tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post5951964881055632562..comments2023-07-03T11:58:26.947+01:00Comments on Friendly Humanist: Religious rights: free speech and hate speechTimothy Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-69713683077322349892009-10-20T03:53:50.281+01:002009-10-20T03:53:50.281+01:00''I think that unless they can convince so...''I think that unless they can convince society at large of the merit of their position, we should not privilege that position in law.''TM<br /><br />Really. If they could, then should we?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-70886086893781163052009-09-01T15:28:15.941+01:002009-09-01T15:28:15.941+01:00Without the exegetical knowledge that you possess,...Without the exegetical knowledge that you possess, Cath, I will not presume to rule on what is the "true" meaning of any given passage in the Bible.<br /><br />Instead, what I (and many atheists, and I daresay most self-identified Christians) do is interpret a claim in the context in which I am exposed to it. If it's in a blog post by a thoughtful Christian, who provides supporting text showing that the condemnation of gay sex is a situational command that clearly doesn't apply to today's world, then of course I won't be inclined to see it as hate speech. If, on the other hand, it's in a tirade from a bloke on the street, waving a Bible about and telling me to stop tolerating the people that his God so clearly condemns, then of course I will say that it is hate speech.<br /><br />I do not have to know the long and intricate history of biblical scholarship to correctly identify, say, the <a href="http://www.godhatesfags.com/" rel="nofollow">Westboro Baptist Church website</a> as a poisonous cesspool of hatred and vitriol. Whether their interpretation of the Bible is ultimately correct, their use of verses on that website clearly consitute an attempt to incite hatred against gay people.<br /><br />I apologize for not making the distinction more clearly in my initial post between the "true" meaning of the passages (which I don't pretend to know) and the meaning that is obvious from how certain people use them. Perhaps this is a general failing of the atheist critics of religion. But then, it swings both ways. As I pointed in my <a href="http://friendlyhumanist.blogspot.com/2009/08/does-blanchard-understand-humanism-3-of.html" rel="nofollow">recent critique of Blanchard's book</a>, religious people often fail (or simply don't bother) to actually understand the humanist or atheist position before presuming to give a sound refutation of it. (That's not an excuse for my own laziness - just a way of saying that I understand where you're coming from.)Timothy Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-27387917344666348802009-08-31T20:36:39.747+01:002009-08-31T20:36:39.747+01:00NSF - as I indicated to Tim, "inciting violen...NSF - as I indicated to Tim, "inciting violence" is simply not what these texts are doing. It's an exegetical question, and your hermeneutics are all wrong, dude! These verses are stating a judicial penalty for committing what was a crime in that particular nation - which you might or might not agree was a good idea, but it's only "inciting violence" in the way that it "incites violence" for people to agree with the death penalty for capital offences - even if it seems barbaric, there is still a legal system, due process, involved in a way that is simply not akin to the vigilante or mob action that's involved in actual incitement to a crime.<br /><br />Glad we're all agreed that arrest isn't the way forward for people who spout or preach objectionable views. <br /><br />Tim - you say, "So I don't think it's unfair to say that passages such as those I mentioned might be used by self-identified Christians to promote hatred and violence." <br />It's probably not unfair to say that anything <i>might</i> be used by anyone for anything, but if anyone does use passages such as those to promote hatred and violence, they're doing as much violence to the text as you two are. As I say, the regulations and penalties which were in force for civil society in the Old Testament do not, and cannot, under any exegetical stretch, form part of an evangelistic message. (Oh, NSF says he's heard them recited - Tim can probably don his linguist hat and explain the use/mention distinction if need be - the exegetical point stands.) It's the one of the biggest myths of the new atheist dogma, that the Bible is full of hate speech - the idea of engaging with the actual scriptural texts is apparently entirely foreign to this worldview, thus conveniently allowing the near-complete ignoring of the centuries of interpretation and understanding which the Christian church has undertaken, or so it seems from my side of the fence at any rate.<br /><br />The key question - well, bearing in mind that I reject the implicit accusation that exhortations to violence can be read from the Bible, I have no problem agreeing that incitement to violence should continue to be treated as a crime, regardless of whether the violence is justified or motivated on the basis of a religious text.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-70508650012986471432009-08-31T09:08:14.221+01:002009-08-31T09:08:14.221+01:00I actually think it's okay for people to belie...I actually think it's okay for people to believe that homosexual practice is wrong. It's healthy for a society to have a diversity of opinions. I disagree with them, and I think that unless they can convince society at large of the merit of their position, we should not privilege that position in law.<br /><br />Homophobia (a fear or even a hatred of homosexuality) is most emphatically <b>not</b> equivalent to promoting hatred or violence. If someone is prejudiced against a particular group (fairly or unfairly), they should be able to express their prejudice. Otherwise, we might (a) not realize that such ideas are prevalant and (b) not have the opportunity to counter them with better ideas.<br /><br />96:10, you are right that, for thoughtful readers of the Christian scriptures, context is very important. I would not describe the Bible as a whole as hate speech.<br /><br />However, some portions of it are, when taken on their own, hateful, and do clearly promote violence.<br /><br />Not only that, but there are Christians who are quite happy to take such passages out of context and use them to excuse hateful speech and even violence. For all that some Christians have been among the social reformers of recent centuries, other Christians have been among the slave-owners and the opponents of social progress.<br /><br />So I don't think it's unfair to say that passages such as those I mentioned might be used by self-identified Christians to promote hatred and violence. I think such people would be in a minority among Christians, but that is no reason to pretend they don't exist.<br /><br />I'm interested to know where you stand on the key question I raised. Should we give special consideration to people's sacred books (Quran, Torah, Bible, Bhagavad Gita, etc.) when deciding whether a statement is hate speech?Timothy Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-61265311324957340592009-08-30T17:40:42.556+01:002009-08-30T17:40:42.556+01:0096&10,
It depends entirely on what passages w...96&10,<br /><br />It depends entirely on what passages were used. If the passages did incite violence (and there aren't many passages in the Bible related to homosexuality which don't - I've certainly heard those passages recited so it's not as unlikely as you seem to think), then regardless of whether it's Biblical or not, widespread or not, then they should have been arrested as the law says. It always strikes me when people claim to be being discriminated against when really they're being asked to follow the same rules as everyone else.<br /><br />But what strikes me most about your post is the way you say "if you happen to believe that homosexual practice is wrong", as if that's an acceptable belief to have. It's like saying "if you happen to believe that black people are inferior". No, I don't think people should be arrested for saying such things (actually I'm not sure I think incitement to violence should be a crime either), but these kinds of beliefs should be tackled at every opportunity, and people who spout (or 'preach') them should be shown up for the medieval bigots they really are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5057848876106210255.post-14814856457815949962009-08-29T17:46:09.801+01:002009-08-29T17:46:09.801+01:00Tim,
you may be lacking a bit of context when you...Tim,<br /><br />you may be lacking a bit of context when you describe the Bible as containing hate speech.<br /><br />The passages in Exodus and Leviticus are certainly juicy tidbits for people who want to want to claim that (that the Bible contains hate speech). But it's just daft to take them out of context like this. The "killing" you refer to is a civil penalty for a crime against the law of the land, as it was then. Far from being a text you could preach from on the Royal Mile, encouraging fellow believers to go around slaughtering people, verses like these refer to the outcome of a judicial process, carried out according to the law of the land. It's obviously the law of a land that no longer exists, and not the kind of punishment that our legal systems tend to mete out any more, but to overlook the judicial, legal, civil nature of passages like this is to fundamentally mistake the nature of the passages in question. <br />Also, if you don't mind me adding, this mistake is presumably what allows you to make the rather remarkable glide from "allegations of homophobia were made against these men" to "these men could easily have been exhorting to violence" - clearly without understanding the context of the passages, you don't realise how grossly unlikely it would be for a Christian street preacher to cite passages like these as part of an evangelistic message!<br /><br />The freedom of speech issue is, surely, entirely straightforward. It should not be a matter for the police if you happen to believe that homosexual practice is wrong. Nor indeed if you say that homosexual practice is wrong, or if you quote approvingly scriptural passages which say that homosexual practice is wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com