The pope sides with terror over free speech

[Iron]

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.

It is a shame that you interpret an analogy so literally. I wonder what you think of people who would do the same when reading the Bible? Perhaps he could have chosen his words or his analogy better. The point still stands. How on earth you link this interpretation to him somehow siding with terrorism is astonishing, though, and speaks volumes about you, not him!

 

[Forward Press]

It is a shame that you interpret an analogy so literally. I wonder what you think of people who would do the same when reading the Bible? Perhaps he could have chosen his words or his analogy better. The point still stands. How on earth you link this interpretation to him somehow siding with terrorism is astonishing, though, and speaks volumes about you, not him!

Punching friend = terrorist violence
Offending someone might provoke a response = supporting terrorism

 

[Iron]

Punching friend = terrorist violence
Offending someone might provoke a response = supporting terrorism

I think we might be able to simplify the equation on our dear friend's behalf:

Religion = Bad

 

[fleabitten]

It is a shame that you interpret an analogy so literally. I wonder what you think of people who would do the same when reading the Bible? Perhaps he could have chosen his words or his analogy better. The point still stands. How on earth you link this interpretation to him somehow siding with terrorism is astonishing, though, and speaks volumes about you, not him!

Analogy? He was discussing an act of violence by people who got their feelings hurt and said that if his feelings were hurt, he would also be violent. What I think of his words doesn't really matter, but what of all the religious extremists who can now point to the pope and say "he would do the same" after they commit violent acts against those who offend them?

 

[Forward Press]

If you think Islamic extremists are going to listen to what the Pope says you're having a bit of a laugh.

 

[Iron]

Analogy? He was discussing an act of violence by people who got their feelings hurt and said that if his feelings were hurt, he would also be violent. What I think of his words doesn't really matter, but what of all the religious extremists who can now point to the pope and say "he would do the same" after they commit violent acts against those who offend them?

The point you are missing, or blatantly ignoring, is that a punch is not the same as committing murder. In no one's language is it the same. He is advising against performing an action that would have retaliatory consequences. Were a religious extremist to interpret his words as permission to commit the same acts of aggression as those in France, I dare say the pope would condemn them too.

 

[fleabitten]

If you think Islamic extremists are going to listen to what the Pope says you're having a bit of a laugh.

I've had Catholics threaten to "beat the crap" out of me in the last few days. Seems they're not as good at reading between the pope's wiggly lines as you are.

 

[fleabitten]

The point you are missing, or blatantly ignoring, is that a punch is not the same as committing murder. In no one's language is it the same. He is advising against performing an action that would have retaliatory consequences. Were a religious extremist to interpret his words as permission to commit the same acts of aggression as those in France, I dare say the pope would condemn them too.

So the pope's okay with violence as long as it stops short of murder. Well that makes him a beacon of morality then, doesn't it.

 

[Malifice]

He said that it is "normal" to react violently when you feel insulted..

He said it's normal to get angry when you get insulted.

I'm fairly sure the Pope want advocating violence in response to being offended.

Turn the other cheek and all that.

 

[Forward Press]

I've had Catholics threaten to "beat the crap" out of me in the last few days. Seems they're not as good at reading between the pope's wiggly lines as you are.

What did you do?

 

[fleabitten]

He said it's normal to get angry when you get insulted.

I'm fairly sure the Pope want advocating violence in response to being offended.

Turn the other cheek and all that.

He said he would punch his friend for insulting his mother and that this is normal behaviour. Maybe he didn't mean it to come out the way it did, but that's what he said. Either way, he's a flog.

 

[fleabitten]

What did you do?

Before or after? Before, I said pretty much the same as I've said in here. After, I quoted scripture at them and showed them up for hypocritical w***ers.

 

[Forward Press]

Before or after? Before, I said pretty much the same as I've said in here. After, I quoted scripture at them and showed them up for hypocritical ******s.

Now did you quote scripture and attempted to engage in a level-headed debate, or were you throwing your fedora at them in your euphoria?

 

[Iron]

So the pope's okay with violence as long as it stops short of murder. Well that makes him a beacon of morality then, doesn't it.

Yes that's exactly what he means. His demonstration proves that it's okay to torture people, even, as long as they don't die. How lucky we are to have your interpretations and opinions stated as fact so that we won't make any mistakes.

I think I'd much rather sit and discuss the matter with him. While you may think he's a flog, I imagine he'd at least make for civilised conversation and less name calling.

 

[Little Big John]

Before or after? Before, I said pretty much the same as I've said in here. After, I quoted scripture at them and showed them up for hypocritical ******s.

Probably shouldn't have gone around provoking them.

Lesson learned.

 

[fleabitten]

Now did you quote scripture and attempted to engage in a level-headed debate, or were you throwing your fedora at them in your euphoria?

Not sure why you're so interested in how it played out, but it started with me posting on facebook the day that the quote became news, saying that there is never any "but" in a situation like that and that the pope should have condemned the attacks and left it at that. i also said he was unfit to be a moral leader and that i had lost respect for him. Catholic friends tried to defend him and claimed that there were limits to free speech and anyone that insults religion has it coming. I said that is a pretty disgusting morality and quoted Matthew 5:39. They came back with some bullshit about Luke 22:36 and i accused them of not understanding their own religion and quoted Matthew 26:52. Things kind of fizzled out from there as they didn't have much of a response. Later they posted some s**t about how certain people needed the crap beat out of them, clearly referring to me. Several of their Catholic buddies jumped on board, basically threatening to kick my ass when they saw me.

 

[fleabitten]

Probably shouldn't have gone around provoking them.

Lesson learned.

Not learned at all, I'm afraid. I'll continue to criticize religion as much as I like. I'm sure if I'm ever killed because of it (along with anyone unfortunate enough to be in my presence at the time), there will be plenty of so-called religious folk who will say it was my own fault.

 

[Forward Press]

Not sure why you're so interested in how it played out, but it started with me posting on facebook the day that the quote became news, saying that there is never any "but" in a situation like that and that the pope should have condemned the attacks and left it at that. i also said he was unfit to be a moral leader and that i had lost respect for him. Catholic friends tried to defend him and claimed that there were limits to free speech and anyone that insults religion has it coming. I said that is a pretty disgusting morality and quoted Matthew 5:39. They came back with some bullshit about Luke 22:36 and i accused them of not understanding their own religion and quoted Matthew 26:52. Things kind of fizzled out from there as they didn't have much of a response. Later they posted some s**t about how certain people needed the crap beat out of them, clearly referring to me. Several of their Catholic buddies jumped on board, basically threatening to kick my ass when they saw me.

If you can't see why accusing their spiritual leader of being 'unfit to be a moral leader', then say that their morality is 'disgusting', might provoke a reaction then frankly you need to re-assess your position in these theological matters.

I've had plenty of debate with religious people and resorting to name-calling and insults will never get you anywhere - but it makes you feel good, I suppose. Certainly none have ever threatened to 'kick my ass'.

 

[fleabitten]

If you can't see why accusing their spiritual leader of being 'unfit to be a moral leader', then say that their morality is 'disgusting', might provoke a reaction then frankly you need to re-assess your position in these theological matters.

I've had plenty of debate with religious people and resorting to name-calling and insults will never get you anywhere - but it makes you feel good, I suppose. Certainly none have ever threatened to 'kick my ass'.

Calling him unfit to be a moral leader was based on his own comments. It was a fair criticism. This is exactly the point. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize the pope for the things that he says? Calling their morality disgusting was after they said that those who insult religion have it coming (as in, they deserve to be murdered). Again, a fair criticism. Only one side ever threatened violence or said that anyone else deserved to have violence inflicted on them.

But I'm the bad guy?

 

[Forward Press]

Calling him unfit to be a moral leader was based on his own comments. It was a fair criticism. This is exactly the point. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize the pope for the things that he says? Calling their morality disgusting was after they said that those who insult religion have it coming (as in, they deserve to be murdered). Again, a fair criticism. Only one side ever threatened violence or said that anyone else deserved to have violence inflicted on them.

But I'm the bad guy?

You need to work on phrasing your arguments, understanding other viewpoints and just plain being respectful. You're not converting anyone by being an ass. Which it sounds like you are. If you claim to represent the people that are not religious in the world (like me), I'd say no thanks.

 

[Little Big John]

Not learned at all, I'm afraid. I'll continue to criticize religion as much as I like. I'm sure if I'm ever killed because of it (along with anyone unfortunate enough to be in my presence at the time), there will be plenty of so-called religious folk who will say it was my own fault.

I guess my real question, and this isn't just for you fleabitten but anyone reading, is why do you care what someone else believes?

I can understand getting upset/annoyed/defensive if someone tries to convert you, or can understand what would be the injustice of being forced to believe in something you don't (although I'm not sure how that would actually happen…), but otherwise who gives a s**t.

I have a housemate that likes house (and not great house music, pretty average stuff). I get a bit shitty if he plays it too loud or too long, but not shitty that he actually likes it, or feel the need to tell him why I don't like it (unless he asks, in which case I can tell him in pretty good humour).

 

[fleabitten]

You need to work on phrasing your arguments, understanding other viewpoints and just plain being respectful. You're not converting anyone by being an ass. Which it sounds like you are. If you claim to represent the people that are not religious in the world (like me), I'd say no thanks.

I've had thousands of reasonable debates with people about religion. On this occasion, I took it personally that some people would blame me for my own death if I were to be murdered by religious extremists. Being able to criticize the ideas of others, whether they are religious ideas or political ideas or whatever, without the fear of being physically attacked is something very important to me. Anyone who says that I should remain silent or I "have it coming" is, IMO, an enemy of civilization. So I said their leader was unfit and that their morals were disgusting. So what? Still doesn't excuse violent retaliation from people who claim to follow Jesus.

 

[Forward Press]

I've had thousands of reasonable debates with people about religion. On this occasion, I took it personally that some people would blame me for my own death if I were to be murdered by religious extremists. Being able to criticize the ideas of others, whether they are religious ideas or political ideas or whatever, without the fear of being physically attacked is something very important to me. Anyone who says that I should remain silent or I "have it coming" is, IMO, an enemy of civilization. So I said their leader was unfit and that their morals were disgusting. So what? Still doesn't excuse violent retaliation from people who claim to follow Jesus.

Leaving aside the rest of the post which is just a restatement of your rants in this thread, the bolded part demonstrates that you will never get what others in this thread are saying.

I don't see the point of continuing.

 

[fleabitten]

I guess my real question, and this isn't just for you fleabitten but anyone reading, is why do you care what someone else believes?

I can understand getting upset/annoyed/defensive if someone tries to convert you, or can understand what would be the injustice of being forced to believe in something you don't (although I'm not sure how that would actually happen…), but otherwise who gives a s**t.

I have a housemate that likes house (and not great house music, pretty average stuff). I get a bit shitty if he plays it too loud or too long, but not shitty that he actually likes it, or feel the need to tell him why I don't like it (unless he asks, in which case I can tell him in pretty good humour).

If they kept their religious crap to themselves, then I'd keep my contempt for it to myself. But they don't. I've had problems with people trying to convert my kids in school and punishing them for not taking part in RE classes. I've had people tell my wife (an ex-Catholic) that she shouldn't marry me because I'm not a believer and therefore I have no morals. I've been subtly discriminated against in the workplace because it was known that I was an atheist. I have friends that are not allowed to get married because religious people think their relationship is abomination. I have in-laws that are having kids that they can't afford because the Vatican says that they can't use contraception. And then there's all the smug twits that go on about how blessed they are in their spoiled middle-class lives, believing that for some reason god favours them over the homeless kids they walk past every day.

 

[fleabitten]

Leaving aside the rest of the post which is just a restatement of your rants in this thread, the bolded part demonstrates that you will never get what others in this thread are saying.

I don't see the point of continuing.

I will miss your input. Bye.