I think you lack the historical culture and can't understand the context of these texts. If these texts were revolutionary at the time it's because they were not enforced before. You could be legally imprisoned for your thoughts (which you had or people thought you had), and it still is the case in many places around the world.
> Hating someone is an opinion. It is not an act of violence.
> What good is an opinion if you cannot express it?
So which is it ? Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence
Those statements are not in opposition to each other,
> Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence
If you define an insult to be violent in the same way as taking a life then I see why we are so far from each other. I make a clear distinction between the two. Do you really think an insult is an act of violence? I'm curious why you would think that
Inciting to violence and performing a violent act is not the same thing. If they were one could defer responsibility to the actor who incited one to be violent. That ends all personal responsibility for ones own actions.
> I think you lack the historical culture and can't understand the context of these texts.
Such derogatory remarks does not further any conversation. I'm here to debate - to learn - to expose myself to different worlds. I hope you are as well. Question - don't assume.
> Hating someone is an opinion. It is not an act of violence.
> What good is an opinion if you cannot express it?
So which is it ? Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence