Frelga wrote:I thought it was precisely the point. The entire defense of the bigoted post was that it was based on the actual Biblical quote and therefore somehow different from regular bigoted speech. So where's the quote?
There are a couple or perhaps three or four passages in scripture that list damnable practices, similar to the quote yov provided. I don't know offhand where the others can be found and I don't know if the tweet is an exact quote, which is why I said:
It's possible the quote comes directly from scripture, which I guess would make it more clearly a case of freedom of religious expression than it would be otherwise.
I said, 'I guess' that would make it more clearly a case of freedom of religious expression, because I'm not sure that's the case; I don't know if the idea of the tweet being a quote really is significant. But clearly it is a religiously-based tweet, because the concept of hell is a religious concept; the similarity of the list of practices to scriptural admonition would be clear to anyone familiar with the Bible.
yovargas wrote:Human sacrifice and stoning are not god, sin, and hell are 100% religious/spiritual concepts as they have very non-spiritual effects, unlike the ideas about sin and hell.
yov, I had trouble following this thought of yours. Would you mind reiterating?
elengil wrote:How many of your followers routinely murder people born in June? Or cast them out of society? Or force them to undergo Birth Month Conversion Therapy? Do they persecute people having sex in September? Drag them from their beds to stand before an angry mob Barpink-bent on punishing them for the possible conception of a child to be born in June?
We are not talking here about any of those actions. Would anyone be arguing about the tweeter being fired if he had murdered, cast out, forced actions, dragged from beds? No. He didn't do any of those things. He tweeted a doctrinal statement. Are you suggesting he should be held accountable for other people's actions?
One hears all the time about, ex., teachers being fired after intimate photos have inadvertently turned up on the internet. This seems to be basically that type of thing -- being disqualified from a job because something done privately has impacted the person's public image, which is significant to their association with the entity doing the firing.
The 'hate speech' accusation means that someone's discourse has departed from the elitist norm. This tweeter has backward notions that have embarrassed the soccer league and might alienate the fans, so he had to go. The actual tweet (thanks, Voronwë) shows that he isn't motivated by hate. He is concerned, based on his beliefs, about the eternal fates of others. In fact, he cares so much about people that he was willing to lose his job for the sake of warning them.
Hate speech, then, isn't necessarily about hate on the part of the speaker (which we could never know, anyway, because we can't reliably judge other people's motivations). It's hate on the part of the guardians of enlightenment for any discourse that challenges their vision of society.