Slashdot Mirror
Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression
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."
And fuck you too.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Well, knowing the Pope is an enemy of human liberty is not all that surprising.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
There's your freedom of speech
Well that's the problem right there. The entitlement that I can punch you for insulting my mother, but you don't get to punch me for insulting your prophet. No wonder they want to kill us.
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...
Conflating ideas and persons is muddying the waters. Stupid ideas should be allowed to be called stupid, if someone denies the holocaust, even if that idea is as dear to him as his own mother, it's still a stupid and wrong idea. If someone believes that you cannot say anything about their religion or that you should follow the rules of their religion, even if these rules are stupid, then you should be able to say that. An idea is not a person.
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.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
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.
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
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Sorry, but your crazy make believe bullshit is not inherently deserving of any kind of respect and is open to all insult and free expression. This goes for all religions. In fact, this goes for all everything.
"you can't get violent over people giving you grief. that said: i'd punch you in the face if you swear against my mother." -the pope. i wonder what jesus would recommend. what a half-whit. violence is only a viable option in the mind of people who believe bronze age goat-herder superstitions. and i heard his mother gets around.
i personally dont listen to anything that comes from the worlds biggest pedophile ring!
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.
I guess that whole "turn the other cheek" thing is passé.
My UID is prime!
Threatening people with hell for they using birth control is part of what is killing the planet. Allowing such a surplus of humans to be born is irresponsible. Such a populous planet cannot help but wreck "God's creation". It's good that priests are celibate, but the average life span is so long now, that that does not suffice.
Hate murders by fanatics is just a bit of noise compared to that.
That means an assault charge. And your mom is still a fat whore.
That's how it works in civilized society. I seen a whole lot of victim blaming lately, as if murder is somehow an understandable - if not acceptable - response to drawing a cartoon.
Fuck your mom, fuck your religion, and your favorite band sucks.
The church should never take a position counter to secular power except in "spiritual" matters. That was the whole point of accepting the "render unto Caesar" argument.
I don't think I can accept his promotion of assault, either. How is this clown a religious leader?
A verbal offence ought to be countered by a verbal retortion. No physical action, much less any action carried out with the intention of killing, could ever be justified by something someone said.
Mothers exist - prophets don't. Show me a prophet and I'll show you a smooth talking charlatan surrounded by a load of suckers.
Offense is in the eye of the beholder which basically means communication is forbidden except after it has already happened. How can you think that there is any free speech left?
I see this as a push for civil discourse.
Calling your mother a slut doesn't really solve anything other than making the person saying it looking like a bit of a bully, and draw attention to information that people probably already knew, just simply forgot.
At the end of the day, you're probably pissed off. Your mom might be pissed off, after the mail man leaves. A few of my friends probably had a quick chuckle, but then think I am a bit of an ass, and feel sorry for you. Yet, we still don't know who your father is. So has anything really been accomplished?
Place something witty here
Free speech doesn't mean that you can offend anything/anyone!
I'm offended by your view point. Please take it back now.
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.
That's not really turnin' the other cheek padre... So now if I sleep with his mother, he's gonna punch me in the face? I agree that this IS just a lower degree of the same violence. I guess Catholics around the world will no longer need to confess violence, (provided it was while defending their mother and sisters honor.) Watch those, "Yo Momma," jokes around Catholics...
He thinks of you as his follower, or his potential follower. He is pushing both towards concessions and co-existence. It isn't about violence. It is about control.
This is so stupid I don't even know where to start criticizing you...
The strawman? The overgeneralization? The lies? The tired stereotypes?
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
"They are provocateurs."
Just like 90+% of slashdot readers.
If someone insults your mom, and you simply MUST punch them to DEFEND HER HONOR or whatever, then you've already admitted that the word poses some kind of a threat to her. It doesn't. It's exactly as substantial and damaging as you believe it is. Assholes deserve the cold shoulder, anything more is just giving them power and attention. Well, until they start punching anyway. Then the gloves come off.
Effectively, while the Pope is the leader of a competitor to Islam, they are both in the same industry, with the same basic goals(notably, the recognition that old men with amusing hats and alleged access to divine law are society's rightful authority figures).
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.
"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.
Actually it does - sorry, but you're not only wrong, but you're a stupid fucking idiot.
Did you see what I did there? :)
What happens if scientific results insult religion? In the past the church found the the speech of scientists like Galileo and others insulting to their beliefs, was it right what they did to them?
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
... applying stone age solutions to space age problems.
So much for turning the other cheek, forgiveness and all that.
Basically nothing is off limits, if one thing can be then it's a slippery slope to everything can be. Especially such blanket as you cant draw this regardless of intention or meaning. It doesn't actually say in the Koran not to do it whereas there's an actual commandment in the Bible not to make graven images or whatever and people do that all the time, like ALL the time.
Even my browser is pandering to them. It autocorrected the k to a capital for Koran but not the b for bible lol
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
A smooth talking charlatan surrounded by a load of suckers, that also exists.
The existence of the "prophet" muhammad is not in dispute. But we should still be free to critisize him.
> no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
...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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Start with the truth.
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.
If he means you shouldn't be free to insult religions, then I disagree with him on that, but I wonder if he meant that insults are rude and should be avoided. ...but I have to say, the example of getting a punch does seem to indicate that he's endorsing punishment for insults, so that would be like a legal limit. His statements are contradictory.
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
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.
Here's the thing; what YOU think might be "common good" might not be what other people think is "common good".
I'm pretty sure the assholes that kill cartoonists think they are doing it for the "common good".
Subjective values must never limit freedom of speech.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Oh prophets exist, Muhammad being alive (well, at one point) is a historical fact and can be verified. Proof of the existence of the deity that these prophets speak for is what you should be asking to be shown.
...you used to be cool.
1) Getting punched for offending someone has nothing to do with freedom of expression. In this case, it's just two guys competing for who's a bigger asshole.
2) If we limit freedom of expression, we can as well limit freedom of religion because freedom of religion is a subset of freedom of expression. So why not start limiting freedom of religion when it cuts into the same thing?
Ezekiel 23:20
Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.
A life time of good works can be destroyed with one little sentence. He has shown himself as what he is. He believes that religion is more important then freedom of thought. "Call my mother a bad word... Expect a punch".. What happened to turn your cheek? He's still living in a world where he will choose what others think and limit it with force of law.
just fucking ignore those people then. Skip the "news" reports. Don't go to those "offensive" websites.
And this idiotic notion of "hate" speech or "hate" crimes. Does it really matter why someone murdered you? Murder is a crime. So is assault. So is battery. And to our German friends - are the printed words of Hitler and associates really that scary? Or are you just pathetically weak of mind that you would fall for that tripe again?
When society gets to the point of legislating "offend no one" we all might as well put a gun to our heads as its just not worth living anymore.
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.
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 with equal protection as sex or sexuality when religious belief often preaches discrimination against them? Inherent natural traits are never in contradiction with each other, but choices are.
Thus the world desperately needs to erase protection of religion from all human rights legislation that places it alongside natural traits, or at least, demote it into it's own lesser category of protection where considerations are secondary to those of natural traits. It's the only sane way to solve the nonsense paradox that treating the choice of religion equal to natural traits creates.
Law should never be written to create a paradox else it becomes meaningless as it's then wholly arbitrary as to which way you decide to apply it making it no different to not having it written in law at all, yet that's exactly what legal protection of religion placed alongside natural traits grants.
The Muslim religion forbids depicting Muhammad, for crying out loud, and then they made FUN, as well?
Saw a story the other day about skiers in a restricted avalanche area.
Neither story ended well.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Why is the right to not be offended more important than the right to not be punched in the face for saying something stupid? Social ostracism has proven far more effective than petty violence when it comes to dealing with people's bad behavior. Unless they're sociopathic, at which point nothing will work anyhow and they'll just go around killing people because they believe they have the right to not be offended.
... and moderate islamist
This is so stupid I don't even know where to start criticizing you...
Free speech means it's ok for him to post when he's off his meds.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Even though the consequences of posting as yourself are sometimes really positive, in such cases as what happened with Charlie Hebdo it would seem that anonymity is going to become the norm in criticizing, lampooning or using one's constitutional rights to make fun of whatever we feel like doing.
Because somehow, since religion is belief-based it's becoming more and more difficult every single day to keep people believing in these localized fairy tales when we are all able to compare notes by using uncensored, real-time communication networks. And the more this happens, the more upset and frustrated those who are trying to remain in control are getting; and in their desperation the less of a sense of humor they can afford to have as the very survival of their belief-based system is at stake.
While I am not necessarily condoning any approach, it's fairly obvious that Anonymous (the loose group claiming this name) and 4chan have the right idea. In order to get one's message across in this day and age, more than ever privacy and anonymity are going to be very important liberties; certainly worth making sure they remain something we have access to.
Thanks in no small part to people such as Lenny Bruce, who had the courage to stand up for those rights when they knew all too well that it would destroy their careers when no such options existed.
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.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
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.
"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."
Interesting point he makes....except history seems to paint a VERY different picture. Inquisition, Crusades, all the various religiously oriented conflicts (hell even the bible makes reference to killing people in the name of god....just read the old testament for the brutality.
It was justified and continues to be justified. And no there is no limit to free speech. Once you start to curb one part of free speech, you start down the path of curbing it all. Granted one has to take the good with the bad in free speech so we have to deal with what we dont like....or excerise another so called freedom religion loves to expouse but seldom practices....free choice/free agency. Once someone chooses to excerise their agency it is no longer respected. They are demeaned and humiliated by their so called fellows.
Pope Francis tries to be the "good pope" and I am sure his intentions are genuine, but he still has the brainwashing that creates the cognitive dissonance from reality. Just as people will die for their beliefs, these writers/artists chose to die for theirs. Their pens made more of an impact than the terrorists who are religiously motivated ever will.
Why have religions of various kinds have been mostly declining over the years and why some Christians shun the church!
France is a law abiding country. The law is above religion. The law protects freedom of expression as a fundamental right.
There is not fundamental right of "respect". If you are offended that's too bad, perhaps it was wrong of the other person to offend you. At the same time being dishonoured or disrespected at no point allows anyone to take action in the form of violence.
Why are my beliefs not protected in religious countries? -because they differ and thus deemed wrong. Religion has no tolerance in a modern world. Perhaps 2000 years ago it was thought of as peaceful but not today, it is outdated and no longer needed.
All these religious outrages cause is to show how they have no place in society and that people should abandon thousands of years of fairy tales for reason and acting reasonably.
If you do not like what is written somewhere, don't read it. If you don;t like what's on a TV show do not watch it. No one is forcing you to be "offended".
Richard Hawking was so right when he questioned why must we "respect" religion. Does religions enshrine respect for my beliefs?
Even smart people can believe stupid things and believing violence is a correct or even expected response to being offended is stupid indeed.
Dear pope; how many times should one turn the other cheek? -Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" 22: Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven..
Religious people are not pious or better morally, they are flawed and dumb like everyone else, biased towards their own beliefs and cherry pick what works for them when they want to anyways so all this talk of peaceful religions is nonsense.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Religion allows men to marry very pretty, cute, nice female children
(Old Testament, Vedic, Islamic, etc, and Christian through incorporation of OT law in Matthew)
What does Charlie Hebdo like guys get us? Gay marriage? Feminism? 4 years in prison for speaking against what the (il)liberal state bans?
Young girls are more valuable. Far more.
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.
In another case, a person publishes a cartoon in a magazine, which you are under no obligation to read, and if you don't live in France (or french speaking europe?), probably didn't know existed until last week. I read it had a circulation of 300,000? That ain't mainstream media by a long shot.
The pope is an idiot in a stupid hat, it is a dumb comparison.
The Protestant Reformation was a Good Thing.
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 that do not deserve to have fun poked at, especially those that are intolerant of views other than their own or are hypocritical — this is the area that satirical magasines work in ... readers need to understand that and be more tolerant than they might do to others.
I completely disagree with the pope claiming that religious ideas need special protection. They do not. Their effects on huge numbers of people means that their ideas should be strongly tested, not above criticism. But: given his position, there is little else that he can say.
For the purposes of this comment, I will limit myself to Christianity as an example. Christianity is intrinsicly offensive to every religion in the world. Christianity claims to be the only way for a person to commune with God. Whether you agree with that or not is beside the point. That is Christianity's claim. Muslim have to be offended by such a proclamation.
What the Pope is failing to realize is that by limiting speech to anything that doesn't offend, he limits his own religion's ability to tell others. Everyone is offend by the claim that they are sinners. That they are morally bankrupt. So now the Pope says that such statements should be avoid?
As an agnostic, the popularity of Francis seemed quite justifiable thanks to his relatively liberal stances (for a pope, I mean). In fact, I was quite surprised at how far he was willing push his establishment. But I see no difference between his "expectation of violence if you say disrespectful things" and "women should expect to be raped if they dress provocatively".
Nothing new under the sun, sadly. If this is the best the Catholic church can offer, there's no hope for any religion to be even remotely progressive (euphemism for "rational"). It's no wonder they get made fun of constantly ....
I'm curious why there aren't any religious cartoons mocking the Jewish faith?
http://anonhq.com/charlie-hebdo-fired-anti-semitic-cartoonist-ridiculing-judaism-2009/
Mocking Islam and Christianity are great, Judaism, not so much, why is that?
I guess one arbitrary line is as good an another. Just sayin'...
I'm free to say what I want and you are free to be unpredictable.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
One would like to restrict what one says to "That's a stupid idea", and - if only out of politeness - refrain from the next step of saying "You are a stupid person (for holding that idea)". However, I bet every single person who hears "That's a stupid idea" infers the latter part immediately.
Politeness does count. One can say "I do not follow (insert religion name here), and I feel that extremism in the cause of *any* religion contradicts and denigrates, rather than supports, the religion" without saying "(insert founder name here) did naughty things with (insert inappropriate animal name here)". This is TOTALLY SEPARATE from the idea that anyone perpetrating criminal violence should be opposed violently at the time, and punished violently afterwards.
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.
Meanwhile in Manila . . . street Children are being caged for the Pope's visit. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... Doesn't really relate to freedom of speech comment, which I more or less agree with, but since we're discussing pope . . . Jesus H. Christ, living in the Philippines, it doesn't surprise me a bit.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
Mod parent up (if only I had mod points at the moment)
Provocative expressions if ideas provoke thought. This is a good thing. It's good for humans to think, to wonder, to challenge their beliefs and, maybe to let those beliefs go.
The fact that, with some stupid people, thinking makes them angry and their anger leads to violence does not make it okay for them to act on the violence. Nor is this a valid reason to stop provocative ideas.
Shame on the leader of a world-wide religion for not understanding the difference between thought and action. There was a time that his own God was a provocateur. The Pope should know better.
Someone should ask the Pope if what Galileo said about the earth revolving around the sun was covered by free speech? After all, if we interpret mr. Franciscus' words a bit strictly, one could very well argue that Mr Galileo's 'proof' was indeed blasphemous and should never have been uttered or written down if we apply the Pope's standards.
I would like to remind everyone that this is the same Pope that was photographed wearing a Black Sabbath tee-shirt. He's also the one that officially embraced evolution and was responsible for cleaning up a lot of the Vatican's act. How anyone can hate on this guy is beyond me. Some people just really hate religion I guess, even when it is practiced in a tolerant and respectful way (as Pope Francis has been doing).
4 years in jail for "terrorist sympathy" pope too?
Like the drunk guy got for mouthing off at a police?
Or will it be a "mere" 10 months like the 15 year old female got?
Republican France is sickening. /created/ red terror (the soviets just copied them, they even had statues to Robespierre in the soviet union): You MUST agree with "Republican" thought or ELSE.
It is exactly the sort of state the soviet union was: it
Conservative Regimes: atleast you can marry girl children and be happy in life as a man. Liberal Regimes like that which has been ruling france for the last two centuries won't even let you do that.
"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.
If people were loving their mother as much as they love god, the world would be a much better place.
The German satire magazine Titanic used a frontpage with an image of the pope with a giant piss stain on his white skirt.
He was not amused.
_That_ was the time to demonstrate support for freedom of expression, but instead he let justice forbid further sales.
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
Matthew 5:39
"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.)
except for Judaism
I think you have a point. While for a long time in American history you might expect the authorities to look the other way if someone insulted your mother or wife to your face and you immediately cold-cocked them, I suspect they would have been far less likely to tolerate you traveling miles to initiate a confrontation with said person.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I grew up hearing "Sticks & stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you". It has always worked for me.
Judaism also says that Jesus was not the son of God, yet are you making the same argument there?
jh
I am sick and tired of people with their stupid religions.
You notice somehow they aren't bothered by this
https://today.duke.edu/2015/01...
But a christian or jewish student praying in school would send them up the walls.
It just makes the case that unless you punch offensive assholes they just get worse.
my religion says that all sentient beings aside from myself are inherently evil, and deserving of no respect or concern by me, or by any other fellow being, and that they are all keeping me from being happy, by holding my spirit hostage on earth. I have a right to practice my religion, which consists of yelling at each and every person i meet "you are a stinking piece of shit, deserve to die, and if i could get away with it i would kill you right now, and your entire family, including your children!". the second principle of my religion is that anyone who even mentions my religion must be killed by me, even if they are praising it. if i dont try to kill them, i cannot get into heaven. the third principle of my religion is that anyone else can join, but in doing so they must see me as inherently evil from their perspective, and thus must treat me the same as i treat them, including killing me for mentioning my (their) religion, just as i must kill them if they ever mention my religion. the fourth principle of my religion is that the ONLY way you can get to heaven is to say out loud to at least 1 person that you believe in this religion. the fifth principle is that for everyone has sworn allegiance to my religion, and killed everyone who also believes, once they die, even at the hands of the heathen, we will all live peacefully together in heaven, and be forgiven for all our violence on earth. those left behind will be tortured on earth forever by demons. so, pope, what do you say now? should i be free from criticism, as i will surely try to kill anyone who even mentions my religion, let alone criticizes it, and i am offended by everyone, especially my coreligionists. My religion says i have a right to kill people, and that i must work to overthrow any law which forbids me from killing someone, and may temporarily work side by side with my coreligionists ONLY to overthrow laws against murder, and then we must all begin to legally murder each other. if you try to point out any contradictions in my religion, i must try to kill you as a tenet of my religion.
Something the Pope and other liberals need to get through their head about speech codes and infringements on religious liberties is that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are inextricably melded. You can't have one without the other. Without the right to think and believe anything you want, you won't be able to say whatever you want. Without Freedom of Religion your statements of what you believe become proof of your religious failings. Without Freedom of Speech no one can learn of or understand anything beyond the officially sanctions beliefs and ways of thinking.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Leave me out of this.
I'm not stupid enough to draw pictures and make fun of someone's religion. I have known for quite some time that it's a bad idea.
So, let us be clear about this: They don't want to kill US; they want to kill THEM.
In the interest of accuracy, THEM is not Muslims. These jerks have hijacked the Muslim religion.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It seems to me that this Pope is more political than any in recent memory. He is trying to influence the way the world's economies operate, climate change policies and more. I think the power of the position has gone to his head (or maybe as another poster suggests, he isn't stupid and has been working toward this end all along). While the bulk of Christian principles as practiced over the years (and that excludes war and violence in the name of God as well as a lot of 20th century liberal interpretations), is good, it doesn't mean the Catholic church has the right to try and impose those values on society. That seems to be what the pope is trying to do these days. Several small Protestant denominations are also trying to do that, both in the name of "social justice." This comment by the pope is just another example.
How about a Pope that actually talks about and promotes truly spiritual matters since religion is (should be) about the spiritual, not politics?
The Pope, like most leaders, thinks his wisdom is boundless and intelligence such that he had insights no one else has had. The fact is, the champions of freedom of expression realize that it's perilous to label any speech as forbidden, as the slide into tyranny is inevitable. The problem is, any zealot can decide your words are worse than insulting his mother. And any zealot can decide that killing people is a reasonable response. Perhaps it's because this pope is not as learned as his predecessor. I find it hard to believe that Benedict XVI would not realize that several core beliefs of Christianity are mother-slandering to Muslims. For example, the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity. The Qur'an says, "There is no god but Allah" and that he has no son. The Qur'an also denies that Jesus dies on the cross. Any of these beliefs are blasphemy to Islam. So, Your Eminence, shall we deny the Bible's mission to spread the Gospel, so as not to offend?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"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."
Either I'm misunderstanding "make a game", or the Pope is calling anyone who worked for Wisdom Tree without being a practicing Christian a troll.
Good points well made
The pope got it backwards! There is no limit on free speech, there IS a limit on the individual's right to seek retribution for a perceived insult.
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.
Nonsense. Unless he physically assaults you, you have no business doing so. Anything else is just acting like an oversensitive barbarian.
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, 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".').
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.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Muhammad existed, however he wasn't a prophet because there is demonstrably no such thing. If people decide to call him a prophet or even if he did himself it doesn't make it so.
No... it just means you're not free from repercussions from damage you do.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
And in the meantime they have to live and abide with the laws as they are.
I read it as "I'm all for freedom of speech unless you offend me."
Pathetic.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I can see that lots of people on the Slashdot are quick to mock the Pope and his Mother (ex.: go ahead, punch me, big guy!!!).
Is it coming from this generation's cultural trend of unrestricted expression due to lack of consequences behind that keyboard and monitor of yours? You would not be so quick to talk about anyone's mother to their face, right, computer generals? Because most likely you will get punch in the face.
... why I am a Protestant.
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.
Please learn the definition of the word prophet. It is a person - separate from any deity that they speak for.
How can someone who represents a church which believes in moral absolutism think that things like freedom are relative?
There is no right to not be offended, and acts of barbarism because you're offended aren't justified.
Sorry, but you can't say that bat-shit crazy idiots who think we still live in the stone age should be the ones to define what the limit of our rights are.
If you are a bunch of barbarians who believe in beheading and all of the other crap ISIS does ... well, you deserve to be offended, and probably killed. Because you're a threat to civilized society.
This is no more justified that the Spanish Inquisition and other atrocities done in the name of god.
If your god condones this shit, your god is an asshole, and deserves our contempt.
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.
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 Allah, raise the flag of Jihad across the land.... O Allah, forgive our sins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
sorry, but islam IS evil. read the fucked up shit they believe. talking trees and rocks suggesting that they kill those who are different.
this needs to go! I suggest we all vote them off the island. (btw, they are thinking the same thing, as shown above!)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Sorry, that's not right.
Some editors hit a gold mine when they exploited an incendiary hot button for prophet. Meanwhile, some assholes pretending to be owners of the hot button saw a chance at gaining notoriety and went all batshit crazy.
The total population of all involved is very small, indeed.
So do you feel comfortable with extrapolating the actions of a few wing nuts and applying that to the of the population of the planet?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I disagree with that ruling. I'm not the only one.
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.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Does the pope not get that there is a difference between criticizing/insulting a system versus criticizing/insulting a person?
When someone criticizing/insults the prophet of Islam, he/she is doing so to the creator of a system/idea that claims they have ALL the answers for ALL of life's problems including how to govern a society. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, IMO, Islam have provided none.). A critique/insult of the prophet is a critique/insult of the system/idea, as the guy is long dead.
When someone is criticizing/insulting someones mother they are doing so on an individual level where the mother in question usually have no such pompous claims. The 2 things are NOT the same and should not be treated the same.
However you should NEVER meet words with violence (Excluding constructed situations like someone is pointing a gun at you and says 'I'm going to kill you in 5 seconds').
If you feel insulted/offended by someones words/drawings/whatever, then you are always free to choose to ignore them OR reply to them using a non-violent medium.
Being offended/insulted gives you NO free pass to use violence as a response!
Round and round we go.
I think you guys might be missing the point. He's not saying violence is warranted after provocation, he's saying it may happen regardless what anyone's laws dictate. I think he's doing a hack job of attempting to explain some common sense here... but I think it went over your head even though nothing goes over your head, your reflexes are too fast, you would catch it. The whole connection that has been drawn between what he's saying and the claim that these acts of violence are justified because they criticizes a religion is being scribbled in, it really wasn't supposed to be there. Either way, I'm sure he wishes he would have phrased himself differently by now. That's why you have to be extra careful what you say during tragedies like this. From a PR standpoint most times you just keep your mouth shut.
What if somebody insulted your imaginary friend?
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.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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?
No, it doesn't. This is all mere confusion about the meaning of a word. (I blame faux-privacy(*) advocates for this one.)
The pope is using "expect" in the everyday layman's sense; think of it as a synonym for "predict."
A lot of the time (especially on Slashdot) we hear the word "expect" to mean something that flirts with (though isn't quite the same as) the opposite; think of it as a synonym of "wish."
The pope isn't saying you should be punched, or that in an ideal world with ideal policies you will be punched. He's saying that he thinks you'll probably be punched. Suppose someone points a gun at your face and says "unicorns exist, and if you deny it, I will kill you." The guy next to you denies unicorns, so the asshole pulls the trigger and brains and skull fragments hit the wall behind you. Then he points the gun back at you. At this point, "expectation" has nothing to do with justice, or whether or not people should be shot. We're talking about what we think is most likely to happen next, if you deny unicorns. You have an expectation of injustice.
A lot of the time we have examples of whether or not, say, plaintext email is sent with an expectation of privacy. You know it's not private. You don't predict or believe it's private. At the time it's sent, you think it's reasonably likely it might be read by others. You know that others can read it, without you or anyone else, ever even finding out that they did it, so any prohibitions against reading it are nearly completely unenforcible. But when we use "expect" in this context, we're trained to think in terms of how things should ideally be, how we want or wish things were, etc. You have an expectation of justice.
The two scenarios are very similar, but the second one has some kind of legal-technical exception within it, so that we use a specialized version of the verb "to expect." You can't go using one situation's technical jargon within the context of the other (but that's what I think you just did, with the pope).
Well, you can, but you'll make errors. So an EFF guy might give you bad advice about what to do if someone points a gun at your face, and the pope will give bad advice to someone who is considering snooping on other peoples' emails. Or at least it will seem as though the advice is bad, if you don't understand which of the conflicting "to expect" definitions is being used.
(*) Faux-privacy advocates: the ones who advocate that attackers (if detected) should be punished, instead of advocating that people deploy defenses to neutralize all attackers.
You are a grade-A idiot aren't you.
Duke University is a private University, founded by Methodists and Quakers. I suspect finding someone praying their is hardly unusual.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
That was a smart idea. But I will not take the extra step and say you are a smart person... :)
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The only limit to freedom of expression is the diameter of one's asshole, just before the ripping point of goatse.
"They were provoked" is never an excuse for violence. The Pope must, of course, defend his religious perspective, but the fact remains that words and pictures are still only words and pictures.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
All non-christians know Jesus was not the son of god.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You have to protect religion, or else certain sects of Christians pass laws that oppress everyone else just for believing in a slightly different sky faerie than they do, or even for not believing in sky faeries at all. Protecting everyone's beliefs or the lack thereof is the only way to keep the meddlers out.
You will get thrown in jail for "defending your mother". That's no more an excuse for assault and battery and murder than blasphemy is.
I think with the former, there is more the acknowledgement that the perp is willing to bear the full legal consequences of their actions. There are no excuses made. They do what needs to be done and accept the resulting punishment.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Just replace the word 'mother' with 'religion' in his statement and it becomes pretty clear that he is personally threatening violence himself.
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. :)
I'll be the first to agree that Freedom of Speech is a vital element to a free society, but OTOH, speaking one's opinion and engaging in Verbal Assault should be two different things from a legal standpoint.
There are plenty of ways in which speech causes harm, be it verbal abuse, libel or inciting a riot. All of these are legally actionable.
There is (or should be) a difference between rational speech and being intentionally inflammatory.
Intentionally provoking someone is almost always a bad idea, because sooner or later, you *will* get punched in the mouth either literally or metaphorically
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.
No, the elephant in the room is that some muslems have a greater tendency than other religions to impose their beliefs onto others and telling them how to behave. Buddhist don't care what you do. Hindus only care about what other Hindus do. Jews aren't interested in the rest of the world because they are the "chosen people". Chinese -whatever religion they adhere to- typically also don't care too much for other people's behaviour. Some -and I am not saying this is a majority- muslems interfere with other people's business. This is significantly more annoying than their ideas about Jesus. Besides: why would Christians care about what Muslems think? According to that logic, they should be furious at the Jews, because those were the ones who crucified Jesus in the first place, yet no-one seems to care.
You're a chauvinistic Christian.
Read your own bible and pick out the evil shit in there.
You have no point to make.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It seems that Pope Francis is on the wrong side of history.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Maybe it's me being pedantic, but people, even the Pope apparently, get confused about what "free speech" and its limits. What he's talking about isn't a limit on free speech. It's called a consequence. I can curse anyone or their mother all I want. If it offends someone and they punch me, they did not reduce my right or ability to make that curse. They just provided the consequence for me being a dick. If you're a dick, expect a consequence. It's the way things should be.
He's a dope
Freedom of speech is freedom from oppression from the government. The French government in no way oppressed Charlie. They are still putting out papers. However, freedom of speech is not the same as protection from retaliation. Killing those guys was murder, but if some nut job is going to kill you for something you said, it does not matter if you had a protected right to say it, you are still dead.
A punch is not a bullet, and not all provocations are the same...
Is it wrong to shoot someone for their speech when they are not trying to provoke you personally?
Yes. No exceptions.
Is it wrong to punch someone for their speech when they are not trying to provoke you personally?
Yes. No exceptions.
Is it wrong to shoot someone for their speech when they ARE trying to provoke you personally?
Yes. (However, whether or not there are exceptions to this rule -- and what those exceptions might be -- would be a different (and fascinating) discussion all its own.)
Is it wrong to punch someone for their speech when they ARE trying to provoke you personally?
Highly, HIGHLY debatable, and probably not answerable by any objective standard, as every culture has its own definitions for what the "acceptable" provocations are.
Pope Francis' comment falls within the scope of the fourth question, not the first. Don't make the mistake of confusing the two.
Unitarians are Christians. They don't believe Jesus was the "Son of God" in any literal sense.
The issue is polarized. On the one hand, being hyper-sensitive to fragile boundaries (like being driven to murder because someone drew a picture of your prophet) is obviously wrong. On the other hand, deliberately trolling people about convictions that are deep and meaningful to them is also obviously wrong. Both sides feel justified in their extreme because the other extreme exists; when in fact they are both wrong.
Diff of bible/newtestament/luke/6/
Revision 108: Thurs Jan 15, 2015 10:063:36 UTC Line 27:
But I say unto you which hear, smite on the cheek them that curse your mother
checked in by pfrancis
Previous revision 107: Fri Aug 14, 1609 18:08:19 UTC Lines 27-29
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
checked in by bancroft
People are accepted as prophets, it is a title given by the religious hierarchy. That the $deity does not exist (in any verifiable sense) does not really impact on their role in the religion. You need to be able to understand things as others see them, even if you do not agree with their point of view.
Right. I can't believe the number of people here and elsewhere who cannot understand that when he says "you must" he always means "to be a good Catholic you must".
And he's right that just because "you must" offer the other cheek does not make cheek-slapping proper behavior.
He's most assuredly not calling for having cheek slappers "shot in the fucking head" by police. But, Jesus, stop with all the cheek-slapping, OK? (unless it's concentual).
Agree 100%. The "wussification of the world" has become a bit too much now a days.
If someone is genuinely trying to convey a message, they wouldn't swear at my mother either. If they do, all their efforts will be lost by due to a punch in the face.
This is not an example of a limit to free speech. Rather, this is an example of consequences of free speech.
Considering religions don't seem to have the same respect for those who want freedom FROM religion, this is a bit hypocritical. Tell ya what Mr. Pontiff, I'll stop considering religion (yours or others) fair game for any and all satire, mockery and calling-out on hypocrisy the same day I see the world's big three religions stop persecuting atheists, 'apostates' and 'infidels' for simply wanting all of you religious nuts to stop foisting your beliefs on others.
Practice religion in a place of worship, or privately at home, but NOT in public and stop indoctrinating children with magic invisible sky-man fairytales before they're old enough to know better and can make their own choices. Then we'll talk.
My mother WAS a prophet. She predicted that I'd get into trouble within a week, and sure enough I did. Given my track record, that wasn't exactly a difficult prediction, but still, it did come true.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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.
Quite right. Though "tenet", not "tenant".
If we follow this logic Christian's would be perfectly justified in beating up any Muslim that they happened to come across.
Here's where you and I disagree. I assume you're basing that logic off of the Pope's comment about punching someone else, and if so, it's clear that you've missed some important context...such as the beginning of the sentence, which started with "One cannot react violently". If you follow the links and read the sentence in context, you'll see that he was providing a contrast between morality—"one cannot react violently"—and reality—"he can expect a punch".
Rather than being a justification for violent responses, he was merely making a statement of fact: provoke someone else and you can expect a violent response. That's something most of us would agree with, since morality plays no part in that statement.
I'm not a fan of the papacy, and I'm certainly not a fan of the current pope, but it seems to me that a lot of people are reading things into what he said here that simply weren't there. Even so, his suggestion that there should be limits on free speech, presumably so as to avoid that sort of provocation, is a rather chilling notion and one with which I vehemently disagree.
The qur'an is full of vile language for not just Christians & Jews, but for followers of all other religions. Between that and the hadiths, they call for the elimination of all infidels. So people do have a good reason to insult Islam. Not that Charlie Hedbo did it for that reason - since they took pot shots at ALL religions, which I disagree with. Since none are as vile as Islam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0
*points at pope francis*
bwahahaha
Aldrin is a hero, the hoaxer is a very annoying moron. While technically that shouldn't matter, justice should be truly blind, it isn't. Nobody wanted to find Aldrin guilty of any wrong doing, so any plausible explanation was taken to make sure he got off.
And if you punch somone for such little thing then don't be surprised when they beat the shit out of you. Pope.
GP's citation is also a part of the Hamas charter. Point out where the evil stuff in Deuteronomy is a part of any country's constitution or founding documents. The Hadith in question calls for the extermination of Jews, and following that, so does the Hamas charter.
If I don't believe in YOUR beliefs, I have no obligation to observe them and, in a polite society, I have no need to mock them -- although in a free society, I could if I wanted to.
If I do not believe as you do, you have no right to enforce your beliefs on me and should have no expectation that I would respect your beliefs. Why should you care about how I believe or act unless you are unsure of your own convicitons or are actually threatened (as in I'm going to hurt you) by my unbelief?
An most importantly, if I do share your belief and then violate it (perhaps by murdering people in the name of your belief), then you should be angry with me and you should correct and discipline me. You should renounce me. You should hold me accountable as the criminal I am. You should turn me over to the civil or religious authorities.
Unless you take that responsibility for your beliefs, STFU.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Judaism has the same fundamental conflict with Chrstianity, but we get by. But then to be honest, we get by pretty well with Islam too.
I'd hate for all Christians to be tarred with the brush of the worst, as much as I'd hate the same for Muslims, or indeed any group. The problem with the majority of Muslims is... there really isn't one. It's no more true than me saying that the problem with most Americans is that they're gun toting, pie eating idiots.
jh
...in a personal sense, that is. I go out of my way to avoid offending others on very personal topics like religion. Not because I'm afraid, but because I want to be a nice guy :)
As a citizen of a republic, however, I support the right of free speech, even offensive speech. In fact, offensive or unpopular speech in particular needs to be protected: there's neither need nor reason to protect the speech people want to hear.
"The wisdom of the Patriarchs was that they *knew* they were fools." --Master Foo
*crickets*
If he supports limits on free speech, then he does think religion can be used to justify violence, as the threat of violence if the only way any such limits can be enforced. Just because the person engaged in the violence has a shiny police badge and permission from the government doesn't make them fundamentally different from the Charlie Hebido attackers.
It is crass but at the same time, an important piece of advice. A lot of people seem to not fully understand this: "things that are wrong" and "things that are unexpected" are not synonyms. The world is not perfect. It is pretty naive to behave as if everyone else is going to follow the rules.
If you're going to insult a religion that is known for murdering people who have tired to leave it, you are either brave or foolish.
Posting this AC because I am neither brave nor foolish.
Love the delusional, hate the delusion.
Yes, there are people who call other people prophets. We can agree on that. That doesn't mean anything, though.
The difference is that virtually nobody follows those parts of the bible, but there are still millions of Muslims who follow those rules.
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.
Hang on a second. I understand why you're saying this; it's a common misconception.
The Bible teaches that the world--non-Christians--will mock Christ and his followers (1). That's the expectation, and in the face of this knowledge, the Christian is also called to turn the other cheek (2). Christianity is offensive to the world, but the response is not supposed to be in kind. The Christian is supposed to respond to violence with blessing (Romans 12:20). You may argue that you have not seen many Christian behave this way. I agree with that, and I think it's a very sorry thing when people who claim to be followers of Jesus don't really respect his teachings. I'm sure there are many who claim to be Christians who aren't really, but please also understand that no Christian is perfect either.
So, is Islam blasphemous to Christianity? Sure. But it's also exactly in line with the way the Bible describes non-Christians. Islam is not surprising to, or should not be surprising the Christian.
And no Christian would ever be justified in beating up anyone, including Muslims. The logic really doesn't follow, especially if you know what is in the Bible. I'm sorry the ignorance of many has led you to believe that violence is the logical conclusion, though.
(1) This is all over the New Testament. Like Matthew 24:9, "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake."
(2) Matthew 5:38-42: "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Why does the Pope feel this way?
Upton Sinclair:"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it."
Translation: "It's tough to remain "Infallible" when you have to allow non-believers to openly (and successfully) mock you in public."
George Carlin on Religion: http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm
The flaw in the Pope's statement is that there will always be religious fundamentalists who are offended no matter what you do. For example, draw the prophet Mohamed and they will kill you. Visit as an an ally on foreign soil and it will offend those who consider you an infidel trespassing on holy land. If you're a doctor performing abortions, you might offend someone to the extent that your clinic will be firebombed and you will be killed. If you are Israel, your very existence is an offense to many radical Muslims in the Middle East. If you are gay, you offend to the extend that your rights are curtailed or worse. If you subscribe to (insert religion)-ism, your very choice in faith will offend someone else who does not subscribe to your faith (or lack of faith). That's my two cents.
here is a non provocation "you are going to hell because you do not believe, suicide is a mortal sin and you land in hell, gay and lesbian are doing a sin"
:"god does not exists, you have no evidence for this, and what is written in your holy book about bashing male baby head against rocks, or how slave should be handled is immoral."
Here is a provocation
basically all they believe told to others => not provocatif because it is their belief. All they do not believe told to them => provocatif.
I used christianity as an example but frankly all those who feel blasphemed or insulted or provocated function on the same level.
Bunch of goddamn hypocrite, that's why they like to have "limit" or freedom of expression : because they count on THEIR speech to be the one as being recognized as unprovocative, as they are the majority. But if you limit freedom of speech to what is not provocatif... Then you ain't a shit worth freedom of speech.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
How about we outlaw any discussion of religion at all in any setting? That way no one can get offended by/over religion ever again. Would that be a good line for you Francis?
Just to clarify: That court decision said that using "fighting words" is illegal and you can get arrested for it. It doesn't say whether you would have an excuse for punching someone if that person used "fighting words" against you.
... then it's not really much of a faith. Believe in invisible magic entities if you want to but don't expect protection from pointing out you might be wrong.
If your faith cannot stand criticism or dissenting argument then it's a merely a weak idea not really worthy of the name.
Child rape is ok though.
There are people who believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. It doesn't make them real. The word "pixie" is real but nothing else about the concept is.
Yo momma so Catholic, you're gonna punch me over this joke.
In the US there is a concept of "Fighting Words" that justify throwing the punch. The Arkansas Court upheld this a few years ago over calling a cop "chicken sh*t" and "mother fcuker". Read about it here: https://bulk.resource.org/cour...
I look forward to a ban on hearing the self proclaimed pope ranting. Admittedly, this pope is considerably less evil than the last one, but still quite insane, judging by his ramblings about medieval superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
Like most pre-1969 first ammendment rulings, Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire was likely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Subsequent cases like R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Snyder v. Phelps would suggest that the "fighting words" doctrine is pretty much dead letter now.
Wrong.
For reference, see the ongoing crap from right wing evangelical Christian wingnuts regarding women's reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, young Earth, Intelligent Design, anti-evolution in schools, prayer everywhere (for Christians).
People pick the parts of their religion that fits their agenda.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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
Free speech doesn't mean that you can offend anything/anyone!
I'm offended by your view point. Please take it back now.
I'm offended by your taking offence at their view point. Please take back your offence now.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
OK, I'll bite. What does this mean, exactly? "Jesus was the son of God."
I was raised Roman Catholic, but then left the religion when I stared thinking for myself as an adult. For all the years since then, I've asked Christinas to explain this phrase, in any way, that makes sense.
If Jesus was a man, and God is a magic entity up in Heaven, how is he a son? Here's how they explain it: God took his magic, and made Mary pregnant. No semen necessary. Jesus had half his DNA from Mary, and half was made magically by God.
But since you Christians also deny evolution, by your logic, my DNA...ALL OF IT...was made by God. Therefore, we are all the sons and daughters of God. So why again is it special that Jesus had no actual DNA from a biological father? Oh, because it's a miracle.
Except...there's no evidence. It's just written down in a book you believe.
So one more time...a book says a man was made half by God, half by a person. And not only do you accept it as true, you are willing to argue to prove it.
Now consider the mythology of Hercules (or any other half-god-half-mortal from any of the various mythologies), also written in a book. Without proof. Hercules was half man, half God.
Hercules was the son of God first, and we should worship him instead. QED.
With the exception of a credible, imminent threat of bodily harm, nothing anyone says or writes should elicit a reaction of physical violence, under any circumstances. The correct response to speech you don't like is to criticize the speech with more speech. No ad hominem attacks, no implication that all of the person's ideas must be terrible because this one was, and certainly no hitting, kicking, biting, stabbing, shooting, or bombing. This is a basic principle of living in a free and open society. Those who disobey it should face harsh (but of course proportional) consequences.
Congrats! You've just qualified as an asshole!
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.
IMHO, claiming that the Tenth Doctor isn't the all-time best Doctor comes pretty close.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
As a moral and caring person who happens to be an atheist, if I had contracted HIV, I would take pains to protect my wife from contracting it. Were I a faithful, by-the-book Catholic, I would have a religious obligation to put my diseased, unwrapped penis into my wife at every opportunity in order to attempt to impregnate her, regardless of whether, by so doing, I was exposing her and our unborn child to HIV. That can't possibly be moral, can it? I didn't think so.
And before you Catholics jump all over me, I realize that many of you practice contraception, and I applaud you for it. I'm only talking about Catholics whose religious observance is the most strict.
Wrong. Go ahead and insult science. Science survives, nay thrives, under criticism.
A tenet is a central principle. A tenant is someone that rents a room.
I absolutely do not condone the molestation of small children, but what did they expect? Walking around the sacristy, all sexy in their long flowing vestments. They are provacateurs.
do not read this line twice.
OK, I'll bite. What does this mean, exactly? "Jesus was the son of God."
What it really means is that his father wasn't Joseph, she was raped or something. In that time it was SOP to claim that a child-of-rape (or -lust, etc etc) was a child of "the gods". The only twist here is choosing a particular god.
But what it means in christian faith is that god impregnated Mary, he didn't have to screw her for that to happen because hey, he's God.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The point went that way, you just missed it.
Pope Francis via AP;
"I think we have exploited nature too much," Francis said, citing deforestation and monoculture. "Thanks be to God that today there are voices, so many people who are speaking out about it."
"I don't know if it (human activity) is the only cause, but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face," he said. "We have in a sense taken over nature."
So that should redeem him.
Elton John wants him sainted now; he says lots of great anti-"capitalist" things.
I know someone who got beat up "for insulting someone's mom" (actually, he only said "how'd you like it if I called you're mom a @#$%?" in response to the other guy was cussing at him about his family). When he reported it to the cops, they simply said "what did you expect? You shouldn't have said that about his mom". This was in Canada.
Yes, it's called "Disorderly Conduct", and is a misdemeanor most places.
HOWEVER, which that might explain a violent response, it does not excuse it: if you assault or kill someone because of what they say to you, even though their actions are criminal, so is your violent response. The proper response is a harassment charge.
Furthermore, that covers speech directed at you, not indirect speech intended for anyone who cares to listen: If I call a black man a nigger, I can certainly expect a punch (or worse). But, at least in the U.S., with it's First Amendment, I can write all the books and cartoons about niggers I want, without breaking any laws. Your recourse, if I offend you is simply to shun me.
In Liberty, Rene
The main issue I have with people wanting to limit freedom of speech is that they don't think about it would be applied. Do we have laws fining people, do they go to jail? Is there a censorship committee? How do they decide what is offensive and what is not, majority of the committee, absolute majority? Can what is offensive be changed? What is someone is fined or jailed, and then they decide it is no longer offensive?
It reminds me of a quote from Winston Churchill about Democracy, something along the lines of "Spending five minutes with the average voter is the best argument against Democracy, however everything else is worse."
Same case here, there are flaws in every system, no system is perfect, but free speech is the best we can get.
I fail to see how the existence of the subject being commented on has anything at all to do with freedom of expression. If you talk smack about shit some group of people care about while you may be legally allowed to do so it does not mean that you do it in a vacuum without consequence. Those people may escalate the situation and kill you or punch you in the face. Their reaction may not be legal but you can hardly say it was unexpected. In the long run it comes down to who is willing to die or face the consequences for the speech or the reaction to the speech the most. If you are willing to die because you said something that is going to piss a shitload of people willing to kill you and are those people you are provoking willing to die shutting you up. This isn't something just limited to "Religion" criminal organizations have been killing people for speech probably as long as Religion has been. Most free speech protections are their to limit governments from jailing or killing you over speech. There is no way to prevent joe blow from cracking you over the head with a tire iron because you said something he did not like. There may be consequences for joe that follow that act but laws are there to divvy out punishment for crimes not to prevent them.
To all the hyper-sensitive reactors;
The Pope is not suggesting that those who insult another's religion should be harmed or that harming an insulter of another's religion is a justified act. He's saying, "Don't be surprised if..."
Here's another way to look at it: You start dating a known rapist. You're alone with the rapist. You get raped. You are not at fault-- all fault lies with the rapist. But you shouldn't act surprised.
The Pope is simply suggesting that if we don't don't want to get shot by nutters, we shouldn't attempt to piss off the nutters. While the Pope isn't advocating "THE LIMITATION OF" the freedom of speech, he's suggesting "WE LIMIT OURSELVES INDIVIDUALLY" in the form of tact and conscientiousness. It's the difference between law and self-control. He's advocating self-control.
He did not say it's ok to retaliate. He said you should "expect" retaliation ... Big difference. If someone says "Don't stand on the train tracks. That oncoming train will hit you", they're not justifying you being mowed down by a train. They're giving you a realistic prediction with a probable outcome.
Here, Popey McPopes-a-lot was just telling you the reality of the world. It's in our nature to lash out with violence, himself included. It doesn't mean it's right. It just means it's real.
Did anyone else just hear the woooosh as that went right over his head?
Offensive or just in disagreement?
Can religious people just disagree without being offended to the point of violence?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The rest of the world thinks anyone's personal beliefs are special (as long as they're not religious beliefs, apparently). You can have all sorts of stupid feelings and ideas, and if they're not tied to a religion, then somehow that elevates them to the point that nobody will touch them.
Scientific "beliefs" aren't all based on scientific fact. And really, the best science has to offer is a theory. Nothing is ever proven beyond theory in Science - or we never would have gotten away from the Copernican model of the Universe.
Science is a religion for a lot of people, and that goes far beyond what can be stated without doubt. Whatever the science du jour is, there's a related ideology that many scientists take upon themselves - for relativity, there's moral relativism; for evolution, it's the "survival of the fittest" mentality.
If I say the Earth revolves around the Sun, I should quite rightfully expect to have my telescopes destroyed, forcefully recant what I say and be sentenced to House Arrest for the remaining nine years of my life.
Out of curiosity I read the constitution. In that entire document I couldn't find anything that said you have the right to not be offended. I don't know what it says in Frances constitution but from the way the Frenchies have been acting, I'll wager it's pretty much the same. The problem I see is that religion is about power and control and they are quickly losing those very things in the west. And that is pissing off those who enjoy being under the yoke of religion. If I say or do something that you think insults your imaginary friend, try discussing it with me, don't murder a bunch of innocent people.
He's absolutely wrong on this one, and his bias towards religion is showing. I believe he needs to be reminded of the lesson in Matthew 26:52, when Peter draws a sword in defense of Jesus from arrest:
"Then said Jesus unto him, 'Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.'"
Nothing in your personal beliefs, ethics, philosophy, feelings, or anything else can ever justify the initiation of force or violence against an innocent person regardless of the content of their speech (at least so long as the speech itself is not a credible and reasonable threat or incitement to violence).
If I insult your mother and you punch me, I'm going to hit you back. Repeatedly. At the least. "Fighting words" is NOT an ethically supportable excuse, regardless of what the law in some places may say: your sense of offense is not an acceptable justification for violence because it has no bearing whatsoever on your health, safety, liberty, or life expectancy, whereas violence does. Words cannot - directly, in and of themselves - put a person in the hospital, or in a grave. Even the most "simple" fight, however, can.
If your religion, philosophy, ethics, creed, etc. - or your faith in them - cannot stand a little satire or ridicule, then that's a pretty clear sign it (or your faith) is severely lacking, and that is your problem and yours alone, not mine. If those things lead you to believe violence is acceptable just because someone made light of them, they're an outright failure and you and your lack of impulse control make you a danger to society no different from or less than a rabid dog, and you have no place around other people in a free society.
"Violence begets violence," said Dr. King, paraphrasing the theme of Matthew 26:52. To paraphrase Col. Jeff Cooper, if anyone brings violence to me or mine, I intend to beget a whole lot more violence than s/he bargained for in return.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
"religion can never be used to justify violence"
Bwaahahahahahahaaaa! As if.
Religious-inspired violence has killed more people in the history of this planet that state-sponsored violence.
"Morality", it appears, specifically of the religious kind, tends to allow people to justify mortal violence against whatever 'infidel' their in-group points a finger of hate.
''who make a game out of the religions of others"
Sounds like a fun game, where can I get it? Jesus gets walk on water powers, Zeus throws lightning bolts...sounds like a fun collaborative coop adventure game where you can play as your favorite religious figure and cooperate/switch among them to achieve the goals. I can see a 1st person shooter, a starcraft battle of followers and indoctrinated extremists, a platformer, a VS...
Just because wingnuts can take a religion, don't put their stupidity on the face of that belief system.
I don't see the problem with prayer everywhere (for Christians). The Bible more or less forbids prayer as a publicity stunt. So that should make it a non-issue.
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you
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.
There is no majority/minority dichotomy when it comes to freedom.
Both cost and benefit are suffered and enjoyed by ALL.
It is a presumed, preconceived and built-in feature of a society which aims for any kind of semblance to a society of equal norms of any kind.
You start distinguishing freedoms based on belonging to any kind or size of a group and you've got yourself a society of citizens and non-human humanoid... creatures.
Kinda like people but really lower beings.
You can cut them or prick them as much as you like. They don't really feel things like you and I do.
They only understand the whip. Anything else just does not get through their simpler senses.
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?
Freedoms being universal in a society resembling something of a free and democratic one, that imaginary majority can suck a big one and bend over and take up their stupid ass as long as there is something to be given.
And then wait patiently until more is imported from abroad so it could be jammed up their stupid asses.
See... Without the freedom to say what you mean, you can't complain when minority comes into your house and uses you for a poker bucket.
You can't even say "Thank you sir. Please, can I have some more."
No freedom of speech. Sorry. Only freedom to obey left I'm afraid.
If you actually believe in freedom, then you have to accept that others have the freedom to not want the same as you.
Sure, sure...
Just as if you actually believe in money then you have to accept that I can just come into your home and take yours - because I want it.
No... Wait...
Wanting something (or not) does NOT make that a valid claim or argument.
If it did a harem of beautiful women would be servicing my cock at all times. On my private space-station/tropical island. And I'd be immortal.
Beggars and horses.
Them I'd use for target practice.
Nor does WANTING SOMETHING give it ANY validity as an argument for restriction of EVERYONE'S freedoms which are ESSENTIAL for anything like a free society.
Including imaginary unattainable concepts such as safety or security.
I REALLY desire that space station you know. And those beautiful women. And immortality.
I desire it more than any minority or majority could ever possibly desire for oxygen.
And the cock is my penis. Not my rooster.
Those beautiful women would be sucking on it and fondling it gently.
It's a part of a decades long scientific experiment to see if it ever gets boring.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
That the Catholic Church did NOT start as a Christian church... it began with the decidedly NOT Christian Roman Emperor Constantine who converted to Christianity and then established Catholicism as the state religion (THIS and things like the Church of England, are what the US Constitution's "establishment clause" are meant to prevent in the US). As a result, the Catholic Church was, for centuries, just as much a government as it was a church/religion and to this day it continues to imagine itself to be like a government with leaders who think they have a role in non-religious matters. THIS and NOT ethnicity is the primary reason why the Irish (who were mostly Catholic) were so suspect in the US for so many years (when the US was almost entirely protestant Christian) and was why John F Kennedy had to explicitly tell the American voters in 1960 that, if elected, his Catholicism would have no impact on his policies.
As a quasi-politician with socialist globalist and dictatorial leanings, it should be no surprise that the Pope would agree with Communists, NAZIs, Jihadis, Leftists in government and on modern rotted college campuses (with "political correctness", "hate speech" bans, etc) and other like-minded fools that there should be such limits on free speech. As a protestant, I will be consistent and object to this idiot Pope... I am, like the founders of the US, FOR free speech no matter who is offended. Once "speech" has limits, it is no longer "free" and anybody who claims that speech codes are compatible with "free speech" is engaging in Orwellian "newspeak".
Why can't I put their stupidity on the face of their belief system if they can and stuff?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The thing is, I can see how some people can be upset at the kind of content Charlie Hebdo produces (I read French and I have seen a couple of their cartoons, on most major religions)....
Now, the problem is religions are purely arbitrary, some religious people will get upset when you say the earth is anything more than 6000 years old, people, from some religious groups are upset when there is pork at the menu... some religions are less tolerant of animal mistreatment, others don't want you to draw their prophet... now all this is pretty easy to avoid, most "reasonable" people will just avoid that kind of action/discussion out of niceness, but what do you do when someone refuses to do receive a speeding ticket from a woman? or when they park their car on a side of the street and refuse to move it (despite city rules that apply to everyone else) because it's a special day for them? or when a woman refuses to be treated by a man in an hospital? or if they want to vote with their face covered? what if these people would consider talking up against these religion based discriminations/benefits (these are some local examples that I have on the top of my head.. many more probably exist)...
So in short: Offending people is not a crime and should never become one, it does not matter if you are religiously offended... Now if someone is causing arm to you reputation, incite to violence, fraud... you know things that have some actual effect on our lives, yes sure, this is not an absolute thing, but you should be able to go pretty far in therms of speech without fearing retaliation.
My religion's chief dogma states "And ye, verily, none shall limiteth free speech, nor even discusseth the potential limits of free speech, excepteth for the shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater thing." The Pope's statement about not offending religion offends my religion. Seriously though, nobody has the right to not be offended. If you don't like folk drawing your prophet-dude, leave an angry comment below their Tumblr post like everybody else, don't shoot/bomb/ anyone.
It is not demonstrable that there are no gods or deities. Any firm belief that there are none is an article of faith, not logic.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There are few things in life I find truly amazing, and religion tops that list. Not that I find religions amazing, but the fact that people believe in them at all, much less take them seriously enough to kill because of them. There is no evidence beyond a few stories told by men that "prove " whatever the religion is trying to prove yet people flock to these religions, allow their children to be raped by religious leaders and kill because of their religions. All while demanding that their religion deserves everyone's respect. No one demands respect for the easter bunny or santa claus, both of which are on equal footing with religion with regards to being real. No one demands that flat earthers or any other conspiracy theorist gets respect much less a parden for killing someone who disagrees with him.
lets give religion the respect it deserves! their text would be sold in supermarket checkout lanes along with the ufo tabloids and diet fads. lets give them the respect they deserve rather than the respect they demand. Lets make the world a safe, happier, more reality and reason based place to live
guano happens
wait, i'm a god fearing atheist, and i still find that quote horrifying... i believe you just made an assumption and used it in an ad hominem attack.
his point stands regardless of his faith.
I consider myself quite intelligent, and I've had quite a few stupid ideas in my time. If you say an idea of mine is stupid, I'm interested in why you think that. If you call me stupid, you're flirting with the "makes noises with mouth that can be ignored" category.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
so you're literally fighting for your right to speak freely? if anyone takes issue with what you said, you could be severely injured? you've just stolen the right to free expression from anyone with a handicap.
why do you hate cripples?
Except that Islam does not seem to offend the Christians I know, so it isn't definitely offensive to Christians. Most of the churches I've had contact with seem to think that not fully accepting the Nicene Creed, or God, or Jesus, is something many people have to struggle through. (I'm not claiming that I've had contact with a representative sample.)
The elephant in the room is that there's lots of Muslims who aren't anywhere near that tolerant, and believe that offenses against Islam really should be punished harshly. Basically, Islam needs to grow up and get mature.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The reason religion is normally a protected category is that people will discriminate based on religion, and it isn't considered reasonable to require people to change religions to suit the circumstances. There's a lot of atheists on /., which is fine. How would they feel if they suddenly had to join a Christian church, attend services fairly frequently, and donate to the church to keep their jobs?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The assassins were afraid, with very good reason, that Muslims everywhere would rise up and start worshiping the images of Charlie as sacrosanct images of the Prophet. Mass murder, a universal religious prerogative with a long and proud history, was quite logically the only way to avoid the situation. Instead of being condemned, these assassins should instead be respected and admired for their upstanding, rational following of religious ideals.
Note that acquiring illegal weapons and traveling to a place to shoot people are not immediate breaches of the peace.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Correct!
In fact, that is entirely the existential point of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is present in almost every country.
Note what's happening in Turkey, exactly what you just said!
Pope Frances and Jesus and Muhammad are gay nigger faggots.
You seem like a cool guy.
Buzz Aldrin decked a moon landing denier after he told Buzz Fucking Aldrin, to his face, that he hadn't actually walked on the moon. A right hook to the jaw was entirely appropriate, as was the ultimate disposition of the criminal case.
But sometimes I think Frankie da Pope should just go shit in the woods.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Come at me bro!
Recent events indicate that conspiring to commit an act of terrorism, despite not being "an immediate breach of the peace", will get you arrested if you are noticed doing it.
A totally unbiased opinion, his.
The thing is that people similar to the attackers have killed, maimed, or thrown acid for expressing reasoned arguments for better life, or simply living and not for expressing clear, systematic provocation against a particular part of a population which is an illegal act in many places.
Those who don't know how the law is protecting them and others use force to protect themselves. Lets make sure they know the law before the law has to know them.
"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."
If you want that freedom for yourself, you have to accept the exercise of that freedom by those who don't agree with you. I don't agree with the pedophile in chief (Francis) on much of anything but I will defend his right to say whatever he wants...to the death if need be. If Frank slugs me for calling his mom a hooker, I will put his behind, silk dresses and all, in the slammer for assault.
Since 1905, France state is separated from church, which means the later cannot claim any legal authority.
The law does not ban blasphemy (except in Moselle and Alsace region which were outside of France in 1905), and forbids killing people or even punching them as a retaliation. Things are quite simple.
If you dress sexy, you're gonna get raped. It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot wear sexy clothes, and stir up the desire of others. Such people are provocateurs.
Which reminds me, time for a crusade, bbl.
Allowing others to alter your mood with words or harmless acts gives them power over you.
This makes the person you're closest to unnecessarily unhappy.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I might not be. :-) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :-) :-)
"religion can never be used to justify violence"
Bwaahahahahahahaaaa! As if.
The NY Daily News article says he said,
No one can kill in the name of God,” he added. “This is an aberration.”
He meant "No one should kill in the name of God." or "No one can justifiably kill in the name of God." He didn't mean no one has ever killed in the name of God.
... or principal of nature. It is only a cultural construct that has been occasionally been enforced with limits in some societies in far western Eurasia. It exists to the extent that military power allows and the whims of political powers decide. Socrates only got so far - and as a Citizen of Athens he had more freedom of speech then anyone else at the time. It is a privilege provided by force of arms.
When I was a kid on the streets of Brooklyn - Watch GoodFellas I was in the background of the reality of that piece of fiction - you had to take personal responsibility for what you said and did. If someone didn't like it you could get a flat nose, or be spread over several large black plastic bags in the Fountain Ave Dump.
So to all of those who are busy screaming "FUCK YOU". Would you say that if you had to take personal responsibility for that? That old west "Thems fighting words"? Why yes you say, and after the second beating you'll be far more circumspect.
But - you don't have to take that beating for being a jerk, Western Military Power prevents it. Usually And, now, less and less.
Well, on the momma joke, he said he *would* retaliate with physical violence! Not exactly a shining exemplar of a peaceful religious leader.
Seconded. Also, fuck your god. Fuck all gods. And fuck trying to claim your gods are allmighty but can't take ridicule and provocation. Loser religions. Please shoot yourselves.
Really? I just don't get it. If someone insults my mother why the fuck would I care one bit? Please do, I'll laugh at you, but I won't hit you over a stupid provocation attempt. If you call my mother a whore, and she happens to be one, there is no insult there, as it's the truth. If you call my mother a whore and she isn't, you are obviously either badly missinformed, or trying to provoke me. Both of which would be met by laugh and pity.
So he's pretty much saying they deserved getting murdered for a cartoon? This is ridiculous, religious people all over the world can not be trusted as they all have the same murderous instinct at heart.
So not believing is a faith? Thats a bit like saying not playing football is a sport. Have another go.
Didn't people here defend Buzz when he punched Bart Sibrel in the face after he merely called him "a coward, and a liar, and a thief."?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
But atheism isn't a religion so isn't typically as well protected anyway.
In fact, atheists are already prevented from working in some jobs, for example you can be discriminated against as a teacher seeking employment as a teacher at a Catholic school for example.
So this really flows into a further question about why religious folk should get protections over and above atheists also. You cannot for example run an atheist school and refuse a teacher employment for being religious, but you can run a religious school and refuse a teacher employment for not practicing that religion.
But this is already what is happening precisely because religion has equal protection to natural traits.
In the UK it is typically illegal to discriminate employment or provision of services based on sex or sexuality, yet religious institutions are allowed to exactly these things.
Which is why I suggested at an absolute minimum that even if you do protect religion it has to come secondary to natural traits. We should not in this day and age be allowing organisations to discriminate on sex or sexuality any more than we should on race.
It might sound fine to you but it's definitely not fine with me. By saying that one ought not to insult a religion, pope Francis denies me the right to practice my own religion, Discordianism, for which blaspheme, apostasy and heresy are actual religious duties.
He's denying me the right to practice my religion, and basically insults my most sacred beliefs, while denying everyone the right to insult religions in general. What an hypocrite.
So, yes, shupt the fuck up Francis, and go fuck your mother.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Sorry, all serious free speech debate aside, I just thought it funny that the POPE said he would punch someone...
In my mind he would yell "POPE PUNCH", right before doing so.... :)
We have the right to choose weather to keep our beliefs private or to share them, if you choose to share them in a public forum; you've chosen to face public scrutiny. Religious zealots should keep their insanity to themselves if they don't want to be made fun of.
Their religion is being FREELY mocked. Even the pope would accept the denigration of their "faith" as being "not a religion at all".
Also, I'd like to ask the pope what happened to all that "Turn the other cheek" stuff the dude nailed to the dod o wood at the back of his podium was going on about?
Francis is simply wrong and he is becoming more wrong by the word. Speech is and must remain free and without impediments or limits. If that means that your religion is or should be above offense or criticism, then that is suppression of speech for what is the point of speech if one can not criticize or in the sake of speaking against a religion not be deemed to offend it. The simple act of speaking against a religion would be an offense and that must be protected at all costs or we will no longer be free. Francis' marxist streak is showing again.
"Beliefs are beliefs no matter where they arise from."
As a Christian, I can agree with the above statement 100%.
"Just because someone believes something written in a book of fairy tales 2000 years ago doesn't make it sacrosanct and above criticism."
*Sigh*
What sort of idiots could find fault with the Pope's comments? We know Islam is a slimy religion but they are entitled to their errors--just like the homosexuals and masturbators.
Sure, but my point is that the "fighting words" doctrine, even when applicable, can only be used to excuse immediate actions. The terrorists planned and acted.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not believing in God is not a faith, and can be arrived at rationally. Acting like there is no God is reasonable. Positively believing that there is no God is an act of faith. You were saying that "there is demonstrably no such thing" as a prophet, because that would imply a god.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Free speech but "Do to others as you want them to do to you". If you wouldn't want someone insulting your mother, don't insult theirs. And if they do insult your mother tell them it hurt and forgive them. That's my view.
Parent makes the wrong analogy. If I draw an insulting cartoon of a bear's cubs I doubt she will "come and maul the shit" out of me. Now if I poke a real live Muslim (or Christian, Jew or atheist) with a shtick, I'd be fool not to expect getting something terrible in return.
A friend in a politically correct company has
noted that half the dictionary is now off limits.
Sadly you cannot even have a single dictionary because
one of them has a bright red cover.
After lining up some 20 different dictionaries it was noted that fucha was under represented
and now that adjective is in the endangered list. Rose colored glasses are verboten...
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Religions are 2000 years old;
Humans are 200,000 years old;
Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
"Diverse society will fail" --Putnam;
Let black Judges deal with black Culprits;
Let moderate Muslims deal with radical Muslims;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
This' not a flamebait. Please, read it all.
* Caps in cites are mine.
* [...] means there's more text but to keep it clean, I omitted it.
* [[text]] means a clarification by me.
1st) Universal Human Rights Declaration, Art. 1 "ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE born free and EQUAL IN dignity and RIGHTS. [...]"
2nd) I'm homosexual.
> Jews must kill me (Lev.20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed a detestable act: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.")
> Christians must kill me (Jesus didn't deny the Jewish laws, same Lev 20:13). If you don't feel comfortable with this, ignore this line.
> Muslims must kill me (in Hadith: "Narated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did [[not heterosexual relations]], kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done." Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4447)
3rd) Universal Human Rights Declaration, Art. 18 "EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT to freedom of [...] RELIGION; this right INCLUDES freedom to CHANGE HIS RELIGION or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
> Muslims must kill anyone who changes religion (in Hudud: "Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim [...] cannot be shed except in three cases: [...] and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."" Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17)
4th) Universal Human Rights Declaration, Art. 30 "NOTHING IN THIS DECLARATION MAY BE INTERPRETED AS IMPLYING FOR ANY [...] GROUP OR PERSON ANY RIGHT TO ENGANGE IN ANY ACTIVITY OR TO PERFORM ANY ACT CLAIMED AT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS SET FORTH HEREIN"
> Pope Francisco (Christian Church Head) says I've NO RIGHT to marry or adopt as heterosexuals do. Violates Art. 1
> Putin (Orthodox, Russia) says I've NO RIGHT to kiss or marry in public as heterosexuals do. Violates Art. 1
> Mariano Rajoy (Christian, Spain) says I've NO RIGHT to adopt Russian children and they're trying to forbid me marry as heterosexuals do. Violates Art. 1
> Jews, Christian and Muslims say I've NO RIGHT to be alive as heterosexuals are.
> There are laws that forbid xenophobia and spreading hate and thus forbid publishing text with such content; but the Torah, the Holy Bible, and the Quran has their pages in full of hate, orders to kill, xenophobia, etc. and are in print.
Conclusion:
As Jews, Christians and Muslims violates UDHR Art. 1, hence, the Art. 30 applies and they are NOT protected by Art. 18.
So, Jews, Christians and Muslims MUST be wipe out (as religions) and be treated as traitors to the human race and be condemned and punished for their genocides.
Haven't we had enough deaths?
> For protecting my rights as human I will die if needed, but I'll take with me anyone who tries to deny them to me.
Haven't we had enough deaths?
> How many died trying to establish the Human Rights? How many more must die so the Human Rights apply?
Haven't we had enough deaths?
> Ask that to Jews, Christians and Muslims. They have killed millions and they won't stop. The're are not satisfied with succinct woman for adultery, emasculate children boys so they can sing in their ear, burn alive people for telling there's a blood system, behead people for fighting their rights.
THAT'S ENOUGH. Now, it's the time the Human Race wipe out Jews, Christians and Muslims FOREVER.
Sincerely,
Franz
This post just revealed how loveless some slashdotters could be. I think when you speak you have to put the feelings of other people above your right to speak. Not because you have the right you're gonna say something moronic that insults others. Thats just trolling.
In my case, a stopped brain is.. what were we talking about again?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
IMHO, claiming that the Tenth Doctor isn't the all-time best Doctor comes pretty close.
I can't wait for the Great Whovian Wars when supporters of Tenant and supporters of Baker level the cities of the other side's adherents. I do not know how it will turn out, but I will certainly be wearing a scarf to show my support.
"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," ,and the witch hunts ,all done in the name of the Catholic Church.
I guess he forgets about the Crusades