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
There's your freedom of speech
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...
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.
And that is exactly the point. I'm free to say what I want and you are free to ignore it.
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
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.
Mothers exist - prophets don't. Show me a prophet and I'll show you a smooth talking charlatan surrounded by a load of suckers.
"If a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization."
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.
Why do we still care what the pope says?
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
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.
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
...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.
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.
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.
The Muslim religion is offended by depictions of Muhammad.
Do you think drawing cartoons of Muhammad and making fun of him is "something that almost certainly needs to be said?"
In Germany, it's against the law to deny the Holocaust.
Shouldn't you go, right now, and draw funny cartoons that deny the Holocaust?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"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 a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization."
Definitely worth repeating, as is this later quote: "But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed."
The Christian religion is offended by the claim of Islam that Jesus is not the son of God. The inescapable conclusion of which is No Charlie Hebdo, no Koran.
One could further note that if Muslims claimed that Christianity was offensive to them because it claimed that Jesus was the son of God, it was around first, so it is still a fail on behalf of Islam.
That sums it up nicely. Ironically, it's liberals (which most atheists are) who most adamantly keep defending Islam and willfully ignoring the fact that it has a cancer that should be addressed more aggressively by their own leaders. At best, Shariah law is inconsistent with democratic principles. And now, Duke University is allowing the muslim morning call to prayer from it's bell tower. Hello atheists, where are you now? We all know if they'd said the lord's prayer was to be played from the tower instead, leftists and atheists would be howling for blood and freaking out. They shouldn't be doing either of them, University should be totally secular. (Yay, and now after probably pissing off lefties, I've just pissed off righties.. such is the curse of the moderate)
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The Muslim religion is offended by depictions of Muhammad.
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
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.
religious people are often insulting atheists and people who put their faith in science, if not overtly, then in discriminating ways.
saying things like there are no morals with out god. calling people heathens. threatening that we will suffer greatly after we die.
does that mean we can punch them in the face?
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
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. :)
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
There is a good reason why a Muslim shouldn't make pictures of Mohammed: Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to. So buy making a picture of Mohammed, a Muslim might go the wrong way in his religion and damage himself - that's why it is forbidden.
Non-muslims wouldn't be affected by that. There's no reason why a non-muslim shouldn't hang a picture of Mohammed on their bedroom wall; it doesn't put their soul in danger. And caricature or insults are not a religious problem either. Sure, insulting Mohammed isn't nice to a Muslim, just like saying "your mother is ugly" isn't nice to anyone, and you shouldn't do it, but there is no offence to the religion.
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