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.".
I don't understand your line of reasonings? I have noted on this forum relgious people are equated to Nazis! Why I don't understand if that were true we all be living in concentration camps not holding open discussion about hate speech on a forum.
Moreover, I am against labeling that is sterotyping in order demean a group or person without knowing the person. We all want other to respect our beliefs rather they agree or not with them that is part of being a human that brings people up not down.
i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
You tell me which group you claim the right to say they are not answered? That does not seem very factual in fact that sound subjective open to personal beliefs. I am right your wrong my ways a better then yours does not sound like anything new.
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.".
Who is a Nazi? What does Nazi mean to you? Can you prove that I am a Nazi and if not then perhaps you should understanding slandering a person you know nothing about otherwise you are doing what you hate about religion during the darkages.
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.".
The topic is about hate speech - what it is and advocating the destruction of religion is it hate speech? Did I state that I thought religion is right or did you assume to label me?
The people advocating because I was a slave the only way to right the wrong is to make those that made us slaves slaves is the same thing the only thing that changed in the power?
So your staying that who ever has the power should control the beliefs of others and hopeful those in power have your beliefs?
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.".
So your beliefs are better? Thus, you take the right to condemn and destory religion because your ideology is better? This sound like the same old same old darkages manipulation. Would your ideology, require labling "all" the religous people as disease?
i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
What of the prayers that are answered do you assume that person is lying? So you claim to be the ultimate authority to judge if a person prayers are answered or not?
i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
How do you know that the authorities that define faith or your thoughts are correct, correct enough that the definition will never change, correct enough to remove another person beliefs? And who is to say they are correct?
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.".
So you are saying religion is a disease that has to be erraticated? What authority assumes the right to erracticate this disease and how do we know they are right?
i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
How do you define faith on whos authority?
i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
It amaze me that people will argue over words defending the meaning of a word as though it is the holy grill of life!
Example what the word "faith" means! Some authority somewhere decided at some point in the history of man what the proper meaning of "faith" is - why? To form peoples thoughts into a uniform lanuage for communication.
Thus, is the history of lanuage, sciences, religion, law, etc..
So all groups set out words or phases and defend them until they are accept as a fact in the history of lanuage and man.
So we now have athiest defending they don't have "faith" in their beliefs or they don't have "beliefs". Subsequently, using every tact condemned by athiest against religion to get their beliefs accepted into the main steam of society.
So ask people what faith is - not the dictionary definition - and you will get a different answer for each person on earth - sound like religion to me. Ask people what "belief" means to them and you get the same treatment.
Power come from forming words into the accepted lanuage that can be defended in a court of law it does not mean it has anything to do with the human experience. It is nothing more then gaining power to control those that disagree with your theories .
The rest of the condescension, labeling, and acting as though it is an indisputable fact are part of the process of impowering words into the mainstream of lanuage to control the thoughts of the society.
Ultimately, people must act upon a belief in those words/word to inforce the correct definition of them and act in faith that you are right.
