Except when those ideas influence people's behaviour...
Sure, I can't argue about this. However making an idea illegal is nonsense. Making the source of an idea illegal is nonsense. Also keep in mind how easily it would be to attack not only Islam but fundamental Protestant and Catholic Christianity for it's views about women.
And this is how we get bigoted religions in position of power. There are religions that are quite peaceful and have much less violence in their scripture. But we keep giving free pass to homophobia, sexism and bigotry from religions who demand it.
We have had religious bigots in power for all of recorded history. The immunity did nothing to change this. It is the freedom to criticize views that has changed the relationship between religion, state and citizens. We all should be aware to the possibility that we to can go to far in using the power of the state in quest for social justice by branding ideas as thought crimes. We have to accept that people hold shit ideas as a balance to people holding ideas we find acceptable.
This way, bigoted religions will always win because they can freely torment people and backpedal fast enough when violence does happen. Telling people that they will be tortured/burned in hell simply for being atheists should be a hate speech.
I agree that there are shit ideas. I agree that there is a lot of hate speech in scripture. However I must acknowledge that the majority of humanity follow religions which contain shit ideas and hate speech but would fight tooth and nail to protect their faith. History is evident of this in religion and state conflicts. I must also acknowledge that for many people the concept of God makes right and the idea of laws (ethics, morality, etc) from God dictates their view points. For these people they are not capable of understanding a different view point.
If atheists say religious people should be tortured and burned (without actually burning them, teehee!) it'd be a hate speech and you know it. The "new atheists" only go as far as calling religious people stupid and people already think that they're arrogant, while giving free pass on religious graphic torture descriptions.
Again I agree but as per the above I still include a different view point in which I accept that shit ideas must be free to exist.
"It's okay to hold racist views as long as you don't act racist!" We know it's not going to work. I mean, we have some racists coming to this forum and you're all disgusted.
I am talking about the legal system and state power as a tool to use against shit ideas. I am not against the freedom to criticize ideas, that people are not free to hold shit ideas nor the suppression of shit ideas wholesale. We can point out there are shit ideas, argue against these ideas but I draw a line at using the legal system and state power to suppress ideas.
I think you have projected a positive result of secularism and freedom of thought into the past as a goal of both. Both were developed to deprive citizens from using the government to suppress rival view points and idea thus protect their own view points if the political tides changed. Again history is evident of abuses of government when those in power changed views or membership changed bring new ideas into power. To prevent governments from suppressing criticism from it's citizens and punishing them for voicing criticism.
Topic: How Islamophobes Weaponize Pork