• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pope on Paris: 'You cannot insult the faith of others'

P

PokerGuy

Lifer
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/15/pope-islam-paris-charlo-hebdo/21796053/

I strongly disagree with the pope on this. He's basically making it seem like those murdered by savages who feel being offended by something justifies violence and murder share responsibility in their death because of doing something wrong. That notion flies in the face of any freedom of expression.

His statement that "you cannot insult the faith of others" is exactly the problem. In fact, yes, you can, and you should accept that others can insult your faith or say/do things that you might find offensive. In a free society mere insult or offense at an idea or statement can not, and should not, serve as a reason to curtail freedom of speech and thought.
 
He's just using it as an excuse to defend his own lunacy. Have you seen the ridiculous hat that guy wears? No, I'm being serious now. Not even ATOT serious, but genuinely serious. My question is, what is the deal with that stupid, mile high hat? Can anyone wear such a hat and pretend to be serious?
 
PokerGuy said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/15/pope-islam-paris-charlo-hebdo/21796053/

I strongly disagree with the pope on this. He's basically making it seem like those murdered by savages who feel being offended by something justifies violence and murder share responsibility in their death because of doing something wrong. That notion flies in the face of any freedom of expression.

His statement that "you cannot insult the faith of others" is exactly the problem. In fact, yes, you can, and you should accept that others can insult your faith or say/do things that you might find offensive. In a free society mere insult or offense at an idea or statement can not, and should not, serve as a reason to curtail freedom of speech and thought.
Click to expand...

Can't easily imagine a worse thing to say, frankly. If we could get the devoutness and humility of this pope with the politics of the previous one, we'd have a very good pope.

I can understand him saying something like, "It's unkind to relentlessly needle someone for their religion." But not in the context of religious fanatics murdering those who insult them.

Imagine if this were said of abortion-clinic bombings. "We abhor terrorism, but these doctors really ought to think twice before performing abortions."

There is no blame, zero, zilch, on those who are murdered for offending someone.
 
He doesn't condone the attacks guys. I couldn't find a transcript and the article is just paraphrasing, so I'm not sure if he was for freedom of expression but says one should always try to be polite (not that you must be, but should be something everyone should strive for.) There is a difference in saying what the law and punishment must be and saying people ought to be more polite or considerate to others.

Either way, I think this was a very poor time to touch on that subject.

___________

EDIT: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/us-france-shooting-pope-idUSKBN0KO17F20150115

Ouch, actually scratch what I said, he's a bit crazy here. He even condones punching people for mother jokes. I'm not joking:

To illustrate his point, he turned to an aide and said: "It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if (he) says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it's normal.
Click to expand...

This is the worst one though:

"You can't make a toy out of the religions of others," he added. "These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits."
Click to expand...

Ouch.
 
Last edited:
Subyman said:
He doesn't condone the attacks guys. I couldn't find a transcript and the article is just paraphrasing, so I'm not sure if he was for freedom of expression but says one should always try to be polite (not that you must be, but should be something everyone should strive for.) There is a difference in saying what the law and punishment must be and saying people ought to be more polite or considerate to others.

Either way, I think this was a very poor time to touch on that subject.
Click to expand...

I could not find an actual transcript either, nor do I know what language it was said in so there can also be translation issues, but as reported, it's a terrible perspective IMO. It's placing part of the blame for the murders on the victims, akin to blaming a rape victim because she had a short skirt on.
 
PokerGuy said:
I could not find an actual transcript either, nor do I know what language it was said in so there can also be translation issues, but as reported, it's a terrible perspective IMO. It's placing part of the blame for the murders on the victims, akin to blaming a rape victim because she had a short skirt on.
Click to expand...

I found more quotes and edited my post. Its pretty bad.
 
"Cannot"

....

Counterexample: Tim Minchin


Maybe he meant "shouldn't". Even then he's wrong. Mockery can be a powerful tool of persuasion.

Problem is when a person is unable to defend their ideas in the realm of debate they can resort to defending their ideology physically. Which is one reason why the internet is so powerful; it removes the possibility of physical coercion (assuming anonymity, and is why protecting online anonymity is important).
 
Subyman said:
I found more quotes and edited my post. Its pretty bad.
Click to expand...

Yep. It falls right in line with the stupidity and politically correct thinking in England and elsewhere that criminalizes things that could offend someone. Freedoms are being sacrificed to placate those who feel they have a right to not be offended, and this pope is apparently on board with that 🙁 Too bad, I kind of liked him in other respects.
 
Subyman said:
I found more quotes and edited my post. Its pretty bad.
Click to expand...

There are limits to free expression, or at least understandable consequences. One can reasonably expect a slap if they make unflattering remarks about a woman's appearance.

But that utterly stops short of justifying a death sentence on such a basis. No words on earth, outside of a truly dire and direct threat, can merit a deadly response.
 
Last edited:
a religious man sympathetic with religious zealots...

I'm not that surprised. If it wasn't for religion the pope would just be another man....and not the pope.
 
Atreus21 said:
There are limits to free expression, or at least understandable consequences. One can reasonably expect a slap if they make unflattering remarks about a woman's appearance.

But that utterly stops short of justifying a death sentence on such a basis.
Click to expand...

natural consequences.

a natural consequence to drawing cartoons in a newspaper is NOT to be murdered for it.
 
I think he clearly meant "shouldn't," but it's still wrong. I mean, yes, you shouldn't intentionally be an asshole to other people, but being an asshole is not sufficient to warrant a death sentence from someone you've offended.

Finally, something I can disagree with the new Pope on.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
I think he clearly meant "shouldn't," but it's still wrong. I mean, yes, you shouldn't intentionally be an asshole to other people, but being an asshole is not sufficient to warrant a death sentence from someone you've offended.

Finally, something I can disagree with the new Pope on.
Click to expand...

That's what I was considering in my first post. That there is a difference between what the law reads and how people should treat each other. He kind of negates that when he talks of punching people over a mom joke or curse or whatever. He had another quote about free of expression ends at offending someone. That sounds truly terrible.
 
Subyman said:
That's what I was considering in my first post. That there is a difference between what the law reads and how people should treat each other. He kind of negates that when he talks of punching people over a mom joke or curse or whatever. He had another quote about free of expression ends at offending someone. That sounds truly terrible.
Click to expand...

He has a point; if you say something designed specifically to offend, you'd be a fool not to expect a reaction. You might have the right to say it and no one has the right to punch you in the face (or shoot up your whole office) for what you say, but I'm willing to guess that not one person here would be willing to run up in the face of Jon Jones and call him the N-word. Granted, that's because we're all the picture of racial tolerance, but we also understand that we might get knocked the fuck out for such a thing, even if we have the right to do it. If you intentionally push somebody past the point of rage, they're liable to violate the social contract, regardless of your rights. Part of living together as a society is learning how to avoid doing that.

The Pope is still wrong for insisting that we don't have the right to do it, but his reasoning behind why we shouldn't is solid.
 
Oh no..a bunch of geeks and nerds getting themselves worked up into a tizzy again. What can a guy expect though from a group sitting around eating bon bons all day and typing.
 
senseamp said:
So we can't call Catholic priests boy-lovers?
Click to expand...
Sure. But suppose you illustrate this by creating a cartoon of Jesus zipping up his fly, while two feet in front of him a young boy - bent over a table and pants down around his knees - is sobbing; and the caption reads "Tomorrow, the Second Coming."

Now, I think in America it would be pefectly legal to publish such a cartoon. But here's the free speech equivalent of the ticking time bomb scenario posed by torture advocates: Suppose you really wanted to publish that cartoon, but you knew for sure that the public outrage that would ensue would inevitably lead the widespread riots and property damage, and many innocent people would die in the violence: Would you still publish the cartoon? SHOULD you still publish the cartoon?
 
Last edited:
OrByte said:
a religious man sympathetic with religious zealots...

I'm not that surprised. If it wasn't for religion the pope would just be another man....and not the pope.
Click to expand...

The politically correct left is saying the same thing.

"Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have been mocking the marginalized and unprivileged."

"Punch up, not down."

It seems the left wing are sympathetic with religious zealots as well...
 
shira said:
Sure. But suppose you illustrate this by creating a cartoon of Jesus zipping up his fly, while two feet in front of him a young boy - bent over a table and pants down around his knees - is sobbing; and the caption reads "Tomorrow, the Second Coming."

Now, I think in America it would be pefectly legal to publish such a cartoon. But here's the free speech equivalent of the ticking time bomb scenario posed by torture advocates: Suppose you really wanted to publish that cartoon, but you knew for sure that the public outrage that would ensue would inevitably lead the widespread riots and property damage, and many innocent people would die in the violence: Would you still publish the cartoon? SHOULD you still publish the cartoon?
Click to expand...

Whether you should or not is a moral question. Whether you may or not is the real question, the legal question.

Being offended doesn't absolve you from responsibility for your actions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top