Is there such a thing as Hate Speech toward the Religious?

[pattylt]

This comic goes to my issue with defining hate speech.  If I say Christianity deserves to end up in the dust bin of history and they reply that I’ll go to hell…whose speech is hateful?

Hateful speech against someone that can’t change their circumstances like POC or the gays is more obvious.  Hateful speech against someone’s choice in what they are can be a bit trickier.  Threatening violence is more obvious but, I consider someone condemning me to hell is a violent statement, yet, I’m expected to tolerate it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the concept of Hate Speech has been a big counterproductive mistake, no matter who such speech is applied to.

Shorn of its Capital Letters, though, it's clear that there are some atheists who are happy to call believers, as a group, "stupid" and so on. Replace "believers" with <insert ethnic group here> and yeah, it's hate speech. I think bigotry should be called out for what it is. It sure ain't love speech.

[Paleophyte]

A bit to unpack here.

Let's be honest, few of us are perfectly courteous. This typically ranges from slightly poorer manners to outright bigotry and targets aren't limited to the religious. A quick review of the "Politics" section reveals some of the worst of it and is one of the top reasons why I avoid that section of the board. Atheists might have a variety of reasons for disrespectful behavior toward theists, ranging from an attitude of vague annoyance with people who try to tell us how to live our lives through to atheists who have suffered truly horrifying abuses. None of those reasons are excuses for bad behavior. All of this is amplified by the anonymity provided by the internet, which has been widely shown to amplify some of humanity's less desirable traits. Hopefully the dev team fixes that in the next release. I don't normally feel the need to call any of this behavior out because nobody died and made me the arbiter of social norms or good taste. I'd suck at it. We have awesome mods and they do their jobs amazingly. I'm told that the pay is great too. 

On a personal note, I'd really appreciate it if people wouldn't use the term "religitard". It's incredibly disrespectful to two different groups, at least one of which has done nothing to deserve it.

That said, none of this rises to anything that could be mistaken for hate speech if we're using the term correctly. None of this attempts to incite hatred or violence. Hate speech laws are written very strictly and used very rarely because smart governments have long realized that it's a mistake to try and legislate better people. If any of us were engaging in actual hate speech I would hope that we'd get our dumb asses banned. I recall one antitheist from back on TTA who managed exactly that, but he stands out for having been such an exceptional turd. After launching a particularly repulsive attack on Aliza he was mobbed by the resident atheists before getting ban hammered. There have likely been others less memorable, but I don't keep track. There are precious few countries that legislate against even overt bigotry. If they did then the jails would be a lot fuller and the megachurches a lot emptier.

Lastly, as much as this topic is worthy and deserving of discussion, I find that the notion that this thread was started with good intentions strains my disbelief. From the hyperbollox in the title to the childish name-calling, his actions reveal that he is, at best, no better than anybody else. As much as I'm sure that he enjoys thinking of himself as a self-appointed guardian of Right Thinking and Behavior, his hypocrisy is on display for all to see. I don't know whether that's deliberate or he's painfully oblivious to the fact that he's just one more smelly "sewer rat", or some mixture of both. Regardless, he ought to look to the beam in his own eye first.

[mordant]

... none of this rises to anything that could be mistaken for hate speech if we're using the term correctly. None of this attempts to incite hatred or violence.

The "hate speech" and "persecution" cards are disingenuous and always deployed when the real objective is to try to shut you up rather than objectively show you in what way you are wrong in your critique.

Modern Christians in the US have no idea of what REAL persecution is like. The folks in Gaza would like a word.

As to the use of derogatory terms like "religitard", it's not usually my style but I can't really blame some of my fellow freethinkers for trying to shock these people out of their pompous self-involvement, as well as give them some of what they dish out, calling us sinners and blasphemers and such.

[Vorpal]

Lastly, as much as this topic is worthy and deserving of discussion, I find that the notion that this thread was started with good intentions strains my disbelief. From the hyperbollox in the title to the childish name-calling, his actions reveal that he is, at best, no better than anybody else. As much as I'm sure that he enjoys thinking of himself as a self-appointed guardian of Right Thinking and Behavior, his hypocrisy is on display for all to see. I don't know whether that's deliberate or he's painfully oblivious to the fact that he's just one more smelly "sewer rat", or some mixture of both. Regardless, he ought to look to the beam in his own eye first.

I give what I get. And, sometimes I give back better.  And I do it alone for the most part. Precious few supportive private messages come my way. It is an uphill struggle.  Any name calling that I do, is in response to a name quite often unfairly placed upon me.  I get down in the sewer with anyone and come out not smelling as fresh as I might like. It's a necessity though. Being a doormate is not an option. Authentic self-expression is the point of participating in a forum.  I am not one to bend or go with the flow.  But, I will take on any challenge to up the civility here as long as it is done in kind.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can't and won't speak for the OP, as I have him on ignore and don't unclick it, but if I'm reading things right contextually, this is not about legislative definitions of Hate Speech, but simply "do we have some atheists who are comfortable slurring theists en masse for no other reason than their belief?" In that context, the answer is an unequivocal "yes".

I've been treated shitty by some religionistas, but I refuse to generalize from those experiences. I've had many religious folk treat me kindly, too. I don't generalize from those experiences, either. I think that treating individuals badly because of the label they either wear or are assigned is prima facie bigotry.

[Szuchow]

This comic goes to my issue with defining hate speech.  If I say Christianity deserves to end up in the dust bin of history and they reply that I’ll go to hell…whose speech is hateful?

Hateful speech against someone that can’t change their circumstances like POC or the gays is more obvious.  Hateful speech against someone’s choice in what they are can be a bit trickier.  Threatening violence is more obvious but, I consider someone condemning me to hell is a violent statement, yet, I’m expected to tolerate it.

Theirs. You just want totalitarian crap to disappear which would improve world immensely, while they wish eternal suffering on you. Hate speech about people who worship genocidal space tyrant is a mostly realm of their fantasies about persecution - whatever evil comes to mind, christians likely did it, be it mass abuse of children, supporting fascists or genocides.

[Antonio]

I consider religios organizations hate groups . I put them in the same category as nazis.

I'll diss them on an atheist forum

[jerry mcmasters]

I think the concept of Hate Speech has been a big counterproductive mistake, no matter who such speech is applied to.

Shorn of its Capital Letters, though, it's clear that there are some atheists who are happy to call believers, as a group, "stupid" and so on. Replace "believers" with <insert ethnic group here> and yeah, it's hate speech. I think bigotry should be called out for what it is. It sure ain't love speech.

Agreed but OP used caps so I thought the idea was how do we feel about legislated speech applying to religion as it is to other things in some countries.  OP is a little unclear.  Certainly there can be and is speech with hateful intend about in all forms towards all things.

[Paleophyte]

I give what I get. And, sometimes I give back better.

Yes, my point exactly

And I do it alone for the most part. Precious few supportive private messages come my way.

If you have a problem with everybody else the problem isn't everybody else.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Shorn of its Capital Letters, though, it's clear that there are some atheists who are happy to call believers, as a group, "stupid" and so on. Replace "believers" with <insert ethnic group here> and yeah, it's hate speech. I think bigotry should be called out for what it is. It sure ain't love speech.

Agreed but OP used caps so I thought the idea was how do we feel about legislated speech applying to religion as it is to other things in some countries.  OP is a little unclear.  Certainly there can be and is speech with hateful intend about in all forms towards all things.

Fair enough. In that case, the answer is a firm "no", at least in US law.

[Vorpal]

I give what I get. And, sometimes I give back better.

Yes, my point exactly

And, that is exactly what I did with you. You made an insulting comment, and I turned around the metaphor to create an even more apt version about you.

And I do it alone for the most part. Precious few supportive private messages come my way.

If you have a problem with everybody else the problem isn't everybody else.

It's not everybody else. Probably the majority but to varying degrees.  How can you fault someone for at least trying to take the high road and trying to challenge and trying to excite change?

[Paleophyte]

Yes, my point exactly

And, that is exactly what I did with you. You made an insulting comment, and I turned around the metaphor to create an even more apt version about you.

I wonder how that's possible since you weren't even addressing me.

If you have a problem with everybody else the problem isn't everybody else.

It's not everybody else. Probably the majority but to varying degrees.  How can you fault someone for at least trying to take the high road and trying to challenge and trying to excite change?

Please try not to contradict yourself in under a sentence. Either you're taking the high road or you're doing the same as everybody else.