It is not "hate speech" .. it is scripture.
I thought you understood what rebuttal was. Rebuttal is not mere disagreement. It's an explanation for why the rebutted statement can't be correct - some error of fact or reasoning revealed. Yes, it is scripture, obviously, which is why I brought it up. It's an example of what is today called hate speech, which would be obvious were it not directed at unbelievers.
Yes. It was written long ago, and it is still bigotry. Ancient bigotry still being published and read today. These are not defenses of the claim that it is bigotry.
It has nothing to do with modern secular laws that are designed to promote social cohesion, by outlawing individuals abusing each other.
Of course it doesn't. Yet, once again, it still qualifies as hate speech. Because that's exactly what it is
Do you see the pattern here? I make a correct statement. Correct statements can't be successfully rebutted. They can be deflected from using irrelevancies such as pointing out that the hate speech is scripture and ancient in the hope that it will be forgotten that that's what they are if that is allowed, or, the deflections can be identified as such, and the original claim reasserted still unrebutted..
You, of course are entitled to believe what you like, as long as you don't go around insulting people's beliefs.
I haven't insulted anybody's beliefs. You sound like one of the American racists who resents his people's crimes of the past being discussed. I've reproduced scripture and called it hate speech. That is not just my right, but my duty. If that offends you or anybody else, ask yourselves why.
It's alright to "knock" God, but not modern secular values.
More deflection. I never mentioned your god or any other, nor criticize any discussion of modern secular values.