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
NONE of my comments are responding to ANY of yours Haz. I was generally pointing out hypocrisy of Pogo and Chip. So please don’t break any resolutions.
I have made a NY resolution, by the way.
My 11:32 comment was in reply to Trooper York’s 10:59 comment.
on 1, January 15, 2015 at 2:28 pmPogo Hears a Who
“While he accurately describes what people will do if insulted enough times,”
Really?
The Pope would actually punch a guy for insulting his mommy?
I must have missed that among Jesus’ sayings.
“…he didn’t say that the insulting should become illegal.”
That remains unclear.
He said:
” You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
Shouldn’t, or CAN’T.
‘Cannot’ suggest a rule or a law.
As I said, now he has to clarify his stupid off-the-cuffery.
“I doubt he condones murder in retaliation for speech people don’t like.”
Did he say so?
he condones punching.
Did he put a limit on noses and fists?
Details, please.
*******************************
on 1, January 15, 2015 at 10:50 pmPogo Hears a Who
Haz, I agree with your points entirely.
At this point, I’m willing to steer clear of any MSM media reportage, especially of the Pope.
*******************************
Can I say the H word now? Hypocrisy.
It is, and that’s the problem. JP2 was very circumspect in his dealings with the press, so there was seldom, if ever, any opportunity for misquotes and biased translations. Imagine how badly he would have been pilloried if he had made off the cuff remarks about Theology of the Body for example.
Francis is far more open in his dealing with the media, and is easily misconstrued because of that. But it’s part of his ‘man of the people’ makeup, so it won’t change. Note though, that his proclamations come through the same venues as other popes, and not in media interviews.
The whole meeting of the red hats regarding marriage and divorce was a charade Francis set up in order to smoke out the liberals in the College of Cardinals so he could isolate them from policy-making roles.
Inga says @2:23PM
While he accurately describes what people will do if insulted enough times, he didn’t say that the insulting should become illegal. I doubt he condones murder in retaliation for speech people don’t like.
*****************************************
Michael Haz says @ 9:56PM
So what did Pope Francis say? He was not calling for laws against freedom of expression regarding religions. He was making a statement about moral behavior, because that is the terms in which a pope, any pope speaks.
*****************************************
I get push back from the Pope haters, HAZ says the basically the same thing and they all fall in line. Hilarious!
I never thought that we had to use the same excuse for the Pope talking Muslims as they use for De Blasio talking about the cops…….it’s all the fault of the press!
Fifty four years ago you voted a Catholic into the White House. And despite what the guy said in Blazing Saddles the guy was Irish on top of it. It is time we have a Dog.
Haz, I agree with your points entirely.
At this point, I’m willing to steer clear of any MSM media reportage, especially of the Pope.
I am running on the Waterboarding Wing of the Democratic Party. My slogan is Four Legs Good! Two Legs Baaaad! You folks in the Democratic Party need a Choice and not an Echo.
Pogo – the troublesome word is “insult”. I don’t believe that it is an insult to discuss the horrors that Islam is heaping upon people in the middle east and parts of Africa. It is a reporting of fact; a discussion of evil on earth. Yet those who are committing the evil want us to accept the notion that ANY discussion of their theology is an insult. It isn’t, and we cannot allow that definition to be the one that wins the argument. Sadly, our media thinks otherwise.
But from a moral viewpoint, the Pope’s viewpoint, we have to speak against evil. I see nothing in his remarks that states otherwise, nor would I expect to.
Clearly, Pope Francis WAS condoning a violent reaction. He may not have meant to approve of murderous violence, but his words will certainly be taken as approval for violence. This comment was ill-considered at the very least.
And to say those things on the heels of the slaughter of unarmed office workers because they insulted Islam, well it just seems more horrible each time I consider it.
He also said:
“You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
And that those who insult a 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.”
Then there’s the bit about punching.
I don’t see how I’ve misread this at all.
Yet I hope I’m wrong.
“He need not speak in terms of making the World safe for Democracy. He needs to speak about keeping Democracy safe from the world. I would underline the word “from” but this machine won’t let me do it.”
Excellent comment Barkin!
Haz, Great analysis. Thanks
Michael, he’s in a position much like that of the Fed chairman.
Every word is parsed.
This seemed, what do people say now when they flub? Inartful.
He could have said any number of things. If he wanted to say what you wrote, he would’ve said that. He didn’t.
I’m aware of the translation issue. It explains some things.
I hope I’m wrong, and he didn’t just throw sop to people who just killed 17 for insulting their religion.
I expect more of him.
It was not thought out……typical of many things this Pope has to say.
Maybe, or maybe not. What we read are translations of what the Pope has said. And often those translations are incorrect, or are flavored with the politics of the translator. Francis has been especially subject to slanted translations, because he is, for some reason, viewed as being liberal, even though his actions do not bear that out.
Those who wish deep change in the Church’s liturgy and especially in its catechism regarding married priests, same sex marriage, and women priests place all of those hopes onto what Francis says. They don’t understand the unchangeability of foundational belief, and at the same time think that if a Pope says something in a press conference, it automatically becomes canon law. The reality is quite the opposite.
So what did Pope Francis say? He was not calling for laws against freedom of expression regarding religions. He was making a statement about moral behavior, because that is the terms in which a pope, any pope speaks.
From the Vatican News Service:
During the press conference, Pope Francis was asked by a French journalist about the relationship between freedom of religion and freedom of expression. He replied saying that both are “fundamental human rights” and stressed that killing in the name of God “is an aberration.”. But he said there were limits to that freedom of expression. By way of example he referred to Alberto Gasparri who organizes the papal trips and was standing by his side on the plane. The Pope said if “his good friend Dr Gasparri” says a curse word against his mother, he can “expect a punch”, and at that point he gestured with a pretend punch towards him, saying: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
Let’s break this down a bit. He said the freedom of expression and freedom of religion are “fundamental human rights”.
We don’t have problem with that, do we? We in America surely shouldn’t have a problem with that.
He said you cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. Any problem with that? Francis doesn’t say that you cannot point out the horrors caused by other religions, did he? Nope.
Look again at what Pope Francis said and read it as a statement about moral behavior, not a call for new laws. Then get to confession for the nasty things you thought, if you’re a member of the tribe.
I will also mention that there is and was a portion of Ireland which was known as The Pale and it was controlled by the Brits for a spell and what was beyond their control was beyond the Pale.
Advocating free speech and civil rights to the other side of the world is much like preaching. Catholics don’t want to listen to Protestant preachers. They wont listen to Jews or Muslims. The reverse is true. Try to get a word in edgewise with a Jehovah’s Witness.
So I do not believe in advocating free speech and a constitutional format to Boko Harum or Hamas. India might be able to pull it off. I am going to promote it here in America. I don’t expect the Europeans to ever adopt a written constitution which protects their rights. There is a human rights accord but it does not get much mention from Hollande, Merkel, or the other hand holders in Paris last week. At this point the French and the Germans are going to be forced to tell some Muslim nuts to shut the f up and get out of Dodge. We Americans need not stand up for any terrorists or Muslim nuts’ free speech rights in this stage. We tried Making the World Safe For Democracy a hundred years ago. We have been at war most of the years since 1918. I will advocate war to make American Democracy Safe. Not the War To End all Wars but a war to end terrorists threats from the pirate territories. Take no prisoners. We need not a Gitmo. Make em walk the plank. That is my plank. This dog is running for President in 2016. Woff.
Beyond The Pale. I would like to throw something into the discussion which probably underlies much of the western view of free speech. This is related to my many rants against the pirate territories which exist on this round globe. In the “West” and I mean Europe and North America and South America, there is a belief that beyond a certain territorial boundary things are not the same as they are on this side of the boundary. “They” have not only different language but their religions and tribal thought processes do not jibe with the West.
Various folks have said that Beyond The Palentate the Ten Commandments Don’t Apply. Other things don’t apply.
The question arises as to when a geographical section of the globe is capable of adhering to human rights and notions like free speech and constitutional framework of governance.
I am skeptical of the ability and willingness of the territories Beyond The Pale to adhere to human rights and above that something like free speech rights.
Now we get to the Pope. He does not even speak for the Eastern Orthodox Church. He has few church goers out there in the former European colonies. The Europeans did not do a good job in their colonial empires to instill notions of human rights. Oh, India has it and some other places. But not Yemen. Not Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and other pirate territories where this war is going to begin soon.
I am not a nit wit like Woodrow Wilson and do not think that American troops should be deployed in order to Make The World Safe For Democracy. I think much of the world is not capable of democracy and certainly not now. There is a show on Link TV called Democracy Now! and I like the folks on there. But the premise– that Democracy Now is possible worldwide is a bit weak. Our President will probably have to ask the American people to participate in a world war against terrorists and the muslim nutcases. He need not speak in terms of making the World safe for Democracy. He needs to speak about keeping Democracy safe from the world. I would underline the word “from” but this machine won’t let me do it.