Is it wrong to be unwilling to tolerate hate?

[maerdi]

How about lies and propaganda? Refusing to believe our best scientific knowledge? Using religion to force your own agenda even when many members of your religion disagree with said agenda?

I'm not generally one for shutting down speech, but I'm up for speaking out against http://silencingchristians.com/. You can take a non-scientific,

Comments

[avani]

As much as I oppose their message, I feel they have a right to say it. However, I do believe that they should be held accountable for outright falsehoods, such as claiming that there is no evidence that shows that kids are fine being raised by LGBT parents. Maybe a disclaimer before and after that reads "We are talking out of our ass" would suffice :)

[maerdi]

Of course they have a right to say it! But they have it up on their website. Do they also have a right to broadcast it on public airwaves? Who decides that?

How do you propose holding them accountable for outright falsehoods?

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about these issues, but I guess right now I'm leaning toward "holding them accountable by refusing to present their lies while welcoming them to participate in a debate or discussion so they can present their views in an environment where someone can point out falsehoods."

[avani]

I suppose by say it I mean "say it on any public forum that their competitors use". I would be pissed if anti-8 ads were barred from the airwaves.

As for holding them accountable, I don't know the solution. I wish there was a law that said you had to disclose if you are lying over public airwaves (similar to advertisers having to disclose "item is not as pictured" or put terms and exclusions on offers), but there is not.

[maerdi]

Would you pissed if public outcry prevented the showing of a one-hour long anti-8 ad that presented itself as a news special and was full of lies instead of facts?

I guess I feel like your parallel isn't really a parallel, but I admit that my logic & decision-making is fueled by my emotional dislike for the both the means and the ends.

[silimili]

Majorities often steal terminology from minorities to ensure that the real issues continue to be presented in a way that prevents minorities from mounting a successful challenge to their status as the majority block.

The real issue here is not whether they have a right to present this message (that's exactly the debate they want you to have, because by default they win), but why they choose to cast disagreement with their point of view as a form of silencing.

[maerdi]

The real issue here is not whether they have a right to present this message (that's exactly the debate they want you to have, because by default they win), but why they choose to cast disagreement with their point of view as a form of silencing.

Thanks, silimili!

[silimili]

Sure!

I mean, how can you claim that your group is being silenced when you clearly have enough money to get a 14-part film made in which you talk about your beliefs in excruciating detail, and enough clout to have it broadcast in serial format on 3 separate TV networks which exist solely to highlight items of interest to your group?

What they really mean is not that they are being silenced, but that a growing number of people are *choosing* not to listen when they speak. This is not being silenced, this is becoming irrelevant.

[maerdi]

Oh my gosh, I didn't even realize they show this on one cable channel every single Saturday at 8:00, and that it'll be on two other channels as well. (See http://www.afa.net/)

I will say, I wholeheartedly agree with one statement that appears in this video:Law shouldn't be based on personal indiscretions... personal scruples or what they feel is odious.

Laws need to be based on something much more tangible, much more absolute than just arbitrary opinion, even if that opinion happens to be representative of a lot of people.

Michael

[revspitz]

Matthew Shepard? How many straight children have been molested and murdered by homosexuals like you? A lot. How many Christians have been assaulted by homosexuals like you because you didn't like the way they voted? A lot. How many Christian churches have been burned down by homosexuals like you because you disagree with the Holy Bible? A lot. Matthew Shepard is in eternal hell fire now and will never get out

Re: Michael

[snailprincess]

Really? Really?.

Re: Michael

[snailprincess]

More good stuff from Leviticus, since you're into that.

V3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

V11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you

V11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
V11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

V19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Re: Michael

[maerdi]

I'm sorry, revspit, but you are mistaken. I am not (to my knowledge) a homosexual, I'm just someone who believes that it's wrong to write discrimination into our laws. I'm someone who thinks it's wrong for religious organizations to lie to their congregations and to the world in order to further their agenda (though I see nothing wrong with them quoting scripture at their services or in public places. Of course, I wish they would emphasize the parts of scripture that say that murder is a sin and we should help and love our fellow man rather than beat them and leave them for dead just because we don't like their sexual practices

[snailprincess]

I think it is worth remembering that expressing your displeasure at the airing of a giving show to the station that may air it is in no way in violation of anyone's freedom of speech and is not 'silencing' anyone. The airways are a public resource and we all have some say in what is broadcast on them. If you sponsored a bill that prohibited the segment from airing and got it passed, that would be silencing them. But if you don't like a particular segment, you have every right to complain and request they don't air it. They have every right to ignore you, but if enough people complain and they decide not to air it, no censorship has occurred. The people who produced that segment have the right to produce it and the right to show it to whoever they want. They do not have the right to force someone else to exhibit it for them.

[maerdi]

I talked it over in person with a housemate and also came to this conclusion. Thank you for your well-crafted reply.