Pope: When religion insulted, freedom of expression not boundless

[trotsky]

http://rt.com/news/222935-pope-religion-freedom-insulted/

There are limits to freedom of expression when religion is insulted, Pope Francis has said in reference to the cartoons in the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. However, he also pointed out that killing in God’s name is an "absurdity."

...

Answering questions on the Paris attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, he said that freedom of expression was a “fundamental human right” like freedom of religion, but it should be exercised “without giving offense,” the Catholic News Service reports.

“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,” Francis said, adding that every religion “has its dignity.”

Plus Frank the Wonder Pope had a nice bigoted swipe at atheists to throw in:

He said (the Charlie Hebdo attacks) were the result of a “throwaway culture” where people and God are rejected outright.

Ah, just feel the religious tolerance of the gosh-darndest best pope ever wash over you...

[edhopper]

1. He uses the phrase

but doesn't understand what it means.
Free expression without the right to offend is useless.

I bet though, when it is religious expression that offends, he's all for protecting it.

[trotsky]

2. He's said a lot that has offended people.

Calling marriage equality "from Satan" or saying that children need to be raised by a mother and a father, for instance.

[edhopper]

3. Like I said

only religious expression is free to offend.
Expression against religion should not.
Cause God or something.

[Ilsa]

6. You nailed it. nt

[trotsky]

7. Well obviously it's OK because he's right, and everyone else is wrong.

He's not offending, he's simply telling us all god's truth.

[edhopper]

8. Sure

cause he's infallible.

[NeoGreen]

68. Yeah but which one...

...Thor, Odin or Eru?

Hmmm... ponder...ponder...ponder...


enie...meanie (no wait, that one is taken)...miney...moe... Hey Moe!

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Faith has a thin skin.

I wonder why that is.

[Ilsa]

5. What I've been saying...

People of faith need to pray for thicker skins.

[LiberalAndProud]

9. Yes. I think the Pope should request prayers for stronger faith,

rather than requiring special privilege.

[trotsky]

14. What's a little disturbing too is his comparison...

to a friend insulting his mother. To which he says "a punch" would be an appropriate punishment.

Quite the pacifist! And tacitly suggesting that if someone DOES offend religious belief, a punishment may be appropriate.

But hey, Dawkins is probably about to tweet something so let's discuss how that means atheism has a ______ problem.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. I find his choice of words disturbing.

"one cannot"

And I find it confusing that he has chosen to blame disbelief for outrageous acts of believers. It's the papal way of blaming the victims, I take it.

Happily, I don't feel the need to punch him in the face over it. I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to argue the point, though.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Very true!

From reading this thread it sounds like they aren't the only ones.

[LiberalAndProud]

12. True. But I don't have a Pope claiming special privilege.

So there's that.

[Starboard Tack]

20. What special privilege is he claiming?

He stated that free speech is a fundamental right, but should be exercised without giving insult. Sounds like good advice to me. Those who go around tossing insults usually incur negative reactions. I think he is just offering good advice, not claiming any special privilege. A little common decency can go a long way.

[Goblinmonger]

22. So free speech doesn't apply to satire?

And the privilege he is claiming is that religion gets special treatment.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Except he is not claiming privilege.

What part of "free speech is a fundamental right" do you not understand? Do you think insulting people for their faith is appropriate behavior? Just because something is a right does not make it OK. Teaching others to be more tolerant is not attacking individual rights, but rather good advice.

[Goblinmonger]

30. I think you are building straw men.

Who is "insulting people for their faith"? And that's not what the Pope is talking about. He said:

“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,” Francis said, adding that every religion “has its dignity.”

Right in that quotation is his claim of privilege. Why can't you insult a faith? Why can't you make fun of it. And he's not giving general advice. He's saying that shouldn't happen to religion because of "dignity." And what he said is that free speech is a fundamental right but not when it comes to religion. Religion trumps speech according to what he is saying.

So we are back at the original point given what you are saying. Is satire as a whole not a good thing?

[Starboard Tack]

43. I would love to ask him exactly what he meant by that.

But we are left with our own interpretations. To me, he was saying religion and faith should be respected on a personal belief level. He was saying that insults are not the appropriate way to discuss our differences.
I do not share the Pope's faith and disagree with him on several issues, but I respect him as a human being and as a leader of a church that was in desperate need of such a man. We coud all learn from such a person, regardless of his religious beliefs.

[Skittles]

52. so if religious belief includes treating women like trash

I am supposed to respect that? I cannot insult that? F*** THAT.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Why would you respect such a thing?

Do you think that I am suggesting you respect such a belief? If so, let me be clear that I am not.
Religion and religious belief are not the problem. Intolerance is the problem.
And tolerance does not mean acquiescence. One can challenge and fight for change without nastiness and mockery, which only serve to inflame.

[Skittles]

57. I DO NOT TOLERATE MISOGYNY AND HOMOPHOBIA FOR ANY REASON

INCLUDING RELIGION

[Starboard Tack]

59. Neither do I, and no need to yell.

I seriously doubt that Pope Francis does either.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Well that's just silly

If the pope doesn't support homophobia and misogyny, he ain't making that very clear.

[Starboard Tack]

64. To many his message is quite clear

Maybe you haven't been following what he says too closely.

[Goblinmonger]

65. OK, oh great one, enlighten me.

How is this statement about gay marriage:

"We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Not homophobic bullshit? (link to source)

[Skittles]

88. they cherry-pick like crazy

they have to

[Starboard Tack]

33. Of course free speech applies to satire

As he said, it is a fundamental right. Insulting behavior often comes with consequences too. Do you disagree?

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Apparently physical assault is an acceptable 'consequence'.

Disgusting.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Who said it was "acceptable"?

[AtheistCrusader]

44. "But it’s normal, it’s normal.” - Captain WonderPope

Not sure if he said that in English, or another language and that's a translation, but acceptable is a synonym to normal/accustomed.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Normal does not mean acceptable. Sorry.

He said "normal" and you said "acceptable"

[AtheistCrusader]

46. It's not "normal" either.

If you're the kind of person for which physical assault is a NORMAL response to words, I want you as far away from me as possible.

[Starboard Tack]

47. I normally don't accept them as synonyms

"Captain Wonder Pope"? How silly is that?

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Not going to address the original actual quote then?

[cleanhippie]

63. “If my good friend says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said

[Starboard Tack]

66. And if someone insults your mother, how would you react?

Pope Francis comes from a Latin culture, where insulting one's mother is very likely to get a punch. Do you think going around insulting people is OK? If so, I would suggest staying behind the barricades.

[cleanhippie]

70. So violence is a justifiable response to words. Got it.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Obviously it is for some

Why do you carry a gun if you don't think violence is justifiable?

[cleanhippie]

83. You seem to be more incoherent than usual.

IOW, wtf are talking about?

[Goblinmonger]

71. I'd fucking kill them.

And a bunch of people around them, too. And they'd fucking deserve it.

Oh, wait, no I wouldn't.

[okasha]

84. Latin American culture

considers negative remarks about one's mother to be "fighting words," exempt from any free speech doctrine. SCOTUS has narrowly limited the "fighting words" exemption under the US Constitution, but Latin American jurists operate under an entirely different legal system and in a different cultural environment. So yes, use any of a number of expressions about someone's mother at your own risk.

[Starboard Tack]

96. Yep! Same applies in Italy

Insult a Neapolitan's mother or a Sicilian's and see what happens. Freedom of speech does not mean all speech is free of consequences.

[LiberalAndProud]

25. I would agree with you if I could change his words a little.

“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,”

There. I fixed it. And I still don't agree with the premise.

[Starboard Tack]

31. I think one needs to take his words in context.

The fact that he said "freedom of speech is a fundamental right makes it clear that he is not advocating a ban on free speech, but rather self control and basic respect for those who believe differently. Mockery rarely leads to mutual understanding. It serves to divide. It also provides entertainment to those who share bigotry toward certain groups. Satire is always best when directed towards oneself, or one's own "group". Jewish humor excels in this regard, and the Brits do pretty well too.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. Yes, the ever present "but".

I reserve the right to mock and ridicule and criticize bad ideas. Faith should not be exempt any more than deeply held political views should be exempt. The idea, to me, is preposterous. We must hold sacred ideologies up to examination, regardless of the source of the ideologies. It's not for the Pope or you to draw respectful boundaries around faith. It simply is not.

[Starboard Tack]

36. And you have that right. Nobody here is saying you shouldn't.

Nobody is claiming exemption. How we use our rights is what merits some introspection. If one uses rights to stir up shit then expect said shit to be stirred up and be prepared. IMO this is not usually the best way to bring about positive change.
I do not draw "respectful boundaries" around faith, btw, but I see no gain from insulting those I differ with on spiritual matters. Trading insults is not the way to go.

[LiberalAndProud]

39. Getting punched in the face is the logical outcome.

I am curious how far you think our self censorship should extend. It might make somebody mad if you disagree with them. Don't do it.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Reality testing and common sense are handy tools

We should know when we've stepped over a line and if we don't, then we are usually made aware by others.
Can you think of any problem that was resolved by insulting individuals for their personal religious beliefs? I think we do better when we try to influence others by setting an example, rather than attacking and insulting.
There is no excuse for violence, except in self defense, but that does not excuse bad behavior.

[LiberalAndProud]

42. You missed the point of my illustration, I take it.

Some ideas need to be ridiculed. One particularly heartfelt example, in my case, is the very idea that women are little more than chattel because Eve offered the apple to Adam. Not to be ridiculed because some people have unshakable religious beliefs that this is so.

I would welcome your live-and-let-live philosophy if it were not for the fact that those religious ideas permeate every sector of every society. You can't just ignore it and set a good example, because women are murdered all over the world with impunity as a direct result of it. I will not afford such harmful ideas to slide with impunity because they are religious ideas. While I understand your desire to be tolerant of all things, there are some things that should not be tolerated. I would offer other examples, but I think I have made my point.

[okasha]

49. Patriarchy is independent

of religion in general and Genesis in particular. It goes up the evolutionary line at least to baboons. Some few cultures have fought free of it. Most have not.

[LiberalAndProud]

50. Should we not change it then because we are closely related to baboons?

While what you say is true, I'm not sure I understand how the social structure of baboons justifies religious codification of some of mankind's worst behaviors. We can sometimes emulate bonobos, but I think it is to our advantage to be more circumspect as a species.

[okasha]

51. Of course we should change it,

and some cultures already have. I was simply pointing out that religion is not responsible for it.

[LiberalAndProud]

54. No. It codifies it as God's Word. It makes it harder, and even sinful, to call for change.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. "cannot" - that word does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Perhaps you thought your pope said "should not". Even that would be horrendous tone deaf bullshit stinking of religious privilege, but at least it would not imply that prohibitions should be enforced.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. Thanks for another valuable contribution to the public discourse!

[Starboard Tack]

35. Thanks!

[Goblinmonger]

23. I don't understand.

So when someone says that there are limits to free speech when it comes to religion--which the Pope seems to be saying here--those that say that isn't cool are guilty of having a thin skin? Is that true for everyone that says a desire to limit rights is a bad thing?

[Starboard Tack]

38. "Seems to be saying." You got it.

Of course he did not say there were limits to free speech, but probably consequences from insulting people. Pretty basic stuff really.

[NeoGreen]

67. Do you think/believe that murder...

...is a consequence of an insult (in this particular case of an insult in response to "cartoons') that should be understood as normal and/or acceptable?

Do you believe that there any form of (non-physically injurious) "insult" where murder should be understood as a normal and/or acceptable response?

Do you believe the pope thinks/believes that murder should be understood as normal and/or acceptable in response to such an "insult"
(i.e. in the particular case of a perceived insult in response to "cartoons')?

[Starboard Tack]

82. Nope.

Did someone say murder was OK or normal? I thought not. However, the Pope did say it would be pretty normal to get punched for insulting someone's mother, which is true.

The degree of an insult is often in direct proportion to the reaction. Think about it. You grow up in a culture where everyone prays at least three times a day. Religion is a huge part of your life. You are taught that certain things are sacrosanct. Then some infidel comes along and pisses all over everything you care about and he does it for fucking laughs. How do you respond? By murdering people? No! But there are a few billion people who grew up with the same teachings as you and they are not all as tolerant as you. Look around you. There are lots of intolerants in every society.

Live in peace with your neighbors and don't piss on their parades or their prayer rugs.

[NeoGreen]

92. I guess I hold to the idea...

...that Freedom of Speech trumps the expectation of only in-offensive (from one's own perspective/opinion) speech in the commons.

The satire was not pasted on the walls of their mosque or any temple or church.

Violence against open dialog and free speech, no matter how satirical, is never acceptable.

Any acquiescence to the expectation of such violence, in response to an expression of free speech, is pathetic and weak and ultimately validates the use of violence.

[Starboard Tack]

95. I agree 100%

There was and is no valid justification for violence against speech. Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way. There are a lot of people in this world and the best way to avoid violence is to show respect for each other, especially for those who are different from us in some way. We can debate and disagree without insults and violence. Insulting others for their differences is cheap and nasty. Killing people over insults is atrocious.
Associating what Pope Francis said with supporting violence is just plain silly.

[edhopper]

32. Sure

How dare we speak up for a fundamental right.

We are such sensitive weenies.

[goldent]

98. Yeah, I don't get it why religious people are offended when mocked.

I mean, no-one else gets offended when mocked, right?

[LiberalAndProud]

100. You're right. For example, I find this offensive:

Pakistani police say a 52-year-old Muslim man arrested for blasphemy was killed by gunmen after being released from jail.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/police-blasphemy-accused-killed-release-pakistan-28077354

And this:

A policeman in Pakistan hacked a man to death for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, police said, just two days after a Christian couple was lynched over blasphemy in the same province.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/us-pakistan-blasphemy-idUSKBN0IQ15220141106

I mock. Pardon me.

[MellowDem]

10. Ah, the bigoted misogynist opens his mouth...

In defense of religious privilege. What a surprise.

[trotsky]

13. Shocking, isn't it? n/t

[Skittles]

58. really tired of being told I have to respect and tolerate crap

SICK of it

[edhopper]

16. I am interested in hearing

from the fans of the Pope on this?

[Goblinmonger]

17. Hasn't someone here on DU said pretty much the same thing?

Seemed like a lot of people kind of agreed with him on that. Perhaps I'm not remembering correctly.

[edhopper]

18. Yes

quite a few on DU have said it.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Well that was before it turned out alien shape-shifters carried out a false flag operation

[edhopper]

19. Pope Frank said

The Pope said that one can react violently when being offended. He offered an example, referring to his trip planner saying that if his “great friend says a swear word against my mother, then he is going to get a punch. But it’s normal, it’s normal.”

Now I am trying to recall some quote I heard that might be appropriate.
Something about turning the other cheek. Has the Pope heard this one?

[trotsky]

24. Oooohhhh

[wavesofeuphoria]

26. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

a “throwaway culture” where women are rejected outright.

[okasha]

69. Go tell that to the Presiding Bishops

of the Episcopal Church and the ELCA. They're both women.

[wavesofeuphoria]

72. That was from the bible. I suppose they know scripture. Not

my concern if they want to accept the contradictions and misogyny. Do you have a point?

[okasha]

73. I do.

The only people who take the Bible word-for -word literally are Christian fundamentalists and atheists who are emotionally invested in regarding all Christians as fundamentalists. Non fundamentalist Christians and reality-based.atheists left both factions behind a long time ago.

[wavesofeuphoria]

75. Oh yeah right ... the atheists are the problem with bible interpretations.

I don't put stock in a thing the bible says -- its not a moral guide by a long shot, nor is it an ideology I find worth following. I'm not a christian so the bible means nothing to me -- I didn't choose a religion which is fundamental to the bible and what is written in it. I do get pretty damned annoyed at how that bible and the writing in it is used and has been used to gain power and control over people, particularly women. And I will continue to speak out against religious oppression - including the religious trying to oppress free speech.

Yippee for those bishop's christian sects for allowing them to be bishops. Doesn't erase all that misogyny.

I forgot my handy decoder about which parts of the bible are literal, which are allegorical, which are metaphorical, which are ignored now, oh .. and which are deeply held beliefs. Oh, and which contradictions to overlook. And the different versions and translations. It would be so helpful if someone would publish a new bible with all the corrections and which parts don't apply and all that.

[trotsky]

77. Yeah that's her "thing."

There's stuff in the holy books and teachings that is just outrageous on its face. I think most of us here, believers and non-believers, accept that. Yet some people do take those parts quite literally, as we saw with the attacks in Paris. Or as we see with the Christian Right in this country and their battles against evolution, marriage equality, etc.

The response of some to the presence of these teachings is 'well you need to understand that part shouldn't be taken literally."

If you suspect this to just be a lame dodge and ask why part A is allegorical but B is alright to take literally, well congrats, you're one of the "bad" atheists who is also a LITERALIST because you dare question the official explanation of "Because I said so."

It's a fun little game.

[skepticscott]

101. Yes, it's become one of this clan's phony talking points

to claim that certain atheists are "taking the Bible literally", as a way of painting them as "fundamentalists" too, when any intelligent person knows that's not what's happening. Obviously (to any intellectually honest and sensible person)we don't take every word of the Bible as literally true or we wouldn't be atheists. We simply point out the vile behavior and attitudes of those who do take the Bible literally, and the hypocrisy of those who justify aspects of their religion as being Biblically based, while rejecting many other parts of the Bible without any evidence that they are any less the word of God than what they cling to.

I suspect that deep down some of them actually know this, but it's too convenient a smear for them to give up on, especially when they have nothing else.

[trotsky]

102. "especially when they have nothing else"

Precisely.

[okasha]

85. Reading comprehension.

The atheists," like "the Christians" includes everyone who is an atheist or a Christian unless otherwise modified. Apparently you didn't notice that I did modify both classes, which is why you're whacking away valiantly at a straw man.

For someone to whom "the bible means nothing," you're getting awfully worked up about it. There are plenty of annotated versions out there for anyone with an actual interest.

[wavesofeuphoria]

86. More reading comprehension.

You: For someone to whom "the bible means nothing," you're getting awfully worked up about it. There are plenty of annotated versions out there for anyone with an actual interest.

I said -- I do get pretty damned annoyed at how that bible and the writing in it is used and has been used to gain power and control over people, particularly women. And I will continue to speak out against religious oppression - including the religious trying to oppress free speech.

Of course I'm worked up. It means nothing to me but its swill is peddled to have power and control over people. Damn right that will work a person of conscience up.

And yes, plenty of versions, plenty, all equally correct and representative of christianity. Right.

You: The atheists," like "the Christians" includes everyone who is an atheist or a Christian unless otherwise modified. Apparently you didn't notice that I did modify both classes, which is why you're whacking away valiantly at a straw man.

Popped a cork over modifiers!! Well, I looked at those modifiers metaphorically. Was I suppose to take them literally???

[okasha]

87. Modifiers are necessary to precise thinking.

Your response is emotional and composed largely of straw men and broad-brushing.

You have a nice day, now.

[Skittles]

89. IOW

you truly lost that battle!

[okasha]

90. ,Nope.

The person I was responding to surrendered in his second post.

[Skittles]

91. uh huh

bye bye now!!!

[okasha]

93. Ta.

[trotsky]

74. So you agree that the Vatican represents a "throwaway culture" that devalues women?

Well that's good.

[longship]

53. Fuck the pope.

How is that for an insult?

Those whose principles cannot take insult or satire do not deserve respect. It is part of human nature to be skeptical. When folks make illogical claims, and/or beg special privileges for their beliefs, they deserve the highest ridicule, insult, satire, or outright blasphemy.

No belief has any special exemption. Not even mine. Nor yours. Nor anybody's.

And an insult does not warrant death. Nor does ridicule. Nor blasphemy. Nor does satire.

What matters is behavior, not belief.

[isobar]

76. You fuck the pope, i don't want to.

[Warpy]

55. Aw, poor baby

Somebody needs to explain free speech to him.

Free speech can have reasonable consequences like having a satirical magazine stall at a circulation of 30,000-45,000 and be on the brink of bankruptcy, but governments have no business declaring any of it illegal.

I suppose he's not happy with that.

He's also blind and deaf when it comes to the excesses of religion, any religion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. Religious leader says it is wrong to mock the religious.

I wonder if there are any conflicts of interest Papa Frank would like to disclose.

[trotsky]

62. Nobody likes it when someone interferes with their marketing campaign. n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

78. How about when religion insults the non-religious? Is that still unboundless freedom of expression?

The religious insult the non-religious quite frequently. IE: "we are saved because we are religious and you are damned to hell's tarnation because you are not my religion"

[trotsky]

79. And he did exactly that!

He said (the Charlie Hebdo attacks) were the result of a “throwaway culture” where people and God are rejected outright.

Those who reject god create a "throwaway culture." Thanks, popey! Back atcha!

[Dont call me Shirley]

80. Doh!

I skim-read too fast.

[skepticscott]

94. None of the pope's rabid apologists seem to grasp

that it's nothing but empty and meaningless lip service to say that people have a fundamental right to expression that insults or offends others when in the next breath you say that people should never exercise that right.

[rug]

99. Which of course no one, rabid or otherwise, is saying.

Exercising judgment is a rare skill. Especially among bigots.

[Prophet 451]

97. He's wrong on this one

Pope Francis has said some things I agree with (mainly to do with economic and social justice) but he's also said much I disagree with (for example, homophobia) and on this one, he's wrong. While there are limits on free speech, as the courts have always recognized, religious offence isn't one of them.