Religion
Related: About this forumPope Francis Is Wrong About 'Charlie Hebdo.' We Have a Right to Make Fun of Religion.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120785/pope-francis-charlie-hebdo-remarks-miss-our-right-offend-religionJANUARY 16, 2015
By Jerry A. Coyne
Photo: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images
The Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris was a watershed moment in the war on terrorism in two ways. First, its almost impossible to pin the murders on anything but blind adherence to religious faith. The murderers, like many Muslims, believed that making fun of or even depicting their prophet Muhammad is a capital offense. Why else would the terrorists target Charlie Hebdo instead of, say, French government offices? The religious motivation directly contradicts the many apologists who blame Islamic terrorism on the West as a reaction by the oppressed to colonialism. What has changed with this tragedy is peoples willingness to recognize that religion really does make people do terrible things.
We are experiencing a historic clash between two tenets of liberalism: multiculturalism and Enlightenment. Absorbing immigrants can enrich a society in many ways, but not if those immigrants demand a public deference to their religion that conflicts with democratic values.
Im referring in particular to free speech: the right to criticize or make fun of anything so long as youre not directly inciting violence. For exercising that right, 10 members of the Charlie Hebdo staff were exterminated. Not all Muslims, of course, riot or kill when Muhammad is defamed or depicted, but the view is sufficiently common that the West has finally woken up to what it means for democracy.
One would think that Catholicism, a largely Western institution, would share the solidarity among enlightened people prompted by what happened in Paris. Wrong. Pope Francis, the voice of the Vatican, has pronounced that free speech should be limited: that while satire and mockery cant justify murder, they shouldnt go too farby which the Pope means that criticizing religion should be off limits.
more at link
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I am not following this story that closely, but I really like this Pope and I like what he's had to say about the matter of respectful discourse.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have to disagree with Francis on this. I think justifying violence as a response is wrong and I think his applying this to "faith" is wrong.
I like him, but he is an old man from a latin country who sometimes speak like an old many from a latin country. He loses me big time on some of his statements.
We just moved to a beautiful and fairly isolated harbor today. We had heard that there was an open wi-fi source, but that may have been only temporary. Oh, well. More money from me into the Carlos Slim's pocket (he own Telcel and pretty much every cel tower in Mexico).
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm having a really hard time trying to sort out what you are trying to say here.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)especially nature photographers, but I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to communicate here.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'll pass on that slope!
OnePercentDem
(79 posts)I'll take my freedoms over religious interpretations.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)His disrespect of capitalism is irritating them no end, attacking him at every opportunity is imperative.
Attack him, attack him, attack him! Surely there is something he believes in that a large amount of folks vehemently do not agree with that can be used to attack him and take him down a papal peg or two?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I do agree that his antagonism towards capitalism is threatening, but I'm not sure how else to interpret what he said here.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)vulgarity and insult for the sake of insult.
Satire does not need insult and vulgarity and pornography directed against an entire major religion.
But I can't ask him, so that is my opinion only.
I have never met Muhammad or Jesus, so when I see an image of a brown man in a turban clutching a sign on a cartoon magazine cover I do not immediately assume it is an image of Muhammad any more than if I saw an image of Rush Limbaugh wearing a fedora I would think it an image of
Jesus.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and if they do, they will get what they deserve.
And he seems to make it exclusive to religion and not other things that might upset people. That makes it particularly difficult to stomach.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)whathehell
(29,034 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I just can't agree with him here.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You're agreeing with me on this. Tread very very carefully because I am an evil atheist bigot, or so some who have embraced that meme think.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)but in the case of the Paris murders, it was obviously a real one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think that is saying that religious beliefs have a special privilege that I am not willing to grant them.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)"Grant" or don't "grant", who cares?
The point is, if you INSULT people you are likely to make them ANGRY
and angry people tend to hit back, SOME hitting back much HARDER
than others, as recent events have shown.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)should be aware of what might happen if they provoke others, but my issue here is that he seems to have made it exclusive to "faith", saying it should not be mocked.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)should be applied specifically for their group.
If he wanted to make a statement about civility and the risks inherent in mocking others, that would be one thing. That is something I would teach my kids.
that sort of common sense would seem wise.
I don't think the pope is saying that faith shouldn't be mocked, at least
by law, although being the head of a major religion, I doubt that he's crazy
about the idea, which seems quite normal.
He's saying what should be obvious, and that is that many are
SENSITIVE about their religion, and identify with it, so when you INSULT
it, you insult them, and given human nature, you can expect consequences
which will vary in severity depending on the people insulted.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)taken out of context here.
The example of his traveling companion insulting his mother resulting in a punch in the face would seem to mean that he meant it more broadly.
Making the case for sensitivity is one thing, while making the case for censorship is another, particularly if one is making the case for censoring only certain things.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)and he's certainly not making the case for censorship, he's making the case for
common sense.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)disagreeing, and stating one's point of view.
Not murdering me.
Why is it reasonable to expect those kind of consequences when criticizing or mocking someone's faith? Why on earth should we consider it as "normal" as popping someone in the mouth for insulting one's mother?
whathehell
(29,034 posts)Neither he or anyone on this board or anyone who accepts western democratic
values believes anyone should be murdered for their speech.
Nor do I believe he or ANYONE on this board thinks it's "reasonable" to expect MURDER
as a consequence, but when you're dealing with ISIS or Al Queda we're not necessarily
dealing with people who "reason" as we do, are we?.
Mike Nelson
(9,944 posts)...but I wouldn't prohibit the free press from publishing them.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I believe he said that if the monsignor standing next to him insulted his mother he should not be surprised if he's slapped. I agree with that.
I believe some quarter have interpreted that remark as showing support, if not symothy, for the shootinbs. I find that spin to be ludicrous. He has unequivocally condemned the attacks.
Was theres some remark in particular houre asking about?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think he is saying that religious beliefs should be treated different than other things and that the limits on mocking or ridiculing them should be more strict.
He did make the comparison to insulting someone's mother, but otherwise did not extend it to cover other things.
rug
(82,333 posts)But the short answer is anybodycan do whatever they want , no matter how stupid.
Whether they should, and, why, are other questions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Eat some street food for me if you get a chance.
I look forward to your thoughts after you read more about this.
I think he is calling for limits on free speech when it comes to religion and that is what I object to.
rug
(82,333 posts)I better get off this phone beforeI get su ked into something or other.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)IF it's still there. My old hood.
rug
(82,333 posts)We almost went down there as well but it was too damned cold.
Did you ever go here when you lived downtown?
http://www.knishery.com/main.htm
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)We used to get knishes at a place on 2nd Ave, the Kiev, I think.
It's been a while, East Houston now has trees down a median and the bombed out buildings are long gone.
I found a dead body in one of them during college.
Good times!
rug
(82,333 posts)In the long run, even worse than Giuliani.
Those knishes are really worth going in, though.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The day I first hit Manhattan there were a series of bank robberies, and the front pages of the dailies kept changing as I walked all over town, "two robberies", "fifth bank robbed", "ten banks"! And the trains were covered with graffiti inside and out. Outside colorful graffiti was glorious, I thought. Inside the trains, not so much.
I learned that, unlike the west coast, in New York a "regular coffee" has cream in it.
I found most people in Manhattan to be friendlier than those in San Francisco, and I felt at home.
I left as Times Square was becoming Disneyfied and I've only been back once.
The best parts are gone, IMO.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You can walk from one end of Manhattan to the other and see amazing neighborhoods and eat wonderful ethnic food. Central Park is vibrant and the subway system heavenly. The available theater is like nowhere else in the world.
I love it there.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)demosincebirth
(12,529 posts)except to make fun of Muslims you do so at risk of your life. That's the difference.