Canada taking steps to mind control?

[nemafakei]

Notice there is already a legal difference for this sort of thing between saying something to a friend, and publishing something in a widely-printed newspaper, book, or music. Try also to think about extent of the message.

"If saying to someone "Only those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven" is hate speech, then saying to someone "No one will go to heaven" is also hate speech"

Note the fact that one is discriminatory, the other is not.

[Acriku]

I told you my argument, and you said "keep it to yourself" then I said, quite cleverly, "Then don't ask :)" In which you did, and that's why I said it, so for me to keep it to myself, you shouldn't ask duh ;)

[emprworm]

I told you my argument, and you said "keep it to yourself" then I said, quite cleverly, "Then don't ask :)" In which you did, and that's why I said it, so for me to keep it to myself, you shouldn't ask duh ;)

i know, i felt that was just a ploy to kill the debate. so are you basically saying then, that you agree that the atheist statement "no one will go to heaven" is hate speech? Yes or no. You have a remarkable ability to debate and never even state your position. It is a great skill you have. I don't know how I engage in debates with you and let you get away with not clearly stating your position first before debate begins. but I will make a mental note of it that from now on before I debate you, I will first know your position. That would prevent any waffling from taking place.

so, please state your position: do any of the following represent hate speech that you think should be made illegal if spoken to someone in a public place:

1. "Only those who believe in Jesus can go to Heaven"

2. "No one goes to heaven. There is no heaven, when you die, thats it"

[nemafakei]

Emprworm, quantify. Hate speech when in what context? When preached in the streets, when printed in a paper, or even when discussed in conversation?

Or are you leaving that as an open question - ie 'when do they become hate speech, if at all?'

[emprworm]

Emprworm, quantify. Hate speech when in what context? When preached in the streets, when printed in a paper, or even when discussed in conversation?

Or are you leaving that as an open question - ie 'when do they become hate speech, if at all?'

i suppose I'm leaving it open. But lets say a person walks up to you in a store and says:

"Believe in Jesus, or you won't go to Heaven". Should that be ilegal Hate speech?

Or a guy walks up to you in a store and says "There is no God. Believe whatever you want, you still won't go to Heaven."

If the former is hate speech, so is the latter. In fact, the latter is much more hateful because at least in the former...SOME People will still live after death, whereas in the latter, ALL die.

[Acriku]

Why would anyone go up to a person and say "There is no God. Believe whatever you want, you still won't go to Heaven."? There is no reason. There is a reason, however, to go up to a person and say "Believe in Jesus, or you won't go to Heaven."

[emprworm]

Why would anyone go up to a person and say "There is no God. Believe whatever you want, you still won't go to Heaven."? There is no reason. There is a reason, however, to go up to a person and say "Believe in Jesus, or you won't go to Heaven."

oh no Acriku. I'm not talking to you any more until you answer the questions asked in this post:

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?action=display;board=2;threadid=8845;start=90#msg140346

state your position first...before debate begins

[TMA_1]

I suggest empr that you be more considerate and answer people's questions. please try to do this. otherwise, people will have a harder time trying to retort your opinion, and that destroys good debate.

[emprworm]

I suggest empr that you be more considerate and answer people's questions. please try to do this. otherwise, people will have a harder time trying to retort your opinion, and that destroys good debate.

i suggest Acriku state his opinion, but I'm sure he will once he reads my request. Debate cannot logically begin until opinions are first known.

[Navaros]

Hehe funny how it turns into a "FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT" battle for the defendants.

This has nothing to do with Christianity or the bible. It has only to do with the content of what was printed. And what was printed is that gay men should should be killed. (a nice quote for those of you who swear by the "passive book of love" in the Bible)

The fact it's the Bible is of no relevance. If I write my own holy book called "The holy book of killing Vikings", fine. Stick it in a bookstore, distribute it privately, through the internet, whatever. When you start advertising messages of murdering descendants of vikings, it's not a book, it's a threat and it's abuse. And those are both illegal.

You want to shove your applicable holy book down my throat? Fine. I'll shove right back. You want to write bible verses on buses, pamphlets, doormats, fine. I'll ignore them (or maybe soil them if I'm in a bad mood ;D {j/k}). You want to call me at home to preach, preach, preach? Fine. I'll hang up and utilize whatever privacy laws are availible. All those things are the citizen's right. But when you make such threats against any person or group of people, it's just that - a threat. Very justly illegal.

All of your statements here are very subjective. First of all, they are not illegal. There are some countries in the world where it is quite legal, and encouraged, to literallly enforce this Biblicial law to it's full effect. You saying it's "illegal" is subjective based on geographical location.

In addition, it's also subjective based on point in time. In the USA and Canada, it used to be - and let's borrow your phrasing here - "very justly" illegal for "homosexuals" as you like to call them to commit such repugnant acts upon each other and society as a whole. A bunch of perverts took over North America, and changed the laws to support such abominable things. But that is not to say that the moral will never again regain control and switch the law back to how it was and as it should be. Your statement only relates to a very brief period in the overall history of North America. No more than 30 years. There is much more of a history when it was NOT legal.

Furthermore, you are wrong about stating the truth to be "shoving it down your throat". Printing ads stating the Biblical truth about "homosexuality" is not shoving anything down anyone's throat. No more than printing ads for "gay pride" and constant radical left-wing extremist columnists who incessantly try to shove the false concept that "it's normal and okay to be gay!" down the throats of everyone. What gives them the right to try to shove their twisted, immoral, hell-bound ways down my throat? Those columnists are human just like me, they can claim no superiority, so who are they to tell me what I have to accept by shoving it down my throat?! That's a "hate crime" against Christians, Jews, Muslims, and any other moral person. They have no right to try to force me to believe that bullcrap by buying huge ads in newspapers or on television, or by printing SS-esque propaganda in the form of "articles" all in an effort to force it down my throat.

[GhostHunter]

1. "Only those who believe in Jesus can go to Heaven"

2. "No one goes to heaven. There is no heaven, when you die, thats it"

Empr, you said what would you do if a person came and asked you this but what are your personal opinions, are they hate crimes yes or no? If you already stated your answer please state it again because I didn't really see a definate side in your opinion.

[emprworm]

1. "Only those who believe in Jesus can go to Heaven"

2. "No one goes to heaven. There is no heaven, when you die, thats it"

Empr, you said what would you do if a person came and asked you this but what are your personal opinions, are they hate crimes yes or no? If you already stated your answer please state it again because I didn't really see a definate side in your opinion.

vilgent, my opinion is that to call them hate crimes is utterly preposterous. To do so would make that nation, as far as I'm concerned, an oppressive tyrrany. You cannot and should not EVER label a "supernatural" statement as a hate crime. Physical threats...YES!! But a supernatural threat? CMON! The job of a state is to protect your natural, physical life. If I tell you "When you die, you will turn into a green pile of eternal goop" and then try to charge me with a hate crime as if I just threatened your physical, natural life is beyond ludacris.

"Repent to Allah or burn in hell" is not a hate crime. To argue such is absurd. No ones life is being threatened. NOt at all! A hate crime is physically threatening someone or harrassing them after they've asked you to leave them alone. Saying to someone "KILL gays" *IS* a hate crime because it directly threatens someone's physical life. A hate crime should not ever have anything to do with the supernatural because there is no threat on someone's natural life. When the state starts labelling supernatural threats as hate crimes then what you end up with is no different than oppressive Saudi Arabia: a state mandating belief. And that is an intolerable government.

[TMA_1]

if I understood what he meant empr, I am sure you could. You usually find ways to skirt past questions and things like this. I just am making sure this is clean and good for debating. No little tricks.

[emprworm]

if I understood what he meant empr, I am sure you could. You usually find ways to skirt past questions and things like this. I just am making sure this is clean and good for debating. No little tricks.

TMA stop with the irrelevant posts. I thought you were not going to talk to me anymore. Quit following me around with this same repetitive nonsense. Either contribute or seal it. I asked ACRIKU NOT YOU to state his opinion. You are not his mouthpiece.

[GhostHunter]

He answered the question directly and gave me all the needed information respectibly...

[GhostHunter]

By the way, nice to finally AGREE with you on a topic Empr...

[emprworm]

By the way, nice to finally AGREE with you on a topic Empr...

well I'll be darned!!!!! :D

[Acriku]

so, please state your position: do any of the following represent hate speech that you think should be made illegal if spoken to someone in a public place:

1. "Only those who believe in Jesus can go to Heaven"

2. "No one goes to heaven. There is no heaven, when you die, thats it"

Since you say hate "speech" I assume this is being said to another person. Well, my opinion is that neither of those should be illegal. But it also depends on where it is said, like in the classroom for instance - in this case, both should be illegal as one is preaching for christianity, and one is preaching against.

Now you can reply to this:

Why would anyone go up to a person and say "There is no God. Believe whatever you want, you still won't go to Heaven."? There is no reason. There is a reason, however, to go up to a person and say "Believe in Jesus, or you won't go to Heaven."

[TMA_1]

I am not doing anything against the rules. Only making sure you stay on the right path with debates. it needs to be done. you are doing better now. keep it up. :)

[emprworm]

so, please state your position: do any of the following represent hate speech that you think should be made illegal if spoken to someone in a public place:

1. "Only those who believe in Jesus can go to Heaven"

2. "No one goes to heaven. There is no heaven, when you die, thats it"

Since you say hate "speech" I assume this is being said to another person. Well, my opinion is that neither of those should be illegal. But it also depends on where it is said, like in the classroom for instance - in this case, both should be illegal as one is preaching for christianity, and one is preaching against.

Unless it is a classroom after school hours in a school club. Then its fine. Otherwise, we are in agreement. "Repent to Allah or burn in hell" is not hate speech and should never be classified as such.

Now you can reply to this:

Why would anyone go up to a person and say "There is no God. Believe whatever you want, you still won't go to Heaven."?

how do I know? "Rational Enlightenment" maybe? People say all kinds of wierd things. There are plenty of evangelical atheists. See Dan Barker for a famous one- he even wrote a book on it. If you want some historical examples, look up the name "Robert Ingersoll" who was basically a 'circus tent-preacher' atheist. This guy went on public tours like Jimmy Swaggart and spoke very emotional, fervent atheism.

There is a reason, however, to go up to a person and say "Believe in Jesus, or you won't go to Heaven."

probably for "spiritual enlightenment"-- who knows. In either case, those events do not happen very often. I have been to many many stores and have never had either of them happen to me. But regardless, it is not hate crime, and never should be.

[Acriku]

Unless it is a classroom after school hours in a school club. Then its fine. Otherwise, we are in agreement. "Repent to Allah or burn in hell" is not hate speech and should never be classified as such.

My school rents out some classrooms to a church so it can have meetings and prayer school after hours to make some money on the side :) And the "Repent to Allah or burn in hell" can be argued to be hate speech, in a court of law where one is suing another.

how do I know? "Rational Enlightenment" maybe? People say all kinds of wierd things. There are plenty of evangelical atheists. See Dan Barker for a famous one- he even wrote a book on it. If you want some historical examples, look up the name "Robert Ingersoll" who was basically a 'circus tent-preacher' atheist. This guy went on public tours like Jimmy Swaggart and spoke very emotional, fervent atheism.

Rational Enlightenment? That still smells like it was pulled out of your arse. Be careful when you say evangelical, it can also mean relating to Christian gospel ;) Plenty of evangelical atheists yet you only name 2 of them. Could be exaggerating a bit eh?

probably for "spiritual enlightenment"-- who knows. In either case, those events do not happen very often. I have been to many many stores and have never had either of them happen to me. But regardless, it is not hate crime, and never should be.

This happens so very often. But maybe not in that exact form. You cannot deny that there are sects that encourage walking up to a person and trying to convert them in any way possible (Jehova's Witness e.g.). Even christian churches urge this "missionary" within the city limits, and some claim that you will not be saved unless you try and convert other people. But I forget why this is part of the topic.

[emprworm]

And the "Repent to Allah or burn in hell" can be argued to be hate speech, in a court of law where one is suing another.

didn't we just go over this? Does this mean think that it SHOULD be argued in a court of law? Secondly, how do you know that it can? Lastly, how can you logically defend that if such a statement can be considered illegal hate speech, that the atheist statement "No one goes to heaven whether you repent or not, when you die...your death is total and final"....if the former can be argued hate speech, then the same logic can argue the latter hate speech.

Rational Enlightenment? That still smells like it was pulled out of your arse. Be careful when you say evangelical, it can also mean relating to Christian gospel ;) Plenty of evangelical atheists yet you only name 2 of them. Could be exaggerating a bit eh?

huh? thats what it is called. The Age of Enlightenment is what you naturalists call the time period of the 17th century through the dawn of Darwinism. Look up your history dude! :O

Age of Enlightenment

To understand the natural world and humankind's place in it solely on the basis of reason and without turning to religious belief was the goal of the wide-ranging intellectual movement called the Enlightenment. The movement claimed the allegiance of a majority of thinkers during the 17th and 18th centuries, a period that Thomas Paine called the Age of Reason. At its heart it became a conflict between religion and the inquiring mind that wanted to know and understand through reason based on evidence and proof.

http://ragz-international.com/age_of_enlightenment.htm

now, all of the sudden you are liking that term "rational enlightenment"....no?

This happens so very often. But maybe not in that exact form. You cannot deny that there are sects that encourage walking up to a person and trying to convert them in any way possible (Jehova's Witness e.g.). Even christian churches urge this "missionary" within the city limits, and some claim that you will not be saved unless you try and convert other people. But I forget why this is part of the topic.

so what? Infidels.org does the same thing. Nothing illegal about it at all. And there shouldn't be. I thought we agreed on all this? What are you trying to debate? Please tell me the subject of the debate right now. I'm not sure what you are debating for.

[Acriku]

In lawsuits, it doesn't have to be against the law for the prosecutor to sue the defendant. All it takes is the judge to say yay or nay, and then the details.

I didn't say you pulled the term out of your ass, I said you pulled the whole predicament out of your ass.

Why would I suddenly like a term? I find it interesting, but liking it? Please.

Empr, you GO to infidels.org. They don't flash upon the computer screen, so that is totally different. And I never said any of this was illegal, what the hell is wrong with you? You said it doesn't happen very often, I argued against that. Is that so hard to comprehend?

[emprworm]

In lawsuits, it doesn't have to be against the law for the prosecutor to sue the defendant. All it takes is the judge to say yay or nay, and then the details.

cite one single example where such a statement has been ruled illegal (and I am not referring to a worker on duty being paid by the government or state)

I didn't say you pulled the term out of your ass, I said you pulled the whole predicament out of your ass.

lol. its sad, Acriku, when you try to wiggle out of something you were obviously caught in. "Rational Enlightenment? That still smells like it was pulled out of your arse." Its pretty obvious you were caught off guard.

To show you good faith that even I have the humility necessary to admit when I was wrong, see this post here: http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?action=display;board=2;threadid=8368;start=360#msg140478 where I contended with Earthnuker that something he said was false, who then presented evidence to his claims to show otherwise.

""Rational Enlightenment? That still smells like it was pulled out of your arse." its a little late now to change the story. Humility would bring a cocillatory response, however why do I fully expect no such response will be forth coming?

Why would I suddenly like a term? I find it interesting, but liking it? Please.

well obviously in order to disagree with everything I say even at the expense of disagreeing with nearly the majority of historically educated atheists in the world who pretty much unilaterally consider the post-dark ages of Catholic rule as the age of enlightenment, I find it not surprising that you would say to me "Why would I suddenly like a term? I find it interesting, but liking it? Please. " Furthermore, that you once had a quote in your tagline talking about the dark ages and now to hear you tell me you don't even like the universal atheist terminology for the breaking off of religion as the "age of enlightenment" is shocking indeed. I have a feeling, though I cannot prove it, that if anyone else said that other than me, you would be in wholehearted agreement. Even now, secretly, I believe (though I cannot prove) that you really do like the term and are in full agreement with it, along with the rest of the historically educated atheist world (and by saying this I am giving you credit by counting you among educated atheists)

It is my conclusion that you are disagreeing with so many historically educated atheists here simply because you will refuse to grant me any point whatsoever...no matter what...even if it means saying "Rational Enlightenment? That still smells like it was pulled out of your arse." and then turning around and saying "I didn't say you pulled the term out of your ass, I said you pulled the whole predicament out of your ass. " Here is the truth: you will never grant me a point in a debate no matter what, even though I will do such a thing to you. You will argue regardless, even if it means trying to rewrite a post that you clearly made that was incorrect. I believe you are 100% unwilling at any cost to accept correction from me. I, however, accept correction from people here, as I did just tonight with Earthnuker.

how do I debate with someone who will argue just for the sake of arguing? I cannot do so. A respectable response from you would have been "well, I did not know about that 'age of enlightenment' thing. sorry for accusing you of pulling it out of your a$$'.

But you just could never ever ever say something like that to emprworm could you? If there is a such thing as heresy for acriku, I would guess that it would be admitting to emprworm that he was right about something that acriku contended with! Well it sure seems that way, anyhow.

When I perceive you are actually willing to debate (which means that points you make shown wrong will be conceded), then I will resume. Until then all I see you doing is arguing with me no matter what, even if it means not agreeing with the unilateral opinion of historically educated atheists world wide.

On these forums in the last month: I have been asked to apologize, which I did. I admitted correction to Nyar for being wrong regarding an event in South Korea. I conceded to Earthnuker for backing up a claim with evidence, conceded to him again in Zamboes thread, and stopped using "whitey" references. I am able to bend and admit when I make a "boo-boo".

I am now setting an ultimatim in order for you and I to debate again on these forums. You will apologize to me ...or at least acknowledge...that i did NOT pull out "the age of enlightenment" of my a$$ and that your accusation to me was misinformed. I refuse to let your accusation stand. If you have the humility to do that, we shall once again resume discussions. If you cannot, dialogue between us is broken irretrievably. I leave the choice now to you.

(post edit: to make things easier, I was asked by Nema to apologize to Edric in a thread about a week ago, to which I promptly complied and apologized.)

[Acriku]

cite one single example where such a statement has been ruled illegal (and I am not referring to a worker on duty being paid by the government or state)

Again, I did not say anything like that. A guy borrows money from another, and doesn't pay back, his brother who lent the money can sue for the money. Does this making borrowing money and not paying back a crime? If I give my friend 5 dollars, and he "forgets" I can't put him in jail.

lol. its sad, Acriku, when you try to wiggle out of something you were obviously caught in. "Rational Enlightenment? That still smells like it was pulled out of your arse." Its pretty obvious you were caught off guard.

Wiggle out of what? Out of context sure, I can see that. But if you read it in context of the post before then you will see what I mean. When I questioned your use of Rational Enlightenment, I was implying that the idea that that's what an atheist would use as a reason for going up to a person and saying "you aren't going to heaven" is to be put into question. It isn't hard to understand.

For example -

You look like Elvis. My response would be, "Elvis? That still smells like it was pulled out of your arse." This wouldn't be me getting "caught off guard" or "questioning the word" it would be me implying that the idea that that's what I look like is to be put into question. Do you agree?

I'm glad when you are wrong you apologize (some of the time, but that's another matter), I have done so as well, or atleast admitted I was wrong - only when I am wrong. What is the big deal?