The Bible and Qur'an; loopholes in hate speech laws?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Suppose someone in one of those European countries with laws against hate speech laws stood in a public square and said something like:

"If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people."

Would they have the right to say it? I would say there would be no non-hypocritical reason why not, as Europe hasn't banned the Bible.

The usual Bible-apologist line for this is that it's in the "Old Testament," which is somehow made obsolete by the new. Never mind that the new testament contradicts itself on whether the old one still applies. Never mind the fact that they're essentially saying "the old testament was supposed to be the timeless truth, it wasn't, but I swear the new testament is the real deal for real this time."

But what of the New Testament's sexism and homophobia? I'm not sure how much of Europe would criminalize it, but telling women to submit to men and comparing gays to thieves and claiming they won't get into heaven seems a bit extreme, especially compared to the stuff for which people get in trouble, if not with the law, then with anything short of the law. Apologists for the Corinthians verse tell us it was mistranslated. If it was, why do you expect anything ELSE in the Bible to be property translated? Why not throw out the whole thing?

The Qur'an isn't off the hook either; (because you know if I took on only one at a time, apologists for either would hold it up as an alternative to the other) its holy book is so violent it has been explicity used by ISIS to justify their violence.

You could argue it's an "excuse;" just as progressive Christians like to pretend Biblical hate speech is an "excuse;" but it doesn't matter. If there's enough vile content in the books that it can be drawn upon to justify violent acts in the first place, what makes them meaningfully distinct from other hate speech?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying The Bible or Qur'an should be banned. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant, just like it is with other hate speech. But countries that DO regulate it seem to carve out an exception for such "holy books." Why do you suppose that is?

DISCLAIMER: The comparison to Mein Kampf previously set out within this post is null and void, as printing thereof was restricted by the copyright holder, not the law. Still, my overall point remains.

[Rojava Free State]

Hate speech laws are designed to protect the feelings of wimps who can't take anything. The world is a nasty place, and as far as I'm concerned, they need to grow the fuck up and deal with it. Is racism messed up? Yes it is, and no one should be racist, but instead of strong arming the government into banning any and all speech that hurts your feelings (including things that aren't just you usual Vitrol but instead are legit like people who think Islam isn't a religion of peace), how about you deal with it like I do? I had a guy call me a racial slur over the phone several times and I said "I'd rather be a wetback than a cheap dime store rip off of Wayne Brady like you are. Do me a favor fat Albert, and go back on your Facebook and post about your newest girlfriend who you'll keep for three days before she leaves your noxious smelling ass."

So how about we allow the Bible and Quran and all other hateful shit, and instead of trying to pressure the government to ban the bad talk, we deal with it like intelligent human beings and not little kids?

[Nuroblav]

Hate speech laws? Hahahahahahahahahaha

Don't get me wrong I hate racism or homophobia as much as the next guy, but hate speech laws are just a terrible idea. We're not going to disallow that guy from having his opinion - no matter how much we disagree with it - just because it hurt someone's feelings. Instead they should either ignore or be mature about it.

Mind you all of those books have some fairly messed up stuff, but they're books. If people wanna read them, let them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hate speech laws are designed to protect the feelings of wimps who can't take anything. The world is a nasty place, and as far as I'm concerned, they need to grow the fuck up and deal with it. Is racism messed up? Yes it is, and no one should be racist, but instead of strong arming the government into banning any and all speech that hurts your feelings (including things that aren't just you usual Vitrol but instead are legit like people who think Islam isn't a religion of peace), how about you deal with it like I do? I had a guy call me a racial slur over the phone several times and I said "I'd rather be a wetback than a cheap dime store rip off of Wayne Brady like you are. Do me a favor fat Albert, and go back on your Facebook and post about your newest girlfriend who you'll keep for three days before she leaves your noxious smelling ass."

So how about we allow the Bible and Quran and all other hateful shit, and instead of trying to pressure the government to ban the bad talk, we deal with it like intelligent human beings and not little kids?

They're designed to attack political opposition to supremacy movements.

[Region of Dwipantara]

It's a pretty funny situation actually. Consider this:

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."
—Quran 5:51

This verse, which directly tells Muslims that all Jews and Christians are a threat for Muslims that cannot be trusted and as such must be banned from taking political office, is not hate speech. Meanwhile:

"Do not be fooled by the people who are trying to use Quran 5:51 (for their political ambitions)."

This, uttered by the Chinese-Christian Governor of Jakarta (who was runnig for reelection in 2017), is hate speech against Muslims that must be punished. And by punished, I mean an outbreak of mass Islamist demonstrations and riots, and then he was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment, revoking his right to run for political office forever. Hey – at least the government didn't listen to the Islamists' demand, who wants the governor to be put to death. Isn't that great?

[Gravlen]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying The Bible or Qur'an should be banned. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant, just like Europe has since realized it is with Mein Kampf. But until recently multiple European countries banned Mein Kampf without banning the Bible or the Qur'an. Why do you suppose that is?

That’s not what happened. It’s much more mundane: Copyright lapsed, and when it became public domain the copyright holder could no longer deny permission for third party printing runs.

[Bear Stearns]

Mohammed was a slave owner

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying The Bible or Qur'an should be banned. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant, just like Europe has since realized it is with Mein Kampf. But until recently multiple European countries banned Mein Kampf without banning the Bible or the Qur'an. Why do you suppose that is?

That’s not what happened. It’s much more mundane: Copyright lapsed, and when it became public domain the copyright holder could no longer deny permission for third party printing runs.

My mistake, then.

Nevertheless, the point remains; why the different treatment of "holy books" than other hate speech?

[Picairn]

No, hate speech laws are a bad idea. You are giving politicians the tool to censor anything they don't like.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Hate speech laws vs. lack thereof in a more general sense has been done to death, people. Can we please focus on the more unique topic of whether or not Bible/Qur'an exceptions constitute a loophole?

[Rojava Free State]

It's a pretty funny situation actually. Consider this:

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."
—Quran 5:51

This verse, which directly tells Muslims that all Jews and Christians are a threat for Muslims that cannot be trusted and as such must be banned from taking political office, is not hate speech. Meanwhile:

"Do not be fooled by the people who are trying to use Quran 5:51 (for their political ambitions)."

This, uttered by the Chinese-Christian Governor of Jakarta (who was runnig for reelection in 2017), is hate speech against Muslims that must be punished. And by punished, I mean an outbreak of mass Islamist demonstrations and riots, and then he was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment, revoking his right to run for political office forever. Hey – at least the government didn't listen to the Islamists' demand, who wants the governor to be put to death. Isn't that great?

I love how Mohammed couldn't make up his mind as to whether Christians and jews were good or not. In one verse he's like "don't murder them, leave them alone," and in the next he's like "I still don't trust them. They're out for themselves and Muslims gotta stick together." Aah religion. Contradicting itself and twisting itself into a pretzel.

Imagine being Muslim and trying to figure out if you should or shouldn't befriend non Muslims by reading the Quran. You'd probably go insane after a while.

[Rojava Free State]

Mohammed was a slave owner

Mohammed was only as good as the times allowed him to be. Remember this was during the dark ages and Rome collapsed. It was like mad max without the interceptor or the motorbikes or the leather or the weird names for everything or the thunderdome...so a pretty lame version of the franchise.

Point is, the guy was no hero of his time. He was another warlord like the rest, but we remember him and not the others because he killed them.

[Region of Dwipantara]

It's a pretty funny situation actually. Consider this:

This verse, which directly tells Muslims that all Jews and Christians are a threat for Muslims that cannot be trusted and as such must be banned from taking political office, is not hate speech. Meanwhile:

This, uttered by the Chinese-Christian Governor of Jakarta (who was runnig for reelection in 2017), is hate speech against Muslims that must be punished. And by punished, I mean an outbreak of mass Islamist demonstrations and riots, and then he was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment, revoking his right to run for political office forever. Hey – at least the government didn't listen to the Islamists' demand, who wants the governor to be put to death. Isn't that great?

I love how Mohammed couldn't make up his mind as to whether Christians and jews were good or not. In one verse he's like "don't murder them, leave them alone," and in the next he's like "I still don't trust them. They're out for themselves and Muslims gotta stick together." Aah religion. Contradicting itself and twisting itself into a pretzel.

Imagine being Muslim and trying to figure out if you should or shouldn't befriend non Muslims by reading the Quran. You'd probably go insane after a while.

Actually, it's pretty clear when you look at the time the verses are revealed. At first, Muhammad hopes to also be the prophet for the Jews, and he hoped that the Jews would follow him. Here his opinion about them is pretty positive. But then the Jews kept ridiculing and rejecting him, so his opinion quickly goes downhill, resulting in today's Islamic belief of antisemitic genocide, talking rocks, and a specific genus of tree that apparently is a supporter of the Zionist conspiracy.

[Rojava Free State]

I love how Mohammed couldn't make up his mind as to whether Christians and jews were good or not. In one verse he's like "don't murder them, leave them alone," and in the next he's like "I still don't trust them. They're out for themselves and Muslims gotta stick together." Aah religion. Contradicting itself and twisting itself into a pretzel.

Imagine being Muslim and trying to figure out if you should or shouldn't befriend non Muslims by reading the Quran. You'd probably go insane after a while.

Actually, it's pretty clear when you look at the time the verses are revealed. At first, Muhammad hopes to also be the prophet for the Jews, and he hoped that the Jews would follow him. Here his opinion about them is pretty positive. But then the Jews kept ridiculing and rejecting him, so his opinion quickly goes downhill, resulting in today's Islamic belief of antisemitic genocide, talking rocks, and a specific genus of tree that apparently is a supporter of the Zionist conspiracy.

What about the Christians though? From what I read, the local Christians often aided mohammed, so i don't see where his "don't trust the Christians" shpeel comes from.

[VVerkia]

Where words and laws are in contradictions to mind, there is place to awakening own conscience, own heart. When logic fail - human also have deep feelings.

[Ansarre]

Hate speech laws vs. lack thereof in a more general sense has been done to death, people. Can we please focus on the more unique topic of whether or not Bible/Qur'an exceptions constitute a loophole?

Who is committing a crime? It isn't illegal to read texts containing quote on quote hate speech?

[Ansarre]

What about the Christians though? From what I read, the local Christians often aided mohammed, so i don't see where his "don't trust the Christians" shpeel comes from.

iirc, scholars of Islam say this is in reference to a prediction that one day Jews and Christians will mend their relationships and become friendly with each other. I've been told by Muslim friends that it was a prediction of US-Israel relationship.

Mohammed was a slave owner

Mohammed was only as good as the times allowed him to be. Remember this was during the dark ages and Rome collapsed. It was like mad max without the interceptor or the motorbikes or the leather or the weird names for everything or the thunderdome...so a pretty lame version of the franchise.

Point is, the guy was no hero of his time. He was another warlord like the rest, but we remember him and not the others because he killed them.

Rome never had any authority over the Hejaz, ever, so blaming it on Rome's collapse is very erroneous. Plus, the concept of the dark ages is a popular myth.

[Gravlen]

That’s not what happened. It’s much more mundane: Copyright lapsed, and when it became public domain the copyright holder could no longer deny permission for third party printing runs.

My mistake, then.

Nevertheless, the point remains; why the different treatment of "holy books" than other hate speech?

Are they being treated differently though? Your only example was based on a mistake on your part, so can you provide examples of books being banned for hate speech?

[Ansarre]

Actually, it's pretty clear when you look at the time the verses are revealed. At first, Muhammad hopes to also be the prophet for the Jews, and he hoped that the Jews would follow him. Here his opinion about them is pretty positive. But then the Jews kept ridiculing and rejecting him, so his opinion quickly goes downhill, resulting in today's Islamic belief of antisemitic genocide, talking rocks, and a specific genus of tree that apparently is a supporter of the Zionist conspiracy.

What about the Christians though? From what I read, the local Christians often aided mohammed, so i don't see where his "don't trust the Christians" shpeel comes from.

It's important to remember that prior to Muhammad's claimed revelation, he was most likely a "Hanif". Hanifiyyah is basically the name for Abrahamic monotheism that was prevalent in the Arabian peninsula at the time, alongside Arabian polytheism. There were Hanifiyyah who lent towards Judaism or Christianity (Waraqah ibn Nawfal was described Ebionite or Nestorian depending on the source), and some who were just broadly Hanif, such as Zayd ibn Amr, Muhammad's "mentor" (sorry if this isn't a good term). Muhammad would have definitely had experience with Christians prior to the early Islamic conquests. By the time the conquests came around, some Christians did side with Muhammad - but very few. Copts for example resisted Islami, and it wasn't until the 10th/11th century that Egypt became primarily Muslim.

[MGTOWia]

So-called "hate speech laws" never should have been passed in the first place and should be abolished. If you don't like what someone says, refute it. Attempts to ban such speech are dishonestly motivated, primarily by leftists seeking yet another mechanism to intimidate and silence anyone who opposes their agenda.

Specifically with respect to the Bible, freedom of worship trumps ANY considerations of so-called "hate".

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

My mistake, then.

Nevertheless, the point remains; why the different treatment of "holy books" than other hate speech?

Are they being treated differently though? Your only example was based on a mistake on your part, so can you provide examples of books being banned for hate speech?

I'm talking about hate speech laws in general. These laws clearly do not go completely unenforced. (Though even if they were, having the law on the books without enforcing them would be hypocritical enough, so I'm not sure any example of enforcement in particular is adequate to prove hypocrisy.)

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So-called "hate speech laws" never should have been passed in the first place and should be abolished. If you don't like what someone says, refute it. Attempts to ban such speech are dishonestly motivated, primarily by leftists seeking yet another mechanism to intimidate and silence anyone who opposes their agenda.

Specifically with respect to the Bible, freedom of worship trumps ANY considerations of so-called "hate".

What, if anything, distinguishes so-called "freedom of worship" from freedom of speech in general?

[Ansarre]

When the Bible was written, no laws that are still currently enforced had been broken. Who would be arrested for this?

[Gravlen]

Are they being treated differently though? Your only example was based on a mistake on your part, so can you provide examples of books being banned for hate speech?

I'm talking about hate speech laws in general. These laws clearly do not go completely unenforced. (Though even if they were, having the law on the books without enforcing them would be hypocritical enough, so I'm not sure any example of enforcement in particular is adequate to prove hypocrisy.)

Mark Meechan was not convicted of a hate crime, so that's a bad example as well. He was found guilty of breaching the Communications Act 2003, by posting a grossly offensive video on the internet. You can read the judgement against him here.

So I'm still waiting for an example of a book banned for hate speech - though I guess if you can't find any examples, that's your answer: Because of the right to freedom of expression, they're not treated differently.

[Reverend Norv]

So-called "hate speech laws" never should have been passed in the first place and should be abolished. If you don't like what someone says, refute it. Attempts to ban such speech are dishonestly motivated, primarily by leftists seeking yet another mechanism to intimidate and silence anyone who opposes their agenda.

Specifically with respect to the Bible, freedom of worship trumps ANY considerations of so-called "hate".

What, if anything, distinguishes so-called "freedom of worship" from freedom of speech in general?

I can't speak to European law, and since that's the topic of this thread, this should be taken with that caveat.

But for First Amendment purposes, under US federal constitutional law, the difference lies in the burden which is placed on an individual when the right is infringed. When freedom of speech is infringed, the burden is that free expression of one's thoughts becomes punishable. This is a serious hardship, but it can be justified in order to avert other, even worse harms. This is the basis of all limits on free speech in American law.

When free exercise of religion is infringed, the burden is that one is forbidden by law from complying with the dictates of one's religion. This is generally thought to be a greater burden than limits on free speech, because it "puts the conscience upon the rack": it requires an individual to choose between punishment of the body by the state, and punishment of the soul by God. It is not merely a matter of keeping one's mouth shut, but of risking eternal damnation. Some harms can outweigh this burden, and justify limits on the free exercise right, but they are few.

So that's the American legal system's way of distinguishing freedom of speech from free exercise of religion: the latter is involved when the government seeks to suppress speech that an individual feels a religious obligation to make. It rests on the assessment that requiring a person to betray her faith is a greater burden than requiring her to refrain from other kinds of speech. One can contest that assessment, but it does at least represent a functional distinction between the two rights.