There's always a fine line on this topic and often, little
agreement can be found.
One man's legitimate criticism is another man's hate speech.
Personally, I strongly support religious freedom. In my view,
religion is something close to a thought crime. Belief in religion
and allowing that belief to guide your behavior and ethics is, in
my opinion, utterly senseless.
However, as I said, I strongly support religious freedom because I
think there is nothing wrong with "thought crime" and trying to
control peoples thoughts leads us down a slippery slope.
Similarly, I think there should be no restriction on fantasizing
about rape, incest, and even murder. We think about all kinds of
things everyday, but it is what we do that really matters.
The problem I have with religious people is when they try to impose
their views upon others. Take for example Section 377a of the penal
code. I'm opposed to 377a because I feel no one should have any
right to interfere with the private lives of consenting
adults.
Section 377a states:
Outrages on decency.
377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets
the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the
commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with
another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to 2 years."
First of all, I object to the definition of indecency. Who sets
that standard? And why should someone else set that standard for
me? And more importantly, why should the govt or anyone else have
the right to interfere with my private life?
