[POLITICS] Religious Discrimination

[Abomination]

In context, though, the person in the article believes in the "eternal torment and damnation" version of hell. How theologically accurate they are is irrelevant, they are still spouting hate speech based on what they believe.

The statement still does not include that the speaker wishes them to go to hell or is happy with that. And it also does not include any encouragement to treat them bad in this life.

So while the speaker is probably wrong theologically (can't be sure without knowing his particular sect, but getting "drunks go to hell" out of the bible is questionable at least. But some protestants are strange). And i would guess that he is a homophobe bigot considering there are so many other sins more important to choose from. But it is not hate speech.

The speaker offers nothing more other than stating that homosexuals go to hell. Long and short, the speaker believes that the higher power they hold to be the moral authority in all things deems that homosexuals go to hell. Homosexuals, in the speaker's opinion, DESERVE to go to hell.

This isn't a matter of theological debate either, this is what the speaker believes. Homosexuals deserve eternal torment for their homosexuality. Homosexuals deserve a fate worse than death. How is that not hate speech?

 

[Satinavian]

How is that not hate speech?

Because it is just a statement of a belief. There is no incitement to hatred, there is not even a statement of hate from the speaker. And there is no insult. That is why it is no hate speech.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, on this issue I'm in complete agreement with Abomination. Saying that LGBT people go to hell is pretty blatant.

 

[Silvanus]

Because it is just a statement of a belief. There is no incitement to hatred, there is not even a statement of hate from the speaker. And there is no insult. That is why it is no hate speech.

If someone believes their deity if omnibenevolent (as Christians do), and they also believe that deity has ordained this system, then by definition they believe it's right.

Yes, it's hate speech, of the most clear-cut variety. Pretty drastic mental gymnastics are required to come to any other conclusion.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Who knows, maybe Jesus was a party animal lol.

Yeah there's no "who knows" to it. Yeshua of Nazareth was the Tom Morello of Roman-occupied Palestine. The Sermon on the Mount was actually a firebrand speech urging Hebrews to rise up in civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance against Roman occupation and the Herodian dynasty for collaboration, not this namby-pamby "be a good little serf and you'll be rewarded when you die" dogshit the Catholic church mutated it into. Pretty much the first thing you learn starting any serious scholarly study of the Bible, is that it's the most heavily-censored document in human history to serve the Church's political and economic interest.

That's all thanks to Paul the "Epistle", who is the actual founder of the Catholic church whose writings have the real influence, not "Jesus".

Case in point,

Since Jesus has no recordings of him either being for or against homosexuals...

Okay, let's take out the fact "Jesus" is actually a fictional, composite character based upon Yeshua with a smattering of other contemporary rabbis' sayings and acts that have since been attributed to him. Let's take out the fact there's an entire fucking gospel (Q) that was censored and destroyed despite having a pedigree just as high if not higher than Mark, and replaced in canon by the Johannine epistles which weren't even authored until about 90 AD.

Yes, there is a canon source for "Jesus" condoning homosexuality. Right there, completely unambiguous...that is, if you know how to read Koine Greek. It's in Matthew and Luke, and given the commonality between those two sources it had to have come straight from Q, in case there's any question about why Q might have been censored. And, if I have to make any further arguments as to the censorship of the Bible by the Church, the same story actually shows up in John...heavily censored.

I'm referring to the Centurion's servant, of course. Because the Centurion refers to his "entimos doulos" (intimate servant) as "pais" (beloved), and indeed the accurate historico-cultural connotation is that was a pederastic relationship. The story wasn't about the Centurion being Roman or a soldier, the story was about him being gay.

 

[Trunkage]

How is that not hate speech?

Because it is just a statement of a belief. There is no incitement to hatred, there is not even a statement of hate from the speaker. And there is no insult. That is why it is no hate speech.

So if a Muslims says that they should blow up the West because religious resons, that would clearly not be hate speech by your standards?

Also statements can be two things at once. It's allowed. It can be a statement of faith AND hate speech at the same time. Proving that it is the former doesn't prove it's not the latter

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Btw the whole hell thing is doubly ignorant if you're talking Christianity. You just need to earnestly repent in your heart and you go to heaven. There's this tale that Judas hung himself from a tree after betraying Jesus but the branch broke as a mercy of god and he fell to his death which isn't suicide and if he repented as he was falling he too can even be saved. So of course all the gays and "fornicators" can also avoid hell with just a simple earnest repenting a millisecond before they die.


Oh and also the whole Dante's inferno style hell, that's also a Catholic invention. In the Orthodox text there's not really "hell" as much as something closer to what we think of as purgatory that you stay in to purify yourself of your sins so you can go to heaven. Everyone goes to heaven, some just have to sit in a depressing place for a while depending on the weight of their sins and once their conscience clears they too go to heaven like everyone else.

Doesn't that sound a lot more like the way the world would work if god loved you? Cause that's what's in the original language text of the bible and the orthodox faith. All those scary devils and rape-winds (not sure which level of hell the one that you get raped by wind but there's definitely one of them, I wonder if that la blue girl scene was inspired by this) and what have you are later additions to Christianity aimed at controlling the masses through fear.

In context, though, the person in the article believes in the "eternal torment and damnation" version of hell. How theologically accurate they are is irrelevant, they are still spouting hate speech based on what they believe.

And if you had a madman who wished you were sent to the shadow realm in yugioh and really believed it existed, would that also be hatespeech? Not the ravings of a lunatic? Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Who knows, maybe Jesus was a party animal lol.

Yeah there's no "who knows" to it. Yeshua of Nazareth was the Tom Morello of Roman-occupied Palestine. The Sermon on the Mount was actually a firebrand speech urging Hebrews to rise up in civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance against Roman occupation and the Herodian dynasty for collaboration, not this namby-pamby "be a good little serf and you'll be rewarded when you die" dogshit the Catholic church mutated it into. Pretty much the first thing you learn starting any serious scholarly study of the Bible, is that it's the most heavily-censored document in human history to serve the Church's political and economic interest.

That's all thanks to Paul the "Epistle", who is the actual founder of the Catholic church whose writings have the real influence, not "Jesus".

Case in point,

Since Jesus has no recordings of him either being for or against homosexuals...

Okay, let's take out the fact "Jesus" is actually a fictional, composite character based upon Yeshua with a smattering of other contemporary rabbis' sayings and acts that have since been attributed to him. Let's take out the fact there's an entire fucking gospel (Q) that was censored and destroyed despite having a pedigree just as high if not higher than Mark, and replaced in canon by the Johannine epistles which weren't even authored until about 90 AD.

Yes, there is a canon source for "Jesus" condoning homosexuality. Right there, completely unambiguous...that is, if you know how to read Koine Greek. It's in Matthew and Luke, and given the commonality between those two sources it had to have come straight from Q, in case there's any question about why Q might have been censored. And, if I have to make any further arguments as to the censorship of the Bible by the Church, the same story actually shows up in John...heavily censored.

I'm referring to the Centurion's servant, of course. Because the Centurion refers to his "entimos doulos" (intimate servant) as "pais" (beloved), and indeed the accurate historico-cultural connotation is that was a pederastic relationship. The story wasn't about the Centurion being Roman or a soldier, the story was about him being gay.

That's really interesting, so you say Q, is Q related to this missing gospel somehow like the name of it or is that just an abbreviation you use to save typing? I'd like to look this up.

Personally I think its likely Jesus existed, he didn't have to be actually miraculous to exist and he could simply have been like any other cult leader today filled with grand ideas of being the son of god. Who knows if he even believed what he said or just liked to wander around getting free meals.

That idea that Jesus and or some almagamtion of Jewish prophets like him was anti-roman is interesting too, kind of makes sense considering how Jesus was crucified, then when the Byzantines took on christianity they'd obviously not want to paint theirselves as the bad guys so maybe they made the whole 'washing my hands of this' thing to explain why Romans crucified Jesus, because the angry Jewish elite made them of course.

And Paul is a contentious figure isn't he, I heard a big part of Islam forming was the rejection of Paul but I don't know if thats true or not.

I love reading about the early days of Christianity, it was a crazy time when they were still forming the religion, and to be honest the history of christianity is part of what makes me so atheist today, you can really see it wielded as a tool of the state and all the different ideas that got stamped out makes the ones that won out seem more arbitrary.

Like did you ever hear about Marcionism? It kind of ties into the earlier talk about new vs old testament. It was an early heresy around the year 144 that was squashed out, most of its text is gone but we have replies and arguments against Marcionism. The idea was that there were two gods, the god of the old testament was considered an evil god by Marcion and the new testament a different good god. Presumably because he saw the difference between the 'eye for an eye' philosophy of the old testament and the 'turn the other cheek' of the new testament.

 

[Satinavian]

How is that not hate speech?

Because it is just a statement of a belief. There is no incitement to hatred, there is not even a statement of hate from the speaker. And there is no insult. That is why it is no hate speech.

So if a Muslims says that they should blow up the West because religious resons, that would clearly not be hate speech by your standards?

Also statements can be two things at once. It's allowed. It can be a statement of faith AND hate speech at the same time. Proving that it is the former doesn't prove it's not the latter

"should blow up the west" is incitement of violence and therefor illegal. And maybe hatespeech.
If the Muslim instead says "westerners go to hell/westerners are damned/Allah will judge and punish westerners" that would not be hate speech, indeed.

And yes, i know a statement could both. If someone said "We should stone homosexuals because of religious teachings" that would be hate speach.


Nut i am starting to realize that "hate speech" has no clear internationally understood meaning, but the closest to that we have is from the ICCPR :

"any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence"

That means without incitement to do something(discrimination, hostility, violence) it can never actually be hate speech.
Some broader definitions allow to replace the incitement with an insult while still counting it under hate speech.

But the statement of the beginning has neither incitement nor insult. "Goes to hell according to my religion" is not an insult. So it is no hate speech.


Also keep in mind that the whole event and lawsuit is about contract law. There is no prosecution for hatespeech going on. That would sure be different if prosecutors believed it was hatespeech.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Btw the whole hell thing is doubly ignorant if you're talking Christianity. You just need to earnestly repent in your heart and you go to heaven. There's this tale that Judas hung himself from a tree after betraying Jesus but the branch broke as a mercy of god and he fell to his death which isn't suicide and if he repented as he was falling he too can even be saved. So of course all the gays and "fornicators" can also avoid hell with just a simple earnest repenting a millisecond before they die.


Oh and also the whole Dante's inferno style hell, that's also a Catholic invention. In the Orthodox text there's not really "hell" as much as something closer to what we think of as purgatory that you stay in to purify yourself of your sins so you can go to heaven. Everyone goes to heaven, some just have to sit in a depressing place for a while depending on the weight of their sins and once their conscience clears they too go to heaven like everyone else.

Doesn't that sound a lot more like the way the world would work if god loved you? Cause that's what's in the original language text of the bible and the orthodox faith. All those scary devils and rape-winds (not sure which level of hell the one that you get raped by wind but there's definitely one of them, I wonder if that la blue girl scene was inspired by this) and what have you are later additions to Christianity aimed at controlling the masses through fear.

In context, though, the person in the article believes in the "eternal torment and damnation" version of hell. How theologically accurate they are is irrelevant, they are still spouting hate speech based on what they believe.

And if you had a madman who wished you were sent to the shadow realm in yugioh and really believed it existed, would that also be hatespeech? Not the ravings of a lunatic? Doesn't make much sense to me.

When people go to pseudo-Egyptian temples to worship the creatures on the Egyptian god cards en-masse and recite its prayers to open Parliament you are welcome to make that comparison. Yu-Gi-Oh is a memetic anime and overly complicated Magic the Gathering knock off. You?re a smart man and this asinine example does you absolutely no credit.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Snip.

I caught this just checking the forums before bed, so I'll give you the ELI5/TLDR. To the best of my memory, I'm not doing heavy research for this right now, so not everything may be perfectly accurate.

First, you have the synoptic gospels -- Mark, Matthew, and Luke -- then you have John. John is distinct in content and style, and bears more semblance to the other Johannine epistles than the other gospels, so it's considered separate. Meanwhile, the three synoptic gospels are all very similar in style, content, wording, and sequence, which strongly indicate they synopsize (hence synoptic) other gospels. Mark was the first gospel, having been written around 60-70; Matthew and Luke came after, in the 70-90 period if I remember right; John was the last, around 80-100.

There's a misconception they're called the synoptic gospels because they synopsize Jesus' life, but that's not actually the case even if it's an accurate assessment of the three. They're called synoptic because of the relationship between the three.

So, that brings up the synoptic problem. Passages from Mark are found in both Matthew and Luke, meaning Mark was a source for the two, but there are passages in both Matthew and Luke that aren't in Mark, meaning there had to be another common source that was lost or destroyed. What we can infer based upon the information at hand, is that it was a sayings gospel (a record of Jesus' sayings and sermons) contemporary to Mark that, by the time of the first Nicene Council was lost due to no mention of a potential candidate as apocrypha or heretical. The inferred source, for lack of a proper name, is called Q -- short for the German word quelle.

We can actually check the veracity of this inference. There was a sayings gospel, specifically mentioned by name during the first Nicene Council as heretical, that was lost. That was the Gospel of Thomas, and for 1,600 years nobody knew what the fuck that was about except that it was a gnostic gospel...until a copy was discovered in the Nag Hammadi library in 1945. Except, Thomas wasn't Q; different sayings, different authorship, different time. The recovery of Thomas proves that an entire gospel could just up and disappear from the historical record for no other reason than the Church wanted it suppressed as heresy.

But here's the 64-trillion-dollar question: what if Q was a gnostic gospel? What can be inferred from Matthew and Luke, and comparison between the two and other gnostic gospels, strongly implies yes. Literally all of Christianity as we know it would be a lie; gnosticism would have been the "original" Christianity.

Now, as far as "Jesus". Yes, Yeshua ben Yosef was a real person, there's no longer dispute about that. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming, and the authentication of the James Ossuary engraving was the final nail in that coffin. He existed, done and done. However, nothing is known for certain other than he lived in Judea, he was baptized, and he was executed by crucifixion. That's where the mythology takes over.

 

[Satinavian]

But here's the 64-trillion-dollar question: what if Q was a gnostic gospel? What can be inferred from Matthew and Luke, and comparison between the two and other gnostic gospels, strongly implies yes. Literally all of Christianity as we know it would be a lie; gnosticism would have been the "original" Christianity.

But that is pure speculation.

While a gospel Q might have existed, we know nothing about its content beside what can be guessed from Matthew and Luke. We don't even know if they had one other source or more. And we certainly don't know how or why it has been lost.

However Gnosticism only really takes off at the end of the first century, so it seems unlikely that this far older Q source as well as the original Chrristianity would have been based on it.

 

[Trunkage]

But here's the 64-trillion-dollar question: what if Q was a gnostic gospel? What can be inferred from Matthew and Luke, and comparison between the two and other gnostic gospels, strongly implies yes. Literally all of Christianity as we know it would be a lie; gnosticism would have been the "original" Christianity.

But that is pure speculation.

While a gospel Q might have existed, we know nothing about its content beside what can be guessed from Matthew and Luke. We don't even know if they had one other source or more. And we certainly don't know how or why it has been lost.

However Gnosticism only really takes off at the end of the first century, so it seems unlikely that this far older Q source as well as the original Chrristianity would have been based on it.

Gnosticism only becomes apparent when it starts significantly diverging from Paul's or Peter's version of Christianity, so that it can be persecuted against. Paul continued his Saul ways after conversion, persecuting anyone who deviated from his stance. Thus, any alternate ideas were hidden until he died. Gnostics had to hid for a long time.

I dont know whether Q was Gnostic, I do know some of the gospels were written to coincide with Jewish traditions and when the Torah was read. Stories like the walking on water coincides with Moses parting the Red Sea

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

But that is pure speculation.

While a gospel Q might have existed, we know nothing about its content beside what can be guessed from Matthew and Luke. We don't even know if they had one other source or more. And we certainly don't know how or why it has been lost.

However Gnosticism only really takes off at the end of the first century, so it seems unlikely that this far older Q source as well as the original Chrristianity would have been based on it.

Yes, it is speculation -- but it is very real, very strong speculation that gnosticism emerged up to a century earlier than it was commonly believed to have. That is to say, parallel to proto-Orthodoxy as opposed to a rejection and response to it. And if it did, that has major ramifications on how we understand the early church to have developed.

As far as Q, there's not really much "might have"; a source that we know as Q had to have existed. The question and subject for debate is, as you pointed out, Q's content. The only hypothesis that has traction which doesn't name Q specifically is the three-source hypothesis, and three-source lacks substantial advocacy for a reason -- all it does is excise M and L, rename Q, and doesn't provide explanation for M- and L-sourced passages. Q+ has the same structural issues and then some, and really holds utility insofar as its implication Q+ was the source of the gnostic gospels, but that's just my take on the newer hypothesis.

The strongest argument against a written Q is the oral Q hypothesis, especially given M and L were likely to have also been oral traditions, but the core of that hypothesis remains the existence of the Q source as a gospel.

 

[Saelune]

In context, though, the person in the article believes in the "eternal torment and damnation" version of hell. How theologically accurate they are is irrelevant, they are still spouting hate speech based on what they believe.

The statement still does not include that the speaker wishes them to go to hell or is happy with that. And it also does not include any encouragement to treat them bad in this life.

So while the speaker is probably wrong theologically (can't be sure without knowing his particular sect, but getting "drunks go to hell" out of the bible is questionable at least. But some protestants are strange). And i would guess that he is a homophobe bigot considering there are so many other sins more important to choose from. But it is not hate speech.

The speaker offers nothing more other than stating that homosexuals go to hell. Long and short, the speaker believes that the higher power they hold to be the moral authority in all things deems that homosexuals go to hell. Homosexuals, in the speaker's opinion, DESERVE to go to hell.

This isn't a matter of theological debate either, this is what the speaker believes. Homosexuals deserve eternal torment for their homosexuality. Homosexuals deserve a fate worse than death. How is that not hate speech?

I agree with Abomination on this.

To be Christian is to believe Christianity is true, to believe God is real, Jesus is real, Hell is real. If Christians are right, then Hell is literally the worst place in all existence, a place of unending torment beyond human understanding. As far as any devout Christian should be concerned, 'Go to Hell' is the most offensive thing imaginable.

 

[Batou667]

As somebody who aspires to advocate free speech well above and beyond any religious proscriptions or priviliges, I actually don't think either side did anything wrong here.

The football fella was stating an earnestly held opinion which his personal moral compass compelled him to broadcast publicly. I don't believe it even skirted being an incitement to violence, no matter how little you like the message or its perceived intent.

Likewise Twitter is a private platform and they can remove or ban content they don't like (or pragmatically, that the advertisers don't like) and his soccer/hand-egg/whatever association is a private body that is similarly allowed to put limitations on its representatives speech that is more restrictive than the law of the land. "I didn't do anything illegal" is no defence here, if that's been attempted. Doesn't matter. Their house, their rules.

I think trying to invoke special pleading here is misguided: religiously motivated speech and actions can't be considered a separate category from everyday speech and actions. For a true believer, the two would be synonymous, surely? Whatever your motivation to do or say something - religious, political, revenge, altruism, whatever - the context always matters.

Just to play devils advocate, why is it so offensive for a Christian to say certain groups are going to hell? As an atheist I have the firm belief that no Christians are going to heaven (because it doesn't exist). Surely that offends them more than their belief offends me?

 

[Saelune]

As somebody who aspires to advocate free speech well above and beyond any religious proscriptions or priviliges, I actually don't think either side did anything wrong here.

The football fella was stating an earnestly held opinion which his personal moral compass compelled him to broadcast publicly. I don't believe it even skirted being an incitement to violence, no matter how little you like the message or its perceived intent.

Likewise Twitter is a private platform and they can remove or ban content they don't like (or pragmatically, that the advertisers don't like) and his soccer/hand-egg/whatever association is a private body that is similarly allowed to put limitations on its representatives speech that is more restrictive than the law of the land. "I didn't do anything illegal" is no defence here, if that's been attempted. Doesn't matter. Their house, their rules.

I think trying to invoke special pleading here is misguided: religiously motivated speech and actions can't be considered a separate category from everyday speech and actions. For a true believer, the two would be synonymous, surely? Whatever your motivation to do or say something - religious, political, revenge, altruism, whatever - the context always matters.

Just to play devils advocate, why is it so offensive for a Christian to say certain groups are going to hell? As an atheist I have the firm belief that no Christians are going to heaven (because it doesn't exist). Surely that offends them more than their belief offends me?

If someone tries to kill you, does it matter if they do a bad job of it? Even if they try to kill you by tickling you to death, they are still trying to kill you. Intent matters.

 

[Batou667]

If someone tries to kill you, does it matter if they do a bad job of it? Even if they try to kill you by tickling you to death, they are still trying to kill you. Intent matters.

Do you believe in witchcraft? Hexes? Curses? The Evil Eye?

If not, then you have nothing to fear from mere words. (Free speech)

Unless those words are "Platoon... fire!" in which case, duck. (Clear and present incitement to violence)

 

[Saelune]

If someone tries to kill you, does it matter if they do a bad job of it? Even if they try to kill you by tickling you to death, they are still trying to kill you. Intent matters.

Do you believe in witchcraft? Hexes? Curses? The Evil Eye?

If not, then you have nothing to fear from mere words. (Free speech)

Unless those words are "Platoon... fire!" in which case, duck. (Clear and present incitement to violence)

I believe that I would be concerned if someone was making voodoo dolls of me.

Also Christians are in power, Witches are not.

 

[Abomination]

Just to play devils advocate, why is it so offensive for a Christian to say certain groups are going to hell? As an atheist I have the firm belief that no Christians are going to heaven (because it doesn't exist). Surely that offends them more than their belief offends me?

In the context of this case, the individual was punished for publicly stating that a particular demographic deserves a fate worse than death. This wasn't someone just believing it, people are free to believe whatever they want. This also wasn't the government stepping in to punish the individual either as, quite rightly, no call to action was made. However, it is most certainly a bigoted and offensive remark and not something any company wants a representative, or a well known employee, announcing on public media.

His announcement, that he is free to believe, put the company in a position where if it took no action it would be seen as having no stance on the issue. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people in the western world are not anti-homosexual/trans/queer. So for the company to just let those comments slide would be a slight on their reputation and paint the company as being tolerant of anti-queer rhetoric. The only solution, a public condemnation and punishment of the employee for their offensive post.