Pope Francis ain't messing around

[TakeYouToTasker]

really, i don't see the connection. he says one shouldn't insult anothers religion. he uses the analogy of criticizing his mother and getting punched for it. he doesn't condone killing those that insult. seems a perfectly reasonable and measured comment. doesn't change my opinion of him in the least.

He states that there are limits to free speech in regard to religion.

[birdog1960]

He states that there are limits to free speech in regard to religion.

there are accepted limits to free speech in many regards. one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, for instance.

[B-Man]

Prof. Althouse's blunt opinion...http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/01/who-said-if-my-good-friend-dr-gasparri.html

 

FTA:

 

Dr. Gasparri was just the man standing next to him. This isn't specifically about Gasparri. It's the Pope saying free-speakers, insulting religion, are asking for it.

The Pope came very close to saying that the threat of violence is a good enforcer of the limits that he wants to see enforced.

 

That's Regina Maria Sivori — front and center...

 

 

 

... in case you've got something smart to say and want to make Francis stop this Popemobile and come back there.

 

 

[birdog1960]

Prof. Althouse's blunt opinion...http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/01/who-said-if-my-good-friend-dr-gasparri.html

 

FTA:

 

some nice readers on that site: " scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist"

 

this apparently looks like red meat to the anti francis gangs. except it isn't. he said that violence in the name of God was unacceptable. he said nothing like your bolded statements.

[B-Man]

some nice readers on that site: " scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist"

 

this apparently looks like red meat to the anti francis gangs. except it isn't. he said that violence in the name of God was unacceptable. he said nothing like your bolded statements.

 

 

How hilarious you are.

 

Objecting to Prof. Althouse's interpretation as nothing like he said.......................and by the by, she is quite liberal.

 

and following it up with your own over the top rhetoric.

 

"red meat"

 

"anti-Francis gangs"

 

 

Too funny

 

 

 

..........and he said more than you should not insult other religions.

 

 

"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. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

 

 

Very straightforward.

 

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

there are accepted limits to free speech in many regards. one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, for instance.

The reason for that isn't because someone's delicate sensibilities are offended by yelling "fire". The reason is because the act of yelling "fire" in a dark theater can lead to the reasonable behavior of leaving the theater which, under those circumstances can cause stampeeds, and great harm. It's also important to note, that you absolutely do have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, if there is, in fact, a fire in the theater. Further, a theater is someone else's property and you do not have the right to conduct yourself in any manner you see fit on someone else's property.

 

Expressing an opinion in the public sphere is in no way similar to yelling fire in a theater. Me saying things like, "!@#$ you, and your un-Christlike Red Pope," is perfectly acceptable.

"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. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

My how far we have come from "turn the other cheek".

 

The Red Pope condones violence.

[birdog1960]

The reason for that isn't because someone's delicate sensibilities are offended by yelling "fire". The reason is because the act of yelling "fire" in a dark theater can lead to the reasonable behavior of leaving the theater which, under those circumstances can cause stampeeds, and great harm. It's also important to note, that you absolutely do have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, if there is, in fact, a fire in the theater. Further, a theater is someone else's property and you do not have the right to conduct yourself in any manner you see fit on someone else's property.

 

Expressing an opinion in the public sphere is in no way similar to yelling fire in a theater. Me saying things like, "!@#$ you, and your un-Christlike Red Pope," is perfectly acceptable.

My how far we have come from "turn the other cheek".

 

The Red Pope condones violence.

i wondered if someone would make this silly argument. yes, of course, it would be more consequential if you yelled "fire" when a fire wasn't present. i thought that wouild be understtod. silly me! but in much the same way, there were predictable consequences to baiting a rabid group of fundamentalists lunatics. the violence that resulted is in no way acceptable or able to be condoned but ait shouldn't have been a huge surprise that it occurred.

 

and i recall you once insulting my mother on these very pages so i don't put much stock in what you consider acceptable.

[TakeYouToTasker]

i wondered if someone would make this silly argument. yes, of course, it would be more consequential if you yelled "fire" when a fire wasn't present. i thought that wouild be understtod. silly me! but in much the same way, there were predictable consequences to baiting a rabid group of fundamentalists lunatics. the violence that resulted is in no way acceptable or able to be condoned but ait shouldn't have been a huge surprise that it occurred.

 

and i recall you once insulting my mother on these very pages so i don't put much stock in what you consider acceptable.

 

...

 

You're the one who just made the silly argument.

 

Further, it's necessary because you just drew an equivelance between yelling "fire" in a theater and drawing pictures of Mohammed. In doing so, both you and your Red Pope have justified violence in response to having your belief system offended.

 

It's perfectly acceptable for you to insult my mother, or for me to insult yours (though I do not ever remember doing so); and in no way justifies me using violence, or threats of violence against you, in order to control you; and the Pope, if he had an ounce of actual Christian faith in him, would certainly not be suggesting that he might punch you in the face for talking about his mother.

 

Any notion to the contrary is offensive to my belief system. Perhaps your Red Pope will justify violence against himself for his offenses?

Edited January 15, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

Just because we’re free to blaspheme doesn’t mean the pope is going to endorse it. Of course he is going to counsel a more tender way.

 

I think this misses the mark on a couple of fronts. First, I don’t think you can read Pope Francis as suggesting we are “free” to blaspheme. He does give lip service to a universal right of free speech — which we all know doesn’t really exist in much of the world. But he also (and quite immediately) speaks of “limits” to that freedom — so the content of the freedom is circumscribed by the papal edict that we not give “offense.” That, of course, guts any universal right to freedom, since it is virtually impossible to speak on any subject of controversy these days without some fragile constituency claiming offense. Especially if governments are in the business of patrolling offense, as many European governments seem to think is their business (and many American universities, at least, seem to agree) — then there is no universal right to free speech. We are not, in the Pope’s way of thinking, free to blaspheme.

 

And that may be fine with a lot of people, at least when it comes to Islam. But I’m more of the view that being a big fan of the Catholic faith and Monty Python’s Life of Brian are not mutually exclusive.

 

That part of Christianity that the Pope leads wears big-boy pants and can take a verbal punch. It is not going to go away simply because Charlie Hebdo depicts crude and even unspeakable things involving Jesus or other things holy to us. That’s not to say I’m not often appalled at anti-Christian speech. Serrano’s “The Piss Christ” remains an offensive piece to me. But we should be engaging (peacefully, charitably, and with a bigger megaphone) blasphemy and other offensive speech, rather than trying to censor it or lead violent attacks against the speaker.

 

So the statement that the Pope is naturally “going to counsel a more tender way” is not at all what he has done here. He illustrates his point by suggesting that if you insult his mother, he’ll sock you in the nose. That completely undermines his disclaimer that violence is never justified as a response to offensive speech. In suggesting that the sock in the nose is a “normal” response to “yo mama” insults, the Pope can be read to suggest that the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, while perhaps to be condemned, are at least understandable. There is nothing tender about that.

 

 

.

[birdog1960]

a bit more context to francis' words: http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html

 

Others, though, have noted that in virtually all societies, freedom of speech has its limits, from laws against Holocaust denial to racially motivated hate speech.

Recently the Vatican and four prominent French imams issued a joint declaration that, while denouncing the Paris attacks, urged the media to treat religions with respect.

Francis, who has called on Muslim leaders in particular to speak out against Islamic extremism, went a step further Thursday when asked by a French journalist about whether there were limits when freedom of expression meets freedom of religion.

"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. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasbarri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

Edited January 16, 2015 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

You know what, it shouldn't have surprised me, or anyone else, that upon examination you'd come down on the side of suppressing freedom of any sort in favor of your ideology.

 

Nor should have it surprised me that you come down on the side of a Pope advocating throwing a punch rather than turning the other cheek.

 

I apologize for giving you far too much credit.

Edited January 16, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[/dev/null]

Nor should have it surprised me that you come down on the side of a Pope advocating throwing a punch rather than turning the other cheek.

 

 

That depends on your interpretation of turn the other cheek. And like most things Biblical there are conflicting interpretations based on conflicting passages within the Bible.

 

Luke 6:29

If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also

 

This is the passage most people cite. However...

 

Matthew 5:38

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

Is the one that I prefer. Because if you think about it, most people are right handed. How can a right handed person strike another person on the right cheek? Not by punching them, but by slapping with the back of the hand. Slapping somebody with the back of ones hand or the gesture of offering the back of ones hand, are dismissive gestures. In Roman times this was a sign of dominance that one would use on a child, a woman, a slave, or their social inferior.

 

So after being struck on your right cheek with the back of somebody's right hand, offering the left cheek is a way to taunt the aggressor into facing you as an equal

[B-Man]

The Pope Is Right

by Patrick Brennan

 

I agree with a good bit of Charlie’s post earlier today on Pope Francis’s comments about the Paris attacks. “The language he used was imprecise, poorly judged, and terribly, terribly timed” — I can’t really disagree. The pope is human. But that doesn’t mean the intent or content of his words was wrong.

 

The framing of Francis’s comments — killing in the name of religion is wrong, but — struck many as offensive, as it did when Bill Donohue of the Catholic League made more inflammatory comments last week.

 

But the legitimate criticism of the pope’s comments sheds light on his point: The moral right to speak, and say certain things, is much more circumscribed for most people, Catholics included, than the respective legal rights.

 

{snip}

 

But a number of his sentiments are unclear and just can’t be taken literally (as translated). He said, for instance, “everyone has the right to practice one’s religion, one’s own religion without giving offense,” where surely “offense” has to mean something more like actual harm.

 

Most important, the pope’s comments that one “cannot” make fun of religions clearly doesn’t mean “should not be legally allowed to do so” or “cannot if one wants to stay safe” — they mean simply “should not.”

 

So what about the particular case — does the pope’s warning mean Charlie Hebdo’s editors shouldn’t have published those offensive cartoons? That isn’t really the question here: Francis’s point is merely that one has to answer to God for one’s words. Vatican II’s statement of the Church’s view of religious liberty said the following:

 

In exercising their rights individuals and social groups are bound by the moral law to have regard for the rights of others, their own duties to others and the common good of all

.

 

There’s certainly a coherent defense of how Charlie Hebdo’s actions in this context (though not their work generally) meet this standard. But most provocations and blasphemies do not meet it, so Francis related the general principle that such comments are wrong and people deserve respect. Inadvertently, surely, he dealt a bit of disrespect himself, and related this point when people probably least needed to hear it.

 

.

[Alaska Darin]

There are consequences to actions. That's reality. Is it right that people are getting killed by radicals because of cartoons, etc? Nope. Does that mean it's smart to keep poking that particular bear? Nope.

 

One of the things I learned when I was in the military was not to invite the wolf to your door if you're not willing to fight being eaten.

 

Everyone is getting into a tizzy because the Pope said (paraphrased): "Maybe people should use their brains before opening their mouths."

 

Really?

[B-Man]

Everyone is getting into a tizzy because the Pope said (paraphrased): "Maybe people should use their brains before opening their mouths."

 

Really?

 

 

Very succinctly put.

 

The problem (really) is..............................do people get to decide to "use their brains"..........or does the State tell them what they can say or not ?

 

That is the argument.

 

 

.

[meazza]

 

 

Very succinctly put.

 

The problem (really) is..............................do people get to decide to "use their brains"..........or does the State tell them what they can say or not ?

 

That is the argument.

 

 

.

 

But I tell you, don't resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

[Gene Frenkle]

But I tell you, don't resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Kinky!

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

Very succinctly put.

 

The problem (really) is..............................do people get to decide to "use their brains"..........or does the State tell them what they can say or not ?

 

That is the argument.

Is the Pope advocating legal change?

[Azalin]

.

 

So after being struck on your right cheek with the back of somebody's right hand, offering the left cheek is a way to taunt the aggressor into facing you as an equal

That's exactly how I interpret it.

[LeviF]

Sede vacante, there is no Pope.