Hate speech

Quote: Robertson in GQ in response to What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says.
Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Please stay on topic, and don't morph out into the stratosphere.

If you state that you think some behavior is "sinful" , many people believe that they "hate the sin, and not the sinner". Are you allowed to state the following things are sinful in your opinion without engaging in "hate speech"

1) pre-marital sex
2) first cousin marriages
3) marriage after divorce
4) homosexual marriage
5) inter-racial marriage

Generally, if the person does not threaten bodily harm, I don't assume "hate". I may assume "ignorance", but not normally hate. Although some people dance a fine line.

Two things:

1) You can't separate the "sin" from the "sinner". Without a sinner then there would be no sin to hate.
2) You choose your gods. The gods to which you choose to prostrate yourself are more of a reflection on you than of your gods.

In other words, you can not hide behind your gods' skirts when you say that something is "sinful" because if you didn't believe it with all of your heart, then you would choose a better set of gods. All of this applies to monotheists as well.

If the ultimate goal is to find a set of gods that will let you into their heavens after you die, then condemning someone to the non-heavens for eternal disinterest or even fiery torture for all eternity is a reflection of the black spot on your soul. You're saying, "I'm good enough for heaven but you suck so be like me (unless I sin too, in that case just shut up and do what I say)."

The only thing on the list above that I have an issue with is the first-cousin marriage. If they intend to spawn, that could be dangerous for the offspring. If they are beyond child bearing years, then let your freak flag fly!

Quote: Pacomartin

Generally, if the person does not threaten bodily harm, I don't assume "hate". I may assume "ignorance", but not normally hate. Although some people dance a fine line.

I would use an example I've used before. Did the Jews need to tolerate the view of the Nazis about Jews? Or did the blacks need to tolerate the views of the white majority in U.S. about blacks?

That is a wretched view of tolerance, IMO.

MLK was a man who effectively used passive resistance against violent and abusive oppressors, but he, AFAIK, never tolerated their actual perception of race.

In my opinion, when you meet a person who has already decided you're unequal, your responsibility for tolerance ends right there and with every person like that.

You can show tolerance of other things you don't really like, but being equal, is not one of them.

As for "hate the sin, not the sinner," you have to look at the net result of the practice. Is it inhibiting the right to be a person of equal standing. I think so. And I think even if it doesn't bring on the immediate stoning we still see the effects of inequality. That is the net result.

Quote:

1) pre-marital sex
2) first cousin marriages
3) marriage after divorce
4) homosexual marriage
5) inter-racial marriage

Well the U.S. went farther on inter-racial marriage than gay marriage. Like S2Baker, near incestual breeding becomes a possible health problem. That's an issue that has to be considered on a case by case basis probably.

More on hate sin...

You can probably hate the addicts drug problem. You hope to see the person free of it, and it's is in the realm of possibility,

What good is it to tell all gay people that you hate the sin, not the sinner? It's as helpful as telling them you don't like the color of their skin.

Quote: rxwine

What good is it to tell all gay people that you hate the sin, not the sinner? It's as helpful as telling them you don't like the color of their skin.

I don't necessarily agree with the "hate the sin and not the sinner" concept,, but I hear the comment frequently.

Quote: Pacomartin

I don't necessarily agree with the "hate the sin and not the sinner" concept,, but I hear the comment frequently.

Although I understand s2dbaker's position, and don't doubt there are a lot of phonies who try to hide behind "not hating the sinner", I think the only way you can say hating the sin rather than the sinner isn't the best thing, is to say that hating the sin should not be done; or that it is not a sin. Which may be the prior point.

I want to use the word "sin" in the least judgmental way, let's say for me if I think it is a sin it means I agree that it properly should be categorized as Error for a proper-thinking religion. That is a viewpoint of course.

Taking "hate" out of the question, which of these do I think is a sin, which am I also guilty of?

1) pre-marital sex a sin, guilty and found it irresistible
2) first cousin marriages sexual congress a sin, not guilty, but found it tempting
3) marriage after divorce as a proper protestant = not a sin; not guilty
4) homosexual marriage not a sin, n/a, but opposed politically
5) inter-racial marriage not a sin, not guilty, probably never thought of it as a sin but as a younger man was opposed. Fairly indifferent now

Quote: Pacomartin

If you state that you think some behavior is "sinful" , many people believe that they "hate the sin, and not the sinner". Are you allowed to state the following things are sinful in your opinion without engaging in "hate speech"

1) pre-marital sex
2) first cousin marriages
3) marriage after divorce
4) homosexual marriage
5) inter-racial marriage

Generally, if the person does not threaten bodily harm, I don't assume "hate". I may assume "ignorance", but not normally hate. Although some people dance a fine line.

Context is everything, and it really ruffles my feathers when people get all uppity over the most inane things.

There's a big damn difference between a man of God's belief that something is sinful vs, say, Westboro Baptist's view on same. Just because they may believe in the same concept doesn't make the two equal.

There are plenty of religious folk on WoV, and I am no saint. I commit eternal/mortal sin daily. Should I automatically assume FrG and AZD and any other godly man suddenly hates me for it?

My mom hated my drug use back in those days. Would anyone think she hated me, too?

There are plenty of people who hold plenty of beliefs that I find anywhere from undesirable to down right terrifying. Saying "I don't agree" in no way is a form of hate.

Quote: rxwine

I would use an example I've used before. Did the Jews need to tolerate the view of the Nazis about Jews? Or did the blacks need to tolerate the views of the white majority in U.S. about blacks?

That is a wretched view of tolerance, IMO.

MLK was a man who effectively used passive resistance against violent and abusive oppressors, but he, AFAIK, never tolerated their actual perception of race.

In my opinion, when you meet a person who has already decided you're unequal, your responsibility for tolerance ends right there and with every person like that.

I've always had trouble defining my own line, and I suppose it moves by the day. When, in your desire to become tolerant, do you by design become intolerant?

Most times I try the Gandhi route - Be the change you want to see in the world. The Redskin debate is a pretty good example. While "Redskin" elicits no response from me, directing the term "redskin" at me would cause a reaction. And AZD, a man I would call friend, stated flat out that not only would he use it, he doesn't believe the term is racist or offensive in any way. That caused conflict within me, a friend of mine having a belief that is in direct opposition with mine.

What's a guy to do? In most cases, he needs to get over himself. So I did. Whether it's AZD's feeling on redskin, or FrG's beliefs on what my afterlife has in store for me, or boymimbo's opinion of my gun culture and healthcare, they're just differences in opinion, of beliefs. Should I become intolerant of their intolerance, thereby becoming intolerant myself? To what end?

Until AZD tries to annex my back yard and claim Manifest Destiny, there is no reason to not tolerate his view. And I think the same concept should apply every other place that stuff likes this pops up. If a man like Robertson expresses a view that (insert sin here) is bad, tolerate it. Only when things go overboard (Nazi's eradicating people) should we begin the mass headbutting of people in the face.

I can understand your point, Face. There seems to be nothing directed at a person in hating the sin, but I still think you can get a bad result.

When I read about some of the medical experiments of the Nazis some actions had as much hate as someone boiling a chicken. You don't hate the chicken, and half the time you even don't think about it, you just cook it. But the chicken still gets cooked.

I guess the mild form of this is voting against someone being able to live just like anyone else. It's not genocide, but there is a dehumanizing effect.

Quote: rxwine

I can understand your point, Face. There seems to be nothing directed at a person in hating the sin, but I still think you can get a bad result.

St. Augustine wrote (c. 424) the phrase Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, which translates roughly to "With love for mankind and hatred of sins." The phrase has become more famous as "hate the sin and not the sinner" (this form appeared in Mohandas Gandhi’s 1929 autobiography).

I deliberately put "first cousin marriage" on the list because as everyone knows it increases the possibility of hereditary genetic disease in offspring. While not illegal in Europe, it is illegal in many US states. It is a fairly easy "sin" to avoid for most Westerners who are raised not to be attracted to their first cousins. But Muslims are told in the Quran that their first cousin is a desirable mate. Defenders of such practice believe that routine practices such as having a first child in late 30's or 40's is just as dangerous as having a child with your first cousin. It is not likely that the Western countries will prohibit childbearing above a certain age because it is dangerous.

The cost of treating the extremely high rate of genetic disease among Pakistani immigrants in the UK has become a political issue since 50% of them are in first cousin marriages. The probably of a genetic disease is much higher if the child is a product of a first cousin marriage, and both parents are also products of first cousin marriages.