Posts by writetoknow

67

Advocating Destruction of Religion Hate Speech?

by writetoknow in

introduction.

in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).

the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".

writetoknow

My second post states the purpose and my third post states it again. So lets state it one more time do you think people that advocated the destruction of all religion are practicing hate speech? Or better put where is the line between hate speech and adding ideas to the discussion of advocating the destruction of all religion?

67

Advocating Destruction of Religion Hate Speech?

by writetoknow in

introduction.

in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).

the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".

writetoknow

The defining point is does it add to the idea or is it just hate? If it is words the incite a person to fight it seem it is hate speech?

67

Advocating Destruction of Religion Hate Speech?

by writetoknow in

introduction.

in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).

the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".

writetoknow

Where does a person or group cross that line between adding new ideas and hate speech? There is much hate towards religion today being advocated on the internet at what point does this speech become hate speech?

Many seem to think all hateful speech towards religion is allowed because religion is deserving of that type of talk.

Personally I don't think it should be allow against any group even if the current trend makes hate speech acceptable.

2

The WTSs sole reason for using the Bible

by Doug Mason in

to me, the key passages in the study watchtower for january 15 2008 are:.

the christian greek scriptures were written primarily for the israel of god, those [144,000] anointed as brothers of christ and spiritual sons of god.

of course, that in no way suggests that non-israelites could not derive great benefit from studying the hebrew scriptures.

writetoknow

Let no one be deprived of the undeserved kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ.

67

Advocating Destruction of Religion Hate Speech?

by writetoknow in

introduction.

in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).

the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".

writetoknow

Introduction

In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."

In 1988, the Supreme Court considered a jury award of damages against Hustler Magazine for publishing a malicious and untrue story about Rev. Jerry Falwell. The piece, labeled in small print "a parody," stated that Falwell's first sexual encounter was with his mother while drunk in an outhouse. A Virginia jury concluded that the Hustler piece constituted "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and awarded $150,000 to Falwell. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the award, saying that it saw no principled basis for distinguishing the Hustler article from hard-hitting political cartoons and other speech clearly worthy of First Amendment protection. The Court distinguished the sort of character assassination practiced by Hustler from the face-to-face insult threatening an immediate breach of the peace that was in issue in Chaplinsky.

American Booksellers involved a First Amendment challenge to an Indianapolis civil rights ordinance that made it a crime to distribute materials that depicted women as "sexual objects for domination, conquest, or use." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the ordinance calling it "thought control." The Court ruled that the First Amendment gives government no power to establish "approved views" of various subgroups of the population.

R. A. V. considered a challenge to a St. Paul ordinance punishing the placement of certain symbols that were "likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender." Robert Victoria, a teenager, had been convicted of violating the ordinance after having been found to have burned a cross on the yard of a black family. The Court, in an an opinion by Justice Scalia, reversed R. A. V.'s conviction on the ground that the ordinance unconstitutionally criminalized some hurtful expression (specifically that aimed at racial and religious minorites) and not other hurtful expression (that aimed at other unprotected groups) based on the political preferences of legislators. Scalia makes clear that "fighting words" is not, as Chaplinsky had suggested, a category of speech that is wholly outside of First Amendment protection.

A year after R. A. V., the Supreme Court unanimously upheld, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, a statute that imposed stiffer sentences for racially-motivated assaults than for other types of assaults. The Court reasoned that the statute did not violate the First Amendment because it was aimed primarily at regulating conduct, not speech.

In Virginia v Black (2003), the Court divided on the question of whether a state could prohibit cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate. A majority of the Court concluded that, because cross-burning has a history as a "particularly virulent form of intimidation," Virginia could prohibit that form of expression while not prohibiting other types of intimidating expression. Thus, the majority found the cross-burning statute to fall within one of R. A. V.'s exceptions to the general rule that content-based prohibitions on speech violate the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the Court reversed the Virginia cross-burner's conviction because of a jury instruction that might produce convictions of cross-burners whose motivation was ideological--and not an attempt to arouse fear. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that cross-burning is conduct, not expression, and therefore its suppression does not raise serious First Amendment issues.

40

ATHEISM - Better World When Christian Are Gone?

by writetoknow in

stereotypes and prejudicessynopsis.

genocide is the ultimate expression of hatred and violence against a group of people.

this chapter traces the steps by which a group becomes the target of prejudice, discrimination, persecution and violence.

writetoknow

Religion Must Be Destroyed, Atheist Alliance Declares
By Matt Purple
CNSNews.com Correspondent
October 03, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Science must ultimately destroy organized religion, according to some of the leading atheist writers and intellectuals who spoke at a recent atheist conference in Northern Virginia. God is a myth, and children must not be schooled in any faith, they said, at the "Crystal Clear Atheism" event, sponsored by the Atheist Alliance International.

Some of the luminaries who spoke at the conference, held at the Crown Royal Hotel in Crystal City, Va., over the weekend, included Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, author Sam Harris and journalist Christopher Hitchens. The Atheist Alliance International describes itself as "the only democratic national atheist organization in the United States."

While most attendees on Friday night were adamant that God was a myth, the convention, attended by hundreds of people, brought into focus a divide among atheists as to their identity as a movement and the nature of the enemy they faced.

In his speech, Dawkins portrayed a black-and-white intellectual battle between atheism and religion. He denounced the "preposterous nonsense of religious customs" and compared religion to racism. He also gave no quarter to moderate or liberal believers, asserting that "so-called moderate Christianity is simply an evasion."

"If you've been taught to believe it by moderates, what's to stop you from taking the next step and blowing yourself up?" he said.

By contrast, Harris's speech was a more tempered critique of the atheist movement itself. While Harris said he believed science must ultimately destroy religion, he also discussed spirituality and mysticism and called for a greater understanding of allegedly spiritual phenomena. He also cautioned the audience against lumping all religions together.

"The refrain that all religions have their extremists is bull-t," Harris said. "All religions do not have their extremists. Some religions have never had their extremists."

Specifically, he noted that radical Islam was far more threatening than any radical Christian sect, adding that Christians had a right to be outraged when the media treated the two religions similarly.

Harris also criticized movement atheism and questioned the use of the word "atheist."

"Atheism is not a philosophy, just as non-racism is not," he said. "It is not a worldview, though it is frequently portrayed as one.

"Rather than declare ourselves atheists, I think we should emphasize reason," Harris added.

While the audience gave Dawkins a standing ovation, Harris received only polite applause. One questioner later declared herself "very disappointed" in Harris's talk.

But whatever differences the speakers had with each other, they were united in their contempt for religion and their belief that religious faith had to be challenged and ridiculed by secularism and reason.

"Religion is not the root of all evil, but it gets in the way of [determining] how we got here and where we find ourselves," Dawkins said. "And that is an evil in itself."

Dawkins was particularly critical of parents who raise their children as a "Catholic child" or "Protestant child." Children must not be labeled as subscribing to a particular religion, he said, and should be allowed to examine the evidence and determine their beliefs for themselves.

"If I said that's a post-modernist child, for example, you'd think I was mad," he quipped.

Other speakers at the convention included philosopher Daniel Dennett, evolutionary scientist Eugenie Scott, and Charles Darwin's great-great-grandson Matthew Chapman. There was also a performance by atheist rapper Greydon Square, who wore a shirt that read "The Black Carl Sagan."

Many of the attendees seemed to have developed an aversion to religion from conservative, Protestant Christians. Several of the atheists Cybercast News Service spoke to complained of living under fundamentalist parents who frowned upon any questioning of the Bible or any activity condemned in Scripture.

"It wasn't easy [telling my parents I was an atheist]," one said. "I still haven't entirely told them. I just say I'm a humanist, which they don't seem to mind."

Further emphasizing the attendees' distaste for conservative religion was the convention gift shop which, in addition to atheist materials, sold politically liberal-themed bumper stickers and pins, including "Impeach Bush" and "Stewart/Colbert '08."

A common decoration at the convention was the red letter "A," which was emblazoned on t-shirts and pins worn by several of the attendees. The "A," an allusion to Hester Prynne's punishment in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, is a symbol of the Out Campaign, a movement started by Dawkins to encourage Americans to proudly display their atheism.

Although Crystal Clear Atheism was well-attended, it received little publicity and media attention. The convention also experienced frequent technical difficulties, particularly during Dawkins' Powerpoint slideshow.

Atheists are still a small minority in America. A Newsweek poll earlier this year found that 91 percent of Americans believe in God. A more recent Pew Research Center poll found that atheists were among the most distrusted people in the nation, with 53 percent of Americans holding an unfavorable opinion of them.

But they are a proudly elitist and self-certain minority. When asked what the main difference between believers and atheists was, Dawkins had a quick answer: "Well, we're bright."

Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

</form>

40

ATHEISM - Better World When Christian Are Gone?

by writetoknow in

stereotypes and prejudicessynopsis.

genocide is the ultimate expression of hatred and violence against a group of people.

this chapter traces the steps by which a group becomes the target of prejudice, discrimination, persecution and violence.

writetoknow

Christian Religion is guilty that not the question?

40

ATHEISM - Better World When Christian Are Gone?

by writetoknow in

stereotypes and prejudicessynopsis.

genocide is the ultimate expression of hatred and violence against a group of people.

this chapter traces the steps by which a group becomes the target of prejudice, discrimination, persecution and violence.

writetoknow

Do Athist wish to live in peace with Christian Religion of the earth or for that matter any religion?

20

BLAMING GOD...

by writetoknow in

and blame which involves urges to punish either by asking punishing questions or by threatening punishments but then explaining away these urges away.

layer 2 blame.

here again, in theory, seeing this difference is simple.

writetoknow

So what is your point? Blaming is the point, why people blame God does that mean you blame me because I stated I have nothing to offer? If I had something better to offer you I would be happy to share it.

20

BLAMING GOD...

by writetoknow in

and blame which involves urges to punish either by asking punishing questions or by threatening punishments but then explaining away these urges away.

layer 2 blame.

here again, in theory, seeing this difference is simple.

writetoknow

If you say the "real one", I'll laugh my ass off.

But I suppose you've got something better than that for me to consider.

I am sure I forced you to write this I am so sorry it must be my fault.