“It depends whether you are restricting your statement to worldly physical attacks...”
My remarks were concerned only with Earthly religions and the people who embrace them.
“Please define demeaning, degrading or defaming.”
I define them as the dictionary defines them.
“They are, for example, used to bring Mark Steyn before a kangaroo court, or to prevent Christians from evangelizing.”
And wrongly so, because it is not the government’s business whether a person decides to demean, degrade or defame another, unless it can be shown that the offenses of libel or slander had been committed.
Moreover, what Steyn did was simply report the truth - as he understands it - about Islam. If what he wrote or said was not essentially truthful and supportable by facts, he would be subject to libel and/or slander laws like anyone else.
The same applies to those who denounce homosexuality. Simply holding an opinion against a particular activity is not a crime - at least it shouldn’t be. So-called hate speech laws are inherently unjust and fascistic. No one has a right to not be offended.
But all that aside, what I was talking about was what I consider to be basic good behavior or quality of being, and I never said that my opinions should be codified in law.
“Something is either true, or it is not true.”
Yes, and something is true when the evidence supports it, and not necessarily so when the evidence is unclear.
“My remarks were concerned only with Earthly religions and the people who embrace them.”
That doesn’t really answer my (pretty clear) question.
“the truth - as he understands it”
There is truth, and there is untruth. It doesn’t matter how you, me, or anyone else understands it.
“The same applies to those who denounce homosexuality. Simply holding an opinion against a particular activity is not a crime - at least it shouldn’t be.”
But what if 3 homosexuals call themselves a religion, and decide (much as you have just done) what constitutes reasonable behaviour, and they stay nicely within what society considers acceptable (ie. they follow your thoughts, above). If chooses denounce them and their “religion”, have they not broken your ?commandments?
“So-called hate speech laws are inherently unjust”
Of course they are. And they are based on words like “demeaning, degrading or defaming”.
“what I was talking about was what I consider to be basic good behavior or quality of being”
But what right do you have to do that? You awake one day, and find yourself on Earth. You recognize that you have a creator, you decide you don’t know who that creator is, or what his intents are, and yet you decide to tell everyone else what basic good behavior is?