Are these statements offensive?

[JellySlice]

And if so, to whom? Are there any circumstances where it is acceptable or unacceptable to state them publicly?

"Jesus was not the Messiah."
"Mohammed was not the last prophet."
"There is more than one god."

Does it make any difference if these statements are preceded by "I believe that..."?

They don't offend me. But they will offend somebody.
That's very dangerous thinking Black WaveComing just because you currently hold the 'right' opinions (and feel safe from accusations of bigotry) what if prevailing thinking changes and you're no longer in tune with that? Freedom of speech is not without limits but as a society we need to embrace the ability to disagree.

"It is always difficult to balance the right to protest and the right for uninterrupted services," said Mr Kelly. "I'm sure some people will have been disgusted and deeply offended by your conduct. Some, of course, may have applauded. But I expect that the vast majority will have regarded your conduct as an insignificant and transitory incident in the history of a great cathedral."

Comment from the judge in the Peter Tatchell case. So sensible.

People can say there is more than one God wherever and whenever they like. People being a practicing Hindu is hateful now?

Jeez Louise. It's all just blasphemy law. I don't believe in blasphemy laws. That's my actual hill to die on.

I would go to prison for the right to blaspheme. Not because I hate religion, or religionists (incl genderists) but because the principle of blasphemy law is abhorrent.

I've got scant regard for the religiously offended anyway, having been harassed by rosary wielding nutters on my way into an abortion clinic. They get their right to offend me, I can bloody well keep my right to offend them.

Of course, being a nice person, I don't spend my days outside a church telling them that Jesus is not a true prophet or whatever. But I very definitely reserve my right to say whatever I want, short of inviting violence, about religious teachings, up to and including mockery.

Remember Charlie Hebdo? Those people were murdered for being against blasphemy law, de facto or otherwise. The least we who mourned for them without victim blaming can do is say no to blasphemy law, in any of its guises.

@Beamur

They don't offend me. But they will offend somebody. That's very dangerous thinking Black WaveComing just because you currently hold the 'right' opinions (and feel safe from accusations of bigotry) what if prevailing thinking changes and you're no longer in tune with that? Freedom of speech is not without limits but as a society we need to embrace the ability to disagree.

It's dangerous to say that a religious bigot will perceive hate? Confused. They will. Doesn't mean society should organise itself around that perception.

Black
I suspect we're not arguing different points.

It's dangerous to say that a religious bigot will perceive hate?

How are those statements 'hate'?

Why would a non-believer saying that they do not believe a tenet of faith be 'hate'?

Should a Jewish person be forbidden from saying that Jesus was not the Messiah? What difference does it make whether they're talking to the Pope or to Judy who goes to church once a year on Christmas Eve, or to a member of some fundamentalist sect?

Should expression of conflicting beliefs be 'hate'? If so, why isn't "Jesus was the Messiah" hate speech towards Jews?

@JellySlice

It's dangerous to say that a religious bigot will perceive hate?

How are those statements 'hate'?

Why would a non-believer saying that they do not believe a tenet of faith be 'hate'?

Should a Jewish person be forbidden from saying that Jesus was not the Messiah? What difference does it make whether they're talking to the Pope or to Judy who goes to church once a year on Christmas Eve, or to a member of some fundamentalist sect?

Should expression of conflicting beliefs be 'hate'? If so, why isn't "Jesus was the Messiah" hate speech towards Jews?

Omg I'm not saying that it's hate.

I'm saying that religious bigots will cry hate, and so what? Idgaf if they do, because I reject blasphemy laws, real or de facto.

Gardenbird has it right, I reckon. It's only hateful if someone is being forced to say what they don't actually believe, not if people are just sharing their beliefs.

As a Christian I'm not offended by anyone's unbelief or different beliefs - that would be absurd. I might think they were rude or even a bit unbalanced if they waited outside church and yelled at me as I went in or out, but I'd certainly chat to them and listen to what was going on with them if they wanted me to.

Sorry, BlackWave, misunderstood.

@JellySlice

Sorry, BlackWave, misunderstood.

I wasn't clear enough, obviously, because that's two people I've confused! Oh, for an edit button!

Giving offence is not the same as hate. That an atheist may say something to a religious person that offends them is not the same a ‘hate’ and I don’t think we should conflate the two.

Also someone who always refers to religious people as ‘bigots’ is exhibiting bigotry (Intolerance) themselves.

Personally I find it offensive when people state things as a fact with no proof. So all of OP’s statements would require “I believe” in front since they can’t be proven either way.

@Aesopfable

Giving offence is not the same as hate. That an atheist may say something to a religious person that offends them is not the same a ‘hate’ and I don’t think we should conflate the two.

Also someone who always refers to religious people as ‘bigots’ is exhibiting bigotry (Intolerance) themselves.

Lucky I don't refer to all religious people as bigots then.

A % of the religious, however, are bigoted ie intolerant of the views of others, and this % of the religious will be the ones to find others opinions 'hateful' or 'offensive'.

@JellySlice

And if so, to whom? Are there any circumstances where it is acceptable or unacceptable to state them publicly?

"Jesus was not the Messiah."
"Mohammed was not the last prophet."
"There is more than one god."

Does it make any difference if these statements are preceded by "I believe that..."?

Point 3. Some religions believe in more than one God. Isn't it hate against these people to deny them their right to their religious beliefs?

Not offensive, and the 'I believe that' preface changes nothing.

I struggle to be objective when it comes to religious privilege though, because I'm atheist verging on anti-theist, and believe that all organised religions are ultimately far more sinister than a force for good.

I look at it from the point of view that if you are going to profess faith based on nothing but your own belief, despite there being not a single shred of evidence to suggest it has any basis in reality, despite the fact that it runs contrary to logic and common sense, and not make any credible attempt to explain or resolve the contradictions and incongruities that your faith inherently causes, then you can't credibly turn around and claim to be insulted because someone either denied, questioned, or criticised your chosen religion.

If you don't want to be ridiculed, stop espousing the ridiculous.

I suppose we are assuming offence on behalf of an individual due to their belonging to a group.
As an atheist, if someone told me 'there is a God' (even if shouted at me in public), I wouldn't be offended. Maybe annoyed.
If someone said 'there is no God' to a Christian, for example, they may be annoyed but not offended, or they may be deeply offended.
Assuming 'there is no God' is offensive to Christians would be making a subjective assesment an objective fact.
And facts need to be facts. It's tricky.

I suppose if you were to ask what would be acceptable, we have to be clear on what is decided as acceptable.
Never saying anything that could be offensive, facing consequences if someone was offended, no consequences for offence...

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Not offensive, and the 'I believe that' preface changes nothing.

I struggle to be objective when it comes to religious privilege though, because I'm atheist verging on anti-theist, and believe that all organised religions are ultimately far more sinister than a force for good.

I look at it from the point of view that if you are going to profess faith based on nothing but your own belief, despite there being not a single shred of evidence to suggest it has any basis in reality, despite the fact that it runs contrary to logic and common sense, and not make any credible attempt to explain or resolve the contradictions and incongruities that your faith inherently causes, then you can't credibly turn around and claim to be insulted because someone either denied, questioned, or criticised your chosen religion.

If you don't want to be ridiculed, stop espousing the ridiculous.

Religious belief is no more likely to be based on nothing than non-religious belief. Nor is it more likely to be irrational. The only reason people think this is so is that there is very little teaching about the history of thought in most schools.

The hard empiricism that you are suggesting is necessary itself suffers from a major logical difficulty, in that it is impossible to empirically show it to be true - to misuse Douglas Adams, it promptly disappears in a puff of logic. This is one of the reasons logical positivism has somewhat fallen out of favour among philosophers after high hopes at the beginnings of the 20th century. Platonism, however, of which Christianity is a form, continues to have a significant following among philosophers who consider it to be in no way intellectually ridiculous.

Well I’m a Christian and someone telling me they don’t believe in God or believe in another faith isn’t remotely offensive to me. Someone telling me I’m an idiot for believing in a magic sky grandpa or some such would be offensive as they are deliberately attacking my intellect. However I wouldn’t want the latter comment to be made illegal in anyway just because I am offended. I am perfectly capable of defending my own beliefs and positions intellectually l, and if they are truly just irredeemably bigoted I can just disengage.

No one has the right to “not be offended.”

I may dislike someone for things they say, but it’s not my right to stop them saying it.

Quite. In general I may be offended by something you say but I would be more offended if you were not allowed to say it.

The Scottish hate crime bill, banning free speech on pain of a seven year prison sentence, has nothing to do with protecting people from being offended, and everything to do with frightening political opponents into silence.
It is characteristic of all control freak nationalist regimes, that they centralise power, control the media, issue propaganda, and silence opposition. The SNP are simply following the blueprint laid down by the Nazis. And the trans lobby regard them as useful idiots in silencing the gender critical as well.
It is noticeable that we as women are the only category not offered this draconian “protection” from offence.

Well I’m a Christian and someone telling me they don’t believe in God or believe in another faith isn’t remotely offensive to me.

Saying you don't believe in god or that you believe in another faith is not insulting to anyone IMO. I deliberately chose the phrase "Jesus was not the Messiah" over a denial of god's existence. Or I could state "Jesus was a false Messiah" (there were Jews before and after Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, but who ended up dying without bringing the promised era of peace). I deliberately chose a phrase that contradicts a central tenet of the faith. Is that contradiction or denial offensive?

@JellySlice

Well I’m a Christian and someone telling me they don’t believe in God or believe in another faith isn’t remotely offensive to me.

Saying you don't believe in god or that you believe in another faith is not insulting to anyone IMO. I deliberately chose the phrase "Jesus was not the Messiah" over a denial of god's existence. Or I could state "Jesus was a false Messiah" (there were Jews before and after Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, but who ended up dying without bringing the promised era of peace). I deliberately chose a phrase that contradicts a central tenet of the faith. Is that contradiction or denial offensive?

I do think that saying something like Jesus is a false messiah is more likely to cause offence than simply saying you don't think he existed, or that he was just a regular person. I think maybe it seems to imply a type of dishonesty or something rather dodgy.

It would be similar to someone saying that they thought Mohamed was actually visited not by an angel but a demon, or Joseph Smith was a con man. I have met people that believed those things and had reasons for doing so - they weren't trying to just be jerks saying it. But the former suggests that you think Islam is a demonic religion, and the latter that Mormons are all duped. And that is the kind of statement that tends to get people's backs up - I am sure there are secular equivalents.

But I also would not say either that they are necessarily hateful statements, not that they should be illegal.

Are there any circumstances where it is acceptable or unacceptable to state them publicly?
Well I think shouting out "Jesus is not the messiah" in the middle of a church wedding would be unacceptable, yes. In conversation during the wedding reception, no.

@JellySlice well even then I wouldn’t really be offended, spirituality is something you take on faith which is an entirely different, and subjective category to empirical fact.

The real problem is we are shifting the categories of what is spoke or written, and initiation of physical violence ever closer. The point being I suspect is that the use of force will become a legitimate response to saying the wrong thing. This has to be opposed at every turn.