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
DBQ – Apparently, I get to punch people who make fun of me for being a fiscal conservative. How liberating! 🙂 My response in court will be “He or she provoked me!”
Totally with you on this one, JT.
RELIGION is a DECISION!, deserving neither sanctity nor exceptionalism. Ones beliefs are the only legitimate grounds for discrimination. All current hate crime laws should be repealed to exclude it, as it is the one of those things that’s not like the others, one of those things that isn’t the same.
I disagree with the Pope on this one.
It sounds like he is counseling people not to make fun of each other’s religion, and not endorsing a law banning such speech. (I could be wrong. This is my impression from the article.)
But in addition to saying it’s not nice to insult someone’s religion, he should have added that we must restrain ourselves from acting with violence when we’re offended. In effect, he condoned it. And he should have also added that such cartoons are meant to be thought-provoking. And perhaps it is a tad extreme to engage in murderous rage even if someone paints a flattering image of Mohammed.
Think about it. If the most talented artist in the world was suddenly moved to paint a moving image of Mohammed at an important historical moment, he would likely be murdered. That’s a problem.
DBQ,
Remember the Steppenwolf tune “Monster”. 1970, and fits right in with 2015.
You don’t understand what he’s saying. You have to remember that he’s a Jesuit, He’s not talking about what one deserves, but the behavior that one can expect.
How fortunate we are to have among us an expert interpreter of jesuitical expression of Anarchist’s caliber. May I call on you for assistance, kind sir?
Said the pope:
“It’s true that we can’t react violently, but, for example if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend of mine, says a curse word against my mother, then a punch awaits him.”
I could really use your help here, Anarchist. Is the pope confessing his sinful proclivity to violence? Is he confessing his specific dislike of Dr. Gasbarri? Or is he, as you say, merely making a prediction, in which case I ask you to tell me from whom Gasbarri should expect a punch?
From the pope’s mother? That seems unlikely, unless she is (a) still alive and (b) follows him everywhere. Perhaps her spirit packs a wallop?
From one of the pope’s bodyguards? Is he warning would-be assailants that the Swiss guards are ready to avenge any assault against their boss, even verbal ones?
Maybe he’s saying that the Holy Spirit will guide Gasbarri’s hand to do deliver a self-punch. Sort of like self-flagellation, I suppose.
I can see now how foolish DBQ was to think the pope was referring to himself.
Nick
I thought you were a ‘mackerel snapper’. I love the art, the emotion, the architecture, etc. Of all the religions and all the architecture, nothing beats a Catholic building. Perhaps the Greeks but that wasn’t really about religion. That was about life itself. I feel like a kid not allowed into a club when I visit a cathedral.
When I lived in France, we spent one Christmas in Paris with friends. We went to Notre Dame with the intention of attending a midnight service. In front of the left doors, along with a few hundred others, we slowly squeezed to the opening. There came a time when it was impossible to get out of the crush. A slight euphoric fear lingered over me until the door met us and we were inserted into the Narthex. It was almost empty. Hundreds of people had disappeared into the cathedral and there seemed to be nothing there but art, stained glass, and many small chapels throughout. We became restless and left.
Something like religion, I suppose. You either are or aren’t. However, you have to be able to take a punch, even if it’s from the Pope.
OOOOOPS!!!! Posted that last one to the wrong thread. DOH!!!
I’m so sorry. That was supposed to be in the Virginia snow thread.
Well. Enjoy the music anyway.
When we take long freeway trips ….from one end of Ca to the other down the valley….across Nevada at night…..we have some favorite driving songs that just make the drive go smooth and the miles melt away. Nothing like a warm summer night on a lonely Nevada, Utah or Arizona highway listening to music with the top down on the car. Nothing but you, the stars, your headlights and the breeze……… Driving in California isn’t just commuting…..it is a way of life! it is freedom.
Turn up the volume and the bass on this one. Make the car rock!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwqMKf7r7Xg
Magic Carpet Ride. Born to be Wild: Steppenwolf
Stuck in the Middle with You: Steeler’s Wheel
So many more……
And my favorite
@ anarchist
You are quite correct and I have agreed. You should not provoke people for any reason unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences. You don’t go into a biker bar and insult the Hells Angels without expecting some retaliation.
This doesn’t mean that you can not provoke. Forbidding the expressions of free speech for fear of retaliation is something that we should NEVER countenance. Making laws against free speech or instituting blasphemy laws….no.
The issue is the response or level of retaliation compared to the level of provocation or ridicule. Appropriateness of response.
For example. The “Piss Christ” exhibit was extremely provocative and insulting to Christians. The response to this ridicule and insult was not to riot, bomb, kill or cut off people’s heads.
Cartoons that make fun of Islam or mohammed are not killing offenses. Offensive and insulting and provocative, yes. Should people publish these things? Maybe not. Do they have the right to publish these things? Damned straight they do.
I was raised Catholic. I felt no compulsion to attack anyone when I saw the Piss Christ. I have been called every Italian epithet there is. Now, mostly it was good natured from people I had a relationship w/. But, sometimes it was not good natured and hurtful. Almost always I answered w/ words, not fists. But, I did answer w/ fists a few times. I WAS WRONG reacting violently. How the hell is this even an issue?? You don’t kill people for a GD cartoon!!!
There was nothing in the Pope’s comment regarding laws about speech, about what laws ought to be, he was just making an observation about how human behavior is-
““One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.
“There is a limit.”
All he was saying is- If you provoke people by ridiculing their most deeply held religious beliefs, they’ll eventually retaliate.
Is that a true statement or isn’t it?
dust bunny-
“Then to indicate that the appropriate response is to be violent…..punch in the nose….is completely irresponsible.”
You don’t understand what he’s saying. You have to remember that he’s a Jesuit, He’s not talking about what one deserves, but the behavior that one can expect.
Reblogged this on just4craig.
There is a world of difference in the Pope saying you “can not” insult versus saying you should not insult religion.
Then to indicate that the appropriate response is to be violent…..punch in the nose….is completely irresponsible.
Cannot and Should not are two completely different concepts.
He just proved that he shares the same beliefs as the prime minister of Pakistan : http://tribune.com.pk/story/822169/na-passes-resolution-condemning-charlie-hebdos-latest-edition/
What a class !
The pope is a Jesuit. Jesuits, generally, are pretty far left politically. Many of his public pronouncements suggest that in that regard he is typical Jesuit: a far left progressive. Progressives want to restrict speech. As a professor you ought to know better than anyone that free speech has been under attack for decades by the far left progressives that have highjacked academia with their ridiculous speech codes. In public schools they now kick kindergarteners out of school for chewing Pop Tarts into what some maniacal adult thinks may resemble a gun.
Democrats have already announced that amending the First Amendment is a priority on their agenda. All Senate Democrats voted to amend the First Amendment to restrict speech when it was voted on last fall.
Free speech enabled the far left to win the “culture war” and change the country’s values, norms, and mores. Now they want to make sure those are frozen in place by restricting speech. To ice dissent until they get the constitution amended, they are “shooting the survivors” of the culture war. By trying to ruin financially the holdouts who have the nerve to publicly express opinions opposed to progressive orthodoxy (Duck Dynasty guy, Mozilla guy, Paula Deen, Donald Sterling), they are sending the rest of us a signal not to dissent. Until the constitution is amended to restrict speech they do not like, then you are free to dissent but just prepare to be ruined if you do.
The pope is a progressive. He is singing from the progressive choir book by implying he doesn’t really like free speech.
Reblogged this on Camelaw.
I don’t seek advice on secular legal matters from religious leaders and don’t know why anyone would. His Holiness might as well be opining about the mystical properties of neutrinos. It’s all about not being lured away with a red herring by someone who is not an expert in the field. We see enough of that here already and we all know the value of opinions on technical matters by non-technical persons who may have some expertise about something unrelated. You can read last night’s thread on NoVa school closings for a refresher on why not everyone shouldn’t try to be an amateur lawyer or school safety administrator for that matter. Silliness doesn’t look good on most folks.
That said, contending that there are limits on free speech places him squarely in the camp of most members of the SCOTUS historically and the American public currently when questioned specifically on the subject (shouting fire …, troop movements in war time, trade secrets, etc.). The devil –as this “Prince of Peace” almost surely knows — is in the details.
Then I guess the Pope would be in agreement with Saudi Arabia banning all other religions since that is an insult to Islam by their mere existence. The more things change, the they stay the same.
Yes, randy jet, by our mere being alive we infidels insult Islam. Convert or die — Sophie’s Choice. Reminiscent of the inquisition when the Christians of the day also said convert or die.
Thankfully, the Pope rules over a country the size of a US parking lot. He’s a Pope who knows little of free speech. He is a good man but he wants to be all things to all people. He’s wrong on this and some other issues. He needs to stay within his purview and not speak about issues that he doesn’t understand. He has taken jihadists to task more than Obama. He talked about the just war as defined by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas vis a vis ISIS. I think this Pope is falling in love w/ attention from a fawning press. That never ends well.
He’s really put a red shoe in it this time. If the Pope was trying to communicate that with Free Speech comes an equal portion of responsibility, well he did an extremely poor job.
In the civilized world we can use a reasonable mind to conclude he meant only that we have to be sensitive to the beliefs of others and not purposefully incite them to respond as advertised. But in the uncivilized world, he has effectively said “they get what they deserve” and “without limits on speech there should be expected no limits to the response.”
And yes, the Pope is human and therefore fully capable of being wrong.