Blasphemy

[Father Heathen]

Why would you have a need to talk badly about other religions? Is that not the ego that make someone want to trash talk other peoples belief?

Why would you have a need to censor the speech of others? Nothing is beyond reproach nor except from critique or scrutiny.

 

[Looncall]

Indeed, insulting someone's God and/or religion shouldn't be a crime. It is rather petty though.

If the beliefs lead to harm, opposing them is a civic duty.

For example, I gather that all schools of Islamic scholarship at least approve of cutting important bits off one's daughters without their consent. Don't you think such a system should be opposed by any means available?

 

[Father Heathen]

What about God's feelings?
He cares greatly about my opinion of him.

He isn't much of a god if he's that insecure, emotionally weak, and possess such a fragile ego.

 

[Father Heathen]

It is interesting that nowadays blasphemy is accepted, but if you deny climate change, say something against homosexuality, don’t accept feminism, or are critical to unlawful immigration, it is like you would be guilty to blasphemy.

Like others have pointed out, there is no law against speaking any of those things. Being criticized for saying something stupid, unsubstantiated, or irrational isn't the same as being censored or legally prohibited.

Can’t avoid to think that modern day god is the “liberalism” that accepts all kind of injustice, but not reason, truth or justice.

This sentence is completely nonsensical.

 

[Polymath257]

If the beliefs lead to harm, opposing them is a civic duty.

For example, I gather that all schools of Islamic scholarship at least approve of cutting important bits off one's daughters without their consent. Don't you think such a system should be opposed by any means available?

First of all, it should not be illegal to hold and talk about certain *beliefs*. It may well be illegal to *act* on those beliefs, however.

The best way to confront those promoting cutting of bits of others is to confront their ideas in open discussion and making the actual taking off of parts illegal.

Opposing ideas with your own ideas is the ideal. Opposing ideas by making them illegal is censorship and should not be done.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why would you have a need to censor the speech of others? Nothing is beyond reproach nor except from critique or scrutiny.

I have no personal need to censor anyone, but i dont understand why someone want to disrespect religions, even if they do not belive it them self, why not respect those who do belive?

 

[Polymath257]

I have no personal need to censor anyone, but i dont understand why someone want to disrespect religions, even if they do not belive it them self, why not respect those who do belive?

Well, some beliefs may not be deserving of much respect. For example, I have to admit that I have no respect at all for the beliefs of ISIS. But, for that matter, I find many Christians to be morally repugnant also.

That doesn't mean I think the ideas should be illegal, though.

 

[SomeRandom]

She held "Islamophobic" and "racist" views (even though the dimwits don't seem to understand that Islam is not a "race"). Her name is Britanny Pettibone I believe. ANd no she is American, not British.

Ahh the alt right. I used to mingle in those circles a while ago. Mostly because I was unaware of the political background they came from and thus was swept up by their rhetoric. They can be rather toxic admittedly.
Whilst I probably agree with them in principle, sometimes their "edge" does enter into hate speech and inciting violence territory.
I mean I grew up on the net so I usually just shrug them off as harmless trolls. But a lot of people don't understand "internet culture" and take what they say to heart.
They can say say what they want. But that can have consequences. We would have denied them entry too. Not because we're anti free speech, but we have issues with "race riots" and such rhetoric can light the fuse that we've worked hard to extinguish.

 

[Revoltingest]

He isn't much of a god if he's that insecure, emotionally weak, and possess such a fragile ego.

Hey, he's not my god.
I'd have no truck with one who wields such power,
but is so easily angered....with all the smiting & the
damning & the hoyven & the glaven!

 

[Firemorphic]

She held "Islamophobic" and "racist" views (even though the dimwits don't seem to understand that Islam is not a "race").

Lol, I hear stuff like that all of the time "Those evil Muslims with their inbreeding, they're going to take over the world" and people actually seriously state that

 

[Apologes]

If the beliefs lead to harm, opposing them is a civic duty.

For example, I gather that all schools of Islamic scholarship at least approve of cutting important bits off one's daughters without their consent. Don't you think such a system should be opposed by any means available?

1) I don't think they all do that.
2) It's one thing to fight against something in a smart and meaningful way and it's a whole other thing to just go around yelling "F your religion".

 

[Thief]

Lol, I hear stuff like that all of the time "Those evil Muslims with their inbreeding, they're going to take over the world" and people actually seriously state that

but more seriously.....

terrorist's cells
mass bombings
etc etc etc

 

[syo]

Why attack God?

Because each human creates a relationship with God. Some relationships are hostile.

 

[JJ50]

Because each human creates a relationship with God. Some relationships are hostile.

There is NO evidence there is any god with whom to have a relationship.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There is NO evidence there is any god with whom to have a relationship.

God does not show him self to non believers, why would he do? you guys does not belive him anyway

 

[JJ50]

God does not show him self to non believers, why would he do? you guys does not belive him anyway

There is no verifiable evidence it exists! If it exists and it is making its existence a matter of mere faith it is in the wrong, not unbelievers.