This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← You want to ban hate speech? Isn’t that what religion is?

You want to ban hate speech? Isn’t that what religion is? - Comments

alf1200's Avatar Comment 1 by alf1200

As long as they ban "burn in hell". And a lot of other religious phrases.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:38:06 UTC | #944879

RDfan's Avatar Comment 2 by RDfan

Yeah, anti-hate speech or hate speech legislation, especially against religious belief, has never made sense to me.

That's because religion itself -- I'm thinking Christianity and Islam and their Holy Books -- is filled with such hate that, it seems clear to me, such legislation should begin, firstly, with indicting these books and their adherents, before it can target anyone else. But that's not what happens. The religious are allowed to invoke freedom of speech or freedom to practice a belief when they spew hatred of women or gays, say (especially when they quote scripture), and expect protection under the law. Once again religious privilege trumps common sense and the law. If the religious want to retain the right to spread hate, they should expect everyone else to retain the same right. Otherwise, STFU.

(Religious books are so anachronistic, so quaint, so out of touch with current knowledge and cultural norms in many parts of the world that it's a wonder that anyone takes them seriously (other than for their historical value), let alone invokes them in modern discourse over rights and wrongs, truth and falsity. But wait, I forget: it's called delusion.)

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 01:14:29 UTC | #944881

Fouad Boussetta's Avatar Comment 3 by Fouad Boussetta

Well, yes, it's a fact. The "Holy Books" are hateful books.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 01:22:03 UTC | #944882

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 4 by Premiseless

"Faith books" are the "hate books". "My way or death!" is their propaganda. They groom human minds with their seductive disguise to cure all ills - and cheat believers into a trickery of their own confused emotions which then are reduced to a poverty of thought from which fight or flight seems the only thing left.

"Faith" in the "god/s of old" is corruption, in its many forms. How many of us have thought they were avoiding crime, by being tricked into a delusion doing an even more chronic damage? Why weren't we warned?

Some place, this being human experience? Some poison? And those with power over us? Who'd have thought it? Who'd have known the pain of this and thought us worthy of anything of value?

A charade is the veil between us and death. Children, posing, up until the final curtain. None knowing what they are representing, or even how exactly.

Who'd have thought this of even the most respected amongst us?

Reason feels like cold steel till you have tasted the furnace of lifes chancers and romancers. Who'd have ever thought this to be our legacy? To lock up reason after reason and gamble till the end?

Some casino; they made out of all of us? Some casino!

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:23:17 UTC | #944887

Stephen of Wimbledon's Avatar Comment 5 by Stephen of Wimbledon

This is an interesting perspective, except that I can see the religious response coming:

We also preach love, respect, honor, morality, etc.

It's always seemed odd to me that they never preach humor ... ?

Your taking those texts out of perspective

See the Scripture Project.

Saying that our Allah-given text is hateful is offensive - this is exactly what we mean by hate speech!

No-one is more energised by hate speech laws than me. But even I can see that attacking hate speech laws this way is likely to be counter-productive; we will waste time and resources essentially singing the opposition's tune.

Peace.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:54:29 UTC | #944889

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 6 by Starcrash

Why do irrational people keep equivocating hate speech? Perhaps it was very badly named.

Free speech is a good thing, but like any freedom it could cause harm to others. Libel, slander, and the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" all cause harm to others and so we make it illegal. Making 'hate speech' was going too far. Hate speech is any speech that is discriminatory and may cause a riot... so basically if you want to turn somebody's free speech into hate speech you simply have to incite a riot over it. Ask radical Muslims how it's done.

Even though it has 'hate' in the name, speech about hate is not hate speech. It has to be something prejudiced against an entire ethic group, country, or religion, which is why it's somewhat ironic that this article vilifies Christianity and Islam. If it also included instructions on what to do about these villains, it would be hate speech... can you see why I'm not a big fan of making this a crime?

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 03:39:14 UTC | #944893

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 7 by Premiseless

Comment 6 by Starcrash :

Nothing could be so appropriately defined as deserving of being branded hate ethics, than religion per se. It first establishes protections to condemn others via imaginary powers, then reserves the rights to brand others as hate speech riot mongers for calling them out on this criminal/traditional historical position.

Hypocrisy is religions manufacturing plant! Keep mass producing hypocrisy till it floods the market.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 03:57:17 UTC | #944896

MilitantNonStampCollector's Avatar Comment 8 by MilitantNonStampCollector

Speech – however distressing or hateful – is not the same as physical harm. And anyway, you can’t stop hate with censorship. You can only stop it by challenging it head on.

Tit for tat game-theory shows that it is better not to challenge things head on at times - based on probability. Mostly yes - but sometimes it is best to just sit back.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 05:10:45 UTC | #944900

sbooder's Avatar Comment 9 by sbooder

Sticks & stones!

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:54:35 UTC | #944915

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 10 by Stafford Gordon

I have a friend - friend? Well, an acquaintance, who until recently I thought was a friend, who, when I try to discuss religion with her calls me a born again atheist, a bully, and bonkers, and tells me to leave her alone; it's a kind of hate talk, albeit mild.

I never employ an ad hominem approach in discourse, but she just flies off the handle when ever I try to discuss "faith".

She doesn't think Tim Minchin is funny, just very angry, she found "From Abbotabad to Worse" infuriating, and at present I'm waiting to hear from her as to whether she'll agree to let me send her Daniel Dennett's recent video "How to Tell You're an Atheist". ; this will be my last shot, although I don't really know why I'm bothering.

She suffers from having been born into the Catholic tradition, and it's proved absolutely impossible to get her to discuss the matter. About everything else she's perfectly rational, and I like her, but her behaviour when it comes to religion is a text book example of what I've observed over many decades, cognitive dissonance, in spades; actually, it may be more similar to schizophrenia; I'm using both terms very loosely of course.

Questioning and enquiry of her beliefs are absolutely forbidden, but she feels completely at liberty to slag off those with different views to her.

An interesting syndrome perhaps?

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:59:19 UTC | #944923

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 11 by SaganTheCat

          [Comment 9](/videos/646090-you-want-to-ban-hate-speech-isn-t-that-what-religion-is/comments?page=1#comment_944915) by  [sbooder](/profiles/9317)          :


                 Sticks & stones!

quite

freedom of speech means freedom for people to say things we don't want to hear.

social norms should be the only form of policing on what people say imo.

the term "incitement to violence", which seems to be the strongest argument for banning hate speech, removes responsibility from offenders to the people who speak to them. in a grown up world there should be no laws on speach. unfortunately this is no grown up world. as long as there's a law against hate speech there will be poeple looking to be offended and demand protection at the expense of others' freedoms

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:07:32 UTC | #944925

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 12 by strangebrew

The way the hate-speech legislation has been drafted is the greatest error ever perpetrated by mealy mouthed, cowardly politicians and their minions.

It is seemingly based on what gives offence...and that is the problem. No one apparently can be offended if they are not religious. This nonsense was drafted only to give the snivelling a place to hide their shame or ignorant inhumanity behind...or both. Because the authorities in secular terms give credence and sycophantic respect towards religions those august institutions can spout gibberish and real hate speech at will to whoever they want whenever they want and whenever the spirit takes them.

If it is in a bronze age scribbling it is automatically protected....no matter that the scribblings themselves are absolutely well beyond offensive and barbaric to all humanity in the 21st century.

That is the problem...they are untouchable and at liberty to express their petty and ignorant hatreds at will...but anyone condemning the pompous and cretinous broadcaster of these same hate filled snippets of 'morality' even the criticizing of the source of such dumbfuckery from over 2000 years ago are adjudged to be spreading hate-speech and are offensive under the law as it stands.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:11:10 UTC | #944926

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 13 by Premiseless

Comment 10 by Stafford Gordon :

I have a friend - friend? Well, an acquaintance, who until recently I thought was a friend, who, when I try to discuss religion with her calls me a born again atheist, a bully, and bonkers, and tells me to leave her alone; it's a kind of hate talk, albeit mild.

I'd guess she now has associativity issues. You "fact her" and she "feels violated" etc. One approach that, I'd guess, sometimes gets under her emotional concepts is the "same as but bigger" iconography.

For example, I know I used to find it impossible to deconstruct my own belief since it already incorporated eternity, therefore any big bang fiasco. However when my belief itself was given a "big banger" as in the pre Jesus Zeitgeist Horus et al alternatives, a new theory dawned on my mind. The concept that Jesus was born of preceding myths! Jesus had a bigger banger that preceded his role - even an astrological one - came good for me. Maybe there is mileage in this for your friend?

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:13:55 UTC | #944927

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 14 by strangebrew

Comment 10 by Stafford Gordon

cognitive dissonance, in spades; actually, it may be more similar to schizophrenia

Yes that is how the katolik' message is ingrained. They take the kids and make them wet their knickers with anxiety then enforce that message whenever and however they can when the kiddies get older and certainly by the time they are teenagers the rot and corruption is so deep and pervasive it is almost impossible to eradicate the stain of guilt and fear their life is based around.

All religions try it but the Islamic and katolik' variety have it down pat, because they work it that the sentinel that insures the sheeple compliance is the society...congregation...atmosphere that pervades every waking minute. They let the friends family and society they move in dictate the fear to keep them on the path. They are primed to inform against each other.

They instil schizophrenia which enables the cognitive dissonance...they are literally indoctrinating insanity...how sad is that...what is sadder is that society stands by and lets them get away with it!

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:31:35 UTC | #944928

Sample's Avatar Comment 15 by Sample

About everything else she's perfectly rational, and I like her, but her behaviour when it comes to religion is a text book example of what I've observed over many decades, cognitive dissonance, in spades; actually, it may be more similar to schizophrenia; I'm using both terms very loosely of course. (Stafford Gifford)

Might I suggest that if she thinks you are only, how shall I put it, trying to verb her noun, then any perceived obligation on your part for her to provide you with rational company is an unreasonable demand if ultimately contrary to her own self interests. All I'm saying is, is that there may be other reasons. :-j

Mike

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:32:58 UTC | #944929

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 16 by Premiseless

Comment 14 by strangebrew :

what is sadder is that society stands by and lets them get away with it!

Sadder still that power advocates it.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:43:05 UTC | #944930

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 17 by Premiseless

Comment 15 by Sample :

All I'm saying is, is that there may be other reasons. :-j

1) I'll guess self-betrayal is a major one. "I identify all the virtues of who I am as represented in this God Delusion, therefore I have no idea how to emotionally detach from it and preserve my own sense of integrity. To do so is to also admit to a life of betrayal, by those I have respected and by my own credulity to have become complicit in a chain of lies."

2) Another major barrier is fear of the void; vertigo at the now glimpsed negation - of all ones consciousness has been sold out to.

3) Only the hangman awaits; ones sense of self is stood on the gallows and the dread of having brought anyone along with oneself (children, family et al) is too great a guilt in some to know how to remedy the enormity of such a malady. How do you explain yourself to loved ones and help them out or leave the, as yet unknown, hardliners behind. Standing on the trapdoor and flicking the switch is to hang all you ever were and know not into what you are going, or if there be any comfort there. Probably not in fact! The comfort is in the self knowledge that at last one is doing sensible things with ones thoughts. Some consolation? It's the consolation that is often too chilling a prospect to breach the hymen of delusion. Letting the labour pains of deception keep gripping ones cranium is the place many find it too painful a prospect to emerge from. Pain versus pain, whilst the scales care not a jot.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:06:38 UTC | #944931

richard jr miles's Avatar Comment 18 by richard jr miles

Re.comment 10 Stafford Gordon.Your friend is suffering from what I call 'placebo addiction'which can be fatal,tell her that.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:25:45 UTC | #944933

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 19 by Tyler Durden

Comment 10 by Stafford Gordon :

About everything else she's perfectly rational, and I like her, but her behaviour when it comes to religion is a text book example of what I've observed over many decades, cognitive dissonance, in spades; actually, it may be more similar to schizophrenia; I'm using both terms very loosely of course.

I'm not sure schizophrenia is an appropriate label (based upon the limited data here); but the cognitive dissonance is spot on.

The DSM-IV-TR defines schizophrenia as:

Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated): (1) delusions (2) hallucinations (3) disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence (4) grossly disorganized or catatonic behaviour (5) negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia (poverty of speech), or avolition (lack of motivation).

Her reactions to your queries about her faith are more akin to a defense mechanism due to massive insecurity. She does not possess the tools, skillset or knowledge to deal with your questions, hence the negative over-reaction.

Questioning and enquiry of her beliefs are absolutely forbidden, but she feels completely at liberty to slag off those with different views to her.

This is an insecurity mechanism built upon her fear that you will, ultimately, destroy her faith. The less she engages, the safer she feels.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:56:39 UTC | #944936

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 20 by strangebrew

Comment 18 by richard jr miles

Your friend is suffering from what I call 'placebo addiction, which can be fatal,tell her that.

Indeed...this has recently been a topic discussed.

Comment 19 by Tyler Durden

Over 90% of the faithful and 100% of the clergy certainly fall into that category!

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:56:57 UTC | #944937

achromat666's Avatar Comment 21 by achromat666

So far the position seems to simply go back to the perception religion has about its special, untouchable place in the scheme of things. Despite the child molestation, homosexual and apostate bashing, abortion clinic destroying and constant slander of what others think, say and believe, they have the distorted view that their position is both special and sacred and of all things loving.

If anything the dialogue should be for the religious to prove demonstrably that their position is not hateful, and when it comes to light they can't, then make set any possible guidelines out.

Otherwise it will become a subjective exercise in futility.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:09:51 UTC | #944939

Roedy's Avatar Comment 22 by Roedy

Religion is not only protected hate speech it is protected hate deeds. Christians are given a green light to persecute, harass, beat up, deny employment, deny the right to marry, deny the right to adopt, bully children, lie about... gay people all for no reason other than a line in a bronze age book also condemning hundreds of classes of people to death that everyone ignores as obsolete. Their cruel behaviour is considered their divine right and their exercise of freedom of religion. It would be quite rational of gays to retaliate in kind, but of course such behaviour would not be tolerated for a microsecond. In other words, irrational hate is ok, but rational hate is not.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:33:58 UTC | #944952

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 23 by Stafford Gordon

19: Tyler Durden.

Thanks for the insecurity mechanism suggestion; it fits perfectly, she did actually once ask me if I was trying to convert her.

Sadly, I think it's all too ingrained now, and I'd best do as she's asked and leave her alone; but, you never know, I might have started something, and she might want to hear the Daniel Dennett talk!

Thanks also to : 13, Premiseless - 14, strangebrew - 15, Sample - and 18, richard jr miles, for your comments.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:45:43 UTC | #944996

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 24 by Premiseless

Comment 19 by Tyler Durden :

How do you think religion measures up to my accusation that it is forever instructing BPD behaviours; thus promoting C-PTSD in those living alongside it who perhaps don't see the sense or feel it a perpetual counter intuitive in their daily lives?

The other thing about BPD is that it is recognised as more likely not being curable, though in some cases this might occur.

I'd go much further, given a brain with more aptitude for reading, but at a guesstimate I would propose religion is responsible for many identifiable traits in all sorts of personality disorders, coupled to reactive behaviours by those who are forced to live alongside its lifelong irrational insistencies.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:14:21 UTC | #945000

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 25 by Border Collie

My recommendation to Muslims and others who whine about free speech all the time is to grow some skin and get over it AND yourselves. If you're really having toddler-like emotional distress over such, the phone book is full of good therapists.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:25:22 UTC | #945055

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 26 by Premiseless

Here we see religion claiming that paradise is nicer than the prison they send you to. Who needs paradise?

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:19:39 UTC | #945081

RobertJames's Avatar Comment 27 by RobertJames

I'm not sure it makes much sense to associate ancient religious writings with contemporary legislations on hate speech which are a valid social response to modern issues in multi racial societies. The law isn't there to prevent intelligent debate and critique it's there to prevent abuse. Associating what goes on in countries like Iran with UK censorship regulation is just silly.

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 02:20:09 UTC | #945242

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 28 by Schrodinger's Cat

I'm a little peeved that the title simply says 'religion' rather than stop beating about the bush and say 'Islam'.

I simply dont understand this need to have to belatedly throw in '....and the Bible' every time the context of the topic is clearly the current attrocious behaviour of Islam and the bulk of the OP (not to mention the attached video ) are in condemnation of that religion. That is the religion that is " stoning people to death with ‘Allah O Akbar’ ringing in our ears "

The notion that all religions are dangerous should not blind people to just how much more dangerous some currently are than others.

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:17:52 UTC | #945321