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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
The problem is they can't say your prophet sucks if you don't have one. Maybe non-believers should keep a six-pack of prophets handy so the squabble can be settled verbally instead of with Kalashnikovs.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
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
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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 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)
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.
"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.
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.
"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.)
I don't hate the pope, but I do think his position here is poorly thought through. Any religion could (and in the past often has) interpret ANY criticism as blasphemy. Point out that the Catholic Church has ignored and even protected child molesters? Blasphemy! Point out that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around? Blasphemy! Secondly, it is aggravating that an intelligent man is apparently still so brainwashed by his own beliefs that he actively promotes the idea that religion is in any way more important than other opinions. Religion is just an opinion. If I am allowed to criticize an opinion, I should be allowed to criticize religion, because down at the core it is nothing more than an opinion. It may be thousands of years old, it may have billions of people sharing it, but it is still just an opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.'"
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
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.
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 funny part of this post is that AC thinks the vatican has cleaned up 'it's act'. Perhaps it has, but it's only 'the act' that is getting cleaned up. Like hiring a publicist.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
You seem like a cool guy.
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.
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.
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. :-) :-)
... 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.