Should hate crime laws apply to religious groups?

Post Reply New Topic

Many countries have hate crime laws that prohibit hate speech directed against racial, religious, sexual orientation, and gender minorities but religious groups are usually exempt. Scotland is considering a hate crime bill that would apply to religious leaders and religious books. I don't know the details of that bill but it made me curious what people think about the following questions:

Do you think preachers should be exempt from laws that prohibit hate speech?

For example, should the government charge preachers with a hate crime if they make statements like the ones listed below:

Saying same sex acts are an abomination (homophobia).
Saying trans men with female genitals are women (transphobia)
Saying there are only two genders (hatred against non-binary)
Saying God or the Savior is a male (misogyny).
Saying abortion should be illegal (opposing women's reproductive rights)
Saying people should be given jobs based on merit instead of skin color (racism).
Saying unbelievers won't go to heaven (hatred against atheists and those of other religions)

Do you think it should be illegal to distribute religious books that contain hate speech?

Offensive verses such as "For God so loved the world that he gave his Son, that whoever believes in him shall have eternal life." can always be changed to something like "For a being so loved the world that she had a child, that because of it everyone shall have a great life." to promote tolerance toward religious and gender minorities so that everyone can be treated equally in our progressive society.

Of course they should apply to everyone.

If you ban hate speech, there is no reason to only make it apply for some people, but not to others.
That is, when we define what hate speech actually is. I don't think it should apply to religion/politics, because people can choose differently. You cannot choose your gender or ethnicity/skin color.

If religious people want to practice their religion, they should respect the laws. If that means they should change their religious doctrines and preaching, so be it.

That said, previous editions of religious books should not be banned.
They should, however, not be sold as religious books, but as historical artifacts.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 30 Aug 2020, 1:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think laws should apply to everyone.

I think hate speech laws should apply to everyone but they shouldn't be particularily restrictive. Just literal hate speech, meaning promoting hate or systematic devaluation of groups of people should be restricted.

I think that we must define what hate speech actually is.

To me, it is not a hate-speech to say anything devaluating because of political or religious opinions.

Religion is just an opinion, like politics. You choose your religion (in countries with religious freedom), like you choose your political opinions.

You don't choose your race or ethnicity. You don't choose gender - or disabilities for that matter.

That's why I'd like to legalize hate speech on religious groups of people, and instead place a ban on hate speech on disabled people.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 30 Aug 2020, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think all hate speech is wrong!And no one should be exempt!

I also don't believe that disagreeing with someone in a respectful and reasonable fashion is hate speech.

Religious leaders have the right to promote doctrine of there theology in a reasonable manor without it being hate speech.

I don't think A Rabbi saying that believing Jesus in divine,is idolatry a serious violation of the first two of the ten commandments.And that Christianity is a polytheistic pagan religion- I would not call that bigotry or hate if said in a non rageful fashion

I would not call a christian minister saying homosexuality is a sin "Hate" or bigotry if spoken in non hateful,rageful or angry fashion.

In a free country people have the right to espouse religious doctrine as long as it's done peacefully.Religious doctrine may disagree with some peoples way life but as long but as long as anger,hate,rage or advocacy of violence is not promoted it's ok to disagree with how people may live.

Why should pick-and-choose stuff (like political/religious leanings) be protected to the same degree as genetic stuff (like skin color, gender etc.)?

If you make a choice in life, you should also be prepared for the consequences.
Then, there's the stuff that is out of your control.

Ban hate speech on stuff that wasn't people's choice.
Legalize hate speech on stuff where people can choose differently.

That's my opinion on the subject.

Political and religious opinions are rarely really chosen, they are most often results of upbringing, culture and generally social enviroment.

But the more practical reason to include such groups in anti-hate protection is simply preventing inter-group violence.

Still, they have a choice, unlike skin color etc.

You're not born a muslim/jew/christian/democrat/republican etc.

You're born a white/black/male/female etc.

I was raised by liberal parents. But in my childhood and youth, I was a totalitarian.
I've shifted back and forth from conservatism to communism - and social-liberalism.

That proves my point: Politics is chosen.

I've been a christian, atheist and agnostic.

That proves my point again: Religions are chosen.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 30 Aug 2020, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But the practical need for preventing inter-group violence seems especially urgent there nowadays.

Violence is already banned.

Hate speech whatever or where ever it is portrayed should be note and pointed out as such to all whom persist in promoting it. Such persisters should be penalized for such speech.

All crime is banned. We would be living in an ideal world if this was sufficient.

Hell yeah!! !

#liberatealabama
#liberatealaska
#liberatearizona
#liberatearkansas
#liberateflorida
#liberategeorgia
#liberateidaho
#liberateindiana
#liberateiowa
#liberatekansas
#liberatekentucky
#liberatelouisiana
#liberatemississippi
#liberatemissouri
#liberatemontana
#liberatenebraska
#liberatenorthcarolina
#liberatenorthdakota
#liberateohio
#liberateoklahoma
#liberatesouthcarolina
#liberatesouthdakota
#liberatetennessee
#liberatetexas
#liberateutah
#liberatewestvirginia
#liberatewyoming

Is a polite reasonable political or religious disagreement "Hate"?

That's what this thread seems to be getting at.

To me - no, disagreement is not necessarily hate. In a diverse world, we need a lot of space for civil disagreement.