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
Gigi,
The Pope may have been trying to communicate to “all levels of intelligence” but unfortunately it wasn’t to all levels of enlightenment.
It was not thought out……typical of many things this Pope has to say.
“I think the Pope put the matter in simple terms for all levels of intelligence to understand.”
So simple it has required fifty people to explain their version of it that doesn’t make him out to be an apologist for violence.
Jesuits used to be smarter than this.
I look at Free Speech as a right and privilege that requires personal responsibility and euphemism’s to make your point. Charlie Hebdo and company surely was aware that the Muslims would take this satire as a personal insult; we all remember the death threats from the Muslim community to the Dutch cartoonist a few years back.
Did the Charlie Hebdo publication think the Islamic’s would ignore their ridiculing satire of their Holy leader? Didn’t they hear about the short fuse of anger these radicals live each day? I’m not siding with the terrorists, but I understand the message that the Pope is trying to convey, though I considered it too simplistic.
Another point for us to consider is that our own country, which promotes free speech, often puts regulations and censorship on what we say and how we say it. In education and other public institutions there is always some word being replaced with a more gentle word, often masking the reality of a situation.
One example is that most illegal immigrants insist we refer to them as undocumented not illegal, even though the fact is that they are truly here illegally. Those that come across the border through sewage tunnels and on boats don’t want to be called “Wet Backs.” We are to use euphemisms in our reference to immigrants, especially those from south of the border.
Some Blacks don’t like the word black and insist we call them African Americans, even though some of these blacks don’t have ties to Africa. They don’t like white’s using the N word, but use this word freely in their own circles of society. If a white person uses that N word jokingly, a Black individual can become irritated or set off in a rage.
Native American’s are sensitive to being called Indians or Red Skins. Obese people are sensitive to being called fat slobs, and so on and so forth.
The point is that even here in the good USA, we are often censored in our free speech, and rightfully so.
I think the Pope put the matter in simple terms for all levels of intelligence to understand. As a retired teacher, I broke up fights where one student provoked another by calling his mother names. In most cases, punching and kicking usually followed. Although both students were given an appropriate consequence, I must say, I appreciated the kid who stood up and protected his mom’s name and reputation.
Respect and self-responsibility along with good sense must prevail–I believe that was the Popes message point.
eg
Jeramy Scahill calling out the media for ascribing the term “expert” where there is none to be found. Yet, regardless of their non expertise, the constant repetition of that greater lie leads the public at large into believing said lies.
http://youtu.be/czLXVQCT-E4
Olly
RINO
DINO
MINO
ChINO
What evs… but yes. and they should be called out for the hypocrisy.
DBQ
Alternately, calling these terrorists Muslims silences the voices of True Islam as it give legitimacy to the idea that Islam is about terrorism and not peace… I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there’s always never a voice of reason when “WE CHOOSE” to not listen.
Is Islam a religion of violence? If you think so, do not be surprised that you can not hear the “moderate Muslims”. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.
MINO = Muslim in Name Only
Would that make a difference?
DBQ
What does slander do to a public opinion about an entire group of people? These criminals no more represent Islam and Peace as Joe Walsh represents Christianity through his call for murder… Yet, the West doesn’t go around connecting dots just because they see dots. Or, is Joe faithfully representing Christ? I mean, who would Jesus behead? Joe seems to think otherwise… And that is my point. He’s so off base, the correct thing to do is to denounce him for the lack of respect he shows his own, as Francis put, his own preverbal mother, Christianity.
why can’t we remove religion from the whole issue of terrorism. Just because these criminals claim to represent Islam, why must we continue to validate that for them by calling them Muslim?
Why?
Because that is what they call themselves. They are self identifying. The reasons that they give FOR their actions are religious based. They quote the Koran and scream Allah Akbar while killing people. IN the name of the prophet and in the name of Islam.
Their religion is integral to their actions and is the base motivation for what they do. There are other motivations as well, but the basis is Islam.
If they were strangling people with rosaries and screaming a Hail Mary while killing people in the name of Jesus……we would be justified in calling them Catholic extremists or Catholic Terrorists.
That’s why.
What we need to hear are more voices and louder voices from the Muslim population who are, by and large, not terrorists to stand up and decry what the Radical Islamists are doing. Until this happens….then they, the standing by Muslim populace, are just as culpable. Similar to the German citizens who stood silently by while they KNEW that Jews were being slaughtered in concentration camps. They knew it was happening and mostly did nothing to stop it. They are just as guilty then as if they had committed the acts themselves. Guilt by inaction. Guilt by association.
Wow! Joe Walsh sure has a different look than when he played w/ the James Gang and Eagles and dropped acid daily.
eg.
Joe Walsh is an American, first and foremost.
As an American, he is free to say what pleases him. He is also free to stand by it. The nice thing about the freedom of speech is also the accountability for the things you say, be they profound or vial, within the court of public opinion.
In France, he would be arrested for sympathetic terrorist speech.
Which leads us to the Pope… Which I think what he’s trying to say is: If you can’t respect a person’s religion, do not be surprised they won’t respect your own religion or nonreligion. Ergo, if you can’t stop running your mouth slandering my mother, don’t be surprised I shut it for you… a bit harsh, yet, understandable.
Again, why can’t we remove religion from the whole issue of terrorism. Just because these criminals claim to represent Islam, why must we continue to validate that for them by calling them Muslim? The removal of that association can save many more lives in the long run…
Oh, and Joe walsh’s disgusting and terrorist sympathetic statement he needs to be judged by?
https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/555439146253426688
Trooper, I always like to break analysis down to the most basic. Much of Obama’s problems revolve around having no father and a part time mother. The example given by the Pope show him to be the classic Italian mama’s boy.
Elton John thinks he should be made a saint already, so he’s got that going for him.
Feeling there’s less hope in the Pope? When he was Rome’s rep in Argentina, he supported the military dictatorship that disappeared many, and murdered many.
…oh, an no mention of CIA Chief Brennan exonerating himself yesterday?
Even funnier was the MSM taking him seriously.
The online “free speech” community tends to be naive about where we really stand on these matters. See the prosecutor’s statement concerning the defendant in America’s leading criminal satire case: “He knows how to twist language, stir up controversy. As a result, what he can do is devious and disturbing. There is no way to sugarcoat this, the defendant is a menace.” No one seems to be up in arms about that on it on any of them there “civil rights” websites. Quoted at:
https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
A good thing Obama didn’t embarrass himself by attending that rally. Better to send Kerry along for a little “hug” than expose yourself to charges of hypocrisy.
I’m not a religious figure, but have the hubris to offer a lesson morality to the Pope.
I know you can confess the sin of first strike in response to words. You may do anything as long as you confess. Proclaim you displayed that all are sinners.
Look inside… check your moral intuition… understand that your words have offended me and were we face to face I would, in fact, be tempted to punch you. Morality is about controlling self present temptations to act immorally.
If your moral intuition makes it something to confess, don’t do it. Be an example for christs sake.
Imagine a pedophile who has the temptations and never acts. Regardless of profession.
Imagine an Ayotollah authorizing violent response to words.
Who is moral. Check your in-tuition… what you’ve taught yourself.
I found it especially amusing that the day after the white power rally – opps, no the Paris Free Speech rally, France arrested 54 people for “offensive speech.”
this Pope is nothing but a foolish Marxist. He should be removed and sent back to the shit hole he came from.