Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression 894
hcs_$reboot writes Pope Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good. But he added there were limits. While Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence, he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs. By way of example, he referred to a friend: "if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs."
Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
And fuck you too.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, thank you for contributing so highly to the tone of this debate.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pope is threatening violence if people say bad things about his religion. He is adopting exactly the same position as the scum who attacked Charlie Hebdo.
Ok he tries to weasel out of it, but what the hell does he mean by:
One cannot react violently, but if (someone) says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected
"One cannot react violently but I will"
Fuck him for an appologist for murder.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
If I am a Christian, Islam is an open insult against my religion (it denies that Jesus is the son of God). So apparently I have the right for protection from such open insults, which would from your reckoning amount to the banning of Islam and the Koran.
Hum how does that work exactly?
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Funny)
And Christianity is an open insult to Islam.
In order to avoid offending all religious beliefs, all religions must end.
Sounds like a good idea, actually. :)
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
Charlie Hebdo insulted all Muslims.
No, they didn't. They did something that Moslems are not supposed to do, but what next, are you going to kill the pork eaters?
There was no fun in those cartoons.
Yes, there was. If you dont think a picture of Mohammed sighing "it's hard to be loved by idiots" is funny you have no sense of humour.
Yes, there were other cartoon, but not nearly as insulting.
Jesus buggering God while being buggered by the holy ghost is not nearly as insulting?
I think Muslims, like anyone else, have the right for protection from such open insults.
Charlie Hebdo never insulted Muslims. That would have been illegal and they would have been sued if they had.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
Your posts insults my belief in free speech. I am warning you that you will be harmed if you continue to say things like this. You have been warned. Do not ever say anything like this again or harm wil come to you.
See how it works?
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Muslims, like anyone else, have the right for protection from such open insults.
No, just NO. No one has a "right" for protection from insults, whether open, subtle, or anything else. They have a right to react similarly with their own insults, or pointing out the douchebaggery of the insulter, or other non-violent means. But they do not have the right to preemptively quash anyone's right to speak out, no matter how insulting or offensive they may deem the statements.
Speech has its own consequences, and most people learn to temper their speech as a result. Those that do not are ostracized and ignored, and rightly so. Anyone advocating prior restraint of speech or violence as a response is wrong, and should similar be ostracized and ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
If you poke a bear cub with a stick long enough, its mom might come and maul the shit out of you.
You're an idiot for poking a bear cub with a stick, but you probably shouldn't die for that. You certainly weren't doing anything other than annoy the cub.
However, you pissed off something which has an instinctive response to overwhelmingly beat down any perceived threat to its child.
The Muslim world has a very strong attachment to their prophet. They shouldn't kill you for insulting him, and most would never
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
the pope, and you, are literally blaming the victim. they weren't "asking for it" by printing what they wanted to print. They thought they lived in a free country where that was a freedom they enjoyed. That we have an entire set of people, religious in this case, with distinct subsets, that don't feel as if they should abide by the rules of the countries in which they live doesn't mean we should cater to their whims.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
If you poke a bear cub with a stick long enough, its mom might come and maul the shit out of you.
Yeah... you do know that bears are not people, right? We generally try to hold Muslims to higher standards than we do bears.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:4, Insightful)
"I'm not saying you deserved to be raped, the rapist was definitely the one in the wrong there, but seriously what did you expect going out alone at night dressed like that?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing you just said actually reflects the views of Pope Francis.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Informative)
Considering Pope Francis will never allow women priests or stop using the stupid, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" when referring to gays, the AC is correct.
Further, we know for a fact the Catholic Church has been covering up pedophiles within its ranks. While Francis might be making an effort to combat this, that doesn't change the fact of what has been happening (and is most likely continuing to occur).
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what the pedophile situation has anything to do with Francis' comments on expression. That just sounds like, "pedophile priests, therefore you are automatically wrong."
The Church is a very large institution where some of the executives (i.e. Bishops and some Curia officials) colluded to cover up for some of their priests. If they hire a guy who is coming in and clearly shaking stuff up, you'd think that you'd perhaps allow him a little distance from that. At least until someone shows that he also had a hand in it.
I don't think anyone is going to be happy 100% with the pope if they don't buy the doctrine of the church. I don't think that should detract from the substance of what his comment was. That is to say that freedom of expression is a human right, but it can be misused as provocation for the sake of provocation. You can disagree with it, but disagree with the substance of the argument, don't use character assassination by association as a rhetorical device.
Re: (Score:3)
The last pope quit because he was flat out caught, having been involved in the cover up and relocation of kiddy raping priests. This was never acknowledged.
The catholic church wants us to just forget it ever happened. Pretend the new guy is the first act in this play and 'allow him a little distance'.
Let me be the first to say _fuck no_! Those recently caught are supervised closely, not 'given distance'. Especially when they are still deflecting and denying. Think of it as probation.
The catholic chur
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
What's stupid about it? You can demand tolerance, but not acceptance.
Re: (Score:3)
For example; I tolerate christians but will never accept them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's stupid because people like you think being gay is a choice.
That's like saying be tolerant of blacks or Asians because they chose to be that way.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not stupid at all.
I can coexist quite well with Catholics who think my being gay is a sin; we can do good works together, have lunch, be friends. I can coexist quite well with Seventh Day Adventists who think alcohol is sinful, too. We can all be friends. Heck, I can coexist with people who have a religion I think is patently absurd (I'm looking at you, Mormons), because when it comes down to it -- everyone has beliefs, and things they think are right and wrong. As long as it goes no farther then their skin, we can all be friends.
Tolerance doesn't mean you beat someone until they agree with you, its that you recognize peoples differences and don't try to force them to change. Now, where a minority of Catholics and I part ways and will have problems being friends is at the point where those Catholics try to enshrine their beliefs into law.
It has nothing really to do with my sin being a choice at all (for the record, it obviously isn't), but at the line between beliefs and mandates.
Hate the sin all you like, I don't care. Teach that the sin is against God's given path all you like, I don't care. If that's what you believe, all power to you to believe whatever it is. I'll argue the other side and we'll see who is more convincing. Try to mandate that the State give you special rights that I don't have, there I start caring. Try to argue for violence or discrimination based on your beliefs, there I care a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Pope Francis is the head of the Catholic Church. He has no hold over me, no authority over me, and I have absolute freedom to ignore him or ridicule his views.
Re: Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus said turn the other cheek. The Pope just said words are like sticks and stones, and it's okay to retaliate. This is one of the few comments from this pope that I disagree with strongly (and I'm not a member of a church, he's been brave and kind in many ways).
Maybe because they're oppressed? (Score:4, Insightful)
And maybe the 3% of the population experiences 80% of the oppression?
I mean, I'm a member of the "elect". I'm mainstream in sexuality, race, age, income, etc. I have it pretty good. Why should I bitch and moan?
But gays? They can't marry, they get sometimes get beatings by the 97% and face all kinds of other discrimination, why shouldn't they complain?
Even if the questionable claim you make that 80% of the "bitching and moaning" comes from gays is true, it doesn't LOGICALLY follow that that bitching and moaning isn't PERFECTLY justified.
I mean, frankly, your unsubstantiated claim against them kind of proves their point about having cause to bitch and moan, so in a way your post is sort of brilliant. You accuse them and justify them all in the same post!
--PeterM
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
A modern civilized society depends and thrives on the ability to commit heresy and offend people.
A modern civilized society depends and thrives on the ability to use common sense, employ tolerance, be respectful, and argue with logic, instead of deliberately inciting a riot for profit.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
agreed with all of that except 'be respectful'.
I refuse to respect religion. its been an untouchable sacred cow (how's that for mixing metaphors?) for far too long in earth's history and I (and a bunch of others like me) would like to finally see some progress in this 'bearded sky wizard' bullshit fairy story stuff that we shove down kids' throats and brainwash them at early ages to think in terms of fake heros and 'saviors'.
you can continue to think that those things are real, but I DO NOT HAVE TO RESPECT YOU or your beliefs. same as if you 'knew' that the loch ness monster was real or that you that 'knew' that bigfoot was real. I'd think the same of you if you were a bigfoot believer or a jesus believer. same thing to me.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
And fuck you too.
You're welcome.
Look, the guy's hardly going to say it's OK to blaspheme, is he? It's just not in his job description. Whatever his personal opinion may be, he's is not at liberty to promote the same viewpoints as Charlie Hebdo. I think one should try to read no just between the lines of what he says, but also what he does and says in other contexts - he has demonstrated a much more modern outlook that previous popes.
And the issue isn't as black/white as that either. Freedom comes with a price-tag; are we all willing to pay the price? And if not, is it right to force the majority to pay the price so that a minority can say what they like without having to fear any consquences? If you actually believe in freedom, then you have to accept that others have the freedom to not want the same as you.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
And fuck you too.
You're welcome.
Look, the guy's hardly going to say it's OK to blaspheme, is he? It's just not in his job description. Whatever his personal opinion may be, he's is not at liberty to promote the same viewpoints as Charlie Hebdo.
As pope I would expect him to say something along the lines of, they are free to do as they wish, it is our job to show compassion and understanding to try and help them be better or some bull shit like that. Something that sounds kinda Christian. Not taking the same stock line most religious folk are taking. Which is basically religion should be off limits for mockery or criticism without realising it's almost the most deserving thing of both!
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:4, Interesting)
Well let's get things straight here. When we do that to Christianity, it is an important exercise of free speech. When we do that to Muslims, suddenly religion should be off limits for mockery or criticism without realising it's almost the most deserving thing of both!
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:4, Funny)
fuck you, i like zeus, that was one philandering son of a bitch.
and odin was boss.
and what do you have against buddha? he's just fat and happy. shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
" I would expect him to say something along the lines of, they are free to do as they wish, it is our job to show compassion and understanding to try and help them be better or some bull shit like that. "
Which is what he did say.
"Which is basically religion should be off limits for mockery or criticism without realising it's almost the most deserving thing of both!"
Which is not what he said. He in those cases that you should expect people might take it badly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He doesn't say the killings were okay. He just says that people shouldn't mock other's religion. Which, first of all, makes sense since he is the fucking pope and secondly it may be good for his P.R. with the muslem community. If the other church leaders/imams/whatever are denouncing the satirical cartoons, what impression would Francis give by saying "oh well, no problem for me because I am far more forgiving than the Muslems". Sometimes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom comes with a price-tag; are we all willing to pay the price?
What price? There is no price. If you get offended (which is subjective), that is your problem.
And if not, is it right to force the majority to pay the price so that a minority can say what they like without having to fear any consquences?
You do realize that you're essentially asking whether or not it is okay to not allow the majority to oppress the minority's fundamental rights because they might get their feelings hurt, right? Good thing we don't live in direct democracies, because I don't want anything to do with them.
If you actually believe in freedom, then you have to accept that others have the freedom to not want the same as you.
They can say what they like, but as for actually getting their nonsense into law? No.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, the guy's hardly going to say it's OK to blaspheme, is he? It's
I've been accused of being a "religious nut" on occasion. But here is my stance. For people who don't believe like me, they are free to Blaspheme all they want. Not my job to stop them, and if what I believe is true, they will have their justice eventually. If not, no harm, no foul. But at the same time, if you think peeing in a glass and putting a cross in it is art, I can say, "that says a lot more about you than it does me".
Being rude, mean, nasty is what I would expect from people who hate, religious or otherwise.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that struck me as well.
The whole "turning the other cheek" thing isn't even a general directive. It is intended to specifically address insults to your religion. The "turn the other cheek" bit is meant EXACTLY FOR THIS SITUATION. So the Jesuit commits one count of dogma fail right there.
Plus there's the whole "eye for an eye" thing, which is not as some people like to claim some sort of call to vendetta. It's an old testament thing along the lines of modern Tort law. To repair a harm the "damages" must
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, no, young sir. You are too simple. Why, you might have said a great many things. Why waste your opportunity? For example, thus:
AGGRESSIVE: Fuck the pope's mother with a chainsaw!
PRACTICAL: Drop your trousers and stick your erect penis in the anus of the pope's mother.
DESCRIPTIVE: Slowly, gently, stroke the pope's mother's cunt with your dick.
INQUISITIVE: What's your favorite position while fucking the pope's mother?
KINDLY: Don't forget to give the pope's mother a reach around when fucking her.
CAUTIOUS: Careful, wear a condom when fucking the pope's mother - she's got AIDS.
ELOQUENT: While being fellated by the pope's mother may encourage you to cunnilingus, let her finish first.
DRAMATIC: The stormy cries of the pope's mother when being fucked rise in fantastic crescendo!
SIMPLE: Chinga tu madre.
MILITARY: Attention! The fucking of the pope's mother will commence! One! Two! Three! Four! One! Two! Three! Four!
ENTERPRISING: So how much do you think they'll pay for a picture of someone fucking the pope's mother?
RESPECTFUL: At your convenience, dear Francis, please take advantage your mother's sexual services - I hear she's incredible.
LITERARY: Hell, if you were Cyrano De Begerac, you could fuck the pope's mother with your nose!
These, my dear sir, are things you might have said, had you some tinge of letters or of wit to color your discourse. /inspired by the frog Edmund Rostand
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Informative)
And like every Slashdotter, you couldn't be bothered to look at the actual article, which would have shown a blatant misquote. He never said ""if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". Here is what the article actually said:
By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane. "If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said jokingly, throwing a pretend punch his way.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with free speech is a lot of people do not assign value to their speech.
Now free speech means you can say something negative about someones mother, and blocking this would be harmful, because such a negative comment is meant to prove a point, say they have a life style which is harmful and you feel obliged to point it out.
However the same words used in a different context meant only to hurt is very different. So you insult someones mother only to enrage the person, is in general using your words as violence. So if you get physically hit back, you really can't go free speech, as you in generally just egged the person on to get angry at you.
If you use curse words far more rarely, than when you use them they have a much stronger impact.
Speech is very valuable, the fact that we are restricted from the government for using it. It doesn't mean you have no consequences from it. If you abuse it then you may get additional consequences.
With the issues with the French Comic. As with a lot of satire, they are meant to get you angry first then think later. There is usually more to the meaning then just a blanket insult. But knowing such a topic does enrange some people knowing that consequences from getting someone enraged is often much higher than just getting them angry.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a Muslim radical.
I'm Charlie.
Free speach means the freedom to offend, or it means nothing.
Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely, right:
One cannot react violently, but if [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected,” the pontiff said. “There are a lot of people who speak badly about other religions. They make fun of them. What happens is what happens with my friend [who insults my mother]. There is a limit.
Is a truly crass and horrible thing to say after 12 innocent people have been murdered.
Religion sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
There's your freedom of speech
hmm (Score:5, Informative)
In my country, that punch would result in an assault charge.
And no, it would not matter what I said, period.
Not saying this is good or bad, just simply that it is...
throwing punches (Score:5, Insightful)
In my country, that punch would result in an assault charge.
And no, it would not matter what I said, period.
Not saying this is good or bad, just simply that it is...
What country is that? In the US, Buzz Aldrin threw a punch which a judge says was provoked, and so found Dr. Aldrin was found innocent of assault charges:
https://www.google.com/search?q=buzz+aldrin+punch
Re:throwing punches (Score:5, Informative)
Bad example -- Dr. Aldrin was not just provoked by the dumbass moon hoaxer saying something offensive, but the hoaxer was following Aldrin and his daughter around, harassing them after he was asked to leave the couple alone. Aldrin had a plausible defense that he and his daughter felt physically threatened.
"Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ame... [bbc.co.uk]
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
"insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
And so he validates the violence (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And so he validates the violence (Score:5, Insightful)
This puts him in the same philosophical camp as the terrorists he denounced. He just argues for a slightly lower degree of violence in response to another's expression.
That's like saying there's no real difference between an alcoholic and a person who occasionally goes out drinking on a Friday night. That said, the full quote is
One cannot react violently, but if [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected
Or, on other words, you shouldn't react violently, but if you insult someone's mother you should probably expect that person to react negatively. Insulting others is to deliberately provoke reactions from them: you shouldn't be surprised if those reactions turn violent (given adequate provocation), because that, sadly, is human nature.
Re: (Score:3)
how christian of the pope to advocate turning the other cheek.
oh, wait. he never advocated that. he suggested a punch in the face.
WOW.
fake pope is fake. again. nothing godly about such people. they are born, they get sick and die like the rest of us and they eat and shit like the rest of us. the whole concept of a pope is actually funny to me, but I didn't grow up christian, so I was never brainwashed to think this guy had anything that the rest of us didn't.
Turning the other cheek (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm sure I would also throw a punch i don't think it would be very Christian of me. It's weird the pope is fine with it.
Re:Turning the other cheek (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't say he's fine with it. You're not quoting him for a reason. He said that such response is what will likely happen -- he doesn't say he's fine with it.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't say he's fine with it. You're not quoting him for a reason. He said that such response is what will likely happen -- he doesn't say he's fine with it.
What he said suggests he would do it, which implies he's fine with it.
Re:Turning the other cheek (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's a misunderstand of what he's saying. Note that he didn't say, "if someone says a curse word against my mother, I'm going to punch him." He said, "he can expect a punch."
I may be wrong, but I think he's not advocating violence, but saying, "If you go around spitting in people's faces, and then someone punches you, don't be surprised." That is, it'd be foolish not to expect some kind of response.
how is this any different?? (Score:4, Insightful)
he referred to a friend: "if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch"
how is this any different than what the terrorists are doing? Violence for words is never the answer
Re:how is this any different?? (Score:5, Insightful)
What he said was violence is bad and you shouldn't commit violence. But if you deliberately offend someone, you should expect some level of violent response. He implied this is because humans haven't learned very well how not to respond with violence.
Just because violence is bad doesn't mean you should go through life somehow expecting to avoid it and acting insulted when it happens after you've been a douchebag.
Re: (Score:3)
Its not. Also consider the source. Its the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries before Fundimentalist Islam, they were the crazy religeious nuts. Given Islam and Chrisitanities(Jews too) shared history, and massive culture exchange throughout the years, as well as a common founder, its clear that we are dealing with one big fucked up religeon. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
Between this, and the Hardiem Censorship of the rally, I think Charlie Hedbo needs to do some more cartoons.
What special about beliefs if they're religious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Beliefs are beliefs no matter where they arise from. Just because someone believes something written in a book of fairy tales 2000 years ago doesn't make it sacrosanct and above criticism.
What is it with religious types who think their beliefs are somehow special? I'd say it scientific beliefs that are based on things that can be proven - rather than just the witterings of peasents in the desert - have more of a claim to that.
Re:What special about beliefs if they're religious (Score:5, Insightful)
The elephant in the room is that Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably offensive to Christians because they say Jesus was not the son of God. There is nothing more blasphemous than denying this fundamental tenant of Christianity.
If we follow this logic Christian's would be perfectly justified in beating up any Muslim that they happened to come across. The problem with the majority of Muslim's is that they don't seem to be able to reconcile the very tolerance that allows them to practice an offensive religion in largely Christian (or at least ones that used to be) countries is a two way street. My personal view is if they can't accept and live with it then they should emigrate to a country with laws more to their liking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points of you. The problem you describe is the main problem. Islam has made apostasy into a sin punishable with death. So if you, for whatever reason, stop believing in Islam, you are executed (at least in the countries where they have their ways).
So in my mind it is clear the problem is not terrorists. The problem is Islam itself.
Re:What special about beliefs if they're religious (Score:4, Insightful)
"My personal view is if they can't accept and live with it then they should emigrate to a country with laws more to their liking."
And their personal view is to change the laws to abide to their liking.
Re: (Score:3)
No but then as far as I am aware no Jews have murdered a significant proportion of the editorial team of a publication for printing pictures of Moses or Abraham, ... Neither am I aware of any Jews demanding that such pictures never be published.
The problem is Sunni Muslims take offence at *ANY* depiction of the prophet, whether it mocks Islam or not. They would like to make it illegal for me to ever depict Muhammed visually. This is whole and totally unacceptable to myself and hundreds of millions of others
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but this is a problem that's exacerbated even by governments.
For example, in most human rights legislation across the globe, religion, which is wholly a choice, is given the same level of protection as genetic traits that you do not choose such as race, sex, sexuality and so forth.
This is an inherently bad idea. Nothing that you can choose should ever be given the same level of protection as something that you cannot choose because it creates a paradox - how can you treat freedom of religious belief wi
Inappropriate tech analogy time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Having him deliver a "well, shooting people is bad and stuff; but Do Not Blaspheme!" speech is about as surprising as discovering that two different member companies of the BSA think that software piracy is evil, even if they are competitors and differ somewhat in their preferred DRM.
That aside, the pope is either being foolish or being mendacious if he thinks that you can have 'free speech' if you also insist that it is impermissible to 'offend religious beliefs'. This isn't merely incompatible in the free-speech-absolutist sense of 'any restriction on speech compromises freedom of speech!'; but on a much broader and more practical level. By design religions tend to have opinions and rules about lots, and lots, and lots of things. Depending on the exact circumstances in which they grew up, they can encompass guidance on moral, social, and political matters, gender roles, diet, dress, epistemology, cosmology, biology, etc, etc.
If someone can shut down an avenue of speech by having their religious feelings offended, there are precious few things you can safely talk about, because religions serve so many functions(and, in a society with multiple religions, the at least one is likely to have an opinion on any given topic, even if not all do).
Even religion itself becomes nearly impossible to practice if you can't offend the religious sentiments of others. The pope, for instance, operates an organization that bills itself as the sole route to salvation(with the actual heavy lifting being done by some combination of the Father and the Son in the trinity, of course). Is that not rather strikingly offensive to those who are (whether or not they state it implicitly, or are still praying for the conversion of the jews, as they did until quite recently) hellbound? The Protestants, for their part, only exist because of the premise that the church of Rome is a corrupt institution that has strayed from Christian practice, and only a reformed church, suitably grounded on faith and scripture, can address our salvation requirements. Only the really looney ones(like Jack Chick) spend much time screaming about how the Pope is the 7 headed whore of Babylon and things; but even your mild-mannered Lutheran is a rather brutal implicit insult to Catholicism.
I don't know whether he knows this, and just doesn't give a damn if it means stumping for more religious authority(by most accounts, you don't become pope by being an idiot; but you can become pope by being dogmatic and/or ruthless); or if he simply hasn't thought it through; but it's true either way.
Well he would say that. (Score:3, Insightful)
"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others,"
Well that's what you get from millennia of religious abuse, wars, restrictions. Faith, hope, fantasy, not one word of it ever corroborated in any religion. Yet we are meant to show respect, tow the line. Why? Because otherwise you will torture, abuse me all in the name of "religion". Don't patronise me by telling me this is not true.
Prove it or shut the fuck up.
P.s We don't get our morals from religion, my observation is that quite often "religious" people have less ethics and morality than atheists.
So many people here just read the headline.... (Score:4, Insightful)
...while ignoring the content of what he said, and his defense of free speech and expression from a few days ago.
What he said really isn't out of the ordinary.
And they have the gall to call him ignorant, and then proceed to be vile and disgusting trolls.
Even within the US we have long accepted certain limits on speech, particularly in the areas of obscenity, "fighting words", threats, and particularly relevant here: offensive speech. The standard varies and there isnt really a set legal test, and it ultimately usually comes down to being decided on an individual basis.
It's one thing to have a dissenting opinion and be free to enter it into the public discourse.
It is completely another to use that as a mask for bigotry.
Ironic the Censorship on this (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm really impressed that even the frigging Pope is taking grief for simply trying to point out the uncomfortable facts here.
There's no reason these two facts can't be simultaneously true. And just as the first act should not be perpetrated, neither should the second. Not by a caring moral human being. We even have laws against hate speech in the USA.
When I was a kid I remember seeing a "soapbox preacher" downtown, who was basically berating passerby whilst holding a Bible. Calling passing women whores, etc. It would be totally wrong for someone to beat the crap out of him. But would I be surprised if someone flew into a rage and did that when their daughter/wife/mom just got called a whore? Not in the slightest.
Speaking In A Moral Context (Score:4, Insightful)
It bears remembering that Pope Francis is speaking in a moral fashion not a legal one. Thus, when he says there are limits to free speech it is important to remember he may be talking about what is *morally* ok to express not what is legally protected.
I'm a strong free speech absolutist and I believe it is important to explain to people just why religious belief is irrational and unjustified. Yet, nevertheless, I am well aware that while it is an important legal right it would also be wrong to be particularly rude or unecessarily mean in speaking. Just because we have the legal right to offer deadly insults doesn't mean we should exercisce that right.
Having said this it is important that religion not be given special protection. Many things are important to people. People are mocked in political cartoons all the time...often in a fairly intense or insulting fashion and religion should recieve no more protection. To the extent Pope Francis is disagreeing with this I disapprove of his remarks...but given that the catholic church is one of the great believers in the right to accuse other religions of being wrong I'm not sure that is how they should be interpreted.
Tolerance towards intolerant religions (Score:3)
Because that's also what the pontiff is asking of us.
On the one hand, when feeling less judgmental I think it can be a wise approach. It seems normal that so many people always want to keep things the way they are. Adapting to change is not as easy for some as it is for others and one could argue that the more progressive types sometimes need to be more tolerant and patient towards the less adaptable conservative types, many of whom are also religious.
On the other hand, when those same conservative, religious types maintain arbitrary, strange, discriminatory and often cruel beliefs that they strongly feel should also be respected by everyone else, then I become less tolerant of them. The Pope needs to recognize that there are limits to what can be expected even from peaceful, civilized non-believers.
Freedom of expression? (Score:3)
"if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch"
Yup - if we're talking about a real person. I whole-heartedly agree; if it was unwarranted or gratuitous I would fully expect to be seeing a few teeth on the floor. However, if someone get's antsy over a comment I make about their invisible imaginary friend they can fuck right off. I don't care which religion it is, someone handing out a beating or killing over it becomes less than human and shouldn't be breathing my air.
As the head of the western paedophiles and discrimination club he should watch *his* mouth, as should high ranking members of the eastern paedophiles and discrimination club. Surprising as they've shared so many of the same hobbies & interests that they should be at war over who's imaginary friend is better.
(Yes, I'm an atheist and proud to have *real* friends. Some of them are even sane.)
Hope it all works out for him (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm amused by those who think they will just punch someone out and that'll be the end of it. It depends on who you punch. It might just be the start of it. Today, there's right many people who can fight. Punch one of them and you can expect quite a few punches in return.
Freedom of speech means freedom to offend (Score:5, Insightful)
You can say safe, polite, PC stuff anywhere. The real acid test for freedom of expression is when you can say things that are not so safe, polite, and PC.
Muslims certainly feel free to offend any non-Muslims.
message is lost (Score:3)
Re: Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is exactly the point. I'm free to say what I want and you are free to ignore it.
FTFY (Score:3)
I'm free to say what I want and you are free to be unpredictable.
Re:Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:4, Insightful)
"If a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization."
Re:Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:5, Insightful)
The Muslim religion is offended by depictions of Muhammad.
Do you think drawing cartoons of Muhammad and making fun of him is "something that almost certainly needs to be said?"
In Germany, it's against the law to deny the Holocaust.
Shouldn't you go, right now, and draw funny cartoons that deny the Holocaust?
Re:Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:5, Insightful)
The Christian religion is offended by the claim of Islam that Jesus is not the son of God. The inescapable conclusion of which is No Charlie Hebdo, no Koran.
One could further note that if Muslims claimed that Christianity was offensive to them because it claimed that Jesus was the son of God, it was around first, so it is still a fail on behalf of Islam.
Re:Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:5, Informative)
The Muslim religion is offended by depictions of Muhammad.
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
Re:Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
There is a good reason why a Muslim shouldn't make pictures of Mohammed: Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to. So buy making a picture of Mohammed, a Muslim might go the wrong way in his religion and damage himself - that's why it is forbidden.
Non-muslims wouldn't be affected by that. There's no reason why a non-muslim shouldn't hang a picture of Mohammed on their bedroom wall; it doesn't put their soul in danger. And caricature or insults are not a religious problem either. Sure, insulting Mohammed isn't nice to a Muslim, just like saying "your mother is ugly" isn't nice to anyone, and you shouldn't do it, but there is no offence to the religion.
Re: (Score:3)
I was not aware that holocaust denial was punishable by death.
Also, I would only say illegal things if I agreed with them. The holocaust actually happened.
And even if you want to deny it, I am not going to murder you over it. Sure, free speech has consequence; but murder is not a valid consequence, no matter what the person said.
Re:Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:5, Insightful)
"If a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization."
Definitely worth repeating, as is this later quote: "But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Therefore justifying the killing of others (Score:5, Insightful)
religious people are often insulting atheists and people who put their faith in science, if not overtly, then in discriminating ways.
saying things like there are no morals with out god. calling people heathens. threatening that we will suffer greatly after we die.
does that mean we can punch them in the face?
Re: (Score:3)
Putting aside the Christian religion, forgiveness is a concept which is ultimately what keeps humans from descending into a state of universal vendetta. Sometimes, you have to weigh the need for vengeance or deterrence against the need to simply move on.
Frequently, moving on is the best action for everyone. There simply needs to be a decision where you say, "this was unfair, this shouldn't have happened, but its done." The person who clings to the unfairness of a situation long after the offense, is is a
Re:"if someone says a curse word against my mother (Score:4, Insightful)
Mothers exist - prophets don't. Show me a prophet and I'll show you a smooth talking charlatan surrounded by a load of suckers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prophets DO exist. Their existence does not indicate their accuracy or sanity.
I can claim to be the son of FSM and speak as his interpreter.
I am the pirate Seamus McCrory, son of FSM, bearer of meatballs. May the Father embrace you with his noodly appendage. R'amen.
Re: (Score:3)
Since there is no such things as gods or deities its not possible to speak to them or hence fortell the future from any inspiration received from them. Ergo prophets cannot exist.
Is this too complex for you or do you need it explained in simple words with crayon drawings?
Re: (Score:3)
Well if they went in and punched the workers at Charlie Hebdo instead of murdering them, you might have a point.
Instead, you are just an apologist.
Re:"if someone says a curse word against my mother (Score:4)
More to the point, mothers tend to engender strong emotions in humans. Especially humans who come from certain cultural backgrounds.
The point is not that mothers or prophets are real, its that if you poke someone hard enough where they are sensitive, they're going to instinctively lash out at you. It doesn't mean it is right, it doesn't mean it is justified. All it means is that it is going to be hard to control that response, and if you are hitting that area, you're going to get that response.
All he's saying is that, if you don't want to get kicked in the balls, don't position your crotch near someone's leg and then smack their kneecap with a hammer. If you insist on the need to do that despite the expected response, accept the fact that it is coming and wear a cup. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In one case, a person is right in your face insulting your mother. That is generally going to be a physical confrontation, the person is probably puffed up his chest and picking a fight.
A more civilized society would allow dueling as a reaction to such an insult. In other words, instead of being able to immediately punch the person who insulted your mother you could challenge him to a duel (perhaps the law might put limits on the lethality of such a duel) giving the person who was insulted a chance to defend the mother's honor but also giving the insultor a chance to apologize or simply chicken out before any blood is spilled.
It's been said that an armed society is a polite society.
Re: (Score:3)
quoting a hadith:
Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land.... O Allah, accept our martyrs in the highest heavens.... O Allah, show the Jews a black day.... O Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters.... O
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is they can't say your prophet sucks if you don't have one. Maybe non-believers should keep a six-pack of prophets handy so the squabble can be settled verbally instead of with Kalashnikovs.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.
The Supreme Court seems to have disagreed with you regarding offending someone. See, for example, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire [wikipedia.org], in which the Court ruled that "fighting words" ('speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".').
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with that ruling. I'm not the only one.
RFC 760 (Score:3)
John Postel wisely said:
The same is true in human discussion. It is (generally) good to limit what you say to what will be acceptable (not overly offend) others, but at the same time accept that people may say things that you do not like. Being gratuitously rude about others and taking offence at trivia is the best way of starting fights.
That is not to say that there are people & ideas
Re: (Score:3)
There's no room on this planet who think that anyone that disagrees with them must die...
...As such, all ISIS/ISIL radicals must be purged from the Earth,
You're funny...
Re: (Score:3)
Pro-Tip: The Pope did not say he would punch anyone.