hate speech or not hate speech: that is the question - Page 9

Progo35 · #**161** 05-30-2007, 11:33 PM

Yes, but I thought that the hate crime legislation does not outlaw free speech? Because that is important within private atmospheres and religious gatherings. To me, exceptions to this are, as I've said, people standing outside gay people's funerals (see my other posts) and/or hate groups marching through a hated people group's neighborhoods, which, in my opinion, should be outlawed.

Progo35 · #**162** 05-30-2007, 11:38 PM

Just to clarify, I was responding to Anthonyh's post regarding the APA's post.

Progo35 · #**163** 05-31-2007, 10:29 AM

Yes, I understand how that could be implicitly implied. I guess that would present an issue for me in not knowing how to respond. I don't think that you need the support of the heterosexual community to make your actions okay, and I don't think that heterosexuals are the only ones that speak for God.

To me, it relates to the desire to be sensitive to racial issues, but not knowing what is offensive given contexts. For instance, color blindness was considered to be a great thing until some people pointed out that it sometimes excluded important aspects of African American culture. Then, in response, some people started to try to present what AA culture must be like, which lead to black people being stereotyped as living in the city in slums. So, I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to know what is going to be percieved as offensive or demeaning and what isn't when different approaches can have (equally?) bad results.

andrewlittle · #**164** 06-01-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Progo35

Yes, I understand how that could be implicitly implied. I guess that would present an issue for me in not knowing how to respond. I don't think that you need the support of the heterosexual community to make your actions okay, and I don't think that heterosexuals are the only ones that speak for God.

To me, it relates to the desire to be sensitive to racial issues, but not knowing what is offensive given contexts. For instance, color blindness was considered to be a great thing until some people pointed out that it sometimes excluded important aspects of African American culture. Then, in response, some people started to try to present what AA culture must be like, which lead to black people being stereotyped as living in the city in slums. So, I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to know what is going to be percieved as offensive or demeaning and what isn't when different approaches can have (equally?) bad results.

I know this isn't directly related to hate speech, but Progo's post brought this to mind. It is a question, I think, of who is entitled to define African American, Asian American, GLBT, or any other non-dominant culture.

It has, almost, always been done through the lens of dominant culture. How can Eurocentric beings look in and define African-American culture, except in terms of Euro-American norms. The picture is immediately distorted. Likewise for straight culture trying to define GLBT culture. It is, I think by many at least, an effort to truly understand - a desire to see - but one that is destined to fail because we can't take off our straight lenses.

Color blindness was a case in point. African-Americans didn't need color blindness - Euro-Americans did. It was largely an effort with positive intent, but ended up reduced AA folk to slightly different Euro folk. To that end it wasn't really color blindness, but color conformity.

The is an innate arrogance in dominant culture trying to "define" minority cultures - one I am guilty of on occasion. It operates from the invisible, insidious, automatic place of dominance and normalcy. Rather, and it is not easy, we should work towards appreciating how different cultures define themselves. Tolerance is just another name for maintaining dominance, but in a way that serves our need to feel kind and open. Appreciation, on the other hand, requires some aspects of respect and immersion.

Can I, as a non-disabled person, "define" the culture of disables people. I don't think so. I can try my best to appreciate the various cultures that are included in the disabled community, but I will accomplish that best by allowing them to define themselves.

u-dog · #**165** 06-26-2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

Model away. Although PTS is "officially" PCUSA, Keltic is right that they have students from many denominations and traditions, so it's not at all inappropriate for others to express their concern. I'd love to see him flooded with concerns from PCUSA-ers and others. I'm probably going to pass this info on at my church and see about getting some others to write, too.

Interestingly (I didn't know this until yesterday), Gagnon is NOT a PCUSA minister. He's only an elder (just like little old me) ... most of my seminary prof's were ordained MOWS (Minister of Word and Sacrament). Don't think that's significant, but it is interesting.

OK, as long as they were not Honorably Ordained Ministers Of Word and Sacrament ! That would violate the Book of Order!