Discussion for article #232074
Pretty silly thing to say.
6 Likes
Re the papal punch : I guess that āturn the other cheekā bit is no longer operative?
1 Like
āYou cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.ā
āThere 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,ā he said. āThey 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.ā
Jesus Christ was a provocateur. And this pope is too aware to fail to see that connection. Nor could he miss that the measure of faith is its ability to withstand insult. I think what heās trying to say in a roundabout way is that if youāre going to insult the faith of the faithless, youād better be prepared for the consequences. Uncharacteristically cryptic for him.
1 Like
In the United States, the pope has the right to say something that stupid and wrong.
1 Like
Limits to free expression:
Galileo was 68 years old and sick. Threatened with torture, he publicly confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the Earth moves around the Sun.
From JPIIās apology to Big G:
āGalileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions.ā
Butā¦Not cartoonists!!!
āAnd BTW, no more Catholic crapola OK.ā
Just because the Catholic priests have been raping their, male\teenage or less\vulnerable\ parishioners for God knows how long, it isnāt any longer acceptable to condemn nor freely express your concerns or grievances because, need a free pass.
This Pope is a good dude that got handed a horrible situation that will always undermine the good works that he does until full attention is paid to his and his organizations own rotten gut. Time wonāt heal this wound nor will ignoring it. Sorry best Pope ever.
1 Like
(To the tune of āRock the Boatā by Hues Corporation)
Pope Francis declared ex fundamentus
That he and all his ilk should be non irrideamus.
So Iād like to know where he got the notion.
Said Iād like to know where he got the notion.
Fuck the Pope, donāt fuck the Pope baby!
Fuck the Pope, donāt tip the Pope over!
Fuck the Pope, donāt fuck the Pope baby!
Fuck the Po-ooo-ooo-oo-ope!
Je suis Charlie
If you gotta belt somebody because he makes fun of your religion, youāre not secure enough in your faith. I canāt imagine ever getting upset over someone insulting, disrespecting, or otherwise maligning my atheism. Itās not that I donāt get really pissed off sometimes, but Iād consider the attack ridiculous, period. I might call the guy an idiot, or say heās delusional, but the issue is perfectly settled in my mind. Disrespect away.
Of course, Pope Frankie just designed the cover of Charlie Hebdoās next issue for them. If I were them, Iād be on the lookout for halberd-wielding Swiss Guardsmen.
It appears that childish dumbasses canāt delineate between FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY.
How pathetic.
Exactly where does Jesus Christ use racist imagery to make his point?
You provide that exampleā¦
weāll wait.
1 Like
I find it strange that in all the coverage Iāve taken in, nobody has suggested that to insult a faith is, quite explicitly, to insult the faithful. Do you mock an idea, or the people foolish enough to have it? It is difficult for such Godless wretches as ourselves to take this leap of empathy: to acknowledge that our closely-held moral tenets are just as central to their individual being, and our cultural identity, as our music, our families, our names, etc. In the West we have no real concept of āblasphemyā but certainly we can fathom āprofanityā? I donāt expect to see images of child-brides shedding their gowns in Uganda and I hope I wonāt see photos of the bodies recovered from the bottom of the sea plastered over broadsheets. My distaste for stuff like that is profound and part of how I live and I hope my fellow citizens feel the same.
I imagine that thereās a parallel there, however stretchyāthat you and I have our own limits, and we certainly do have laws to outline some of those limits here in America. Of course we are the ones who are right. But thatās all the more reason for the Right People to judiciously distinguish between jest-in-good-faith and waving Mohammedās minimalist dick in the face of people who know full well how little we think of them. Itās the difference between going for the funny bone and aiming for the groin. Itās the difference between discourse and Disqus. You know what I mean.
3 Likes
We are all Charlie Hubris!
1 Like
With all due respect, His Holiness should clarify his remarks to define if he is speaking as a religious leader or a head of state. As a religious leader it is quite all right to lecture strangers on ābad mannersā but doing so as a āhead of stateā implies that he is advocating that the power of the state be used to enforce limits on speech that the state finds offensive. If I suggest that the gods of Olympus were quaint mythic beings created by the contemplative class in ancient greece in an effort to provide some structure to ancient society and to unify them in their struggle against outside influences I might be accused of being an arm chair anthropologist. If I were to make a similar claim about the origins of cristianity or islam in a theocratic state there would be hell to pay.
Freedom of speech is only important when you are protecting the speech that you disagree with.
2 Likes
He is probably trying to find the right degree of reasonableness to apply to the situation.
All human laws/mores break down if they are taken to an unreasonable extreme. The questions is how far is too far.
As far as speech goes I think the āmeritocracy of ideasā is important enough that all ideas should be on the table able to be spoken freely. But there is a reaction to every action and every word spoken. Itās not a question of right and wrong. It is a question of reality / not reality. More people have been beaten and killed because of what they said than have been beaten / killed because of what they did. As a good friend of mine likes to say āyou CAN talk yourself into an ass-whoopingā.
It is not reasonable to think a person that can be disrespectful of any and every one and that no one will escalate that disrespect to violence. Likewise, it is not reasonable to ignore the fact that disrespecting people with impunity has a real effect on social dynamics and thus the real lives of people. Further still, itās not reasonable to expect people to walk on eggshells trying to avoid insulting you all the time.
There has to be some agreed upon medium. I suppose that agreeing upon this medium is the definition of being able to live together.
1 Like
āThey 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.ā
So, Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, and in some way it was understandable or even justifiable? It that the take away I should get from the Popeās comments? Perhaps not killed, but beaten? Or am I misreading the soundbite quote?
1 Like
It is if you can provide the exact quote where the Pope says this.
Otherwise youāre just putting words in his mouth.
While the ignorant hereā¦criticize the Popeā¦and misconstrue the concept of satire and the responsibilities of free speechā¦
Henri Roussel, who founded Charlie Hebdo in 1970, penned an editorial for the French magazine LāObs about slain editor Stephane Charbonnier and his āstubbornā management style. Roussel wonders why Charbonnier, also known as Charb, continued to push his staff despite multiple threats and attacks, suggesting that his āblock headā behavior led the rest of the team to their deaths.
Iām guessing racism and xenophobia masquerading under the rubric of satireā¦
I think itās thoroughly understandable in the sense that itās well understood by absolutely everybody everywhere how this happened. Itās understandable that in trying to piss off a big group of people, we may well piss them off. When among the pissed-off are violent opportunists with terror ties (which, again, French agencies understood pretty well) it is understood that there may well be pissed-off violent opportunists with terror training/funding/supply/support/endorsement on your doorstep. CH understood this plenty well, and whether or not we can agree on the āgood tasteā of their content, they bravely carried on according to their values, and Yemeni AQ not-so-bravely carried on with theirs. Understandably.
Itās not about justifiability, itās about consequence. Francis admits that there is a point when even he would lash outāsomething I should expect of every man who loves his mother. Heās only human. And heās just one. We are dealing in billions.
1 Like