well according to the website wikipedia, it is written as:
"Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as the discrimination against them. Discrimination against atheists may also refer to and comprise the negative attitudes towards, prejudice, hostility, hatred, fear, and/or intolerance towards atheists and/or atheism. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against or persecuted on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place. As of 2015, 19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 13 of those countries it is punishable by death. In some Islamic countries, atheists face persecution and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment."
hardly?does this seem like places like the greater parts of Europe or even Britain, do they suffer such in America?
Taking another look, under the article 18 we see how everyone is allowed to have freedom to follow whatever path is deemed appropriate to each individual, as long it is not deemed to be harmful to others within the community.
Article 18 is as follows:
"Human rights
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views. Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are persecuted in many parts of the world."
Stigma does not equal persecution.
There are 13/23 countries today where being an atheist is illegal. They are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Pakistan. The punishment for atheism in most of these countries is death.
A you will notice, most notably all of those countries are Muslim. this means that the state religion of those 13 countries is Islamic.
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/boycotting-sam-harriss-ads-atheist-freedom-of-speech-vs-religious-censorship,8377
Is mocking atheism hate speech or free speech?
Hate speech targets people, not ideas.
If you intimidate, or call for discrimination or violence against atheists, then that's hate speech. Same is true if you target that speech against Christians, or recent immigrants, or any other group of people.
But you can certainly criticize, or even mock, atheism, Christian doctrine, immigration policy, or any other set of ideas, and be on safe free speech ground.
If you intimidate, or call for discrimination or violence against atheists, then that's hate speech. Same is true if you target that speech against Christians, or recent immigrants, or any other group of people.
But you can certainly criticize, or even mock, atheism, Christian doctrine, immigration policy, or any other set of ideas, and be on safe free speech ground.
Mocking atheism is protected speech. Atheism is just an idea.
Now, here's an example which maybe goes a little bit over the line, I would say. I suppose it could be called satire. But it is definitely not satire in the sense of Juvenal. If the speaker were not just a publicity whore, I might even be tempted to call what he said "hate speech".
But he still has the right to say it in the US. It's protected speech.
As it is, I'ld call it a transparent attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, in order to make a quick buck. I don't even take what the man says as seriously as I take anything that Anne Coulter has said.
Now, here's an example which maybe goes a little bit over the line, I would say. I suppose it could be called satire. But it is definitely not satire in the sense of Juvenal. If the speaker were not just a publicity whore, I might even be tempted to call what he said "hate speech".
But he still has the right to say it in the US. It's protected speech.
As it is, I'ld call it a transparent attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, in order to make a quick buck. I don't even take what the man says as seriously as I take anything that Anne Coulter has said.
Phil Robertson Hypothesizes About Atheist Family Getting Raped And Killed
“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said. “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’”
Robertson kept going: “Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.’”
“If it happened to them,” Robertson continued, “they probably would say, ‘something about this just ain’t right.”
So probably there is a line, somewhere out there, between mockery and "hate speech".
There's no need to discuss, of course, what it is that the law says about expressing atheist beliefs in a certain number of countries, even today.
Mocking atheism is usually just ignorant speech. In my experience, it usually takes the form of unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding evolution to make atheists look stupid. Here's an actual example of a theist mocking evolution in a comment to me: "And periodically the software spontaneously upgraded, over and over until we have a man".
I called him out on this, that he knew better than that, and he copped to misrepresenting the theory intentionally.
This is called a straw man argument, and seems to me to fall under bearing false witnessone's neighbor, which is supposed to be a no-no.
I called him out on this, that he knew better than that, and he copped to misrepresenting the theory intentionally.
This is called a straw man argument, and seems to me to fall under bearing false witnessone's neighbor, which is supposed to be a no-no.
It's free speech. It doesn't matter if it applies to atheism, or Islam or Christianity either. Actually so is "hate speech". It's also free speech. I don't really care for that as a term (hate speech) because it implies that some things should be protected from some types of speech. Nothing should be. They're just words; just ideas. If it's directly inciting immediate violence then I get it, but aside from that, it's just people's thoughts.
People should be allowed to think hateful things. I wouldn't want to control anything people think or say. Once you begin doing that you set yourself on a slippery slope. Then we get to the point where people are afraid to be creative and push boundaries because they're afraid of the backlash. Protected ideas will continue to creep, pushed by their constituents, and free speech will diminish, if you force it back even an inch.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to keep your job, for example. In the media anything approaching so called hate speech towards pretty much any demographic will get you canned. Which is unfortunate, as it means that people won't speak their minds as often, but it comes with the territory. As long as they're not being locked up for doing so, I'm happy. People can decide how much their speech is worth to them, and I'm fine with that, as long as it can't get them in legal trouble.
People should be allowed to think hateful things. I wouldn't want to control anything people think or say. Once you begin doing that you set yourself on a slippery slope. Then we get to the point where people are afraid to be creative and push boundaries because they're afraid of the backlash. Protected ideas will continue to creep, pushed by their constituents, and free speech will diminish, if you force it back even an inch.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to keep your job, for example. In the media anything approaching so called hate speech towards pretty much any demographic will get you canned. Which is unfortunate, as it means that people won't speak their minds as often, but it comes with the territory. As long as they're not being locked up for doing so, I'm happy. People can decide how much their speech is worth to them, and I'm fine with that, as long as it can't get them in legal trouble.
There's no dichotomy between so-called "hate speech" and free speech. It's all free speech.
Mocking ideas isn't hate in any case.
Expect more speech in reply if your speech is taken as offensive by someone else.
Mocking ideas isn't hate in any case.
Expect more speech in reply if your speech is taken as offensive by someone else.
It's protected speech.
Actually, as an atheist, I'd love to hear some of the jokes theists tell about us. I'm imagining something like:
"Did you hear about the atheist who walked into church and got turned into a pillar of salt? Cause, you know, that could happen."
"One time this atheist was like, 'I don't believe in God because there is no objective evidence to suggest his existence.' What an idiot!"
"A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar together. The Christian is like, 'did you know it says in the Bible that atheists are fools?' The atheist didn't care. Cause... you know, they think the Bible is just a book."
Actually, as an atheist, I'd love to hear some of the jokes theists tell about us. I'm imagining something like:
"Did you hear about the atheist who walked into church and got turned into a pillar of salt? Cause, you know, that could happen."
"One time this atheist was like, 'I don't believe in God because there is no objective evidence to suggest his existence.' What an idiot!"
"A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar together. The Christian is like, 'did you know it says in the Bible that atheists are fools?' The atheist didn't care. Cause... you know, they think the Bible is just a book."
Yes it is. I don't see why my feelings should be hurt just because the majority of people on this planet (who disagree with each other sometimes violently) disagree with me. I think it should be a hate crime to call someone a fool for not believing in God. I think it should be a hate crime to call someone who rejects his former religion "a dog returning to its vomit." I want to be able to go around all day not thinking about God without constantly encountering questions about how I can't believe in right and wrong unless I believe in God (who endorses slavery and sentences people to death for gathering firewood on the wrong day of the week).
Offending me should be a hate crime!
Wait... if I'm right, then I don't get to critique religion fair and square?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Of course it's not a hate crime. Am I the only one who read the original question as a joke?
Offending me should be a hate crime!
Wait... if I'm right, then I don't get to critique religion fair and square?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Of course it's not a hate crime. Am I the only one who read the original question as a joke?
No, mocking is not hate speech.
Fortunately, we are rarely object of humorous mocking, since one of the main characteristics (conditio sine qua non) of Fundamentalists and belligerent religious zealots is absolute absence of humor sense, sarcasm and irony wit.
However, they can (unintentionally) make us cry easily.
Fortunately, we are rarely object of humorous mocking, since one of the main characteristics (conditio sine qua non) of Fundamentalists and belligerent religious zealots is absolute absence of humor sense, sarcasm and irony wit.
However, they can (unintentionally) make us cry easily.
I don't see it as a binary distinction, but as a continuum. Making fun of a (non)religious position is everyone's right. Advocating that someone who holds that position be treated with violence or abuse is hate speech.
But I do think there are "grey areas," where the level of nastiness and insults against a (non)religious viewpoint is so intense and pointed that it clearly spills over to demonizing its practitioners. It's difficult, of course, to define where this line can be drawn in practice.
But I do think there are "grey areas," where the level of nastiness and insults against a (non)religious viewpoint is so intense and pointed that it clearly spills over to demonizing its practitioners. It's difficult, of course, to define where this line can be drawn in practice.
The majority of atheists around the world are statists/socialists(including China,
Russia etc). So one smart atheist joke especially from the religious
right:
Russia etc). So one smart atheist joke especially from the religious
right:
“Ok, you say I trust in one God (the one I was brought up to believe in) and
distrust in all the others in the world. But you trust in one
government (the one you were brought up to believe in) and distrust
all the others in the world. So where's your logical consistency
now!”
distrust in all the others in the world. But you trust in one
government (the one you were brought up to believe in) and distrust
all the others in the world. So where's your logical consistency
now!”
That bit of mockery would be free speech. Might get you killed by some governments
though.
though.
Free speach. How could it be hate speech when people are making fool of themselves ? Truth can withold any amount of mockings or criticisms. That's why most religions won't accept them as it is well known.
Of course religious people have that tendency after giving atheists a good laugh with ridiculous arguments to use violence. But then the trouble is not with hate speech but with hate acts.
Of course religious people have that tendency after giving atheists a good laugh with ridiculous arguments to use violence. But then the trouble is not with hate speech but with hate acts.
If you mean the standard meaning of the term mock and don't mean more than to verbally ridicule in a facetious to humorous way, then free in public and in private, yet not in the employment area of business.
The reason mocking is not permitted in employment business on the criteria of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, or military status is that the civil rights act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace.
The reason for the law is that it has been determined that there is a power disparity in the employment relationship and that it requires law to attempt to mitigate overt discrimination.
Mocking in a business environment confers a legal liability to those responsible for following the law. To do so exposes responsible parties to legal liabilities they strongly do not want. Cases go to civil court, criminal court, or both.
You chose atheism in your example as something that could possibly be mocked. Mocking atheists would be free speech in public and private and not in an employment environment.
Could mocking be hate speech? Hate speech has the same criteria as the civil rights act does for protected statuses. The difference is that hate does not look like sarcasm and humorous disrespect.
Hate does harm, and is a poor example to set for others. Inciting acts against and suggesting violence are examples that meet hate criteria. It is also harm to consistently promote an abusive description to stigmatize a person or group. Another difference between mocking and hate speech is that it is illegal to practice hate speech against all people of every status criteria, protected or not, and in every environment.
At this point the elephant in the room is the ridiculous that does deserve ridicule.
The reason mocking is not permitted in employment business on the criteria of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, or military status is that the civil rights act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace.
The reason for the law is that it has been determined that there is a power disparity in the employment relationship and that it requires law to attempt to mitigate overt discrimination.
Mocking in a business environment confers a legal liability to those responsible for following the law. To do so exposes responsible parties to legal liabilities they strongly do not want. Cases go to civil court, criminal court, or both.
You chose atheism in your example as something that could possibly be mocked. Mocking atheists would be free speech in public and private and not in an employment environment.
Could mocking be hate speech? Hate speech has the same criteria as the civil rights act does for protected statuses. The difference is that hate does not look like sarcasm and humorous disrespect.
Hate does harm, and is a poor example to set for others. Inciting acts against and suggesting violence are examples that meet hate criteria. It is also harm to consistently promote an abusive description to stigmatize a person or group. Another difference between mocking and hate speech is that it is illegal to practice hate speech against all people of every status criteria, protected or not, and in every environment.
At this point the elephant in the room is the ridiculous that does deserve ridicule.
Criticism or mockery of any religious position is free speech. Speech does not become "hate speech" until it incites/advocates violence against a protected group (like any religious position, gays, etc) or in some cases incites systemic discrimination against said group.
No comments:
Post a Comment