We hear a lot about "hate speech" in the media today. Ironically, the good ol' US of A seems to be at the forefront of the debate. First Amendment? What's that? You shouldn't be allowed to say that true thing about this completely emotionless philosophy in case it offends the people who hear it.
Let's look at this example I snagged from my friend's Facebook post (cuss word censored, but otherwise unedited): "Thats incredibly naive. At the end of the day, America has freedom of religion. That includes Islam. Posting s*** like this is un-American and hateful."
Regardless of your views on Islam, it shouldn't be hard to spot the flaw in this argument. He is attacking the very right he is defending! Denouncing the freedom of religion in order to defend the freedom of religion is hypocritical.
More to the point, it did not address the point of the post. The only thing you really know, based on the comment, is that my friend originally posted something against Islam. What did he post? Was it a suggestion that all Muslims are evil? No. Was it a call to violence against Muslims? No. Did it contain a single threat, insult, or lie about Islam? No. The post was a simple meme about how Liberals helping Islam is paving the way for the loss of freedom in America.
This is true, and my friend did a very good job of defending that in the comments. While the Liberals (ironically, none of whom seemed to be Muslims) were cussing my friend out and calling him hateful, he was respectfully defending his view with well thought out arguments, citing the Muslim sources to do so. In other words, ironically, they were being just as hateful towards him as they were accusing him of being towards Muslims, whereas he showed no hate for anyone, opposing only the philosophy of Islam, and showing how it was opposed to American values.
What's worse is that, surprise surprise, they misquoted the Bible and squawked about atrocities which nominal Christians have committed in the past. Now, first question: If Christianity really was as dangerous as Islam, would that make Islam any less dangerous? Of course not. That is called the Tu Quoque fallacy. If Christianity really was as dangerous as Islam, that would just mean there were two very dangerous religions in the world which would be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, and therefore Liberals should not nurture either of them for their own sake.
Which brings us to the second point: Liberals typically do not nurture Christianity, but seek instead to suppress it. All over the internet, we see situations like the one described above. If someone criticises Islam, then no matter how respectful they are about it, no matter how well thought out the argument is, the criticism is called "hate speech", and Christianity is attacked. This even happens when the one being accused isn't even Christian. If an atheist criticises Islam, the response is "oh, but Christianity is just as bad".
But put the shoe on the other foot. When a Muslim criticises Christianity, do Liberals rush to Jesus' defence? Perhaps this happens occasionally. Personally, I have never seen it. I have never seen a Liberal defend Christianity against a Muslim, even if the Muslim claims Christianity is violent.
Which brings me to my third and most important point: It isn't. See, while Islam was founded by a surprisingly effective warlord who started out peaceful, but gradually moved on to more violent warfare as Islam's numbers grew, you will not be able to name a single person Jesus killed in the name of His religion (or at all). You can see Him rebuking His disciples for threatening to do this (Luke 9:53-56), you cannot find Jesus even once killing, or commanding violence, in the name of Christianity.
What you can find is the Gospel, which is quite literally the central message of Christianity. If any one element of the Gospel is altered, this is enough to dismiss the group or individual preaching it (Galatians 1:8). Change the Gospel, you are not a Christian, even if you say you are. And yet, what is the Gospel if not the most peaceful message on earth? It is literally God seeking to make peace with His enemies (Romans 5:8-10). And that is why Jesus Himself preached that we must love our enemies, because God loves His enemies and so to be perfect like God, we must love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). In Christianity, if you must have enemies at all, you must love them.
God takes this so far that it's not as simple as "you hate me, but I love you, so come to Heaven". No, God must deal with sin, and there is only one appropriate penalty: Death. Whose death? Normally, the sinner's. But that wasn't a suitable option for God, so in His mercy, He sent Jesus to die on the cross. In other words, rather than killing the enemies of Christ, Christ died for His own enemies. All it takes is to repent of sin, confess Jesus as Lord and believe He rose from the dead and you gain eternal life in Heaven. That is love.
And that's the message Christians preach. There is no Jizyah for unbelievers to pay, there is no Jihad for believers to wage, and we will destroy your arguments long before we seek to destroy your bodies.
Although Islam is the grounding topic of this article, this is only because it is the topic that inspired it. "Hate speech" is used to silence all kinds of unpopular views. But really, unless the person making the argument shows obvious signs of hating the group they are accused of hating (like Liberals who suggest Christians should not be allowed to express their faith, and even promote violence against them), accusing people of "hate speech" is just a veiled confession that you have no better arguments. If you cannot disagree in peace, shut up, sit down, and let the grown ups talk.