. So that can't be the reason he refuses to photograph this particular event. We all know that the REAL reason is that he doesn't want to serve these particular CUSTOMERS because they are gay. All your efforts to distort or disguise the truth fail. Bigotry is still bigotry, no matter how you try dress it up.
I don't twist the definition of discrimination in any way. I simply used YOUR definition and showed that it was logicaly inconsistant to label this case as discrimination. There is no discrimination because it is a distinction of WHAT and not WHO.
- You are wrong, as I explained. You DO twist the definition, and it IS because of who the customers are.
Since I was the one writing you clearly labeled me as a bigot. This was not an attempt to generalise it was directed an me personally.
- It was an attempt to generalize, but if the shoe fits, wear it.
Since when does someone have to be a part of a "identifiable segment of society" to be discriminated against?
- I might be wrong, but can you think of any cases of bigotry where the target is not some identifiable segment of society? I agree that you can discriminate against an individual, but that is typically not for the same reason as bigotry. Furthermore, anti-discrimination laws identify particular protected classes (segments of society) precisely because those classes are the targets of discrimination.
But these same homosexual people could fail to be targets simply by choosing to not engage in homosexual activity. So it is not because of who they are, it is because of what they do.
"But these same homosexual people could fail to be targets simply by choosing to not engage in homosexual activity."
What do you think this discrimination is all about? Is it because they engage in homosexual activity at their wedding ceremony? No it's all about hate. If you were serious about what you say, you could find a bit of compassion for them at times when there is no homosexual activity going on, but that's not what I observe. What I do observe is that it's all about hating the people, and using their presumed behavior that occurs in private as your excuse.
Post a Comment