• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the pope: freedom of expression vs. "offending" (he's wrong)

Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
I think he's right that "one could "expect" a reaction to such abuse." People care far too much what others think of their beliefs, or they're just looking for an opportunity to be reactionary.
 
D

Deidre

Well-Known Member
If he had said 'shouldn't' and not 'can't' I'd be fine with what he said.
I mean, people can do anything they wish, so long as they aren't breaking laws, etc. So, people CAN mock faith and religion, but...they shouldn't.
Skwim said:
I think he's right that "one could "expect" a reaction to such abuse." People care far too much what others think of their beliefs, or they're just looking for an opportunity to be reactionary.
Click to expand...

Because much of religion is built on human ego.

If a god exists, and he is this almighty and powerful Creator...is he really ''offended'' by human mockery? lol

That's a human trait. As Nietzsche said...''Is God one of man's blunders or is man one of God's blunders?''
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
And even if he did say something that translates as "can't," absolute-sounding statements are part and parcel with public rhetoric. It's just how you construct speeches. If you look at his overall message instead of nitpicking that element, I really can't find anything wrong with what he's saying. He's basically saying that yes, you have freedom of speech, and no, that doesn't make it a good idea to say whatever the hell you want.
 
Rick O'Shez

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
"Let's consider our own history. How many wars of religion have we had? Even we were sinners but you can't kill in the name of God. That is an aberration."

That seems like a pretty clear statement though.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Prohibiting pictures, ideas, dress or behavior that might disturb some group is a bit of a slippery slope, don't you think?
 
gsa

gsa

Well-Known Member
A confused, muddled statement from the leader of the Catholic Church:

To illustrate his point, he turned to an aide and said: "It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if (he) says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it's normal.

"You can't make a toy out of the religions of others," he added. "These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits."
Click to expand...

Perhaps he did not mean it to come off this way, but in essence he suggests that while there is an obligation to not react violently to "insults" to religious sensibilities, we should not be surprised if these "people provoke" Muslims, resulting in some sort of (presumably violent) response.

Imagine if he said, in response to a gay bashing, that although we enjoy freedom, public displays by same-sex couples are a "provocation" and therefore we can expect a "response," even though people have an obligation to "not react violently." Would we be singing the praises of the pope then? No. This is no different. There was no provocation; these people were murdered by violent fundamentalists who reject freedom of religion and expression. End of story.
 
nazz

nazz

Doubting Thomas
Deidre said:
If he had said 'shouldn't' and not 'can't' I'd be fine with what he said.
I mean, people can do anything they wish, so long as they aren't breaking laws, etc. So, people CAN mock faith and religion, but...they shouldn't.
Click to expand...

I agree. I suspect his remarks were intended to convey that.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Mister Emu said:
It is somewhat unlikely he was speaking English... so that may be a translation issue.
Click to expand...

As pope he is God's representative on earth.

Where is the Holy Ghost when you need Him?

The pope was talking out of both sides of his mouth. When called on that the Vatican appears to be saying he didn't mean anything he said.

I like Pope Francis. I think he's the best pope in a long time. But he has a way to go to undo the damage already done. He isn't just talking to the Catholics any more, the way previous popes were. He is no longer above global scrutiny.

Tom
 
Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
There's a world of difference between saying people shouldn't do X, and forbidding X outright.

Having the legal freedom to insult others is not protection from other people criticizing such behavior.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Riverwolf said:
There's a world of difference between saying people shouldn't do X, and forbidding X outright.

Having the legal freedom to insult others is not protection from other people criticizing such behavior.
Click to expand...
True, but when he says things like "in freedom of expression there are limits", it's hard for me not to take the Pope's statement as a person with significant political power musing about how he would like the law to be. That's what worries me here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gsa
P

pearl

Well-Known Member
Deidre said:
If he had said 'shouldn't' and not 'can't' I'd be fine with what he said.
I mean, people can do anything they wish, so long as they aren't breaking laws, etc. So, people CAN mock faith and religion, but...they shouldn't.
Click to expand...


Actually if using proper grammar one may not....of course one physically can.....
I think the bottom line is whether one may carry out these insults without acknowledging the probability of consequences. Though
there may be a legal right, the exploitation of another for personal gain is never a moral right. Where one has the vehicle to voice his opinion in the public arena he ought to weigh the possible consequences, especially to those around him. With freedom of expression comes a responsibility. One may not yell fire in the theatre when there is none, simply because he enjoys the freedom
of speech.
 
Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
True, but when he says things like "in freedom of expression there are limits", it's hard for me not to take the Pope's statement as a person with significant political power musing about how he would like the law to be. That's what worries me here.
Click to expand...

Thing is, legally, there already are limits to freedom of expression. In the US, it's illegal to threaten people and/or organizations with violence, and to, to cite the common example, yell 'fire' in a crowded building because it could cause a stampede.

It doesn't strike me as something worrying, but a simple statement of fact.

He could also just as easily be saying that freedom of expression is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Riverwolf said:
Thing is, legally, there already are limits to freedom of expression. In the US, it's illegal to threaten people and/or organizations with violence, and to, to cite the common example, yell 'fire' in a crowded building because it could cause a stampede.

It doesn't strike me as something worrying, but a simple statement of fact.

He could also just as easily be saying that freedom of expression is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior.
Click to expand...
Not everyone lives in the US. Here in Canada, "blasphemous libel" is still a crime in the criminal code.
 
Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Not everyone lives in the US. Here in Canada, "blasphemous libel" is still a crime in the criminal code.
Click to expand...

I know that other countries have other, more sinister "exceptions" to freedom of speech, and I definitely wouldn't agree with that one. My point was that even in the country that touts itself as the flagship of free speech in the world, there are exceptions.
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Riverwolf said:
Thing is, legally, there already are limits to freedom of expression. In the US, it's illegal to threaten people and/or organizations with violence, and to, to cite the common example, yell 'fire' in a crowded building because it could cause a stampede.

It doesn't strike me as something worrying, but a simple statement of fact.

He could also just as easily be saying that freedom of expression is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior.
Click to expand...

Yes there are limits. My rule of thumb is that it's okay to criticize ideas, and not very useful to criticize people, unless they've decided to hold positions of power. Hebdo was satirizing ideas.
 
Revasser

Revasser

Terrible Dancer
All ideas are and should be open to criticism without the threat of violence or, indeed, thinly veiled victim blaming should an unreasonable and violent reaction occur.

One might say that only "bad" ideas should be criticised or insulted but given that what is "bad" will be different from one person to the next, the only fair approach is to allow it for all.

If was a staunch white nationalist or a passionate scientologist or something, should those be free from criticism or mockery because I might be personally insulted? And would it be the fault of the mockers if I reacted with a violent tantrum?

Seriously, if you're so offended by a cartoon or comedy sketch or satirical article mocking an idea you subscribe to then make your damn cartoon mocking them back. Or ignore it move on with your life like a grown up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top