The Tension of Faith

The problem is, you don't get to declare such a thing.
This is the pride of the sinner - "knowing" that they're not sinning.The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
Definitely not the person declaring the statement.Therefore, it's impossible for you to declare that you're not hating.
You may not be aware of any hatred that might be occurring... but you don't get to say there's no hatred in your own statement.
Even if you get 20, 000 people to agree that there's no hatred in it... what if the next 10 people all feel the hatred from the statement?Let me give you an example so you can understand:"I love my kids!" - a wonderful, loving statement, yes?
Well, what if you said this to a stranger. And that stranger happens to be unable to have children, and really, really, really wants children... but can't. By saying this to such a stranger you would only be reminding them of sorrow and sadness.Then this statement becomes a selfish profession that only serves to hurt this stranger.
Then this statement begins to contain "hate."It's all about how things are actually received. Not how the one declaring it wants it to be.
It then only matters if you care about how it's received.Well, Faith, do you care about how others receive your statements?
Do you care if you're spreading hate in ways you may not understand?This isn't about being liberal and trying to shut things down.
This is about being honest.Continue to say what you want to say.Just don't say "It contains no hate!" because that's false, you don't get to declare such a thing. A 3 year-old understands you can't possibly know such a thing.
Say the truth: "I don't care if this hurts anyone or not, I want to say it anyway because I think it's true!"
Or: "I don't think this hurts anybody, so I'll keep saying it!"Stand up and believe in the things you declare.
Say them with honesty and integrity.
There's no reason to hide behind ambiguity.

Wait, wuuuuuut?Hate is an emotion held by a person. Only you, yourself, know what emotions you're feeling.Nobody but you can know if you really have hate or not. Oh, are you talking about, like, being a "hater"? Like, the colloquial term? Ya know, haters be hatin'.Is that what you're talking about? Hatred doesn't reside in statements, it resides in the heart. It's an emotion and it comes from your ego. Hmm, why the scare-quotes? What are you talking about, really?

Just as a point of information, English law can decide whether you hate or not

quote:

---

Under section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must treat as an aggravating factor the fact that:

​

an offender demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on his or her disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity (or presumed disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity); or

​

the offence was motivated by hostility towards persons who have a particular disability, who are of a particular sexual orientation or who are transgender.

---

How sad that English Law has fallen to such depths.

....that it defends minority and vulnerable groups you mean? We're quite proud of it.

The day that "Big Brother" can define for me what I think and feel is definitely not social progress in my mind.

The law has no interest what you think and feel, only what you say and do. If part of what you say or do involves an offence against a racial - or other protected group - you're going to get an increased sentence.It's a signal that hate crime is not an acceptable

Remember when there was that controversy over corporations being represented as people? The same goes for this entity known as "the law". It is society literally creating a "Big Brother" personal entity and judge over everyone.Which strikes me as odd that people reject the idea of a God over everyone and then go and create the same thing.I know I'm ranting and being foolish right now...but my point is that there is a difference between breaking laws regarding human rights and being charged with thinking of doing so. Innocence until proven otherwise...rather than guilt by association (of thoughts)

Nope, but they are seperate legal entities. It's certainly society creating an institution that represents its interests by protecting them from both themselves and the rule of thuggery. If your god was real, it might not have been necessary to create the criminal justice system, as he isn't, we have to do the best we can to protect ourselves. There is no law preventing you thinking anything you like. The law is saying that if you do something unlawful and if that unlawful thing involes a 'hate' element, things are going to be worse for you. There's no difficulty here, you have to have been found guilty of the crime before sentence is passed. The crime may be, say, assault. If by your language and actions it is clear that the assault has, say, a racial element by, say, shouting you 'black bastard' - or much worse - then you're going to get a tougher sentence. The reason is that we want to make a point that we live in a society that has minorities that need special protection.

I don't doubt that you have fallen so far that you would be proud of such utter nonsense or think it actually defends minority and vulnerable groups but once again, if you think that is what I meant it simply shows you are incapable of reading.

I can certainly read a post containing 10 words. I can do it almost effortlessly every time. Hell, I just did it again. Hardly took any time at all.Extracting any meaning from it is quite another matter. So maybe you'd like to expand further on this inscrutable sentence?

There is absolutely nothing inscrutable about that sentence.

Well it carries no meaning for me so if you want to go any further with it, you're going to have to explain yourself.

You sound like a good little subject But that decision doesn't determine if you really have hate or not. As you go on to say:

quote:

---

The law has no interest what you think and feel, only what you say and do.

---

jar can be an enigma at times. Its almost as if he uses his tactic of silence and reluctance to explain himself as a means of control within any given debate. I agree with you in that he simply should just explain his opinion, but perhaps he really feels no need to do so, and figures if we are not bright enough to see the meaning, its somehow our fault of ignorance.Likely he is challenging our knowledge of the history of English law, which is a form of arrogance on his part. Any good teacher will explain themselves rather than simply insulting their students.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.