General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharlie Hebdo: Pope Francis says those who ridicule others' religions should 'expect a punch'
Francis spoke about the Paris attacks while on his way to the Philippines, where around 1,500 Muslims protested yesterday against the depictions of the Prophet in the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo.
He said that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights however he added that he believes there should be limits to offending and ridiculing the faiths and beliefs of others.
By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organises his trips and was standing by his side on board the papal plane.
If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-pope-francis-says-those-who-ridicule-others-religions-should-expect-a-punch-9980192.html
Shorter Pope Francis: 'Violence is OK in response to ridicule'
Sid
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)rampage.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)not said in defense of the pope, but even if some people believe that charlie hebdo went too far, i dont know if this is the greatest time to mention it.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Even in jest.
I find this disturbing
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)is simply stating fact. It's not "endorsing" or "victim blaming." I don't think Big Frank is saying "Oh, that's --OK--" ... he's simply saying it's a reaction that isn't surprising--people often don't react reasonably when things they adore are insulted or disrespected. This is a guy who supposedly understands the nature of weakness and "sin."
If people did NOT react viscerally when things or people they love are attacked, there would be no violence, no wars, no need for door locks, guns, or weapons of any sort. Any time there were differences, why, people would sit down at the table of Love, join hands, and sing Kumbayah.
But hey--nuance is in short supply here at DU. It always is, unfortunately. With it, there are conversations. Without it, there's posturing and insults. I guess the latter is more fun.
Things here are immediately taken at face value and pounced on.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He denigrates us constantly, his Bishops do far worse. They insult, offend, they do this in public. There is no excuse for it, and the fact that we do not punch in return should not be mistaken for approval of the insults or as agreement that they have a right to insult.
DLevine
(1,788 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)vile, hateful invective against me, my family, and my friends? He can say that my partner and I marrying is "evil"; that if we adopted, we would be committing child abuse; that we are "inherently disordered" (a direct quote from the Catechism), but if we criticize him for it then we should expect to be punched? If a senator or a governor said those things, the outrage here would be universal and rightly so.
The Vatican PR team (headed by a right-wing ex-Fox guy) may have fooled a lot of people, but they have not fooled me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He's been rather neutral for the highest Catholic official. Save it for real fundies.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The new pontiff is being hailed as a fresh choice, but there's nothing new about his opposition to gay rights
Pope Francis has been praised for his humility (he picks up his own luggage!), his acceptance of other faiths (he wont insult the Prophet Mohammed in public addresses!) and his precedent shattering name choice (more humility!).
But the pontiff who is being hailed as a new direction for the Catholic Church is the same-old brand of theological conservative who opposes the ordination of women, abortion and the fundamental rights of gays and lesbians.
In fact, then-Cardinal Jose Bergoglio was a major force against the 2010 move to legalize same-sex marriage in his native Argentina. Though he ultimately failed, Bergoglio used the full weight of the church to crush the measure.
Here, a collection of his very worst quotes on the issue.
1. A Senate vote on gay marriage is a destructive pretension against the plan of God
From a letter to the Carmelite Sisters of Buenos Aires on the perils of marriage equality:
Lets not be naïve, were not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.
2. Gay marriage will destroy the family
More from the same letter to the four monasteries of Argentina:
The Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children.
3. Gay parenting is a rejection of Gods law engraved in our hearts
Again:
At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of Gods law engraved in our hearts.
4. The political struggle against marriage equality is war
And finally:
The bill will be discussed in the Senate after July 13. Look at San Jose, Maria, Child and ask them [to] fervently defend Argentinas family at this time. [Be reminded] what God told his people in a time of great anguish: This war is not yours but Gods. May they succor, defend and join God in this war.
5. Gay adoption is discrimination against children
According to the National Catholic Reporter, Francis called gay adoption a form of discrimination against children. A comment that resulted in a public rebuke from Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said that Francis remarks suggested medieval times and the Inquisition.
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/pope_francis_on_gay_rights_his_5_worst_quotes/
His most recent comments that gay marriage tries to destroy the family and comparing gender theory to Nazi propaganda:
Catholic leaders often use the term "gender theory" to refer to ideas that question or deny the God-given nature of sex differences and the complementarity of man and woman as the basis of the family.
"Why do I say ideological colonization? Because they use a people's need as an opportunity to come in and impose their will on children. But this is nothing new. The dictatorships of the last century did the same thing; they came in with their doctrine. Think of the Balilla. Think of the Hitler Youth," the pope said.
The Balilla was a youth organization instituted by Italy's fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500255.htm
He's been rather neutral for the highest Catholic official.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Look, you're going to have to ask him what he might say--I sure as hell don't speak for him.
I will say this--I think he's trying to move an unmovable beast--and he's actually gotten the thing to budge a quarter inch or two.
And we're talking about a magazine that publishes images that hurt the feelings of Muslims, Catholics, politicians, anyone they draw down on, I don't think conflation is appropriate here...particularly since Charlie Hebdo has insults for everyone if you wait long enough.
I think it's interesting that you could find a way to fling invective at someone for simply saying "Be nicer to one another." He's not giving orders, he's giving his opinion, and he's entitled to it like anyone else is entitled to theirs.
This latest pope is a damn sight better than the last one, just like Ali Hosseini Khamenei is a damn sight better than Khomeini--but that doesn't mean I'm going to be hosting a cocktail party around the 'bring your skimpiest suit' pool in Teheran anytime soon. Neither Rome nor enlightenment were built in a day.
FSogol
(45,476 posts)Trillo
(9,154 posts)I took what he said as a metaphor, not a literal, but since he was speaking in the context of Charlie Hebdo, clearly he meant it literally, while using the metaphor of insult my mother. I guess it was sort of a mixed metaphor with literal.
Has he crossed the line into advocating violence?
Xilantro
(41 posts)You typed "Shorter Pope Francis: 'Violence is OK in response to ridicule".
However, Francis also said: Despite joking about his mother, Francis also condemned violent retaliation. One cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of ones own religion that is, in the name of God, the pope said. To kill in the name of God is an aberration. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2015/01/15/pope-francis-on-charlie-hebdo-you-cannot-insult-the-faith-of-others/?hpid=z3
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)with the entire story deserves an eye roll from you.
Are 'troll' accusations forthcoming also?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Someone whose first 10 posts are single word replies, so they can quickly get to the point where they can post new threads, fits a pattern very often seen in MIRT.
Sid
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Or maybe the accuracy stung too much for a valid response... another pattern often seen in half-witted posts.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Some here would rather cut off their arm then admit to being wrong about something.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)in the Lounge gift shop.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)5,000 posts in 9 months, including a suspension of posting privileges or two.
It's like some kind of mind crime, who you remind me of.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Lol ...
Thanks for providing the facts of what he was saying though.
And a sincere welcome to DU!
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)which people are free to do, and you keep poking at them with that stick, you may get a reaction that you don't want. That's just reality. Especially if you're talking about when it crosses different cultures, which may not share the same sensibilities. That doesn't mean people physically can't ridicule anything and everything they want.
We live in the age of internet trolls, where someone can say pretty much anything and nothing happens, but real life doesn't work that way.
America wouldn't exist without violence. The concept of free speech wouldn't exist without violence. It's not whether violence is ok in response to something. It's just a fact of physical reality than it can happen in response to something. The world is not a YouTube or Yahoo comments section, even though you're free to say whatever you want. At least not yet anyway. The world is an absurd place.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)One of the purposes of laws and law enforcement is to ensure that I can insult you as much as I like, but you can't punch me back no matter how much you'd like too without being sent to prison for it.
Yes, it's possible that if you insult their religion, evil people will resort to violence against you. That makes it all the braver to do so, and all the more important to discourage them from doing so, and it absolutely does not make it your fault if they do.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This is the Pope who claims to be the Vicar of Christ who said that when insulted one should rejoice and when slapped, turn the other cheek as response.
What a hypocritical and self serving nature this man has.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)this OP is.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)diS
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's like people who aren't atheists aren't smart enough to be Democrats, except most Democrats are Christians in the United States.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/174134/religion-remains-strong-marker-political-identity.aspx
Constantly "criticizing" religion may actually serve to drive them out of the Democratic Party.
I'd ask the poster to do some research on it, but he or she has never told me what his or her degree is in. I do know he went to college with Naomi Klein, whom he described as a "drinker."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022146890#post82
So, that might drive people away from listening to anything Naomi Klein has to say about corporations and their influence on stuff, like democracy.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)That kind of a pattern? Like the pattern you display?
Hey, octafish of DU, didja see what your favourites are saying about the Charlie Hebdo attack? Since you've defended your use of racist, white-nationalist Paul Craig Roberts at DU so often, maybe you'd like to defend him here too:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11359673
Or how about Wayne Madsen. You defended him up and down a thread last week. Didja check out his theories about the Charlie Hebdo murders? You should. Then you should again tell us what a great investigator he is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=522719
Look, I don't think you're a racist, homophobic, anti-Semite. But you do tend to display a fondness for the work of noted racists, anti-Semites and homophobes like Paul Craig Roberts, Wayne Madsen and Israel Shamir.
It's a disturbing pattern. I'll leave it to others to determine if there are dots to connect.
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like writing Naomi Wolf is a "Drinker" is what that says to me you do, I've noticed.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)No comment on PCR's or Madsen's thoughts on Charlie Hebdo? You think so highly of these writers, I'm surprised you haven't already started threads linking to their bullshit.
What are you waiting for, octafish of DU?
For that matter, why haven't you given your support to David Duke? He's cut from the same cloth as PCR. Both former republicans. Both racist, white nationalist, anti-immigration asshats. Yet you only promote the writings of Paul Craig Roberts at DU. Where's the love for David Duke, octafish of DU?
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Show where I have supported any kind of thing that he stands for, including smearing other people.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)but you've supported his ideological brother Paul Craig Roberts.
Why have you supported PCR but not David Duke?
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Here's the post, from 3 years ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759#post44
Here's what it says, in its entirety:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True to your form, I do find you critical of me for quoting Paul Craig Roberts. Here's what he wrote about the subject you avoid:
Going to Jail for Being a Democrat: How Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman Got Roved
Once a popular governor of Alabama, Siegelman was framed in a crooked trial and sent to prison by the corrupt Bush administration.
By Paul Craig Roberts
CounterPunch, via AlterNet
March 2, 2008
Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama, a Republican state, was framed in a crooked trial, convicted on June 29, 2006, and sent to Federal prison by the corrupt and immoral Bush administration.
The frame-up of Siegelman and businessman Richard Scrushy is so crystal clear and blatant that 52 former state attorney generals from across America, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged the US Congress to investigate the Bush administration's use of the US Department of Justice to rid themselves of a Democratic governor who "they could not beat fair and square," according to Grant Woods, former Republican Attorney General of Arizona and co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee. Woods says that he has never seen a case with so "many red flags pointing to injustice."
The abuse of American justice by the Bush administration in order to ruin Siegelman is so crystal clear that even the corporate media organization CBS allowed "60 Minutes" to broadcast on February 24, 2008, a damning indictment of the railroading of Siegelman. Extremely coincidental "technical difficulties" caused WHNT, the CBS station covering the populous northern third of Alabama, to go black during the broadcast. The station initially offered a lame excuse of network difficulties that CBS in New York denied. The Republican-owned print media in Alabama seemed to have the inside track on every aspect of the prosecution's case against Siegelman. You just have to look at their editorials and articles following the 60 Minutes broadcast to get a taste of what counts for "objective journalism" in their mind.
The injustice done by the US Department of Justice (sic) to Siegelman is so crystal clear that a participant in Karl Rove's plan to destroy Siegelman can't live with her conscience. Jill Simpson, a Republican lawyer who did opposition research for Rove, testified under oath to the House Judiciary Committee and went public on "60 Minutes." Simpson said she was told by Bill Canary, the most important GOP campaign advisor in Alabama, that "my girls can take care of Siegelman."
Canary's "girls" are two US Attorneys in Alabama, both appointed by President Bush. One is Bill Canary's wife, Leura Canary. The other is Alice Martin. According to Harper's Scott Horton,a law professor at Columbia University, Martin is known for abusive prosecutions.
CONTINUED...
http://www.alternet.org/story/78407/going_to_jail_for_being_a_democrat%3A_how_alabama_gov._don_siegelman_got_roved
Gee. That was way back in 2008. Which reminds me how, in this thread and in any other on the subject of Don Siegelman over the years, you have added zero, siddithers.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)You should preface every time you use him:
"Yes, Paul Craig Roberts is a white nationalist racist, but I'm OK with that. Here's his article about <insert topic here>".
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Put quotes around whatever smear you want. Just make clear it's what you wrote.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)You're the one legitimizing the white nationalist asshat by repeatedly posting his writings.
It's damn clear that racism, homophobia and ant-Semitism aren't important to you in the least.
And that's not a smear, octafish. It's the fucking truth.
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)No, stating I wrote something that I didn't is a smear.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)They get picked on soooo much!
Bryce Butler
(338 posts)On Sun Jan 18, 2015, 09:44 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Paul Craig Roberts stood up for Gov. Don Siegelman. FWICF, you didn't, SidDithers of DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6101684
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Paul Craig Roberts is a racist, white-supremecist in the same vein as David Duke. He wrote "But the most fearsome fact is that the demonization of white people in the universities today is more extreme than the demonization of the Jews that was a prominent feature of German university life for 60 years prior to the rise of National Socialism. " when he published a book review of Death of the West, by Pat Buchanan. Just as David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Alex Jones arent' acceptable sources to be used at a progressive discussion board, neither is Paul Craig Roberts. Promoting his views on any topic lends legitimacy to him as a commenter. Instead he should be made a pariah for his racist views. Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 18, 2015, 09:47 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)said demeanor would change. There is no excuse for violence and it is verbal violence to repeatedly insult another. Just ask anyone who grew up in a verbally but not physically abusive home. We have freedoms but not license.
Lets go to Paris, lets speak clearly, the pope said. One cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of ones own religion, that is, in the name of God.
The pope said freedom of expression was a fundamental human right like freedom of religion, but one that must be exercised without giving offense.
Offering a hypothetical example that referred to the Vaticans planner of papal trips, who was standing beside him as he spoke, the pope said: Its true, one cannot react violently, but if Dr. (Alberto) Gasbarri, a great friend, says a swear word against my mother, then he is going to get a punch. But its normal, its normal. One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other peoples faith, one cannot make fun of faith.
The pope said those who make fun or toy with other peoples religions, these people provoke, and there can happen what would happen to Dr. Gasbarri if he said something against my mother. That is, there is a limit. Every religion has its dignity.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2015/01/pope-francis-respect-for-religion-should-limit-freedom-of-expression/
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The old creep calls me disordered and Satanic. Will he offer his insulting mouth to be punched or will he simply continue spewing anti gay venom? We both know he and his Bishops will never stop their hate speech.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)That would be verbal violence. When I was younger I would take physical pain easier than being bad mouthed. Thankfully I have gained some wisdom in this regard.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Seriously, no such thing.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)whatever you say MohRokTah. as you wish.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)"But recently the Vatican and four prominent French imams issued a joint declaration that denounced the attacks but also urged the media to treat religions with respect.
Francis, who has urged Muslim leaders in particular to speak out against Islamic extremism, went a step further when asked by a French journalist about whether there were limits when freedom of expression meets freedom of religion.
Francis insisted that it was an aberration to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence."
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)is a CULT and a dangerous one at that.
There IS something known as "fighting words", and that is a legitimate doctrine, but it requires the affront to be specific, personal, false, malicious, and to have been made with the intent to provoke. Criticism of religion cannot meet those criteria.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Not.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)when he speaks "ex cathedra." This is not an ex cathedra statement and it disappoints me. Francis has said a lot of good things lately. This ain't one of them.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)infallibility is all inclusive.
randys1
(16,286 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Not that anyone should expect violence for expressing them but that there should be some limits on free speech. Thankfully, the law already includes those limits.
Denzil_DC
(7,232 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)rings should also expect a punch, Francis.
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Catholicism is not a religion of peace.
spanone
(135,823 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Should the theists expect a punch if they tell someone they will burn in Hell for lack of belief in the supernatural?