Blasphemy

[The Penitent Man]

Got any unbiased sources (i.e., secular sources) that back up what you're saying?

Wouldn't secular sources be biased also? Of course they would.

 

[HannahBanana]

Wouldn't secular sources be biased also? Of course they would.

They wouldn't necessarily be biased. After all, secular sources are much more likely to rely on facts rather than using fear to play into peoples' persecution complexes (the same kind of persecution complexes that many Christians have). So would you rather have a factual article or a fear-based, factually-incorrect article?

 

[Supernaut]

I may be overreacting, but it's articles like this and this that make me wonder what direction the laws about hate speech may eventually take.

The articles you have linked are not in any way saying that one cannot preach against abortion or homosexuality. They are serving as reminder that we must all be aware of what we say and how we say it in regards to hot topics of today.

I would have had the same reaction had I the misfortune of having to listen to this "pastor". I think i'd have the FBI on speed dial.

 

[Sojourner1]

Sojourner? What do *you* think the FBI should do when the receive a tip about a potential terrorism threat?

You seem to be suggesting that they did too much in this case--that it makes you nervous that they responded as assertively as they did. That too much being that they took a quick look, decided it wasn't a problem, and walked away.

Are you suggesting that the FBI should completely ignore any threat of terrorism that comes from a Christian pastor? That's the only response that could be less than what was taken here.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I was thinking about your questions and deciding where I really stood on the subject. I believe in this case the FBI did the right thing. If the Pastor is saying something that is possibly a threat to another group, then that is not alright. I just don't want free speech to be limited to the point where Christians are not able to speak about homosexuality (for example) from a biblical viewpoint without being accused of hate speech. Saying that you believe, based on the bible, that homosexuality is a sin is not hate speech.

Groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church are going beyond just preaching the word of God, they are doing so in a hateful way that could possibly insight someone to react in a violent way toward any group they think is a threat to Christianity. Most churches and most Pastors aren't speaking such hateful things and should not be limited by free speech laws unless they advocate violence.

 

[b&wpac4]

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I was thinking about your questions and deciding where I really stood on the subject. I believe in this case the FBI did the right thing. If the Pastor is saying something that is possibly a threat to another group, then that is not alright. I just don't want free speech to be limited to the point where Christians are not able to speak about homosexuality (for example) from a biblical viewpoint without being accused of hate speech. Saying that you believe, based on the bible, that homosexuality is a sin is not hate speech.

I agree that people should not be refused their free speech because it may offend others. In the case you cited, however, he is still free to say whatever he thinks, the FBI just needed to investigate a potential threat.

What should concern you is the spin the article tried to put on these actions. False witness is still a sin, and I find that the writers of that article to be terribly guilty of it.

 

[Mling]

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I was thinking about your questions and deciding where I really stood on the subject. I believe in this case the FBI did the right thing. If the Pastor is saying something that is possibly a threat to another group, then that is not alright. I just don't want free speech to be limited to the point where Christians are not able to speak about homosexuality (for example) from a biblical viewpoint without being accused of hate speech. Saying that you believe, based on the bible, that homosexuality is a sin is not hate speech.

Groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church are going beyond just preaching the word of God, they are doing so in a hateful way that could possibly insight someone to react in a violent way toward any group they think is a threat to Christianity. Most churches and most Pastors aren't speaking such hateful things and should not be limited by free speech laws unless they advocate violence.

Well, I respect that you came to that conclusion, then.
Really though, I don't think I have *ever* heard a respectable organization trying to push for hate-speech laws. Nobody I've heard of wants that.
Even in Canada, my understanding of the laws (is there a Canadian here who can correct me?) is that you're not allowed to publicly *slander* a group of people. I think it specifies that, to be considered hate speech, it has to be a quantifiable statement, which is a lie. So a priest could say "homosexuality is unbiblical and evil," and that would be fine. What they wouldn't be allowed to say is, "homosexuals molest children more often than heterosexuals," because all reliable evidence shows that that's not true. It's basically just a broadening of the laws against slander to include large groups, rather than just individuals.

I agree that people should not be refused their free speech because it may offend others. In the case you cited, however, he is still free to say whatever he thinks, the FBI just needed to investigate a potential threat.

What should concern you is the spin the article tried to put on these actions. False witness is still a sin, and I find that the writers of that article to be terribly guilty of it.

Agreed. Though...I don't really give a hoot about false witness and sin. Ultimately...they took a situation where everybody did everything *right,* and made it look like that violated the right of the pastor in question.

The member of the congregation thought he or she heard a call to arms and reported it. The FBI got a tip which, I'm guessing, they didn't think would come to anything (I have trouble believing that they would have strolled up and asked him direct questions if they thought he was really organizing a terrorist plot) but they looked into it enough to confirm their suspicions.

For this Baptist organization to suggest that these people were *wrong* means that they think a person who hears a Christian calling people to literal arms should *not* report it. And that if the FBI hears a report about terrorism coming from Christians, they should *not* investigate.

That is what frightens me. These people are so concerned over their right to speak hatefully, that they seem to be saying they should have the right to terrorize. At the very least, they seem to think that normal societal safeguards shouldn't apply to Christians.

Even if they are totally benign, if they got their way--Christians weren't investigated when they acted in ways that suggested terrorism--it would make it much easier for other groups to actually commit violent acts.

And for what? What would other people be sacrificing their safety for? Not to protect a freedom to speak--they have that already. To allow them to speak recklessly without having to fear a natural and healthy consequence of doing so (suspicion).

I fear the person who thinks this is ok much more than I fear the FBI checking out a potential threat.

 

[b&wpac4]

Agreed. Though...I don't really give a hoot about false witness and sin. Ultimately...they took a situation where everybody did everything *right,* and made it look like that violated the right of the pastor in question.

One writes to ones audience.

 

[Mling]

One writes to ones audience.

True.

 

[Saint Nihilo]

I don't like blasphemy. It's rude and crass and very disrespectful toward Christians (and other faith groups). Although I must say I'd prefer Seth MacFarlane's blasphemy over Marliyn Manson's blasphemy. One is goofy & mildly amusing while the other is demonic, obscene, upsetting.

If we could all live by the Golden Rule this would be a much friendlier world, don't you think?

I find many things rude, crass and disrespectful. Examples include, but are not limited to: homophobia, sexism, racism, neo-Nazi rhetoric, Fred Phelps, etc. The thing is though that I believe that in a Democracy they have every right to speak their mind. It is that right that allows me to contradict and reason/argue with them as well. Plus, everything is relative. One person's "demonic or obscene" may be another person's art. Examples include: Serrano, Mapplethorpe, Sade, Beaudelaire, Essaydi, the list could go on ad infinitum. Aesthetics are extremely nuanced by culture and ideology. Marilyn Manson may come off as trying to hard to me but that doesn't stop me from listening to "The Beautiful People" on the rare occasion that I hear it.