As many on this blog know, I am a great fan of Pope Francis who has brought an inspiring leadership to the Church that has drawn millions back to the faith. Given that admiration, I was disheartened to read the Pope’s comment on free speech today. I ran a column last weekend on how world leaders are failing over themselves to “Stand With Charlie” after the massacre of editors and staff at Charlie Hebdo magazine. However, the West has been rolling back on free speech rights, including some of these very leaders. Pope Francis added his view this week to those insisting that free speech must have limits when it comes to insulting people about their religion. It is a disappointing observation, particularly when coupled with a rather poor analogy.
On the papal plane, Pope Francis spoke beside Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips. He used his aide in this analogy: “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
Of course, people can insult the faith of others. It is called free speech and you are not allowed to punch someone (or in the most recent case, massacre people) out of a sense of legitimate outrage. Clearly, Pope Francis was not condoning the massacre. He remains a leading voice for Peace and tolerance. However, the discussion of limits on free speech in the West has spawned a trend toward greater criminalization and prosecution for unpopular writers and speakers, including a crackdown in France after the march in support of free speech.
Pope Francis added that people who make fun of religion “are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.” Presumably, the victims are Charlie Hebdo would be considered such “provocateurs,” precisely the image advanced by Muslim extremists insisting that they were incited to violence.
I still admire the Pope but he is less inspirational on free speech, particularly anti-religious speech, in making these comments. Ironically, free speech is the greatest protection of the free exercise of religion. It is the right that allows people of faith (as well as people who are agnostic and atheist) to speak out about their values and beliefs. That freedom comes with a certain covenant of faith in free speech: that we all can speak our mind without fear of prosecution or retaliation.
Source: Yahoo
Do you not think the Pope may just be suggesting that we should always exercise what he considers to be common decency? Do you not think he may be just saying we are all human and we should expect a negative response from those we show a lack of common decency? Let’s be careful in criticizing this Pope; he seems to be a good man.Although appalled at the terrorist’s acts, I suspect the Pope regards those who would carry out such acts as evil and misguided but still subject to his God’s grace. Isn’t that Christianity?
It seems the discussions are about unrestrained free speech or legislative control of certain speech. To me the Pope is suggesting a moral tone to anyone considering criticism of a particular religion, not as a regulatory matter but one in which we respect all religions as moral decency.
Religion has always insisted that others not of their religion do or not do certain things. They insist on special status.
Of course they insist on a right to make laws that make criticizing any religion. Fewer would join the exodus.
I disagree JT, it appears that the pope is condoning the massacre.
One is assuming that another’s “free speech” does not hurt the individual or group it is directed at. This is the same thought that bullies use to intimidate and belittle anyone who is different from themselves. “Free Speech” is one of those “rights” whereby the majority can freely insult anyone and hide behind their right of “free speech”. We walk a tightrope no matter which path we choose.
Unfortunately this world has too many “bullies” who hide behind “free speech”. Does that mean that they should be murdered because of their expression? Of course not! This magazine, which normally only produces 60,000 copies a week now profits after a 3,000,000 publication this week. I didn’t purchase this magazine before the slaughter and I certainly wouldn’t support it’s continued bullying now. I am a firm believer in the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, and if others followed this they would think before publishing trash.
Yes, we have Free Speech but that doesn’t mean that this right should be abused.
Free speech this Pope and church authority will skip over. Among other things!
Mat 20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:
and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
DBQ,
It is a curious position for the head of the Catholic church to seemingly approve of violence in response to speech.
I think they made the same statements about not criticize or make fun of religion during the Inquisition.
Short of directly inciting crimes or endangering others (the fire test), freedom of speech either includes the right to say everything, or it can be limited to be able to say nothing. Muslims need to accept that, or stay in their dark ages and let the civilized world move on. Same with Christians or any other religion that seeks to impose it’s view of tolerance on the rest of us.
@ Janet
The rubric for evaluating speech for its development and its tone is not difficult to establish. Courts, schooltechers, parents, and committees which evaluate college entrance exams must all use a rubric. I have used them. They work. They do not typically screen out painful counter-cultural statements, but they do eliminate plots based solely on the word f*ck.
I seriously have no idea what you are trying to say with this statement. Nor what the real life, practical application of your statement or rubric is.
Could you elaborate?
What the Pope has said is just a reiteration of long-held “fighting words” statutes. There is, in fact, a lengthy legal precedent for his position as stated.
“If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
So…..according to this Pope, if you are suitably insulted (provoked) you have the right to retaliate with violence? Is this what he is saying?
You cannot insult the faith of others? Really. So this also applies to insulting other cherished beliefs, if you extend this logic. Burning the American Flag is a very insulting thing to others, who view patriotism to their country on the same level as a religion. If you burn the flag, be prepared to be retaliated against. Right? After all you provoked the patriot and made fun of or insulted his cherished beliefs. He has the right to beat the cr@p out of you.
If we let this type of logic prevail, there will be no end to the appropriate retaliations for being insulted on all sorts of levels and all sorts of issues. Also no end to the escalation of the acts of retaliation.
This is a very dangerous position to take.
I understand what the Pope might be trying to say. You should NOT provoke people and insult their religion…..or their mothers. Pretty much that is common sense and most people adhere to this in their private lives. (Not insulting others on purpose) That is different though than saying you have the right to retaliate with violence when insulted.
I agree with those comments who argue that some restrictions on freedom of speech protect it in the long run. And Pope Francis said it well but briefly–a curse word against my mother. A curse is not a reasoned argument that my mother cannot cook or perhaps is promiscuous. Such allegations even when reasoned are difficult to bear, but their format, their careful use of language, stops us short of punching someone out, or shooting them, or dropping mortars on them. Stops most of us anyway.
The rubric for evaluating speech for its development and its tone is not difficult to establish. Courts, schooltechers, parents, and committees which evaluate college entrance exams must all use a rubric. I have used them. They work. They do not typically screen out painful counter-cultural statements, but they do eliminate plots based solely on the word f*ck.
I wish this statement of Francis’ would have been his first on the subject (if I remember correctly, he came out with a very ugly statement supporting Free Speech without any qualification. His qualification today actually represents a third position, one particular to our own Faith, and one which is presently submerged in ecumenism. If the Church would repudiate ecumenism, and all the dangerous nonsense of Vatican II, She could declare Islam outside the pale instead of wavering back and forth on the subject, and yet call for policies (like gradual repatriation of Muslims in Europe) that do not widen the middle eastern war yet relieve Europe of what has become an intolerable tension interfering now with every aspect of life there, including (maybe more seriously than murders) reproduction. Basing Her definition of free speech on Church teaching rather than the French revolution (Francis’ today was incredibly informal and even crude but contains the essence, I believe), She could call for a curtailment of the torture of the Islamic community in Europe by insults and degradation. Curiously enough, this is exactly opposite what those hypocrite politicians linking arms in Paris: they want a widening of the Middle Eastern war and perhaps an increase of police pressure on Muslims (and dissidents in general, how convenient) but by no means do they want to hear about repatriation–their profits count on those low paid, helpless, degraded Muslims.
Freedom of Speech is not absolute, though….Although for the record, I am of the view (and I noted this when I joined deliberations on this), that if one’s faith is shaken by Satire, then one has no faith. Also on a side note, I also received an “Unsafe Notice” when joining–I hope the Site Administrator is able to address the Security Issue Here.
Pope Francis is just like his predecessor who when the Dutch film director was murdered said: I can understand the anger.
Why should anybody be surprised when the Pope, no matter what his name is, supports oppression of free speech.. The Church is no supporter of free speech or human rights exotically when it comes to women. The Church no longer has the power to enforce its “blasphemy” code but it is not unhappy when someone does.
The church supports blasphemy laws. After all, humans are irrelevant. Only the institutions and their power are important –be they churches, mosques, temples or otherwise and corporations, don’t forget the corporations.
“Faith”, like every other purported epistemological method in the world, must be subject to criticism. If faith is something that people are going to claim can and should be used as a valid way to find “truth”, then it cannot enjoy any special privileges, simply because of its religious underpinnings. It still must be subject to the same rigors of evidence and argument. The Pope is simply wrong here.
Definitely not ex cathedra.
Of course the Pope would voice concern, talking about the homosexual priest was not good for the church and he wants the talk to be silenced.
The question seems to be, how does one protect one’s rights and freedoms. It seems that society designs these rights and freedoms for its individuals. Break the law and you lose certain rights and freedoms. Join the military or other like institutions and you place aside certain rights and freedoms. Society is built on an interrelationship of the individual and the group, each taking priority over the other from time to time and each responsible to the other, always.
To maintain freedom and personal rights the individual must take the society into consideration. All things in moderation and know thyself. These words were written down three thousand years ago and still take precedent over anything that has come along since.
To stop with a declaration of absolute freedom of speech is falling short of protecting that very freedom. A society has the right above that of the individual to determine how to protect those very rights of the individual. History and reality has shown us that in some cases abuse of individual freedoms and rights must be countered by that very moderation, imposed by the group in the best interests of its individuals.
One can interpret this any way one wants, depending on how extreme a view one takes. However, freedom is not an absolute. It is a work in progress and how that work is carried out reflects the level of human evolution. It’s kind of reassuring to be able to imagine the Pope smacking someone who insulted his mother, but not killing him. France is making an effort to reign in extremists who would provoke further violence and death of innocents in the name of narcissistic versions of individual rights. Extreme positions of either side typically lead to chaos, where most freedoms and rights are curtailed. This country should realize that more than most. That is a tough bullet to chew. Any fool off of the street can pontificate and declare one extreme or another.
Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.
So much for turning the other cheek.