Hatred In Religion - with Video Footage

[Netti-Netti]

Let's protect freedom of speech by banning speech.

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

That's not a good analogy.

Expressions of hate speech have real impact. For one, they discourage freedom of expression in others - particularly those who are the targets. From that standpoint, a tolerance for hate speech is basically a misguided attempt to defend an abstract philosophically "boutique" notion of free speech even if it means in effect depriving some people of their rights and liberties in a long term way. I'd say it's a naive absolutist notion of First Amendment protection.

Further, the people who are least likely to have a problem with abuses in the form of real life application of such an absolutist notion free speechare those who consider themselves powerful, priviledged, culturally majoritarian/normative or prestigious, and unlikely to ever be a target of hate speech themselves (e.g., they're not black, Mexican, gay, or Muslim). Endorsement of speech speech for these folks is in effect a self-indulgent affirmation of their own stature in society, a form of virulent narcissism.

Importantly, the argument you are making completely ignores political and cultural context. Your argument would make sense if hate speech were not political and cultural practice, if it had no real dynamics in terms of the powers and social stratification, and if it had no negative consquences for individuals.

Hate speech is not just words. It's part and parcel of the process of maintaining a political and cultural reality - a process that involves cultural transmission of hate attitudes and disparate, disciminatory treatment of persons who are the target of hate speech.

 

[Netti-Netti]

For anyone to say hatred is not connected to religion needs to do a serious global update on the law and then have that massive hole in your roof repaired. You do not need science to prove religious hatred or any hate crime. You could use physical evidence such as video, writing, photos, phone logs, text message, subpoena forums like this one.

Maybe someday you'd like to make a case that draws upon some of these sources. In the meantime, for someone to maintain that there is a connection between hate and religion without any evidence whatsoever is in effect practicing a form of hate speech that serves to discredit religion. I find it very hard to believe that you have a legal background in light of the fact that the position you took in the OP is purely circumstantial and has no explanatory value with respect to the issues under consideration.

We do not create laws against religious hatred or any hate crime to pretend it does not exist.

Who said it doesn't exist?

I started this to reveal how topics are being skimmed over, deflected to something else and the core of the problem is not being visited.

In my humble opinion, your treatment of the issues is superficial and misleading.

Btw, the topic has been discussed on this forum many times before. There are numerous threads on the subject. If you do a search by User Name on Tao Equus, I expect you'll find lots of material.

 

[seattlegal]

SG,

Fraudsters are routinely prosecuted, In the UK it is a criminal offence to incite someone to violence by preaching hate. The reason society requires such laws is because you cannot allow the excesses of the few to adversely effect the life quality of the masses. What I propose is what happens to every other type of criminal. But you want an exception for religious fraud.

Please show me where I wrote this?

You can call it censorship,

Just what would you call it?

because you want the freedom to defend your superstitions.

I'm big on the right to defend oneself. Most civilized people also are.

Well I am not attacking them. But there does come a point where freeddom of speech has real effect on the freedoms of others. It is a difficult and thorny issue but without drawing a line and outlawing hate none of us is free.

Outlawing hate won't do it. Dealing with hate is accomplished through dialog. You stop the dialogue, the hate will not be dispelled.

Maybe it will fester, but when it does raise its ugly head it becomes easier to spot and deal with.

Freedom isn't easy. Captivity is.

When you are capable of coming up with an alternative method to what I propose I may then take what you have to say as being something other than your triumphalism of "hey we got Tao by the short and curlies". Till then you are just an appologist for the excesses.


tao

The State and Law is there for people who can't control themselves.

Religion and philosophy is there to help people develop self-control. Since different individuals have different hang-ups regarding self-control, the way to approach it should be left to the individual, and there is a need to share different ideas. Hence, the need for religious freedom and freedom of speech, and for it to have independence from the State.

The model you are proposing will probably lead down the same path as the Qin dynasty in China. Hardly a model of liberty, complete with book-burning. Such gems of wisdom that disagree with your proposed State policy would be in danger of being subjected being lost through 'book burning,' like this:

**vigorously nods yes**

Dhammapada 1:3-5
3. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.
4. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease.
5. For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.
​

 

[path_of_one]

Path and Will, wonderful to meet you.

Likewise.

You are almost there but have a slight bit of denial with hate in religion by attempting to pass it to something else.

Thank you for defining the mark to which I am aspiring to reach. I'm sure that in time, with patience, I will finally reach the same exact conclusions you have for all the same reasons, and then I will get the reward of knowing that "I have arrived."

I poke in jest because, in my opinion, any time we define our own understanding as the goal to which others should aspire, we are being condescending.

I did not deny that there can be hatred associated with religion. What I put forth is that, as a social scientist who works on cognition and conflict issues, I have noted that religion is merely a vehicle for a bigger problem. The vehicle can be eliminated, but the hatred remains and simply finds a new vehicle.

I'm in the business of solving social and environmental problems. It's what I do. So to me, it is irrelevant what the vehicle is if the problem persists after the vehicle is eliminated, and every indication exists (particularly in Communism) that the problem persists. Eliminating religion does not eliminate fear (which leads to hate) and agression/violence. I'm after a practical issue here- how do we end hatred and the resulting suffering?

Now, for another person, their answer may be different. But mine has been carefully chosen and is a constant work in progress, backed by neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, and sociology. I'm a cognitive anthropologist specializing in conflict over resources. I hear about hate all the time. I'm sometimes in the trenches trying to make resolution from very complex and difficult conflicts. And guess what- a lot of them have nothing to do with religion.

So please forgive my skepticism that I'm simply ignoring the problem. I haven't put 10 years in (so far) on these issues lightly. I haven't been collecting the data and trying to work with groups that express exclusionary behavior for no reason. While my posts may (occasionally) be succinct, they are rarely grounded in thoughtlessness or denial. And while I do not think I have all the answers, I certainly think that I put more time (on average) than most people into pondering the questions, developing methodologies to collect relevant evidence, and theorizing about the results.

I do this because I want a more equitable and peaceful world. The way I see it, complaining about the problems doesn't fix anything. I'm interested in solutions, and to do that I have to really understand what is going on underneath the surface. I have to understand how the human brain and social groups work, and why certain widespread emotions surface and how these lead to violence and conflict. People may think there is a simple answer, that religions are the problem. But if you collected the same years of data I have, you might have a different perspective.

Love does not stop religious hatred or hate in religion because they are not taught to love.

I disagree. People learn throughout their lives. Learning is not a one-time endeavor. There are plenty of people indoctrinated into one religion who wind up in another (or none at all) as you yourself have experienced. The recent PEW foundation studies suggests that Americans have a widespread incidence at this point of changing religions. So people are not impervious to change, even of deep-seated identities going back to their childhoods.

Showing people love shows them a new way to be. Showing people real love shows them a life without fear, because the ego has been overcome by unity, and so there is nothing to lose. I have seen it work.

We can approach the problem through systemic solutions, such as ending religions, but these are generally completely improbable and not at all practical. I hear these types of solutions for everything from overconsumption to sustainability to hate to war. They typically come from relatively idealist, insulated people. I'm guilty of thinking them myself. Problem is, they are not pragmatic so they are useless in the real world. Ideas to end religion, or dismantle capitalism... these types of ideas are fun to have, but who can put them into action? How does one go about single-handedly changing entire institutions (often global) from the top-down?

I'm interested in solutions that work. What I see works is grassroots change. Change in individuals and small groups ripples outward into community change, regional change, global change. We need people who have the courage to demonstrate, as King, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Mandela, and others have done, a new way of being and living. If we demonstrate love, it is not in vain. People are drawn to a lack of fear and a confidence in love. It impacts them. It takes away defensiveness. It piques curiousity.

I suppose my response to your original post would be... so what is *your* solution? Have you tried it yet? What were the results? I don't ask superfluously- I am a solution-collector. If something works, I add it to my repetoire. But I would caution against arguing that love doesn't work. There is a reason that many of those who have changed the world positively advocated for love. Personally, I abstain from criticizing their tactics until my actions have spoken as loud as theirs have.

For anyone to say hatred is not connected to religion needs to do a serious global update on the law and then have that massive hole in your roof repaired. You do not need science to prove religious hatred or any hate crime. You could use physical evidence such as video, writing, photos, phone logs, text message, subpoena forums like this one. We do not create laws against religious hatred or any hate crime to pretend it does not exist. In fact, those types of crimes, like racism, are viewed with much more severe punishment than trying someone over a personal vendetta for the same crime. We establish the law then prosecute according to the law. Why is the law tougher against hate?

My point was that hatred is not an issue with religions *alone.* So it is inappropriate to attempt to solve it by simply looking at religion. Science may not be necessary to see hate crime as real, but it is certainly necessary to understand the underlying causes of hate crime. There is a reason that there are tons of books on the *why* of these problems. When we know why they occur, we can generate accurate, useful ways to stop them. When we only look at the surface, we have little recourse but punitive means (i.e., the law and court system- which punishes after the fact and so still does not solve the problem). I'm interested in how to stop hate from happening. I'm not interested in stamping my feet in despair and disgust, pretending it has to do with certain aspects of society and not others, when hate has been a problem throughout time and place, and emerges in various social institutions. From what I've seen, science is honing in on how human emotions work, how societies function, and why hate occurs in any circumstance. That gives me hope for change. If we understand these things, we can engineer a better environment for promoting peace, stability, and love.

I started this to reveal how topics are being skimmed over, deflected to something else and the core of the problem is not being visited.

What you see as the core of the problem, I recognize as only one manifestation of the core of the problem. It's a matter of perspective. Have you considered that what you consider the root cause is only a manifestation of a deeper problem? Have you read the literature on the evolution of self-recognition and its effects on group behavior, on the psychology and cognition of hate and exclusionary group behavior, on the conflicting human drives of control and social belonging, on the neuroscience of fear and its effects on learning and acceptance, on the various types of hatred and violence and how it is tied to social institutions, on the history of peace-building methods? There's a lot behind my ideas on this topic.

Sweethearts, Do your best.

Ditto.

 

[LenoBee]

Maybe someday you'd like to make a case that draws upon some of these sources. In the meantime, for someone to maintain that there is a connection between hate and religion without any evidence whatsoever is in effect practicing a form of hate speech that serves to discredit religion. I find it very hard to believe that you have a legal background in light of the fact that the position you took in the OP is purely circumstantial and has no explanatory value with respect to the issues under consideration.

Who said it doesn't exist?


In my humble opinion, your treatment of the issues is superficial and misleading.

Btw, the topic has been discussed on this forum many times before. There are numerous threads on the subject. If you do a search by User Name on Tao Equus, I expect you'll find lots of material.

I do not have to prove my credentials or my career. I realize I am dealing with a different class. That does not make me better or you better. What it means is, I cannot adjust to those who remain ignorant of the law. You have refused to examine the evidence and failed to answer the questions, which tells me emphatically you are not qualified to enter it.

http://search.fbi.gov/search?site=my_collection&output=xml_no_dtd&client=my_collection&proxystylesheet=my_collection&q=religious+hatred

Next you are going to tell me that the FBI is superficial, and I do not have time for that.

 

[LenoBee]

My point was that hatred is not an issue with religions *alone.* [/font]

We are in agreement. That is never what I meant to imply. The portion of religious hate is at roughly 16%. Race takes the bulk of all hate crime.

 

[path_of_one]

We are in agreement. That is never what I meant to imply. The portion of religious hate is at roughly 16%. Race takes the bulk of all hate crime.

So if we are working against hate, why focus on religion? Why not focus on the reasons that hate exist, and work toward eradicating them?

The superficial -isms through which hatred operates vary. Hate is the constant. There are underlying psychological, neurological, and social reasons for this constant. That's the level at which I work. I see the rest (religion, racism, patriotism, communism, capitalism, whatever-ism) as the window dressing.

We can focus on the window dressing, but it doesn't accomplish much.

Learning tolerance in any of these -isms stems from being in a particular cognitive and emotional state, along with having educational materials and understanding, educated mentors. What works is often the same regardless of the -ism it is dealing with.

 

[LenoBee]

[/font]

I did not deny that there can be hatred associated with religion. What I put forth is that, as a social scientist who works on cognition and conflict issues, I have noted that religion is merely a vehicle for a bigger problem. The vehicle can be eliminated, but the hatred remains and simply finds a new vehicle.





Ditto.

I realize all this is true. There are some excellent replies in this. The main purpose of bringing religion in is as secondary is because this is about religion and I also have experience in dealing with it. I do not see any real reason to have to sidetrack into a different law to discuss the one at hand. If I was focusing on race then I would stick to race.
I will get back at a later date. I am going away across the wild blue yonder to love one of my children overseas. Have a wonderful holiday.

 

[LenoBee]

So if we are working against hate, why focus on religion?

Why not focus on religion? I thought this place is appropriate since it is about religion. It is a big problem that causes people to hate those of a different religion ...and it was part of my job.

Why not focus on the reasons that hate exist, and work toward eradicating them?

We can do that as well but the latter is never going to happen, not in my lifetime. I have no problem facing reality that has been for thousands of years.

Cheery on. I must fly. Will be back later.

 

[path_of_one]

I realize all this is true. There are some excellent replies in this. The main purpose of bringing religion in is as secondary is because this is about religion and I also have experience in dealing with it. I do not see any real reason to have to sidetrack into a different law to discuss the one at hand. If I was focusing on race then I would stick to race.
I will get back at a later date. I am going away across the wild blue yonder to love one of my children overseas. Have a wonderful holiday.

Ah, but I'm not a lawyer, nor is this a law board. So I can feel free to not limit myself to looking at hate in religion, if I recognize that the problem is a deeper one than that.

If it works in law to segregate a problem into different issues, ignoring that they are related, that is fine. It simply doesn't work in social science and activism. Eradication of any widespread problem necessitates looking at the entire network and process of the problem.

There is a reason that people are generally tolerant of a variety of other groups or not. The same people who are intolerant of religions are often intolerant of sexuality, gender, cultural, race/ethic, and other differences as well.

I'm for teaching tolerance as a skill and as a worldview. Then I get to tackle all these issues at once. It's efficient.

While the work I do might not immediately change the entire world, neither is focusing on punitive measures in any narrow subset of hate. I see punitive measures as a stopgap while we collectively work toward positive culture change. The way I see it, the work I do makes it so that every individual touched by it: (1) is prevented from hate crimes because of a change in perspective, (2) stops perpetuating the cycle of hate and intolerance, (3) becomes a spokesperson through their actions and ideas for tolerance and love. It's an efficient, workable way to accelerate the change. Generally speaking, culture change must hit a critical mass before law changes. Codified documents such as laws are responses to society. Once a critical mass of people agreed women should get the vote, women did. Once a critical mass of people agreed that institutional racism was wrong, laws changed to punish it. Laws and enforcement come after social trends.

I'm trying to get to the root of those trends and change them. The most efficient way I've found to do that is to address the root causes of intolerance, group exclusivity, and hate in an environment that does not raise defensiveness, and to build a perspective of unity, group goal-orientation, and mutual respect. In law, one must be detail-oriented, a function of codified documentation and enforcement. But in studying cognition and culture, we are free to look at the processes and prime drivers, not the end results. The idea is to work on the processes and drivers so that the problematic results never happen in the first place.

We can all complain until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't fix anything. Punishing people after the fact helps a little, but studies indicate that the US is one of the most punitive first world cultures around (and I think at this point the only one with capital punishment), yet we have some of the highest violent crime rates in the first world. The more people we incarcerate, the more our violence increases. I simply look at the evidence and think: "This is not effective. Our methods through law and enforcement are not working." None of that helps unless we start building action plans that *are* effective.

And that's why I do not separate them, though the law does. I understand why the law must do this, but it is very clear that it doesn't lead to reduction of hate and violence. Education and security (and there's a lot more packed into those words than meets the eye) does this. I'm after those prime drivers...

 

[Netti-Netti]

studies indicate that the US is one of the most punitive first world cultures around

In terms of hate speech, it is quite lenient.

The more people we incarcerate, the more our violence increases.

I am not aware of that being a fact.

I simply look at the evidence and think: "This is not effective. Our methods through law and enforcement are not working...

That may be true in some areas. It would be interesting to see some data on the impact of hate speech legislation on hate crimes. Unfortunately, hate crimes are subject to reporting complications.

 

[Netti-Netti]

The portion of religious hate is at roughly 16%.

Roughly 16%.

1) What was the variance estimate?

2) Where did the 16% finding come from?

3) Pertaining to what country ?

4) What was the time frame?

5) What are regional reporting trends and how have they changed in response to conditions that would likely affect reporting of hate crimes?

6) How was religious motive established?

7) How was "hate crime" defined?

8) Who compiled the statistics?

 

[Quahom1]

There is zero hatred in religion. The hatred is in the people that use/practice any particular religion, as an expression of their hatred. Religion without people...doesn't exist.

 

[Tao_Equus]

LENO,

Thank you for your support........but... but are you related to any previous (over years) posters here whether genetically or socially? I do not ask who......but I would like to know. Not calling you da CYBERMAN.....OR ANYTHING, JUST CURIOUS????????
Soz for caps im 2 lazy to edit.


TAO

 

[Quahom1]

LENO,

Thank you for your support........but... but are you related to any previous (over years) posters here whether genetically or socially? I do not ask who......but I would like to know. Not calling you da CYBERMAN.....OR ANYTHING, JUST CURIOUS????????
Soz for caps im 2 lazy to edit.


TAO

um, ok, so you hate religion. Got it.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Religion and philosophy is there to help people develop self-control.

Legal systems likewise are there to help people develop self-control. In addition, legal systems also serve to protect egalitarian democracy from those who have lags in the self-control department. There is no freedom without structure, and some people need structure imposed on them from without because they lack self-control.

As an aside, in real life, people who endorse a freedom-without-government view are control freaks whose actions bespeak the bondage of their attachment to their own self-centered idea of negative freedom - i.e., freedom from external restraints.

 

[seattlegal]

Legal systems likewise are there to help people develop self-control. In addition, legal systems also serve to protect egalitarian democracy from those who have lags in the self-control department. There is no freedom without structure, and some people need structure imposed on them from without because they lack self-control.

Isn't that what I said?

The State and Law is there for people who can't control themselves.

Religion and philosophy is there to help people develop self-control. Since different individuals have different hang-ups regarding self-control, the way to approach it should be left to the individual, and there is a need to share different ideas. Hence, the need for religious freedom and freedom of speech, and for it to have independence from the State.

If the speech includes threats against others, then it would be appropriate for the State to step in and investigate. Otherwise, free debate should be allowed. (Heated debate is another way people can learn self-control, as well as work out any major flaws in their philosophy.)

As an aside, in real life, people who endorse a freedom-without-government view are control freaks whose actions bespeak the bondage of their attachment to their own self-centered idea of negative freedom - i.e., freedom from external restraints.

Where did I say no government? Didn't I say that the State and the Law are there for people who can't control themselves? (Gee, with all these people putting words in my mouth, it makes you wonder just who the control freaks are.)

 

[Joedjr]

Hi,
My .02. Hatred and racism are learned at the kitchen table. I don't think it's confined to any particular religion or group of people. You are right though, in the churches and temples it is not address but seems to be "swept under the rug".
I find this "a breath of fresh air" BBC NEWS | Europe | Pope urges fight against racism Things like this will help squeeze out, little by little the discolor that resides in some of the hearts, in at least one group of folks.
Joe

 

[bananabrain]

Dondi, you did the best by examining the material, noting the problem and then addressing it. I applaud you and was impressed.

Path and Will, wonderful to meet you. You are almost there but have a slight bit of denial with hate in religion by attempting to pass it to something else. There are of course other things as you mention, for this one is a bit different to default from. Love does not stop religious hatred or hate in religion because they are not taught to love. Netti or lunamoth (bless you both), please examine the evidence in the videos and tell me what you see happening in each one, or one or the other, when you have time.

For anyone to say hatred is not connected to religion needs to do a serious global update on the law and then have that massive hole in your roof repaired. You do not need science to prove religious hatred or any hate crime. You could use physical evidence such as video, writing, photos, phone logs, text message, subpoena forums like this one. We do not create laws against religious hatred or any hate crime to pretend it does not exist. In fact, those types of crimes, like racism, are viewed with much more severe punishment than trying someone over a personal vendetta for the same crime. We establish the law then prosecute according to the law. Why is the law tougher against hate?

I started this to reveal how topics are being skimmed over, deflected to something else and the core of the problem is not being visited.

You may want to also start with what the FBI has to say about religious hatred, statistics and demographics.

Sweethearts, Do your best.

gosh, how breathtakingly patronising. i am so glad you are here to teach us the errors of your ways and enlighten us with your sagacity and perceptiveness. so far, your case seems to be:

"i live near some jews and they're a bunch of arses and treat me disrespectfully, so judaism must be to blame. ditto christians and muslims, so abrahamic religions must teach hate."

i think you'll find that if someone wants to act like an arse, their religious beliefs may sometimes not be able to stop them doing so. that's humans for you. sometimes jews can be arses, for this very reason. it happens. on the other hand, i think you rather relinquish the moral high ground by saying you wouldn't even help them if a human life was at stake.

nice.

i'm not surprised they've not been back since.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[greymare]

Seems to me, Sherri, Sweetheart, that YOU have a lot of Hatred in you.
But then again, Im not really "qualified" to partake as i dont have a law degree.

In my opinion, People are capable of good and evil. They show us everyday. YOU know that. Some people hide behind their religion to commit crimes etc. Unfortunately, people are human. But then again, Im only a shop assistant and you are not.

I hope you have a great day.