Vatican newspaper: Charlie Hebdo anniversary cover is blasphemous

[leibowde84]

I've got to say, the Vatican should be ashamed of themselves for this one. I've had enough with religious organizations trying to trample on free expression, attempting to put God and religious beliefs on an untouchable pedestal. They complain like a kid throwing a temper-tantrum claiming that the cover is "blasphemous". But, who cares?! Are we forbidden now from "blaspheming" against religious beliefs and trends that we find abhorrent? It is obvious that there is value in Charlie Hebdo's methods, as their seemingly outrageous covers grab attention (which is undeniable). If they were to approach the subject politely, would anyone read it? Is it their fault that modern humans require quite a shock to direct attention to something? I think not.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/europe/vatican-newspaper-charlie-hebdo/index.html

 

[Tumah]

My thoughts are the same freedom of speech that allows the magazine to draw according to their disbelief allows the vatican's own newspaper to print according to their beliefs.
I don't really get your gripe. The paper likes to step on toes to make a point. And complain when their toes get stepped on.
However you rationalize the stepping on of toes, expecting a complaint seems like it should be expected and is quite understandable.

 

[leibowde84]

My thoughts are the same freedom of speech that allows the magazine to draw according to their disbelief allows the vatican's own newspaper to print according to their beliefs.
I don't really get your gripe. The paper likes to step on toes to make a point. And complain when their toes get stepped on.
However you rationalize the stepping on of toes, expecting a complaint seems like it should be expected and is quite understandable.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree that the Vatican should have every right to express its disgust. My point is that the Vatican isn't arguing against the claim made by CH. They are taking the pathetic cop-out of claiming "blasphemy" so they don't actually have to address the issue at hand ... namely that religious beliefs in God are causing people to act irrationally and violently. The Vatican, instead of complaining about blasphemy (a trivial issue), should comment on whether they agree with the argument itself.

 

[Tumah]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree that the Vatican should have every right to express its disgust. My point is that the Vatican isn't arguing against the claim made by CH. They are taking the pathetic cop-out of claiming "blasphemy" so they don't actually have to address the issue at hand ... namely that religious beliefs in God are causing people to act irrationally and violently. The Vatican, instead of complaining about blasphemy (a trivial issue), should comment on whether they agree with the argument itself.

It seems like they are indirectly dealing with that as well. They wouldn't believe it was blasphmey if they thought it was ok.

 

[leibowde84]

It seems like they are indirectly dealing with that as well. They wouldn't believe it was blasphmey if they thought it was ok.

I disagree. It looks as if they are dodging the issue at hand by pulling the "blasphemy card". Or, at least that's how it appears to me. I could certainly be wrong though.

 

[metis]

I am not in favor of censorship, but I do think the media should be careful with what they write and/or display-- iow, self-govern. I've learned through 48 years of marriage that I better not always say what's on my mind.

BTW, I voted "no".

 

[Laika]

its in the same territory as many of the cartoons on the front cover of the League of Militant Atheist's "Bezbozhnik" newspaper, which specialised in grotesque portrayals of religious figures.

Spoiler: Offensive

it is abusive and stretches the definitions of what constitute free speech. As a society, we refrain from "hate speech" and I think the issue is whether causing offense is a form of abuse and therefore "psychological harm".

I hesistate to say whether people should have the right to offend, as at one time some element on self-cennsorship was considered morally acceptable and free speech could be exercised in a respectful way. now we seem to be confusing libertinism for liberty. once its out of pandora's box you have to decide which is the lesser evil; letting it out or trying to put it back in. I'm not sure honestly as its a complicated relationship as to whether the law should enforce morality or not.

 

[Thanda]

I've got to say, the Vatican should be ashamed of themselves for this one. I've had enough with religious organizations trying to trample on free expression, attempting to put God and religious beliefs on an untouchable pedestal. They complain like a kid throwing a temper-tantrum claiming that the cover is "blasphemous". But, who cares?! Are we forbidden now from "blaspheming" against religious beliefs and trends that we find abhorrent? It is obvious that there is value in Charlie Hebdo's methods, as their seemingly outrageous covers grab attention (which is undeniable). If they were to approach the subject politely, would anyone read it? Is it their fault that modern humans require quite a shock to direct attention to something? I think not.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/europe/vatican-newspaper-charlie-hebdo/index.html

My thoughts are, let Charlie Hebdo stand up for what they believe (apparently irreverence is a core belief of theirs). They just shouldn't act surprised when others stand up for what they believe.

 

[leibowde84]

My thoughts are, let Charlie Hebdo stand up for what they believe (apparently irreverence is a core belief of theirs). They just shouldn't act surprised when others stand up for what they believe.

But, don't you think it's a bit tired to constantly fall-back on the "blasphemy" card. We all should have the right and ability to blaspheme any religious belief or God himself, for that matter. It just seems like they complain every time about blasphemy instead of actually addressing the issues brought up in CH.

 

[leibowde84]

I am not in favor of censorship, but I do think the media should be careful with what they write and/or display-- iow, self-govern. I've learned through 48 years of marriage that I better not always say what's on my mind.

BTW, I voted "no".

But, if CH was polite or politically correct about these subjects, people wouldn't even notice them. It is necessary, imho, for them to use shocking cartoons to grab people's attention to these important issues.

 

[leibowde84]

its in the same territory as many of the cartoons on the front cover of the League of Militant Atheist's "Bezbozhnik" newspaper, which specialised in grotesque portrayals of religious figures.

Spoiler: Offensive

it is abusive and stretches the definitions of what constitute free speech. As a society, we refrain from "hate speech" and I think the issue is whether causing offense is a form of abuse and therefore "psychological harm".

I hesistate to say whether people should have the right to offend, as at one time some element on self-cennsorship was considered morally acceptable and free speech could be exercised in a respectful way. now we seem to be confusing libertinism for liberty. once its out of pandora's box you have to decide which is the lesser evil; letting it out or trying to put it back in. I'm not sure honestly as its a complicated relationship as to whether the law should enforce morality or not.

Mocking historical figures and supernatural deities is always fair game and is in no way "hate speech". Making fun of religious beliefs should be encouraged as a way to keep these beliefs in check. If the cartoons targeted racial groups, sexual orientations, or other unchosen characteristics of people, then that could be considered "hate speech". But, if people can't accept CH making fun of Muhammad, Jesus, God, etc., that is on them. These are historical/supernatural figures who we truly don't need to worry about "harming".

 

[metis]

But, if CH was polite or politically correct about these subjects, people wouldn't even notice them. It is necessary, imho, for them to use shocking cartoons to grab people's attention to these important issues.

Yes, I understand, but then we need to consider what could happen to innocent people if that is revenged. Again, I'm not taking a position of either extreme, but I do think some moderation should be carefully considered.

 

[Thanda]

But, don't you think it's a bit tired to constantly fall-back on the "blasphemy" card. We all should have the right and ability to blaspheme any religious belief or God himself, for that matter. It just seems like they complain every time about blasphemy instead of actually addressing the issues brought up in CH.

I replied yes to your poll (apparently the only person who did so). While the term "blasphemy" can be quite broad (some people consider saying you don't believe in God blasphemy) I think respect for fellow human beings is what is important. There have been too many wars in this world because of people who arrogantly believed others beliefs were meaningless. If we want to maintain peace we need to be respectful of the things people hold dear.

Even when the subject isn't God - some people have strong feelings towards their family or race. Just remember to be respectful and you will go far in life. If your desire is to change people's minds I guarantee you respect will get you further than self-righteous irreverence.

 

[Thanda]

Mocking historical figures and supernatural deities is always fair game and is in no way "hate speech". Making fun of religious beliefs should be encouraged as a way to keep these beliefs in check. If the cartoons targeted racial groups, sexual orientations, or other unchosen characteristics of people, then that could be considered "hate speech". But, if people can't accept CH making fun of Muhammad, Jesus, God, etc., that is on them. These are historical/supernatural figures who we truly don't need to worry about "harming".

What about transexuals (like bruce jenner): they chose to change their sex - they also fair game?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I understand, but then we need to consider what could happen to innocent people if that is revenged. Again, I'm not taking a position of either extreme, but I do think some moderation should be carefully considered.

If moderation was considered by CH, they would go out of business. Thus, I think it is an unreasonable request.

 

[leibowde84]

What about transexuals (like bruce jenner): they chose to change their sex - they also fair game?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Jenner explicitly state that he was born as the wrong sex? If that is the case, then there was no choice involved. He merely corrected the error. So, that is not the same as religious adherence.

 

[leibowde84]

I replied yes to your poll (apparently the only person who did so). While the term "blasphemy" can be quite broad (some people consider saying you don't believe in God blasphemy) I think respect for fellow human beings is what is important. There have been too many wars in this world because of people who arrogantly believed others beliefs were meaningless. If we want to maintain peace we need to be respectful of the things people hold dear.

Even when the subject isn't God - some people have strong feelings towards their family or race. Just remember to be respectful and you will go far in life. If your desire is to change people's minds I guarantee you respect will get you further than self-righteous irreverence.

If CH was "respectful", they'd go out of business. They are in the business of shocking people into paying attention. So, for them, I feel this is an unreasonable request. For the common man, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[metis]

If moderation was considered by CH, they would go out of business. Thus, I think it is an unreasonable request.

Yes, and they do have the right to publish under free speech. But...

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted <no> to censorship, & <yes> for blasphemy.

Reminder....
Sept 30 is Blasphemy Day.
I already have my Blasphemy Pole all picked out.
How about you?

 

[Thanda]

If CH was "respectful", they'd go out of business. They are in the business of shocking people into paying attention. So, for them, I feel this is an unreasonable request. For the common man, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I don't believe every business has a right to exist. I honestly don't care if a business built on disrespect went out of business - just like I wouldn't care if all the tabloids in the world went out of business. I am sure a more beneficial business would pop up to make use of the extra money people would have from not buying their publications.