The pope sides with terror over free speech

[Rob]

Since when is violence the fair reaction to the criticism of ideas?

When they're your ideas that are being criticised.

Apparently.

 

[fleabitten]

You sound like the kind of sook who'll say something provocative and then cry when someone gives you a slap for being a mouthy little weed.

And you sound like a mindless ape who resorts to violence when incapable of an intelligent response to criticism.

 

[Seeds]

To an extent he is right. It still shouldn't have happened, but Charlie Hebdo should have been smarter. Why put yourself at that risk?

Because there is a important principle involved and they're willing to risk their own life to defend the principle.

 

[Slax]

Should we be able to mock religion without being blamed for our own deaths if a fanatic should decide to kill us for it.

A) Yes
B) No
C) ?

**** your shades of gray. It' a simple question and the pope's answer is the same as the murderer's answer. The only moral response to the killings is condemnation. Anyone who adds "but that's what you get" is a campaigner. The pope is a campaigner.

You are a campaigner too, whether you believe it or not your words show that you are.

If people expect others to stand by whilst others insult something dear to them and not get a reaction they are niaive. By saying that he didn't expect his response would mean that you have no problem wth me coming up to you and calling your partner a prostitute in front of you, or claiming that a father is a paedophile because he bathed his children whilst they were infants/yound children. This is what Pope Francis is getting at. Many in Western society now hold belief in religion as a sign of ignorance of science, fail to understand that if you rub people's faces in it for long enough then you will get hit. Many muslims see the current actions by the USA and her allies as a new Crusade by Christianity. It is the west trying to push their beliefs and systems onto other countries and not respecting their structures and society.

So many of the radical groups that now exist were never heard of before 1990, they had no grounds to recruit new people to their cause and in most countries which are now ravaged by fundamentalist wars people of different beliefs lived in relative harmony in most countries. So why has it become so bad in the last 25 years? Because the USA and her allies have made it this way by shoving Western democracy on others saying it is the only way, they then come in with foreign companies and pillage the country in a same way as crusaders looted the areas they conquered 1000 years ago.

So ask yourself do you want Sharia law? or even the religious courts that work in conjunction with civil courts? If you don't and would be willing to fight for what you have now then don't complain when others do the same. The face of war has changed a lot over the last 200 years and terrorism is just guerilla warfare where the weaker combatant is using whatever means possible to strike at the stronger opponent to unsettle them.

If you think everything is black and white then fine, but it isn't because we are human and we all see things differently. Turn everyone into a robot and only then will you have black and white.

 

[fleabitten]

You are a campaigner too, whether you believe it or not your words show that you are.

Okay.

If people expect others to stand by whilst others insult something dear to them and not get a reaction they are niaive. By saying that he didn't expect his response would mean that you have no problem wth me coming up to you and calling your partner a prostitute in front of you, or claiming that a father is a paedophile because he bathed his children whilst they were infants/yound children.

If you slandered me or my family, I'd respond by either slandering you back or if what you said was damaging enough (like if it cost me a job), I would sue you. No-one is saying that there are no consequences to free speech. If you say something hurtful, then of course people are going to react to that. THAT is normal. What is not normal is when that reaction is violent. That the pope says it is normal to react violently shows that he is not worthy of being a moral leader.

This is what Pope Francis is getting at. Many in Western society now hold belief in religion as a sign of ignorance of science, fail to understand that if you rub people's faces in it for long enough then you will get hit. Many muslims see the current actions by the USA and her allies as a new Crusade by Christianity. It is the west trying to push their beliefs and systems onto other countries and not respecting their structures and society.

It was a French magazine in France with a distribution of about 60k. It is the extremist dickheads and the hordes of "moderates" who want to bully them into silence that are pushing their beliefs onto other countries. If those murderers didn't like the covers, they didn't have to look at them. If they don't want to live in a country where religion can be mocked, then there are plenty of Muslim countries they could go and live in where they wouldn't have to worry about having their outdated belief system questioned. If the pope doesn't like hearing people say mean things about Christianity, then tough s**t. This isn't the Dark Ages anymore.

So many of the radical groups that now exist were never heard of before 1990, they had no grounds to recruit new people to their cause and in most countries which are now ravaged by fundamentalist wars people of different beliefs lived in relative harmony in most countries. So why has it become so bad in the last 25 years? Because the USA and her allies have made it this way by shoving Western democracy on others saying it is the only way, they then come in with foreign companies and pillage the country in a same way as crusaders looted the areas they conquered 1000 years ago.

I actually agree with you about the USA and its allies (including us) having no business forcing democracy on countries that are not ready for it. The USA is not even a democracy itself, so the hypocrisy there is pretty galling. But a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989, before even the 1st Iraq war. I'm sure the events since then have had a radicalizing effect on Islam but the hyper-sensitivity and willingness to use terror to silence free speech was already there.

So ask yourself do you want Sharia law? or even the religious courts that work in conjunction with civil courts? If you don't and would be willing to fight for what you have now then don't complain when others do the same. The face of war has changed a lot over the last 200 years and terrorism is just guerilla warfare where the weaker combatant is using whatever means possible to strike at the stronger opponent to unsettle them.

I would fight against Sharia law with my words. I wouldn't kill random Muslims to stop it happening.

If you think everything is black and white then fine, but it isn't because we are human and we all see things differently. Turn everyone into a robot and only then will you have black and white.

I know that the reality is not black and white and that there are a range of ways that people will react to being offended. What is black and white is that violence as a response to criticism or mockery is 100% wrong. There's no "but you shouldn't have said that". It's the religious extremists who want to turn everyone into unthinking robots who don't have the right to question ideas.

 

[CountryRace]

42% of French Opposed to Charlie Hebdo’s Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, Poll Finds

http://time.com/3672921/charlie-hebdo-prophet-muhammad-muslim-cartoon-poll/

Because there is a important principle involved and they're willing to risk their own life to defend the principle.

what principle is that? print muslim cartoons for ever more. fire cartoonists working for the company, if they do a jewish one? principle of being a prick.

the pope makes a fair point. cant push forever and not expect a breaking point. more so, when you are selective with the religions you choose to bag.

 

[Slax]

If you slandered me or my family, I'd respond by either slandering you back or if what you said was damaging enough (like if it cost me a job), I would sue you. No-one is saying that there are no consequences to free speech. If you say something hurtful, then of course people are going to react to that. THAT is normal. What is not normal is when that reaction is violent. That the pope says it is normal to react violently shows that he is not worthy of being a moral leader.

Unfortunately not all people are passive, even in a Western society we have plenty of people willing to use violence for just looking at them the wrong way. When the level of angst is increased in these sorts of people they will list to others who advocate violence and then act on it. The people actually committing these acts are generally impressionable disassociated youth, looking to leave their mark on the world and prove their worth.

It was a French magazine in France with a distribution of about 60k. It is the extremist dickheads and the hordes of "moderates" who want to bully them into silence that are pushing their beliefs onto other countries. If those murderers didn't like the covers, they didn't have to look at them. If they don't want to live in a country where religion can be mocked, then there are plenty of Muslim countries they could go and live in where they wouldn't have to worry about having their outdated belief system questioned. If the pope doesn't like hearing people say mean things about Christianity, then tough s**t. This isn't the Dark Ages anymore.

maybe not for us, but for some life is still pretty miserable, poor job prospects, strong prejudices against you and road blocks everywhere you go that sap energy from self improvement.

I actually agree with you about the USA and its allies (including us) having no business forcing democracy on countries that are not ready for it. The USA is not even a democracy itself, so the hypocrisy there is pretty galling. But a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989, before even the 1st Iraq war. I'm sure the events since then have had a radicalizing effect on Islam but the hyper-sensitivity and willingness to use terror to silence free speech was already there.

I view the whole Rushdie situation as very different, it was specific to one particular individual, no-one else, these groups just make a broad statements against anyone who doesn't believe in their particular version of Islam. These groups weren't born out of the Rushdie novel, they were born out of USA interference in Middle Eastern politics which only grew more during the 90s.

I've said elsewhere, Ronal Regan would be turning in his grave if you showed him what the Republican party had become, yet those same Repiblicans hold him up to high esteem saying he set up their values.

 

[fleabitten]

Unfortunately not all people are passive, even in a Western society we have plenty of people willing to use violence for just looking at them the wrong way.

You're just stating the obvious. We all know there are violent people in the world who will physically attack others if they feel slighted. The problem is that the pope, supposedly one of the world's great moral leaders, says that this is normal and that we should all keep our ideas to ourselves so that we won't be attacked. He is insinuating that the blame for any violence lies at least partly with people who share controversial or unpopular ideas. That is unacceptable in the 21st century.

 

[CountryRace]

You're just stating the obvious. We all know there are violent people in the world who will physically attack others if they feel slighted. The problem is that the pope, supposedly one of the world's great moral leaders, says that this is normal and that we should all keep our ideas to ourselves so that we won't be attacked. He is insinuating that the blame for any violence lies at least partly with people who share controversial or unpopular ideas. That is unacceptable in the 21st century.

every action has an equal and opposite reaction

it is indeed human nature to not cop s**t forever

pope is just pointing out the truth

 

[fleabitten]

every action has an equal and opposite reaction

it is indeed human nature to not cop s**t forever

pope is just pointing out the truth

How is murdering people equal to drawing blasphemous cartoons?

The pope is a twit.

 

[CountryRace]

How is murdering people equal to drawing blasphemous cartoons?

The pope is a twit.

i dont think thats what he said

pope is a legend. i for one love his anti-consumer world view

 

[Partridge]

Religion and a progressive/intelligent society can not co-exist. The right to offend is what free speech is about. Not everything that society takes as an eternal truth is correct. The only way to challenge mistaken eternal truths is to offend. The ideas that the world is flat, man comes from Adam and Eve, the blank slate, the existence of the sole, the slavery is just all were held as eternal truths and anyone suggesting otherwise offended the majority of the population at the time. We can never let religion take away our right away to offend. It will be a dark moment for humankind if that every occurs.

Spot on. I'll gleefully enjoy offending more religious groups now. Or anyone else.

If the answer is "I'm offended", my answer is normally "and?".

 

[Partridge]

So Il Papa, probably the most peaceful man on the planet, gets bagged. Goes by the SRP script I guess. When will you lot grow up.

Most peaceful man on the planet? More likely "PR front man for the world's biggest pedophile ring". Luckily for him, most people are either complete cowards, or so desperate not to offend, so they'll cheer anything he says.

 

[fleabitten]

i dont think thats what he said

pope is a legend. i for one love his anti-consumer world view

You just said every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That's what I was responding to.

I also liked his anti-capitalism stuff and also his comments about the big bang and evolution. But he lost all respect with the comments about religion being beyond criticism and violent reactions to insults being normal.

 

[CountryRace]

Most peaceful man on the planet? More likely "PR front man for the world's biggest pedophile ring". Luckily for him, most people are either complete cowards, or so desperate not to offend, so they'll cheer anything he says.

from my research i think the church is only the pedo-ring in the media.

seems to be other pedo things happening in non-catholic high up places not getting much attention

 

[CountryRace]

You just said every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That's what I was responding to.

I also liked his anti-capitalism stuff and also his comments about the big bang and evolution. But he lost all respect with the comments about religion being beyond criticism and violent reactions to insults being normal.

religion being beyond criticism - is that what he said?

violent reactions to insults being normal - it is, fortunately or unfortunately

 

[Seeds]

42% of French Opposed to Charlie Hebdo’s Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, Poll Finds

http://time.com/3672921/charlie-hebdo-prophet-muhammad-muslim-cartoon-poll/



what principle is that? print muslim cartoons for ever more. fire cartoonists working for the company, if they do a jewish one? principle of being a prick.

the pope makes a fair point. cant push forever and not expect a breaking point. more so, when you are selective with the religions you choose to bag.

the principle of free speech. obviously something you do not believe in.

Why is it only what religious people find offensive that matter? I find, as do many others, it highly offensive that people can resort to religion in todays western worlds despite everything they are taught in school. I also find the way many religions treat women and homosexuals highly offensive. Why does what i find offensive not matter while what others find offensive does?

Would these views only become important if people like me decide to go firebomb churches? Then you could say "the churches were dumb for existing because they should of known they would be attacked by people who find religion offensive. its their own fault. Who cares whether they were standing up for the principle of the right to their own existance, its irrelevant as only the views of those willing to attack others who offend them matter".

 

[fleabitten]

religion being beyond criticism - is that what he said?

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

violent reactions to insults being normal

- it is, fortunately or unfortunately

Clearly, it's unfortunate. It's something that should be condemned without qualification. Especially if you are the head of a religion whose core tenets include "turning the other cheek". He's saying it's understandable not only to refuse to turn the other cheek when you've been struck, but to throw the first punch.

 

[CountryRace]

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."



Clearly, it's unfortunate. It's something that should be condemned without qualification. Especially if you are the head of a religion whose core tenets include "turning the other cheek". He's saying it's understandable not only to refuse to turn the other cheek when you've been struck, but to throw the first punch.

I think what the pop was getting at (lol) is; "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." without expecting them to get pissed off at some point.

the principle of free speech. obviously something you do not believe in.

Why is it only what religious people find offensive that matter? I find, as do many others, it highly offensive that people can resort to religion in todays western worlds despite everything they are taught in school. I also find the way many religions treat women and homosexuals highly offensive. Why does what i find offensive not matter while what others find offensive does?

Would these views only become important if people like me decide to go firebomb churches? Then you could say "the churches were dumb for existing because they should of known they would be attacked by people who find religion offensive. its their own fault. Who cares whether they were standing up for the principle of the right to their own existance, its irrelevant as only the views of those willing to attack others who offend them matter".

personally i feel quite strongly about freedom of speech. i enjoy bagging arabs, christians, jews etc.

just posting a article saying many french seemingly dont.

 

[fleabitten]

I think what the pop was getting at (lol) is; "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." without expecting them to get pissed off at some point.

That would just be stating the obvious. He followed it up by saying that he would punch his friend for an insult. If the pope is not above violence in the face of insults, then why should a layman be held to higher standards? He's basically providing a ready-made excuse for anyone who kills in defense of their religion. "Even the pope says that it's normal!"

 

[ep2018]

42% of French Opposed to Charlie Hebdo’s Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, Poll Finds

http://time.com/3672921/charlie-hebdo-prophet-muhammad-muslim-cartoon-poll/

Well I suspect because it leads to violence, which puts the average person in danger. Not because they are Islam sympathizers.

 

[CountryRace]

That would just be stating the obvious. He followed it up by saying that he would punch his friend for an insult. If the pope is not above violence in the face of insults, then why should a layman be held to higher standards? He's basically providing a ready-made excuse for anyone who kills in defense of their religion. "Even the pope says that it's normal!"

they way i read it was 'stop bagging arabs so much' but each to his own

 

[fleabitten]

So he made a bumbling attempt to clarify what he meant...and pretty much just re-stated the same thing, adding a new story of that one time when he was going to kick some guys "where the sun doesn't shine".

This pope really is a twit.

 

[Iron]

If the pope tells you not to poke a bear and you poke the bear anyway and get mauled, who's the idiot?

Should you be allowed to poke the bear? I suppose so. You're still an idiot for doing it, though. To draw anything from what he said other than "you really shouldn't make fun of people" (subtext: especially radicals who, shock horror, will continue to do radical things) is asinine and has all the hallmarks of a religion-bashing motive.

Where is the following quote from said pope(?): "I'm super glad all those people died, they really were asking for it" (will allow paraphrasing but must include both intention and point).

 

[fleabitten]

He literally says that he himself, the leader of one of the world's major religions, would also react violently if someone insulted someone/something dear to him. His words were not framed as a warning that people exercising their free speech need to be careful because there are religious nuts who might kill them. It was clearly a condemnation of people who insult religious feelings, complete with an admission that he is also capable of violence and that this is supposedly a normal way to behave.