Pope Frances' response to satirism and criticism: those people deserve a punch

[albeto.]

Has this been talked about yet?

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-on-charlie-hebdo-there-are-limits-to-freedom-of-expression-when-religion-is-insulted/ar-AA8cjxx

 

 

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.

 

"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

 

0.o

[AimeeM]

What would you like to discuss about it? I guess I'm not seeing much that is discussion worthy. He's entitled to his own opinions, just as the rest of us are.

FWIW, I giggled when he said it :D I never know what he's going to say, it seems, lol.

[MBM]

From the Catholic News Agency, here is more of what he said:

 

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-on-charlie-hebdo-dont-kill-in-gods-name-but-dont-insult-faith-22658/

 

ETA: I couldn't find where the Pope literally said "those people deserve a punch" as you put in your title.

 

[Murphy101]

He wasn't condoning it.

 

He was saying that people being repeatedly provoked tend to lash out and that this human reaction is well understood in history.

 

Basicly, he said it's awful and wrong and yet not at all surprising.

[Murphy101]

A related catholic perspective... I agree with this one.

 

http://www.catholicvote.org/wait-do-we-get-to-be-charlie-hebdo-too/

[Ipsey]

I think this was quite an interesting statement. 

 

"It's true that you cannot react violently. But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal."

 

From the Catholic News article.

 

 

[MBM]

He fleshed his thoughts out more in the article.

 

[Murphy101]

I think this was quite an interesting statement.

 

"It's true that you cannot react violently. But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal."

 

From the Catholic News article.

Idk why.

 

Let's say you saw a couple approached by a random man who then proceeds to insult, slander, mock, and ridicule and humiliate the man's wife. Would you expect the husband to punch him at some point?

 

I would. It's normal.

 

Wrong? Likely.

Surprising? Nope.

Would you think it odd if the provoking man acted shocked at being punched for expressing himself freely? I would.

[poppy]

I agree with him. And with the newspapers that refused to reprint Charlie Hedbo's most provocative images.

I don't think it's that shocking a message.

Satirists have every right to publish what they do, and an actual violent response is obviously inappropriate at best. An air punch, not beyond the pale.

[SarahB82]

I agree with him. Although terribly sad, it isn't a surprise when people react to having their buttons purposely pushed time and time again.

[MSNative]

The problem comes when he talks about limits to freedom of speech. He says we are not free to offend. I think offensive language is not outside the limit. If only inoffensive language is free, then we really don't have freedom of speech.

This quote is also troubling. ""You cannot offend or make war, kill in the name of your religion, that is in the name of God," the Pope told journalists.". That seems to place the two acts - offending someone and killing in the name of your religion- on the same level.

[Murphy101]

The problem comes when he talks about limits to freedom of speech. He says we are not free to offend. I think offensive language is not outside the limit. If only inoffensive language is free, then we really don't have freedom of speech.

This quote is also troubling. ""You cannot offend or make war, kill in the name of your religion, that is in the name of God," the Pope told journalists.". That seems to place the two acts - offending someone and killing in the name of your religion- on the same level.

Obviously they can be legally and most certainly politically. Hate speech for example is often illegal. Inciting to riot is often illegal. Why? Because they correlate so strongly to violence/war.

 

I don't *think* he means literally not free to offend. He might, but what I get from this in context is that our freedoms have consequences. We are not free from those consequences.

[Dory]

I don't agree that someone should be punched if they talk badly about my mother. I don't think it ok that people react with violence when something upsets them. There are appropriate ways to deal with things. Even my kids know better then to start throwing punches when they are upset. It shows immaturity and a lack of self control. The only difference between that and what happened there is that it was grown ups with a lot more power to do harm. There are always legal and appropriate routes to take if things are being said or printed that slander a person or a group of people.

[poppy]

I don't agree that someone should be punched if they talk badly about my mother. I don't think it ok that people react with violence when something upsets them. There are appropriate ways to deal with things. Even my kids know better then to start throwing punches when they are upset. It shows immaturity and a lack of self control. The only difference between that and what happened there is that it was grown ups with a lot more power to do harm. There are always legal and appropriate routes to take if things are being said or printed that slander a person or a group of people.

 

I believe the Pope was speaking figuratively.  His many writings on the topic make very clear he is not in favor of violence. 

[JustEm]

I don't agree that someone should be punched if they talk badly about my mother. I don't think it ok that people react with violence when something upsets them. There are appropriate ways to deal with things. Even my kids know better then to start throwing punches when they are upset. It shows immaturity and a lack of self control. The only difference between that and what happened there is that it was grown ups with a lot more power to do harm. There are always legal and appropriate routes to take if things are being said or printed that slander a person or a group of people.

 

 

but the Pope didn't say they should get punched, at least not from anything I read.  He said they should expect it, as in, you can say what you want but those words will insight a reaction in people, whether right or wrong. Getting punch by a person who you are instigating is a normal reaction. That doesn't make it right but it makes it important for the person doing the harassing to think about what consequences could result from their actions.

[Murphy101]

I don't agree that someone should be punched if they talk badly about my mother. I don't think it ok that people react with violence when something upsets them. There are appropriate ways to deal with things. Even my kids know better then to start throwing punches when they are upset. It shows immaturity and a lack of self control. The only difference between that and what happened there is that it was grown ups with a lot more power to do harm. There are always legal and appropriate routes to take if things are being said or printed that slander a person or a group of people.

All laws conclude in violence.

Because there will always be people who cannot be reasoned with.

This is why we have prisons and police and military.

I'm not convinced that dispassionate legal violence is any better.

[JustEm]

OP I urge you to re-title your thread because to imply the Pope said they deserved what they got is a gross misrepresentation of  what he actually said.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not shocking.  After some of the shenanigans the Catholic Church has been involved in over the years I can see why they would be begging for special protections from criticism and satire.

 

He is still wrong though.  Being offended doesn't excuse violent actions.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

OP I urge you to re-title your thread because to imply the Pope said they deserved what they got is a gross misrepresentation of  what he actually said.

 

It really isn't.

 

"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

 

 

[JustEm]

It really isn't.

 

"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

 

He says that Dr. Gasparrii can expect a punch, because that is a normal reaction for many humans, not that he deserves one.  Those are 2 very different things.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He says that Dr. Gasparrii can expect a punch, because that is a normal reaction for many humans, not that he deserves one.  Those are 2 very different things.  

 

In the context of his statement about limits, Albeto is not stretching his words much, if any.  I don't see him saying anywhere those who should expect to be punched don't deserve it, and his comments in the various articles do seem to be putting the blame on those who do the offending along with the perpetrators of violence.

 

He would have better served to suggest those with strongly held religious beliefs should exercise a bit of maturity and not want to punch others because their feelers have been hurt.

[poppy]

In the context of his statement about limits, Albeto is not stretching his words much, if any.  I don't see him saying anywhere those who should expect to be punched don't deserve it, and his comments in the various articles do seem to be putting the blame on those who do the offending along with the perpetrators of violence.

 

He would have better served to suggest those with strongly held religious beliefs should exercise a bit of maturity and not want to punch others because their feelers have been hurt.

 

Again. It's a metaphor.  

Free speech is a critical right. Freedom from criticism is not.

[Farrar]

I feel like I have a healthy dose of cynicism about this pope and the massive popularity he's managed to get. But looking at his whole remarks I took it to be a little off the cuff, saying that he condemns violence, supports free speech, but also understands why some people react with violence when their deepest beliefs are questioned or mocked. I didn't take it that he was saying that literally people must be stopped, more that people should stop and think and hold the value of respect over the value of free speech.

 

I don't really agree with that sentiment though, not in terms of public discourse anyway. I just think it's not that he was condoning violence in any way or saying that people shouldn't have the right to publish those sorts of satire. I think the reason he brought it down metaphorically to the personal level of a yo mama joke was to change the context to being the personal and make a personal appeal to people to rethink. I think that's different from a political appeal. I just disagree.

[Murphy101]

There are limits to freedom of expression. This is not new info he made up.

 

And yes the concept that when people go looking to make trouble they will likely find themselves facing trouble is not a new concept either. (Which is not at all to say they deserve that trouble either.)

 

These really are not some catholic or modern concepts.

 

Zero tolerance policies on bullying would be one example. Why are there such policies against the freedom to say what they want even tho it offends and belittles others? Because we all know the natural end point to letting it continue can often be violent. Our society wants to prevent that violence, so it has rules to avoid provoking it, and those rules limit freedom of expression to some degree.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There are limits to freedom of expression. This is not new info he made up.

 

And yes the concept that when people go looking to make trouble they will likely find themselves facing trouble is not a new concept either. (Which is not at all to say they deserve that trouble either.)

 

These really are not some catholic or modern concepts.

 

Zero tolerance policies on bullying would be one example. Why are there such policies against the freedom to say what they want even tho it offends and belittles others? Because we all know the natural end point to letting it continue can often be violent. Our society wants to prevent that violence, so it has rules to avoid provoking it, and those rules limit freedom of expression to some degree.

 

Freedom of expression has never allowed for speech to be used to inflict direct harm on another (i.e. slander, libel, fighting words, threats, harassment, etc). 

 

Having one's sensibilities offended is NOT a reason to infringe upon the speech of another, and yes, the pope is suggesting that is a perfectly valid reason to restrict speech.

[Farrar]

I felt like he was trying to make a personal appeal for individuals to restrict their own speech though - something people do for personal reasons all the time. Not a political appeal to governments to restrict speech. He wants it to be personal.

 

The thing is, it's political speech. You can't make that be just personal.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A related catholic perspective... I agree with this one.

 

http://www.catholicvote.org/wait-do-we-get-to-be-charlie-hebdo-too/

 

You may want to research some of the claims made in that link.  The ATL Fire Chief wasn't fired for his views on homosexuality.  He was fired for self-publishing those views and then handing them out to fire department personnel.  One is not entitled to promote their religious beliefs in the workplace, and certainly not when doing so can set the employer up for future discrimination lawsuits. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I felt like he was trying to make a personal appeal for individuals to restrict their own speech though - something people do for personal reasons all the time. Not a political appeal to governments to restrict speech. He wants it to be personal.

 

The thing is, it's political speech. You can't make that be just personal.

 

I think you are correct.

 

I also believe that sometimes people need to be offended.  I am sure the Catholic Church and its members would have preferred to not be subjected to the political cartoons and satire regarding their complicity in decades of child sexual abuse, but frankly...too bad.

[hornblower]

IMO, they were poorly thought out comments which muddled things instead of encouraging all people to be kind & turn the other cheek & seek ways of co-existence. 

 

They weren't calm words of wisdom. He should have not spoken at all, or spoken only once he had a clear sentiment & meant what he said.

Saying that I'll punch you if you insult my mother is not only endorsing/excusing violence, I also find it sexist.

[EmseB]

It really isn't.

 

"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

 

I don't often agree with you, but on this, YES.

 

In the context of 17 people being shot and killed for publishing offensive cartoons the Pope's statement was disappointing to say the least.  He wasn't speaking a vacuum.

[Catwoman]

This thread seems like yet another instance of taking a few sentences someone said and trying to turn it into a big, controversial drama. :rolleyes:

[Laurie4b]

I think the comment about his mother was tongue-in-cheek, like "yo mama" jokes. He said it with regard to his friend who was there possibly saying it, which was not something I think anyone would take literally and he clearly denounces violence in the same interview, so it's highly unlikely that he meant the "punch" to be taken literally. He said a punch in response to provocation was "normal" and "to be expected" but not that it was right. He also acknowledged violence done by the church and said it was wrong, too. I think it's important to take any particular sound bite in light of a person's overall trajectory. I am not Catholic, but I find myself really admiring many of his positions. None come close to advocating or excusing violence.

 

 

 

 

 

[Catwoman]

I have to disagree with you Cat.

 

The Pope is a major world figure. When the Pope comments on a philosophical issue, in the context of the last week, it's likely to be worthy of discussion

Or maybe it's just yet another opportunity to start a negative thread about a religious figure under the guise of "discussion."

[poppy]

A punch is normal ?

 

A punch in response to anything is extremely abnormal where I live.  Criminal, even.

 

Maybe the Pope is just showing his age, along with his ignorance on matters of free speech.

 

There is a post going around on Facebook right now about how President Obama threw a "hissy fit" last week in a military briefing when someone informed him that ISIS was an Islamic group.   People seem to actually believe it, too, or say "it might be true". The remark above- about  how this pope is aged and ignorant - remind me of that little rant.  It just doesn't make logical sense.  Love them or hate them,  Obama and the Pope are not ignorant buffoons. But I suppose it satisfies some itch to paint them that way sometimes.

[Catwoman]

His comment was ignorant and old fashioned.

 

Throwing a punch when verbally provoked is not normal behaviour in my culture or generation.

 

So ar your seriously saying that there is no such thing as a fistfight in your "culture or generation?" Nobody ever gets angry enough to throw a punch?

 

I find that incredibly hard to believe, given that you have said in the past that yours is a drinking culture, and it would seem that when there is a lot of drinking, there is usually some brawling to go along with it.

 

And FWIW, it was obvious the Pope was having some fun with his punching comment, not making some sort of serious political statement.

 

But of course, it had to be turned into a huge controversy on this forum.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Or maybe it's just yet another opportunity to start a negative thread about a religious figure under the guise of "discussion."

 

The thread wouldn't be here if the "religious figure" chose his words better.

[Roadrunner]

I think there are limits to free expression. Incitement to violence, hate speech on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation...I'd also include things like holocaust denial, not because I think Judaism as a religion should have special protections, but as a matter of pragmatism.

r.

It's all very murky. When I first read about Dr. Grover who denies that Stalinist purges took place and teaches this to his university students, my hair stood up. Does he have a right to do this? I have lost a big chunk of my family to those purges and have torture stories that I can't bring myself to retell. My first reaction was to link up with the Holocaust museum (different mass murder, but probably the only group that would understand my outrage). So where does his freedom begin and when my great grandparents truth overtakes this?

 

Same with inciting violence. Is it only incitement of violence if the opinion is fringe? I have a right to call Muslims violent murderers. If my reader picks up a gun and shoots one, did I incite violence? I can call gays immoral. If my reader hangs one, did I incite violence?

I am asking because I don't know how this is all defined in law. If anybody knows the law, please chime in.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So ar your seriously saying that there is no such thing as a fistfight in your "culture or generation?" Nobody ever gets angry enough to throw a punch?

 

I find that incredibly hard to believe, given that you have said in the past that yours is a drinking culture, and it would seem that when there is a lot of drinking, there is usually some brawling to go along with it.

 

And FWIW, it was obvious the Pope was having some fun with his punching comment, not making some sort of serious political statement.

 

But of course, it had to be turned into a huge controversy on this forum.

 

Yes, it certainly isn't be viewed as a controversy elsewhere.

 

Oh wait, never mind. It is and the Vatican had to issue a statement clarifying the Pope's comments.

 

The Pope's comments also came on the heels on a Vatican statement which clearly spoke out against the attacks, but also included language that many felt was asking for religious beliefs to not be exempt from being used fodder for satire or other "offensive" speech.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's all very murky. When I first read about Dr. Grover who denies that Stalinist purges took place and teaches this to his university students, my hair stood up. Does he have a right to do this? I have lost a big chunk of my family to those purges and have torture stories that I can't bring myself to retell. My first reaction was to link up with the Holocaust museum (different mass murder, but probably the only group that would understand my outrage). So where does his freedom begin and when my great grandparents truth overtakes this?

 

Same with inciting violence. Is it only incitement of violence if the opinion is fringe? I have a right to call Muslims violent murderers. If my reader picks up a gun and shoots one, did I incite violence? I can call gays immoral. If my reader hangs one, did I incite violence?

I am asking because I don't know how this is all defined in law. If anybody knows the law, please chime in.

 

Your first issue is murky but I lean towards not suppressing the thoughts/beliefs expressed by others and using the truth and facts as a weapon against them.

 

Regarding your two questions.  Under U.S. law, you are not inciting violence with either statement, and that is rather well defined in law.

[Catwoman]

The thread wouldn't be here if the "religious figure" chose his words better.

Or maybe people should stop picking apart every word that everyone says, trying to find a reason to make it into a big deal.

[Catwoman]

Throwing a punch is seriously disapproved of. There are plenty of public campaigns to discourage it. Punches are considered cowardly. Yes, people - mostly drunk young men - still do it - but there is very little public acceptance of it. I personally don't know anyone who has thrown a punch. That's my culture.

 

I think the Pope is not a drunk young man, and 'having fun' with the idea of people being injured for verbal expression in a week where people were brutally murdered for written expression isn't really what I'd expect of a world leader.

I think you completely misinterpreted the Pope's intentions.

 

Do you think he was intending to incite or excuse violence? Because I can't imagine anyone intepreting his statements in that way.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I know. It's murky. I guess I'm not a free speech fanatic to the point where I can stomach denial of historical fact, especially when that denial feeds into fascist culture.

 

If pushed to the line, would I err on the side of allowing holocaust denia as 'free speech' ? I don't know.

 

While I understand why some European nations have criminalized holocaust denial, from a free speech position I believe you have to allow those comments to be made and then refuted in the public sphere.  While the holocaust deniers are a special breed of scum, there are other historical debates that are not quite as clear cut that many hold very sincere (and imo quite wrong) opinions about (ex. the Confederacy/slavery in the U.S./Civil War), and my concern is that by making one truly repugnant belief illegal we may be opening the door to speech suppression that most of us would find uncomfortable.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Or maybe people should stop picking apart every word that everyone says, trying to find a reason to make it into a big deal.

 

Yeah, it;s like his words are supposed to have meaning or something.  I have no idea why anyone reads them and like forms an opinion and stuff.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think you completely misinterpreted the Pope's intentions.

 

Do you think he was intending to incite or excuse violence? Because I can't imagine anyone intepreting his statements in that way.

 

Coupled with a previous statement from the Vatican I believe he is promoting a position that religious beliefs should be immune from being offended.

[Catwoman]

I think it's OK to pick apart the words of an influential, major world figure :) I really do. Don't other people also get bored of cupcakes and crockpots ? I think this falls under 'discussing current affairs'...

Well, I see it as more of the usual attempts to promote a particular agenda, so I am bowing out of this thread.

 

I'm sure plenty of others will be more than happy to continue "discussing current affairs," but I have had more than enough of this topic.

 

I do hope albeto fixes the typo in the thread title to fix the spelling of the Pope's name, though. I'm sure it was an auto-correct kind of typo, because when I typed in Francis' name earlier, my computer kindly corrected it to "Frances" for me, too.

[Catwoman]

As always, happy to agree to disagree with you Cat, with no hard feelings :)

Same here! :)

[Laurie4b]

A punch is normal ?

 

A punch in response to anything is extremely abnormal where I live.  Criminal, even.

 

Maybe the Pope is just showing his age, along with his ignorance on matters of free speech.

 

I'll rephrase what I think he is saying: a punch is "normal" not in the sense that it is "okay" but  in the sense that it  is not unexcpected from human nature. It's not unusual for violence to erupt in response to certain level of verbal provocation. It happens very day. As a social worker, I've worked with people and in neighborhoods where that would be a common occurrence.

 

That doesn't make it either legal or right. I do not think the pope was condoning violence at all. As I said before, the rest of his words explicitly condemn violence including past violence done by the church.

[Lisbeth]

I'm not sure how I feel about this, except to say, The Book of Mormon (Broadway) denigrates LDS beliefs and even uses the Book of Mormon in a very profane way on stage, and yet I have not heard of Mormons protesting en masse outside theatres or getting violent over it.

 

Funny how it is not always a provocation to violence.

 

I disagree with most of what this Pope says, for full disclosure.  Further disclosure, I used to be Catholic.

[Murphy101]

His comment was ignorant and old fashioned.

 

Throwing a punch when verbally provoked is not normal behaviour in my culture or generation.

 

I'm not a Francis hater - in fact, just days ago I started a thread about his awesome attitude towards breastfeeding. So trying to derail the conversation by implying a personal agenda here is incorrect.

It certainly might offend you, but it wasn't ignorant or old fashioned.

 

Unless you think words have zero power.

 

Or think nothing is worth fighting for or against.

 

I don't.

 

I believe words have power to illicit strong emotion and ideas. I believe that words affect how people feel and how they think and how they live.

[Farrar]

I'm not sure how I feel about this, except to say, The Book of Mormon (Broadway) denigrates LDS beliefs and even uses the Book of Mormon in a very profane way on stage, and yet I have not heard of Mormons protesting en masse outside theatres or getting violent over it.

 

Funny how it is not always a provocation to violence.

 

I disagree with most of what this Pope says, for full disclosure.  Further disclosure, I used to be Catholic.

 

I don't know if this is true, but someone told me in fact that many Mormons have seen and enjoyed The Book of Mormon and think it's really funny.

 

Different religions are, of course, allowed to have different cultural reactions toward satire. I'm okay with the Catholic church saying, not funny, please think about who you're hurting. Fine. I think the way he put that was really misstated and clumsy though. And, come down to it, I disagree because I think satire is important and that religion is not off the table as many would like it to be.

 

I think this is the end result of having a pope who does what he likes essentially. He often says it just right, sometimes he misses. Those who are really enamored of him will have moments where they're really thrilled that he's focusing on the "right" things (helping the poor, laying off the bigotry, being pro-breastfeeding) and moments where they're jarred that, yes, he still is a very doctrinaire Catholic and in some ways very conservative.