This is considered hate speech?
I think overly sensitive Christians need to re-examine their definition of hate speech. Political hopeful William J. Kelly is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, claiming a sign erected by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in the Illinois Capital Building is hate speech:
At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
Kelly finds this disparaging toward Christianity and other religions in general, and is suing Jesse White, Secretary of State for Illinois (who is responsible for enforcing the state’s property laws). It’s becoming quite clear, however, this is a politically motivated action rather than an honest concern about “hate speech”. He’s hoping to rally Christians around him, and I’m sure he’ll have plenty of success; after all, the recent confidence that previously silent atheists are displaying scares the hell out of them, and some people are looking for any excuse to fight the progress we’ve been making.
So what we can gather from this lawsuit is anytime you suggest religion is merely a superstition, you are effectively committing a hate crime. Is Kelly unaware of the concept of freedom of speech or is he merely afraid of it? Why do religions fear dissension so much? Do they correctly see that once people are exposed to the fact religions are merely the product of superstition and ignorance that they might abandon them? If they get to remove the sign from the Capitol Building, does that mean we get to expunge “In God We Trust” from their money too?