Uh-oh. The Pope has just grossly insulted my beliefs.
I believe you have a right to criticize anything — I go further and think you have an obligation to criticize.
I also believe that violence is never the answer, and that the proper response to words is more words, not flinging punches.
But look at what this pope is saying, violating what I hold dear.
By his own principles, I guess if ever, in some catastrophic, ugly, unpleasant stroke of bad fortune, I were to meet the pope, I’d have to punch him for provoking me.
Wait. No. Fuck the pope. I’m going to reject his principles and refuse to punch him.
I might have to say something about his mother, though — like that she seems to have raised him with a kind of stupidly pugilistic morality. Or was it his church that screwed him up?
Paging Tim Minchin. Tim Minchin to the white (heh) courtesy phone.
Um, can we verify that the pope actually said this?
Arrgghhh….. Never mind. (It sounded so much like that other asshole on that panel a week ago… you know, the ones with the guys talking about the stuff…)
Why are these people so open to resorting to violence, instead of just shrugging? Is it the testosterone? Say anything you WANT about my mother! Why should I care? Why should I be so easily manipulated into assault charges?
Yeah, let’s conflate the ideas of “criticizing/mocking a person” and “criticizing/mocking something a person believes in”. Because those are always they same thing. Yah, sure.
The guy makes his living by pushing his faith. If you insult his faith then you’re jeopardizing his livelihood. There’s the further point that he’s also an authoritarian, the head tyrant in a hierarchy. He’s automatically against free speech and any other form of democratic, progressive freedom.
Here is the same story by Reuters; bbc has left out some parts of the quote:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/uk-france-shooting-pope-idUKKBN0KO16Q20150115
Doesn’t surprise me, having lived in the UK previously.
Ironically, he seems to agree with you on this part:
“Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending,”
Though the rest of his quote is still hypocrisy at its best, considering the history of the Catholic church, I agree with the notion, that freedom of speech should be not taken as the right to be verbally abusive.
Edmond:
Or the general purpose “You are not a nice person and I am ignoring you now.” Or a long string of yelled profanity. Or passive-agressively putting any things you have to do on the bottom of your to-do list. Or telling everyone on the Internet how much of a jerk that person is.
The point is, one can express one’s displeasure at people in nonviolent ways, so it’s a false dichotomy suggested by this quote to assume the response to anything upsetting but non-violent must be violence or nothing.
Yes, sadly, yes it is. So far so good…
Why not? I understand my insult might provoke them to violence, but so what? Is the standard of what society can criticize now to be set by those quickest to violence and anger? Besides, if their faith is in something undesireable or worse, then its our moral duty to provoke them. See Ghandi, MLK, Jesus, and yes, Charlie Hebdo.
Religious list of appropriate responses: Insult mother=punch in the face; insult irrational belief in bullshit=get guns, kill alleged insulters, frighten everyone else from ever questioning your irrational bullshit belief. Ah, the logic of religion.
Fuck this asshole. How many mothers has he sworn at with his ignorant insults towards LGBT people? He regularly insults me, my husband and so many people I care about (but frankly, I think my fist is too good for his smarmy, condescending face). Countless children have had BOTH their mothers insulted on a near regular basis by this prick and his awful institution, should they use both fists?
Meanwhile, speaking of offense, the Philippines, which he’s due to visit, is abducting orphans off the street and caging them in squalid conditions so the Pope’s sensibilities aren’t “offended” by having to look at the effect of the RCC’s stance on contraception.
I am so fucking done with hearing simpletons rail on about how great this Pope is. At the absolute best, he’s a morally neutral representative of one of the most evil institutions in human history, and we learn by the day that he’s far, far worse.
Franny isn’t interested in freedom, or even the fee-fees of the followers of other religions. He just wants no one to insult HIS particular brand of theistic delusion and if he has to pander to other faiths to help get his way, so be it.
So I guess God has now rescinded the ‘turn the other cheek’ principle and we’re back to His earlier, ‘eye for an eye’ tribal vendetta morality, because, after all, the Pope is the infallible spokesman for God. Obviously, Jesus was wrong.
Well, as far as I can tell the Pope’s principles aren’t that it’s o.k. to hit someone who has just insulted your mother. I think he’s saying that it’s what might be expected of people when they’re sufficiently provoked by said insulting speech, but reacting violently to insults would be a sinful act to Catholics. But of course I am not a Catholic, so maybe I’m wrong about that…
In response, a selection of ‘yo mamma’ jokes with catholic overtones:
http://gawker.com/a-selection-of-jokes-about-the-popes-momma-1679712485
And yet when my friend swore about my mother, I simply walked away and never spoke to him again. I think he got the message just fine.
Another thought about so-called “fighting words”, is that for the most part ordinary people do tolerate insults and don’t react violently when provoked by them. My biggest beef with insulting speech is that it usually shuts down a conversation, but I guess that’s what those hurling insults generally prefer anyway. I’ve certainly seen that done often enough online, including here at FTB surprisingly… ;^)
Did you even read the quote? He said “my mother”. Not some random, hypothetical, non-Catholic’s mother, his own damn mother!!! Uh-oh, I just made a swear at the Pope’s mother, is he going to punch me now? Wait, I’m not his friend, as indicated by the context square brackets, so maybe I’m in the clear?
changerofbits @ 18,
Given the overall context, I think the pope’s reference to “my mother” is to make a general point, not to say he’d actually hit his friend, because we all have mothers and we all generally love them. Now if he’d said that if his friend insulted him over the shoes he was wearing that he’d hit him, that would be another matter.
Pope Francis’ Luke 6:29:
If someone slaps you on one cheek, he can expect a punch, it’s normal. If someone takes your coat, kick him inna fork, it’s freezing around here.
I say, attack ideas, not people. So I won’t insult his (presumably deceased) mother. But in the spirit of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”… how about a “Everybody Insult the Blessed Mother Day”?
The “inna fork” bit being lifted from Terry Pratchett.
And that general point is that violence is okay response to making fun, or provocation, or insults?
If I went up to the pope, and said “The Virgin Mary is the devil, as is your mother, and both of them gave birth to demons”, do you think he’d hit me? I actually think the pope is probably more smart/seasoned/moral than to do it himself, but his “general point” is base thuggery at best.
Is it OK to make fun of catholic priests who rape and otherwise abuse children and teens who are under their supervision? How about making fun of the church when they shuttle these priests to other locations so they won’t be prosecuted? Would that be touching on sensitive churchy feelings?
Hey, good luck with that, if this is any indication:
If making fun of faith is a big no-no, what does that make gunning people down?
Doesn’t he know the same murdering terrorists he’s defending hate him and would consider it quite a victory to take him out?
I don’t comment on here much but this got my blood boiling. Just wrote this on the Grauniad too.
I’m sure popey would just love to ring-fence certain ideologies against criticism, indeed, certain ideologies that make grandiose claims about being the answer to everything.
As an atheist I prefer to encourage criticism in everything, that is one thing that keeps us progressing. I think that this confused old man has done well though to be so honest about his backwards views. What about responding to criticism with words instead of violence? If someone insulted my mother I would be pretty ashamed if I resorted to punching.
If he doesn’t like being criticised then he chose a strange line of work if you ask me. And I am entitled to mock his embarrassing belief, just as I would expect to be mocked for my own ignorance. His statement saying that we should not mock religion shows how weak religion is, in that it can not respond to criticism with another argument other than that of violence. I spit on you pope, and your mother should be ashamed!
In the UK watch what happened when former Charlie Hebdo contributor Caroline Fourest held up the new CH cover depicting a new Muhammad cartoon when interviewed on Sky News — a network that has chosen not to show the image:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/charlie-hebdo-sky-news-cover-interview-cut-off_n_6473820.html
In France all major news outlet couln’t care less what the pope thinks chosing to show the new CH Muhammad cartoon as their lead story of the day.
There were huge lines forming outside most news agents and they sold out the new CH issue minutes after opening. But there will be a reprint every day of the coming week…
…when a whole nation says fuck off to the Pope and other religious wingnuts who believe their silly beliefs are off limits to freedom of expression.
Depends on the wingnuts: some are more equal than others and thus above criticism…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html
Where does he get that from? Is this law hidden somewhere in the bibles? Thou shalt not make jokes? In any case, the bibles are full of sarcastic slurs of other religious faiths. Some of the writers were particularly sarcastic about Greek religious practices, while others belittle the stick-in-the-mud conservatives. If it’s ok for one, it’s ok for everyone.
Could similar limits on expression of ideas apply to rationally and logically criticizing his stupid faith or that of Muslims? If you follow his argument, pretty soon you might find yourself on the roasting spit for questioning these vapid, antiquated, and useless religions.
He should be abjectly ashamed for rationalizing murder for any reason, much less for making fun of someone’s faith. As far as I know, satire has never killed the target of the satire. He may have just justified violence against any critic of religion.
By the way, Catholic leadership is perfectly capable of making asses of themselves without anyone’s help.
PZ:
I’m not as high-minded as all that.
In this case, I’d probably say Gasparri got what was coming. What’s a little fisticuffs between friends? Is the Pope supposed to be Gandhi?
But, yeah, trying to draw any analogies about Charlie Hebdo is in very poor taste. The murder of 17 people is not a punch in the nose.
This is the Gen. Patton interpretation, “Let the other guy turn a cheek”.
a>his
Never mind the “punch in the face” aspect of that papal quotation. What gets me is the declaration that religions should not be mocked nor criticized. I guess he wants everyone to have The Right to Not Be Offended. Mr. Pope, that does not fit with the Right to Speech. People have the Right to Not Listen, but not the right to dictate the limits of speech. When someone mocks your religion, just walk away and pay them no mind, so they can babble to the other heathens there.
I believe this is just the papal way to “blame the victim”. “They deserved to be shot cuz they insulted the Muslim religion.” Doesn’t your own holy book say that Murder is NEVER justified. Whatever happened to that “eye for an eye” as an example of punishment being not worse than the offense. So Hebdo insulted their religion, they ar justified to insult Hebdo’s religion; not to kill him in revenge.
Wow, that’s a new low for him.
Also… why exactly should I care when somebody else is insulted? Why would people insult somebody else, who isn’t there, in an attempt to get me riled up? That makes no sense.
What happens if the person he punches decides to punch back?
Does the fight have to proceed according to Queensberry Rules or can the Pope sink the boot in straight away?
Or is the Pope such a fuckwit he couldn’t even think two seconds ahead of the point there he throws the punch?
And the taunters did say to the boy Jesus,
“Yo mama’s earhole so big
She knoweth the Almighty. ”
And the Jesus smacketh them good upside the head.
@christopher,
I know, and I would have defended Sine, but at least the limits to freedom of expression don’t get to be decided by religious wingnuts based on silly beliefs but by judges who tend to be far more rational.
Christianity is stupid bullshit.
Come at me popebro!!
“My mother… I’ll tell you about my mother.”
or the other thing… counter with what makes your ideas NOT worth mocking.
sadly, the church has been rather loathe in defending their own ideology with rhetoric instead of repression.
this pope is case on point, being a so called “progressive” these days in the media, which never ceases to make me laugh.
so much irony.
so… someone who deliberate and with malice uses ideas to foment genocide.
it’s just the ideas that should be attacked, right?
I’m rather tired of this simplistic platitude.
sure, attack ideas. but sometimes, the people PUSHING those ideas need the light shone on them as well.
Ah, violence-the age-old completely ineffective means of conflict resolution-is trotted out again. This time over something as insignificant as using profanity. I wonder why the Pope doesn’t feel fathers who have been cursed at don’t deserve a punch. Oh wait, he’s probably bought into sexist assumptions about women as delicate flowers that need protecting and defending from anything (benevolent sexism).
David @17:
Oh dear glod, I hope you’re not about to start a tone-troll whinefest.
@ichthyic 41
All things are relative. Compared to previous popes, particularly the last two, he has been progressive in his proclamations. He hasn’t changed any dogma, but he has urged the laity and the priesthood to focus less on homosexuality and abortion and more on income inequality, the environment, and caring for the poor. He is the pope, so he’ll only go so far, but he’s a damn site better than the two that came before.
On this point though, he couldn’t be much more wrong. He did preface this statement by saying that he condemns the murders and violence as a solution, but he immediately followed it with that statement. It reeks of “They shouldn’t have been killed to shut them up, but they really should have shut up.” It is one short step away from victim blaming.
Grewgills @46:
You do realize the bar was set pretty damn low, right? So this Pope being better than the last two ain’t saying much. Especially since, as you acknowledge, he hasn’t changed any dogma.
David Wilford@25 – I’m afraid your trajectory did not, in fact, intersect that of the point.
@Tony 47
It’s certainly a low bar. There are some hard limits, even on the pope, for what dogma can be changed without upsetting the entire apple cart. Papal infallibility would have to be nixed to change most of the most egregious things. Two popes contradicting each other when speaking ex cathedra would likely cause a schism. I don’t see any pope doing that or the college of cardinals supporting the elevation of anyone that would consider it.
I think Francis is viewed as progressive for a few reasons:
1) as I mentioned, the previous two popes were so conservative
2) his rhetorical shift away from abortion and homosexuals to economic inequality and ministering to the poor, which has a lot of American conservative catholics apoplectic and calling him a communist
3) he seems to practice that outreach to the poor, something Benedict was terrible at
4) he is much more charismatic than Benedict (another fantastically low bar)
It seems the Pope has been reading the Gospel according to Saint Reggie.
”But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;
However if they slag off your mum then give them a good slap.
And if they don’t give you enough respect then really do them. Because that’s a diabolical liberty, that is.”
The Lord High Parasite seems to have forgotten ‘turn the other cheek…”
You know, I might just put a fatwa on the next person that insults Darwin. Because we atheists are all about the fatwas.
davehooke #37
teehee
As soon as I saw the headline about the Pope, I knew at least one person would be happy,,,
POPE SIDES WITH CATHOLIC LEAGUE
What was that bit about slapping a choirboy and getting him to turn the other cheeks?
I would never think that the pope would be hitting someone insulting his mother… oh no!
It would rather be like “I am totally justified to hit you now, because you insulted my mother. But I won’t, because I am such a holy and loving and peaceful person. But it is unacceptable what you just did, and if someone (SOMEONE! IS SOMEONE LISTENING?) were to hit you right now, or slice open your belly and roast you over a small fire, he would be totally justified, because you deserved it, you evil piece of shit. WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THE INSULTING PERSON?
Nobody should expect a punch for saying anything…it’s NOT normal, what the fuck is wrong with you? And doing that to a friend? Seriously? You look way too old to be 8 year which is the maximum age i’m willing to tolerate that kind of ridiculous behaviour for. This, in an adult, is absolutely pathetic…and no culture should tolerate it…
You cannot provoke? Wrong…you can….and it may even be a good thing to do…
Then again, it can be a very bad thing to do, like when you provoke me an thousands of others with yours disgusting homophobic hocus pocus. Ah, but that’s not provoking, is it? No, for you, it’s telling moral truths. Well, for me, telling you your religious beliefs (and apparently some non-religious ones too) are a collection of preposterous, ridiculous, toxic, made up horseshit, is also about telling moral truths, except as usual, you are pulling yours out of your arse, but i can fully justify mine.
Take your toxic masculinity that likes to pretend that a man has a right to defend his honor with his fists and your barbaric ideas and shove them with the rest of the poisonous horseshit you believe…they are not normal, and they are not wanted.
Jesus fucking christ, the shite that one has to hear from the supossed moral guide of so many…
Get fucked, popey.
QFT.
Christian dogma flatly states that all other religions are wrong.
That’s pretty insulting, there, Yer Holiness.
What, then, should you expect from every single person of any other faith, by your own words…?
Says you cannot provoke. Supports the mistreatment of LGBT people.
Fuck you, Pope Francis.
Totally OT, but…
PZ’s “Fuck the Pope” reminds me of something I read decades ago that had a character who was a sectarian graffiti writer (possibly by profession??) from Glasgow. He was completely evenhanded in his graffiti, even though writing “Fuck the Pope!” was so much easier than writing “Fuck the Moderator of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland!”
Sorry… Now back to your scheduled programmes…
The dogma of infallibility only dates from around 1860, and the Popes have mostly been quite careful about invoking it – it only applies when they are speaking “ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals”*, and mostly, they don’t say they are doing so, so any subsequent Pope could say they were not.
*Except that most Catholic authorities think it applies to canonisation – so even if they find out a “saint” was a fraud (like Padre Pio) or a child abuser, they can’t be desanctified.
To give the Pope all the rope he requires and stretching it very thin. Reading between the lines of what he said; methinks he is advising us that saying hateful words will get us slapped, so we must be careful in what we say. Do not mock the others religion, it will make them violent and will not listen. Talk gently to them, criticize their religion gently so they do NOT punch you and instead, listen more. That criticism does no good, if you just make the criticized violent. So choose what you say carefully, so they we continue to listen to you.
.
but all of that was too faint to actually be there. I am just fabricating my own version of his advice while sharing none of what he actually said.
I thought the comment about punching his friend was intended as a joke (one in bad taste for sure). Perhaps something is being lost in translation, but I got the impression that he was saying more that people will lash out when what they hold sacred is challenged and that should be expected. He seemed to be saying only that there are limits to free speech, which is something I’ve seen posted here as well.
caseyrock, #64
You think that’s saying “there are limits to free speech” in the sense that some of us here say it?
His remarks are a defense of the murders. He has contradicted himself. You cannot say the killings were unjustified and then also say
Also, isn’t his position that Muhammad was wrong about Jesus and that Muslims will have wasted their lives and suffer an eternity of punishment if they don’t regard Jesus as he regards him? I’d say that’s quite insulting to Muslims.
He’s a double-standard having, elite asshole whose only accomplishment is to have tricked people into thinking he’s somehow an awesome guy and not anti- gay people.
Aren’t conundrums illegal in the Catholic church?
Saad, #65
You interpreted his comments to be justifying the attacks whereas I interpreted them to be condoning the attacks while also indicating that defaming a person’s sacred beliefs is dangerous. I didn’t think that was a defense of the murders, only a statement of fact about human nature. I see what you are getting at though, I just don’t know that that it is actually what the man meant when he made his statement.
caseyrock@67:
Condoning, or condemning?
He’s saying if you insult my mother I’d punch you (in the context of the murders). That makes it a defense of the killings and him saying “you cannot insult the faith of others” makes it a general defense of violence as a response to such things.
The context makes it a defense.
#58
Not that it matters, but I’m wondering if you realized the irony was intentional.
The truth is that I would find it more comical than disturbing if the pope punched his old colleague in the nose. I also doubt it would happen. Grownups usually find more effective ways to express their hostility.
Drawing an analogy to this and the murders at Charlie Hebdo is disturbing, and I can’t really think of any excuse for it, though I want to like this pope. I think he was trying too hard to sound folksy and completely misfired.
Confirmation the Pope is just a conservative politician who wears fancy robes.
nich,
Thanks. I did mean condemning. Thanks for catching that.
Sadd,
I disagree, but I appreciate your take on the issue. It certainly explains why so some people are taking offense.
moar from Teh Pope:
Pope Strongly Defends Church Teaching Against Contraception
What all of these would-be censors conveniently leave out is some standard which they think should apply as a standard to determine which speech should be prohibited.
As stated above, the very act of proclaiming one’s faith (or proclaining you reject all faiths) implies you reject the teachings of every other single faith out there. Which could be construed as incredibly insulting for believers of those faiths.
Of course, what these authoritans actually mean is that you shouldn’t insult their particular brand of fee-fees.
No, they thrive on them. You see, the moral requirements of life, and the Holy Writings of God Hisself are so complex and confusing that the hoi polloi need guidance from the clergy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church to figure out what to do.
Seriously though, what the fuck is it with Catholicism? Every time there’s a thread on Catholicism or the Pope, the Catholic Defenders™ weasle out of the woodwork to tell us how we’re misreading it. That the Pope is soooo progressive! Can’t we just cut him a break?… yeesh
So what is it? Secret Catholics posing as atheists? Or does Catholicism leave such a strong, damaging hold that even converted atheists feel obliged to defend it?
Elzbieta Lis @ #7
Maybe the part before the ellipses, but certainly not the part after. Everyone who has the right to free speech also has the right to offend. Even, in some circumstances, the obligation to offend.
What you did there, I see it. Causing offense is not the same as being verbally abusive. The Pope wasn’t taking about being verbally abusive, he was talking about mere offense, like the type of pearl clutching certain Catholics perform when a cracker gets put into a bin. The type of pearl clutching that, years on, still inspires those certain Catholics to death threats and actual verbal abuse, but then he’d agree with such threats and abuse because those Catholics were provoked.
Yes, the Pop is entirely hypocritical. Indeed, one mustn’t offend religious sensibilities, but, as was pointed out a few times in the thread, offending (if it were only offending) queers and their allies by instituting and perpetuating the violent mistreatment of queers around the world is perfectly okay.
The Pope offends, to the point of necessitating a response (but not a violent one), liberal, progressive and right-thinking sensibilities as he is actively engaged in violence against entire populations of people as the leader of an organisation that has done almost unspeakable crimes against humanity in just the last hundred years and to this very present day from the horrors of episodes like the Magdelene Laundries, the institutionalisation of child rape, the protection of those rapists and the sanctified oppression of queers, to name, literally, only a few.
To think that free speech does not grant the right to verbal abuse in the face of that kind of monstrous evil is almost too much considering the absence of a violent (and, perhaps, justified) revolt against the Catholic Church. And yet, still, the matter of diminishing the extraordinary privilege of that evil institution has been through civil action, despite what verbal abuse may be hurled at the Church and its members.
The Pope doesn’t even understand what he’s saying; he doesn’t know what offense is.
caseyrock @ #73
You, like the Pope, have no idea what offense is.
Why do people feel the need to make excuses for the pope? This is not your old uncle Frank talking off the cuff, this is (supposedly) the spiritual leader of around a billion people. Thinking about, and providing guidance on, moral issues is part of the job description, and here he is pronouncing on such an issue which is very much in the news right now, an issue which he must have given a lot of thought. Regardless of how we feel about the papacy and the Catholic church in general, an awful lot of people still look to it for moral guidance, and he fucked it up. No matter how you look at it, this was a disgraceful performance for someone with his level of responsibility.
The tl;dr version of #78: The Pope is a violent bully. A powerful, violent bully.
caseyrock,
Then you fail to understand that when someone says “that’s what I would do”, they’re condoning the action.
The Pope is saying he himself would punch someone for insults to his mother.
He is saying this on the topic of the Charlie Hebdo murders.
2 + 2 = 4
No no. You just don’t understand. When the Pope says 2 he obviously means 3.
zenlike,
To be fair, not all faith’s reject all others. Some are very accommodating, they just aren’t very popular, probably for that very reason.
The Catholic Church has stopped expressing any degree of certainty that anybody will go to hell. Between justice and mercy, God has become completely ineffable.
(This appears to have started in the 1870s, when similar numbers of Catholics and Lutherans suddenly found themselves in the same country – Germany – and the Catholic Church became uncomfortable with saying half the country, including the emperor, was going to hell. Not that much earlier in historical measures, St. Francis Xavier had no problem telling his Japanese converts that that’s where all their heathen ancestors were.)
Look, he’s probably the best pope ever. That’s just a painfully low bar.
That may well be. Even so, the way in which he failed seems telling to me.
If you’ve known Catholicism from the inside, especially in liberal places like western Europe, your perspective will indeed greatly differ from, say, that of someone with a Protestant upbringing in America. For example, you’ll have learned to gloss over all sorts of things you disagree with and have always disagreed with, because nobody else around you agrees with them either. It’s easy to handwave away the church’s stance on contraception when you don’t even know there are significant numbers of people who take it seriously and live by it! If the inquisition were somehow reintroduced (which I don’t expect), hundreds of millions of people would be excommunicated because they don’t believe even half of the official teachings.
To stick with my example… my religion teacher didn’t agree with the church’s stance on contraception; even went so far as to say that the rhythm method is allowed* because it can’t be controlled. He might have been fired if the church had found out. But first, who would tell on him, and second, who could replace him.
* Really. It is.
There are limits to free speech. I am simply baffled that anyone around here would think “criticizing religion”, “mocking religion”, or “causing offense to the religious” were beyond those limits.
David Marjanović # #85
Ask that of the LGBTQ people who get fired almost daily from Catholic workplaces in the US.
The Catholic Chruch is not impotent. I know you don’t believe that, but it bears repeating explicitly.
David Marjanović,
Interesting take and thanks for the insight.
anteprepro,
I took his reference to limits on free speech to mean that people can say what they want, but some things are better tolerated than others. Defaming a person’s religion tends to provoke a baser response than defaming, say, a person’s choice of lawn ornaments. I saw his comment as an admonition that some things can be said, but maybe they don’t need to be and thus should be avoided to prevent provoking nasty responses. I don’t agree with his position here, but that is what it seemed to me he was saying.
@BeyondUnderstanding
I mostly get the warm fuzzies when I think on my *personal* experience of Catholicism – getting donuts and juice after church, saying nice prayers about loved ones after dinner, holidays with my family, and nothing but fond memories of my Catholic high school experience. I think for those of us atheists who were not incited to disbelief by any particular harm done by our ex-faith, we still identify with it and view it with some measure of affection, and therefore are quick to defend it.
This defensive impulse is short-sighted though. My personal warm-fuzzy experience is not everyone’s – it goes without saying that many people’s experience of Catholicism is nightmarish and horrifying, to say the least, and it’s incumbent on the rest of us to never forget that betrayal. It also ignores the harmful political and social machinations of the church.
Anyway… it’s just the bog-standard psychological phenomenon of denial that you’re seeing. We have trouble seeing the truth about the things we value.
…What the vertical gene transfer. He actually believes there are too few children in the world.
:-o
I’m quite specifically talking about religion teachers in specifically western Europe. The US is, even now, a much more religious place where even the Catholics are evangelical.
And religion teachers are laypeople (not even required to be men). There’s a massive, dramatic shortage of priests over here; in the cities, some of the vacancies are filled with immigrants from Poland and Nigeria, and in the countryside you get priests who make a tour of three or four parishes every Sunday. Faith is bleaching out on a massive scale.
Church itself, though, was incredibly boring.
Also: basically everything David Marjanović said, although replace Western Europe with Midwestern United States.
I’d be willing to bet that Catholics are (if you ask them off-the-record) just as diverse as Jews in terms of supernatural or political beliefs. There’s definitely atheists in the pews, and I’m certain many of them are there willingly.
David Marjanović, I know the perspective from which you were coming. I acknowledged as much.
The situation isn’t starkly different in Canada. The US, as usual, is an oddity.
No kidding! I tell my mom I won’t go with her to church on the holidays because I don’t believe in God, but mostly it’s the tedium!
The U.S. is not a monolith.
caseyrocks
Have you ever thought you are reading into it to much and only imagining that he is saying what you want him to be saying? Acknowledging that people have a baser response to religion is something atheists certainly can do. Because that is obvious. It is actually part of religious privilege: they feel entitled to not being criticized.
Here is the part from the article:
Provocation is conflated with insulting faith. It is implied to be the limit he speaks of.
What kind of contortions are you working yourself into to avoid that?
John @ #96
The hell? Neither is Europe. What’s your point?
John:
Oh Christ. I feel a solo on the world’s tiniest violin coming up on the horizon.
anteprepro,
I don’t “want” him to be saying anything in particular. It really wouldn’t matter who had said it, the Pope or a person off of the street, I’d interpret the statements the same way because that is how I see the context construing them.
That’s how you interpret it, but I don’t. If you can prove to me that you know for sure what the Pope meant by those statements and explain how they don’t contradict statements of his in the same article like,
, then maybe I’ll accept the assertion that the Pope is saying that violence is a justified response to words. However, I think that many on here are using indirect statements to force a connotation that direct statements don’t support. I understand your position, I just don’t agree with it.
Has the Pope yet issued an ex cathedra announcement that abusing a child, or abetting or concealing that abuse, is a Latae sententiae-worthy act, resulting in immediate excommunication from the Church–to the extent that those found to have done so would be barred from burial on Catholic-sanctified holy ground, and even disinterred if need be?
If not, then fuck the Pope, because that’s technically the rules covering getting an abortion. When he declares that molesting children is at least as bad as deleting a blastocyst, we’ll talk about how ‘progressive’ he is.
(Slight correction upon further research. The Latae sententiae would need to be followed by a formally declared excommunication to trigger the ‘no sacrament for you’ rule. So make sure he includes that in the announcement–that such crimes must always lead to a formal excommunication.)
caseyrocks: I don’t know how to explain this to you. Sometimes people contradict themselves. Shocking but true. See for example “I’m not a racist, but…”. The Pope used talking about how horrible the violence was as a disclaimer. Like “I’m not racist, but…” before saying something bad about a group of people of another race. He opposes the violence, BUT they really shouldn’t have said that.
If all you have is “well, that’s just my interpretation” then just fucking stop talking. You are playing the “It’s Just My Opinion” card as an excuse for being stubborn and not being at all open to being wrong, and not willing to budge an inch no matter how little you have supporting you. If it truly is Just Your Interpretation, then we have nothing to discuss and your work here is done.
anteprepro,
It is just my opinion because I don’t know what the Pope actually meant and neither do you. I’ll budge an inch when you come up with something other than your opinion. Note I didn’t ask you to change your position, you asked me to change mine. I said I would, if you could convince me of a reason to see it another way. Since you can’t do that, you’ve decided to abandon the discussion in favor of insults and assertions. That’s fine if you don’t think we have anything further to discuss, but don’t confuse your own stubborn refusal to provide evidence of your omniscience regarding the Pope’s exact intentions with my position that my position can be changed with evidence but not with mere assertions of opinion.
P.S. Thanks for stating that “sometimes people contradict themselves.” Really? I had no idea. What a revelation.
caseyrock,
The context is the very thing that makes him a murder defender.
Outside of this context, saying if you insult my mother I’d punch you wouldn’t imply defense of murder.
David Marjanović @ 85
& John @ 90
Believe me, I get it. Lots of religious people aren’t extremists, whether from Europe or America (I’m from Northeast America. My church was a super laid-back Presbyterian sect). Some people’s religious upbringing was hellfire and guilt. Mine was also just Sunday school and cookies & juice. I get that most religious people don’t strictly adhere to the tenants of their faith. That’s obvious.
But for some reason on this blog, anytime there’s a thread on Catholicism or the Pope, I can always easily fill in my apologetics bingo card. Are Catholics really that much more progressive and easy going? It sure doesn’t seem so. However, it’s blatantly obvious they’re more defensive about criticism.
caseyrock:
And we all could just be brains in a vat. Sometimes you have to deal with probabilities. Like an adult.
How about this:
“You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit.”
Examine your own opinion: How does this fit it? How does this make sense and mesh with your opinion? He is saying you cannot provoke. He is saying you cannot insult faith. He is saying there is a limit. All right there. How is that NOT putting a limit on free speech? How is that NOT putting religion specifically on the other side of that limit?
Your interpretation is convoluted in order to be as generous to the Pope as possible. You need to explain why your opinion is better. Or just keep it to yourself and stop lecturing us for not taking your opinion seriously.
Well I actually I asked you to either start looking your opinion COULD be changed (still doesn’t look like that) or just shut the fuck up about it because you are admitting you have nothing and your mind won’t change.
By God, the world’s tiniest violin is getting a lot of use today.
I’m sorry that I didn’t realize you were deliberately ignoring the obvious instead of accidentally or through ignorance. How rude of me. I should have known the person who can’t shut up about their Just My Opinion would likely not be intellectually honest! Silly me.
John #90
(Former Catholics, always a fun topic, but a little goes a long way.)
That doesn’t exactly sound Catholic to me–more like mainstream American protestant. I wonder if you’re a bit younger. My experience was very limited socializing after mass unless there was a big event like the annual Christmas bazaar. Otherwise a handshake and “peace be with you” was gonna do it for interaction.
Lucky you. I went to a Christian Brothers prep school. The teachers were mostly just fine, some of them very smart and funny, and I learned a lot there. The other kids (oh and it was all boys by the way) were mostly preppies and jocks. Those were the most traumatizing four years of my life, though I do not blame the church for it.
I have one explanation for the presence of Catholic atheists around here, though the real one may be as simple as demographic share:
A Catholic education doesn’t go out of its way to make you stupid about things other than faith. Critical thinking was expected up to a point and required to get a good grade (even in religion class). Note that this is why the Pope’s comments are rather disappointing. He knows better than to make an outlandish analogy between things with no moral equivalence. For all I know, he’s stomping around the Vatican like Ralph Kramden shouting “To the moon, Cardinal!” but whatever his anger management issues, they don’t compare to a mass shooting.
And, yeah, critical thinking up to a point. Very difficult to put in practice. The ones who master it become theologians I guess. A lot of the rest of us become former Catholics.
My father had an old college friend who had become a Jesuit priest. He’d visit sometimes, smoke cigarillos, have a drink with my father, and bless the house. There’s an appeal to that, though it is as easy to imagine something similar without the theology. I agree that it is hard to fully leave behind the culture you were brought up it.
John #95
I never had trouble sitting through mass, and it’s a good deal easier than making it through an overlong meeting at work. The responses are automatic, and my mind is free to wander. I would still go to mass sometimes except that I feel hypocritical about it.
Apart from canonizations, no, not on any topic at all, and neither has his predecessor as far as anyone is willing to state. It’s surprisingly vague.
Catholicism is really easy to misunderstand (see infallibility mentioned in this thread), so everyone’s SIWOTI syndrome breaks out. Plus, there’s 500 years of history behind accusations against Catholicism that aren’t quite right. :-)
In western Europe, in recent decades (since ’68 and/or the Second Vatican Council), generally, yes. Elsewhere… not so much.
Depends on the individual parish.
Or Jesuits, famously.
Oops, I overlooked several comments!
I really don’t think you’ll find atheists in church here, except fulfilling family obligations; generally, the churches are half-empty or more except for Christmas and Easter. But you can certainly find pretty much the entire rest of the spectrum in the pews: believers in reincarnation, believers in Jesus as just a great man who didn’t resurrect in a very literal way… all the way to worshippers of the abovementioned Padre Pio.
And many will talk about such things on the record if you ask them. It’s just considered very, very weird to ask.
I resisted going, and eventually succeeded in stopping going except for Christmas and Easter, because of the tedium several years before my faith had even faded away. :-)
caseyrock:
How about reading what the Pope wrote, and understanding what the words mean, rather than contorting yourself so that his words are less disgusting than they are? Do you not realize that in his analogy, swearing at his mother is the equivalent of “provoking the faith of others” while getting punched for swearing at his mother is the equivalent of “a terrorist attack against people who mocked religious beliefs”. When you understand the words he’s using, it’s easy to see that he’s saying that a reasonable response to mockery and criticism of religion is violence. It’s not.
@Thomathy, Such A ‘Mo
I don’t think we would ever agree on this one, because to me, there is no such thing as the right or obligation to offend. Neither do I think free speech gives anyone the right to engage in hate speech without consequences – and as the recent arrests in France show, the do have legal limits on free speech when it comes to that.
I won’t defend or respect anyone’s right to be what I consider verbally abusive – and I believe you are being verbally abusive, if the intent of your insults is to hurt the victim. This is why I consider the pope’s speech to be hypocritical, because the catholic church has a long history of and continues to preach hate speech.
What the pope doesn’t get, but Jason Stanley put very eloquently in words in his “A Postcard From Paris”:
“The pope is the representative of the dominant traditional religion of the majority of French citizens. The Prophet Muhammad is the revered figure of an oppressed minority. To mock the pope is to thumb one’s nose at a genuine authority, an authority of the majority. To mock the Prophet Muhammad is to add insult to abuse. The power of the majority in a liberal democracy is not the power of monarchs, to be sure. But it is power nonetheless.”
I am an atheist, but also a white heterosexual woman, and an immigrant in a predominantly white country. “If someone mocks your religion, walk away” is easy to for me to say. But the way I see it, other people have been walking away for a long time now.
caseyrock, #104
Article
Ruh roh.
Elzbieta Lis @113:
I am an atheist. I am not Muslim. I am not bound by the beliefs of Islam that say Mohammed should not be mocked, criticized, or even drawn. Why do you think I, or anyone else who is not a Muslim, should be bound by their religious rules? Why do you think an imaginary deity should be beyond mockery and criticism? Do you also think that no one should mock or criticize the Bible? What about mocking or criticizing the horrid ideas in the Bible or the Koran? How far does this “don’t mock/criticize” religion extend?
Elzbieta Lis:
Why not? Explain yourself. People take offense all the time. Sometimes over innocuous things. And sometimes you cause offense in pursuing justice. Removing a right to offend is the prioritizing of civility over freedom of speech and over the ability of the oppressed to call out oppressors. All in the name of civility.
Hate speech is a subset of “causing offense”. But it isn’t morally wrong just because it causes offense.
Perhaps this needs to be done: Explain why hate speech is bad, in your view. (You may need to also define what hate speech is).
Gotta agree with that.
Not nearly long enough. And you also gotta factor in all the times that they go running right back….
Elzbieta Lis,
Two things wrong here.
1. Mocking Muhammad is not the same as mocking an oppressed minority.
2. Muhammad also happens to be the revered figure of a gigantic, highly privileged class: the cis, heterosexual Muslim men living in many Muslim societies around the world. The Pope is a revered figure for many oppressed Christians in the world too. Should he be off limits then? The vast majority of Muslims don’t live in societies where they’re an oppressed minority. The world isn’t Europe and USA. How insensitive of you.
I’ve gotta say, there is a mighty thin line between “don’t mock religion X” and blasphemy laws.
I really hope caseyrock informs us how that doesn’t imply a defense of the murders.
The reason I think so many of you, including Mr. Diety now, are taking what the Pope said the wrong way is that you don’t have to look very hard to find a boatload of examples of him condemning violence and particularly violence that people attempt to justify with religion. Here are a few from him.
Also, read this (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-28240968) if you want to see precisely my point being made by the Vatican itself. It seems that I was spot on.
Victim-blaming 101: If you will insist on doing [whatever] you have to expect [whatever].
That’s what he said, therefore he is victim-blaming.
This is hardly a new or hard-to-grasp concept.
Oh my fucking God, caseyrock. Thick as a fucking brick, and perpetually miles away from anything resembling The Point.
anteprepro,
Way to go ad hominem there. Is that what you usually do when confronted with evidence that you are wrong?
Elzbieta Lis @ #113
In that case, you are stupid*. Do you not think that the gay rights movement has necessarily offended people who think that gays should be oppressed, closeted or illegal, even put to death? Do you not think that the civil rights movement necessarily offends white supremicists or run of the mill racists?
My very existence as a gay man is, and I know this as a matter of personal fact, an offense to certain people. To even speak openly can cause offense, identifying myself. Merely being in public with my partner can cause offense.
It is absurd, in the extreme, to think that free speech is limited to that which causes no offense. The very act of free speech is provocative. The world has lived with it for a very short time and yet our collective memory, even in the face of continued oppression of free speech at present, seems to have forgotten a time quite recent in history when free speech was unknown.
You are very simply wrong.
That’s fine. I have not condoned hate speech, nor have I suggested that there should not be reasonable limits or consequences to speech. If you believe I have, reread what I wrote for comprehension.
What insults have I made? You can quite literally quote them if they exist. The relevant comment number, I think, is #78.
That certainly can be argued to be true. I can’t think I’d disagree.
That Muslims may be an oppressed minority in France (I believe that they are), is no reason for anyone not to mock their religion or a figure of their religion in certain contexts. The oppression of Muslims in France and criticism and mockery of their religion are not mutually exclusive.
I’m unsure what you mean by this.
*This is intended to drive home a salient point about offense. I’ll leave it to you to figure that point out.
Elzbieta Lis quotes@113:
There is a line, and in some countries it is quite a fine line, to be sure. It is often crossed, as has been pointed out quite loudly in other threads touching on this topic. But the fact that Mohammad is a figure from a religion claimed by some oppressed groups does not mean he is completely off limits whatsoever. PZ recently posted a video of a woman who had incredibly stupid ideas about science and evolution. She was mocked mercilessly. Should she have been spared because she is a woman and women generally get the shit end of the stick in most societies? I don’t think so at all, but again, there is a line that can be crossed where you go from mocking her ideas, to being a sexist idiot. Bill Cosby is another example. He’s a prominent member of a marginalized group, but he’s done some awful things and they need to be dealt with mercilessly. But again, there is definitely a line you can cross where you go from attacking Bill Cosby to attacking his race. The thing I like about Pharyngula is that more than a few here seem to be pretty cognizant of where these lines are and will let you know (sometimes quite LOUDLY) when you have crossed them. Some people see that as a bug, but I definitely consider it a feature.
caseyrock: It’s what I do when someone is confronted with evidence that they are wrong and then starts dancing around and saying that it really proves they were right the whole time. You are awfully self-important, aren’t you?
Also: It’s not an ad hominem because it wasn’t meant to be an argument or simulate one or substitute for one. You wish it was an ad hominem because that would mean I am taking you seriously enough to actually continue to debate your Opinion,
caseyrock @ #123, anteprepo has not engaged in an ad hominem argument. That informal logical fallacy means something.
Further, you have not provided any evidence that the Pope’s words do not read as the majority here, indeed, all over the world, have read them. What you have done is merely to assert that you interpret them differently. You’re repeating yourself and you have nothing to show. It’s very nice that you interpret the statement differently. In what way does it contribute to the conversation to make that assertion?
Or, simply: What is your point?
caseyrock @120:
Why is it so hard for you to understand that someone can have inconsistent beliefs?
Thomathy:
I had to read her multiple times before I realized that she was likely using “you” in a hypothetical sense (she wasn’t accusing you of being verbally abusive, she was saying a hypothetical person would be verbally abusive in situation X).
Thomathy @127:
Popal apologetics?
Thomathy, Such A ‘Mo,
Take a load off there. You are jumping in and clearly not reading all that came before.
In fact, I presented the very evidence you request in post #120.
Tony! The Queer Shoop,
Why is it so hard for you to understand that that has nothing to do with what I have been discussing?
caseyrock @132:
Le sigh.
Your #120 was an attempt to show that the Pope opposes violence. The point of my response is that the Pope holds inconsistent views on violence.
Elzbieta Lis #113
Off topic, but of course there is an obligation to offend sometimes. One is when simply doing what’s right inevitably offends somebody because it goes against the status quo. E.g., a lot of “nice” people thought ending segregation was a terrible idea and found upstarts like MLK very offensive.
But more generally, it is offend impossible to get attention without causing offense. Paul Krugman makes this point a lot in his economics blog. You could say “These are probably very smart people, but here is where I disagree.” and most readers would lose interest before making it through your preamble. If you feel an obligation to sway opinion, you need to carry it out effectively, and that is often impossible without offending somebody.
There are cases in which you do not only offend by default, but actually start with the tactic of offending somebody. If you are obligated to fight for a just cause and your best tool is satire, then you are obligated to offend.
Tony! The Queer Shoop,
So go ahead and prove that the Pope holds inconsistent views on violence. Of course, you may want to explain what you mean when you say inconsistent views. From everything I see, he condemns it, always.
Oh, god, I think you’re right, anteprepo. Thanks! I read that over and over. I doubt I ever would have figured that without having it pointed out and now I can’t read it any other way.
Elzbieta Lis, if it’s the case, please ignore that part of my response to you.
caseyrock @131:
What you presented (assuming that they weren’t cherry picked) were a series of quotes that you hoped would convince others that the Pope opposes violence. And yet, his comments about provoking the faith of others shows that he thinks violence as a response to mocking religion is justified. Just as he thinks violence against someone for swearing at your (generalized ‘your’ here) mother is justified. This isn’t hard to grasp.
A punch in the nose isn’t violence? Read for comprehension, not what you want it to say.
I guess in the world according to caseyrock punching someone in the nose for swearing at your mother doesn’t constitute violence.
And CaseyRock, get off the concept that we have to prove you are wrong. That’s not how science works, but it is how religion works. Science requires you to demonstrate you are right. And you have yet to do so to the satisfaction of the horde.
Religious arguments are I’m right, show me where I am wrong, and then they never acknowledge any evidence they are wrong.
Why are you using a religious argument, and not a scientific one?
Tony! The Queer Shoop,
What I presented where direct quotes in which the Pope condemns violence as well as a link to an article from the Vatican that was just released and mirrors everything I have already said. What you have presented is your interpretation of a single quote and you’ve offer exactly no logic as to why your interpretation is the only one, why your interpretation is the correct one, or why your interpretation is right even though it differs from what the Vatican itself says the Pope meant. So, when are you going to provide any evidence other than your uninformed opinion.
Well, his God is a spiteful, vengeful, violent asshole. So I guess he feels his statements are justified.
caseyrock says that, ironically, without reading comment 114.
(The quote presented from Saad’s article was also in the link that caseyrock presents at 120)
caseyrock, really? You think that you’ve shown that the Pope did not literally say that people can expect retaliation for provoking the religious by causing offense because he also said that religious beliefs should not be ‘ allowed to be abused in the cause of violence and war.’?
That’s absurd to the extreme.
caseyrock #141:
Y’see that quote at the top of the page; the one where he claims violence is a natural consequence of causing offence, and even alludes to the fact that cussing his mum would cause him to react violently?
There’s a word for that. ‘Evidence.’
I am beginning to suspect that caseyrock is not here to converse in good faith.
_____
caseyrock, again: What is your point?
You can lead a Pope Defender to the Pope’s own words, but you can’t make them read.
Fine. You all are right. How’s that? Happy now?
Frankly, I don’t care. I find it entertaining, however, that you will all persist in believing whatever is most comforting to you regardless of the evidence presented. So, so sad.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #138
It’s not in the same category as murder. Even the law recognizes a distinction between simple assault and murder.
This is sort of besides the point, because if the Pope were merely asserting his right to punch Dr. Gasparri, it would be kind of strange (and yes, violent) but not nearly as offensive as what he was implying. The fact that he seems to equate the shooting at Charlie Hebdo with a punch (causing minor injury) is what makes his statement totally wrongheaded. Even though Popes usually don’t issue apologies the way politicians do, I hope he’s at least feeling embarrassed by his remark.
Damn, caseyrock. Having fun serving out disses to your bathroom mirror?
Except your own inexpert view isn’t considered evidence, but rather opinion. Evidence implies something outside of you, which you never provided. Which is why people are irritated with you, since you weren’t being intellectually honest. And now you admit to trolling.
Hmm …if you say so.
anteprepro@99
Sorry to disappoint!
Regardless of my opinion of religion in general, and Pontiffs in particular, given that he’s a person with one helluva lot of influence in this world, I would actually find it ‘most comforting ‘ if he’d said, unequivocally, that people should never react to words with violence. I would have loved the OP to have been able to read something along the lines of ‘You know, I don’t often agree with the Pope, but he’s right on this one. Well said him.’
@Thomathy, Such A ‘Mo
antepro is correct; the “you” in my comment was not personal – and I apologize if it sounded like it was.
@nich,
I agree, but to me there is a difference in mocking an idea, and mocking a person. Even if I think of someone as stupid, is it right of me to publicly laugh at them for that? Why? For the personal satisfaction of hurting someone? How would that make me different from those Catholics, who preach hate speech because it brings them self-satisfaction? (I have been raised in a very catholic country and this is my observation)
I think context is important – I have seen the cartoons in question, and the way Mohammad was drawn is depicting the racist stereotypes so prevalent in Europe. So where do we draw the line? Is using racist stereotypes okay, because the satire is supposed to mock religion? My personal opinion is, that considering the situation of Muslim immigrants in France, it didn’t target just religion. And that is not okay with me.
Elzbieta Lis, apology accepted, but unnecessary. Simply an error in my parsing of what you wrote.
Fatwah envy, Vatican style.
@David, Thomathy, others
What you have said about the catholic church in Western Europe and Canada is much the experience I had with the church and church schools in the Western US and further West. I would hazard a guess that it is much the same in most of the NE and MidAtlantic. The SE along with much of the MW and Mountain West are different animals. That is, the church in a practical sense if not a dogmatic one very much reflects the culture it is surrounded by. I have seen catholic schools in CA and HI that have active LGBT clubs and support groups advertised on the school billboards with school sanction. Those clubs are student run with faculty support and look like the same groups at secular schools. I assume much of this is under the radar of the cardinals as it runs counter to dogma and general church teaching. My experience of the church in the bible belt was completely different.
I would agree that much of the defense of the church here is coming from people who have this experience of the church, well that and trolls.
Wait, wait, wait — you aren’t (or shouldn’t be) permitted to say things which insult someone’s religion? Is that what he’s trying to say?
Now hold on just a minute, here. Christians necessarily believe that Muslims are wrong about Mohammad being a prophet (among other things), and that Jews are wrong about Jesus being a god. And this is reciprocated: Muslims necessarily believe that the Christians are wrong about the identity of god, and that Jews are wrong about, well, just about everything. Similarly for Jews re:Christians and Muslims. Therefore, all Christians are implicitly insulting Islam and Judaism whenever they speak of their faith in public, all Muslims are implicitly insulting Christianity and Judaism whenever they speak of their faith in public, and all Jews are implicitly insulting Christianity and Islam whenever they speak of their faith in public. Obviously, by the Pope’s rule, all the Abrahamic religions need to shut up about religion in public, for good. I eagerly await this development.
I never understood why the pope is hold in such high esteem by so many people – even by some atheists!
Catholic apologia is one of the strangest things to observe as someone who grew up in a catholic context, and this thread has not been an exception: punching someone in the nose is not the same as violence, apparently, and quoting a bunch of statements made by a person contradicting another statement he makes means the last statement should be interpreted in some magical way as meaning something entirely different. And apparently if the vatican says something, it must of course be right. They wouldn’t lie would they?
caseyrock,
I gave you evidence already, which you ignored and thought people wouldn’t notice. I present it again:
The Pope’s own words. Your opinion is now meaningless.
That’s not what an ad hominem is, idiot.
Elzbieta Lis @ 155:
To keep other people from A) thinking you agreed with the stupid things that person was saying and/or B) agreeing with the stupid things that person was saying themselves.
Make sure what you’re saying is accurate, that’s how.
So, make that distinction. Draw that line manually: “I wholeheartedly support your freedom to mock religion, and wholeheartedly condemn your use of racial stereotypes to do so. In neither case do I believe you deserve a violent reaction. There are plenty of better ways to mock religion than appeals to racism. Use them.”
Like that.
It’s quite possible for someone to be a staunch supporter of freedom of religion and a racist asshat at the same time. In fact, it’s depressingly common.
@Anri
I’m a bit confused by your post.
I can disagree with a person and make it clear without mocking them. “I disagree with your idea of …, and I find it stupid, because …” is not the same as “You are stupid, because you believe in…” And I think stating “I disagree” makes it clear enough to prevent any misunderstandings by other people. So I don’t understand why would I need to offend anyone “To keep other people from A) thinking you agreed with the stupid things that person was saying and/or B) agreeing with the stupid things that person was saying themselves.”
Drawing that line is what I have been writing about, and not about refraining from criticism at all.
edited to add:
I wrote about those cartoons because to me there is a difference between defending the right of journalists to pursue their trade without having to fear for their health and life, and between defending racist cartoons as satire.
Certainly.
He really is a relief after his predecessor. That makes it easy to overlook what a very low bar that is.
Another reason why so many people defend the pope: he takes ambiguous actions. In November, he demoted the highest-ranking cardinal from the US because that guy, who “believes homosexuality is, ‘always and everywhere wrong [and] evil,” said that “[t]he pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the faith.” Did the pope demote him because he was too homophobic? Or did he demote him because he questioned the pope’s authority? Or perhaps both?