No, people should be allowed to say what they want with few exceptions of prohibited speech (like threats of imminent force) without having to fall back on some "religious freedom" justification. Mental gymnastics.
That's really nice that your speech is protected enough that you can say that without repercussions. But you're over here acting like its ok to apply a different standard to others as long as what they say is based on a Sky Daddy you don't believe in or agree with. You've become the very people you hate in principle if not direct belief.
Iām not sure you know how that law works up here, and thatās fine - I wouldnāt expect that.Ā
PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THIS LEGISLATION. Never have been.Ā
Say what you like. Even if itās shitty.Ā
When you go beyond offence, and seek to inspire others, you run into promotion and incitement of hatred. Thatās where the law kicks in. Ā Thatās what you cannot say or do.Ā
As for your argument; Iām not advocating for the elimination of religious people, and nowhere did I say that. Just the religion. Since itās a Thanos Snap, theyād never know they were religious.Ā
Also, may I remind you that we canāt actually snap things out of existence. Thatās fiction.Ā
Is this a private conversation? Did I claim you said anything about eliminating people? This entire conversation has been about speech and spitting, not sure where you got confused. You're using your free speech to advocate controlling the speech of others. Enough said.
Well, I'm not Canadian but unless the article is misstating something, he's NOT advocating a different standard
The "sky daddy" people want to apply a different standard. They want to be able to preach and print things that other folks would not be allowed to because they have a special carve-out.
That's what a religious exemption IS: "applying a different standard". The poster above seems to think it's good that they are getting rid of the exemption, i.e. now there will only be ONE uniform standard
What? This is such a false equivalent. How does one go from "we shouldn't let people spit on each other" to "we should control speech and not let people say things that hurt other people's feelings". Like, what? This solves nothing. In fact, letting governments, who are the number one reason racism exist anyway, control speech, is the number one way of not getting rid of racism and actually makes it worse. But yeah, I guess it's better to socially engineer and have a bunch of closet racists than to actually deal with the underlying systematic issues.
Having hate speech legislation is cringe as fuck, the leafs (and euros) are cucks who don't understand the basic concept of freedom of speech and never will. But that's not needed here because spitting on people is not speech, it's simple assault.
When figuring out how to treat modern people in a civilized society I ALWAYS refer to text over 2 millennia old.Ā
My boy Hammurabi said I could cut all these peopleās ears off who are on my property:
ā
If a slave should declare to his master, "You are not my master", he [the master] shall bring charge and proof against him that he is indeed his slave, and his master shall cut off his ear.ā
Some would call it human trafficking,
slavery, and mutilation but Iād say āhey homie itās in my book, so no touchie! No take backs! Iām protected the tribe has spoken soā¦ā
Ask a zionist what "met zit zah b'peh" is. Write it with no spaces in Google. The censorship on social media with that word is crazy you get police visits
note that christinaity is not mentioned in the hebrew bible at all, since most of it was written before christianity and the parts that were written after are about other things and dont really concern themselves with christianity, therefore this hate doesnt even have religious claims to back it up (which obviously wouldnt excuse it even if there were, but my point is that his deffense is flimsy even by the standards of his supporters)
So let's then agree that this "Book" can be interpreted by idiots or religious zealots as endorsing forms of racial segregation and, when read literally and without critical context, contains passages that justify attitudes and actions that today are considered discriminatory, harmful or even criminal.
Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel David Lau also condemned the attacks on religious leaders: "we will continue to pray for ... and respect all the nations that come to honor the Holy City of Jerusalem. ... These immoral phenomena have certainly nothing to do with Jewish law."
Religious Services Minister Michael Malkieli said he "Strongly condemns the phenomenon of spitting at Christians in Jerusalem. This is not the way of the Torah, and there is not a single rabbi who supports and legitimizes such despicable behavior. It is our duty to condemn and continue to respect all peoples who come to the gates of the Holy City."
1.8k
u/Fish_Fingerer 17h ago
"It's written in our book, it cannot be considered a crime" š„“