Muffled,
Permit me to answer your questions in the order in which they were asked.
1) There is no such thing as evil. It is another nonsensical religious construct, like grace.
2) The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to live the way you wish providing your actions do not interfere with another person's rights. So there is nothing morally wrong with harming yourself or killing yourself (although I would argue that the suffering it may cause loved ones should be considered).
3) A law is arbitrary in the sense that it is a function of who is in a position to create it and have it enforced. So there is no theoretical limit to how far a law can be go against so called hate crimes.
4) There is nothing morally wrong about hate. Indeed it is quite justified in many cases (e.g., hating Nazis). I have the right to hate Islam, Muslims and their idiotic Koran, along with any other religion, and shout it from the rooftops.
5) One's right to freedom of speech is important and should be protected. Burning an object to express an idea is one's right. No punitive reprisal is justified.
I spoke of this issue a moment ago, saying this:
It does bother me that the Pastor in Florida is being targeted as the villain.
What he is doing is expressing his (justified) contempt for the Koran in accordance with his right to freedom of speech. This dangerous book deserves no respect; the people who follow it, even less.
Granted, his demonstration will infuriate the Muslim population. But he is not the idiot or the villain—THEY ARE.
More dangerous than his demonstration, which is his constitutional right, is cowering to the threat of reprisal. Then the Muslims have won. They will have succeeded in silencing the infidel.
Permit me to answer your questions in the order in which they were asked.
1) There is no such thing as evil. It is another nonsensical religious construct, like grace.
2) The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to live the way you wish providing your actions do not interfere with another person's rights. So there is nothing morally wrong with harming yourself or killing yourself (although I would argue that the suffering it may cause loved ones should be considered).
3) A law is arbitrary in the sense that it is a function of who is in a position to create it and have it enforced. So there is no theoretical limit to how far a law can be go against so called hate crimes.
4) There is nothing morally wrong about hate. Indeed it is quite justified in many cases (e.g., hating Nazis). I have the right to hate Islam, Muslims and their idiotic Koran, along with any other religion, and shout it from the rooftops.
5) One's right to freedom of speech is important and should be protected. Burning an object to express an idea is one's right. No punitive reprisal is justified.
I spoke of this issue a moment ago, saying this:
It does bother me that the Pastor in Florida is being targeted as the villain.
What he is doing is expressing his (justified) contempt for the Koran in accordance with his right to freedom of speech. This dangerous book deserves no respect; the people who follow it, even less.
Granted, his demonstration will infuriate the Muslim population. But he is not the idiot or the villain—THEY ARE.
More dangerous than his demonstration, which is his constitutional right, is cowering to the threat of reprisal. Then the Muslims have won. They will have succeeded in silencing the infidel.
Last edited: