Should All Religious Gatherings Be Monitored for Inciting Violence?

[Islam Imamate]

Free speach != free hate.
Hateful preachers should preach only in jail.

The US doesn't have hate speech laws and in general has stronger protections for free speech than even other Western countries. As an American I don't agree with hate speech laws and I like how the US protects freedom of speech and religion but if a country has hate speech laws on the books it only makes sense to use them where applicable like radical mosques.

 

[Jesus Freak]

Disagree. Only monitor the religions that keep producing jihad suicide bombers by the millions.

When we see a pattern of Christian or Buddhist terrorism then we can start monitoring them.

 

[Alex]

The US doesn't have hate speech laws and in general has stronger protections for free speech than even other Western countries. As an American I don't agree with hate speech laws and I like how the US protects freedom of speech and religion but if a country has hate speech laws on the books it only makes sense to use them where applicable like radical mosques.

That was my opinion in general.
IMO, freedom of speech shouldn't be exploited by psychos for promoting hateful agendas.
The drawback is of course giving the government too much power.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That was my opinion in general.
IMO, freedom of speech shouldn't be exploited by psychos for promoting hateful agendas.
The drawback is of course giving the government too much power.

Protecting controversial speech was part of the intention in enshrining the right to begin with. I don't want to start down the road of selectively choosing which speech has value or is too hateful. The line in the sand is drawn, let's prosecute whoever walks over it instead of redrawing it over and over again.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

All? No. Only if they give reason to.

 

[HereticBD]

I don't know, but a public poll could be interesting.

Are you opposed to monitoring Christian gatherings for public safety?

Are you opposed to monitoring Islamic gatherings for public safety?


Something tells me the numbers would be staggeringly different.

 

[nixkid]

As a Christian I have no problem with it because I know inciting violence doesn't happen in Christian churches.

Interesting theory



Here is another (Note: you have to watch a video of the video because youtube took down the original because of its hate speech policy.)



"I don't advocate for violence but man, wouldn't it be great if the government rounded them all up and killed them"

 

[chardog]

considering Omar was being monitored at one time.... not sure how effective it would be. Sounds like a money pit and best way to defend is through soft measures, just as high level neglect.

 

[dissolved]

Charity work is often a religious gathering though. Would you say the salvation army needs to be monitored? They are religious, and even have Articles of War.

http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/about-us/soldiers-covenant

I said ALL religious gatherings. But you are clearly being obtuse and didn't even read that link because there is zero calling the Salvation Army to violence, rather disciplined living. The "Army" word refers to their commitment to service and disciplined living. Again, zero reference to violence of any sort in their statement.

 

[dissolved]

You've obviously never heard the "Reverend" Ian Paisley speak...

If it happens, shut that church down.

I grew up in one in one of the most fundamental Christian backgrounds - heard many thousands of sermons, spent time with literally millions of Christians and dozens of denominations. I'VE NEVER HEARD EVEN THE INSINUATION TO VIOLENCE AGAINST ANY GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL.

This literally is how small the segment is calling for violence. Or making wrong statements about the participation in it. Does it happen? I'm not surprised due to the fact that anything is possible and the religion has 2.2 billion adherants (thus a 40 member group called Westboro).

Regardless monitor and shut charge those calling for physical violence - yes, even Christian gatherings.

 

[Cmart]

We're headed towards all people being monitored at all times, like Orwell's 1984. So if a certain racial group commits the most crimes, and it makes logical sense to keep an eye on them, but we can't because political correctness won't allow racial profiling, we either monitor no-one or everyone. Same with religion. Same with anything. So I guess we'll have massive hiring for U.S. Marshalls so two can sit in on every church service.

Seems awful and strange and Orwellian but we're at war, really. Wartime rules are different.

 

[dissolved]

Inciting is about imminent lawless action. Religious and political speech get a lot of protection. For example, you can advocate for nonspecific illegal actions at some undefined later date. It is illegal for a preacher to say "Kill the homosexuals at XYZ nightclub" or "Kill a homosexual now" but it is not necessarily illegal to say that homosexuals at nightclubs should one day be killed. I think the problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about.

If you want to argue for how we might tighten up the limits on free speech, then make that argument. I can see an argument for restricting gun purchases, and I'm open to an argument about speech. But first you have to know what you're talking about.

Good job on looking up what YOU didn't know prior and then somehow qualifying your first post and then putting that on me.

Also, broaden the law so idiots like that imam don't do what they do.

 

[dissolved]

We're headed towards all people being monitored at all times, like Orwell's 1984. So if a certain racial group commits the most crimes, and it makes logical sense to keep an eye on them, but we can't because political correctness won't allow racial profiling, we either monitor no-one or everyone. Same with religion. Same with anything. So I guess we'll have massive hiring for U.S. Marshalls so two can sit in on every church service.

Seems awful and strange and Orwellian but we're at war, really. Wartime rules are different.

Exactly. I'm all for freedoms, don't like socialism, but this is where we're at.

 

[dissolved]

I don't disagree with what you're saying. It would show that inciting violence doesn't happen in Christian churches. But I am highly uncomfortable with grouping radical islam and all of their bs into one big problem called "religion". By doing that you are allowing people to create the default position of "religion is bad and dangerous" and then trying to show that Christianity is the exception. That's an uphill battle against many people who irrationally hate Christianity already.

You know how these psycho liberals and athiests are these days. They hear a preacher say homosexuality is wrong and then they'll argue that Christianity spreads hate and creates the environment for incidents like Orlando.

I dont' see the need to put other religions under scrutiny when it's literally one religion that is causing all the problems in the world. We should be pointing that out instead of putting Christianity on trial.

I know what you are saying, but then there are the few sound-bite, YouTube clips smearing Christianity. And I know we're literally talking about one group (Islam) that is regularly inciting violence.

But if we're going to shut down the violent segment, I can't see one religion getting targeted while the others get a pass.

And I do think the Sikh community and even Hindu will have to clean up their dirty secrets too.

 

[dissolved]

Interesting theory



Here is another (Note: you have to watch a video of the video because youtube took down the original because of its hate speech policy.)



"I don't advocate for violence but man, wouldn't it be great if the government rounded them all up and killed them"

For some reason the links aren't working, but shut those pastors/preachers down. So really you're not exposing anything to me.

I know for a fact that those sorts of groups are few and far between.

And for the record, I am specifically talking about calls for physical violence.

Most religions believe homosexuality isn't on par with heterosexual relations. I don't think careful speech should be outlawed, I believe calls for violence should be monitored and charged.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

Free speach != free hate.
Hateful preachers should preach only in jail.

Hate speech is perfectly legal. Now, a call to action is another story. If they are calling for people to attack others, then they can be held to some responsibility I think.

LOL, Lot of verses from the Quran unaltered would fit this description.

 

[Fawlty]

Good job on looking up what YOU didn't know prior and then somehow qualifying your first post and then putting that on me.

Also, broaden the law so idiots like that imam don't do what they do.

You didn't know it so I must not have? Maybe you read too much into my first post. I said that free speech is a bitch and that these preachers are good at pushing it. That's not even taking a position on whether people should be allowed to say what he said. I didn't need to qualify that post. What happened was that you assumed I support his right to say that, and judged me for it. I'm not sure I do support his right to say exactly what he said, but I may not be able to argue against it. If you want to stop him before he says it, that's overturning a long-traditional freedom. If you want to stop him after he says it, that's overturning some clear and fairly old standards too. If you just want to monitor him, then I would bet you already have your wish- the FBI and DHS are doubtless aware of said dudeman.

 

[Renard]

Interesting theory



Here is another (Note: you have to watch a video of the video because youtube took down the original because of its hate speech policy.)



"I don't advocate for violence but man, wouldn't it be great if the government rounded them all up and killed them"

I wonder if he's gay or got diddled as a child. It's always a little suspicious when people care about "the sodomites" that much.

 

[nixkid]

For some reason the links aren't working, but shut those pastors/preachers down. So really you're not exposing anything to me.

I know for a fact that those sorts of groups are few and far between.

And for the record, I am specifically talking about calls for physical violence.

Most religions believe homosexuality isn't on par with heterosexual relations. I don't think careful speech should be outlawed, I believe calls for violence should be monitored and charged.

Ah, saying the government should round up homosexuals, put them in front of a firing squad and blow their brains out is a bit more than "homosexuality isn't on par with heterosexual relations". Its actually sort of advocating for an extreme Christian version of Shia law. It isn't much different at all from radical Islamic views.

The second preacher says he doesn't advocate violence but then goes on to say that the preferred outcome would be for all homosexuals to be killed. I shouldn't have to tell you what a completely idiotic contradiction that is. Calls for the government to carry out violence is still calls for violence. This guy is literally advocating genocide.

 

[dontsnitch]

I feel like there is progress when the discussion shifts to whether teaching these tenets should be illegal, versus whether these tenets are actually wrong. The guy is saying that murdering gay people is a compassionate act, like they're putting an animal out of it's misery or something. Rather ironic.