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

[albeto.]

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.

 

I don't agree. He made the statement, "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

 

Or what?

 

You'll get hurt.

 

This is classic blaming of the victim. The editors and staff at Charlie Hebdo "asked for it."

 

We don't accept that excuse with regard to rape, but it's valid if used in response to making fun of someone's deity?

 

Does that mean Barb_ would be justified if she felt genuinely offended that someone would assume she's an evil Jesus-hater hell-bent on converting children to atheism? Is there a limit to how much offence an atheist is expected to tolerate? What about a Mormon? If they're offended at the play using their religion as a foundation for entertainment, does that mean Mormon terrorist acts would be understandable? Are the writers or actors involved with the play "asking for" violent retribution?

 

This kind of victim blaming isn't acceptable when lobbied against one's own community, but it seems that when a respected member of the community lobbies it against someone on the outside, it's dismissed as either a misunderstanding, misrepresentation, a joke, or not that big of a deal after all. There's a double standard here that's being ignored for the sake of, what? I'm not sure. For the sake of maintaining respect for a likable person? For the sake of downplaying the victim-blaming? For the sake of shushing criticism? Can it really be as simple as a cognitive blind spot?

 

What I find also noteworthy is the idea that criticism against religious ideas shouldn't be tolerated."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."

 

Why? Why is there an expectation of a limit of criticism against religious ideas? Is the pope not aware of the fact that his Christian religion was born from the successful criticism of the Jewish and pagan faiths that preceded it? Or is there only a limit on criticism that many people hold and cherish today? The example of the Mormons not only tolerating, but seemingly enjoying a Broadway play that takes their community as a foundation for entertainment suggests to me that this isn't a hard concept to promote. The fact that smaller religions are open target with regard to public criticism seems to be missing from this logic. The fact that pastors can publicly burn the religious texts of other religions and their action will be carried out on national news suggests to me a glaring double standard here, the likes of which are important to note.

 

So no, I don't think the statement has been misrepresented. If anything, I think it's been trivialized.

[poppy]

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.

Cheap shots lower the level of discourse.

[albeto.]

I'd like to ask the Pope, did Raif Badawi have it coming to him ? 1000 lashes for 'insulting Islam ' ?

 

(Really, he just applied a liberal critique to a theocracy.) He's actually being slowly flogged to pieces for being secular. Just as the people at Charlie Hebdo were butchered for being secular.

 

This is an excellent question. Raif Badawi was breaking his local law so there's room for argument legally, but the pope isn't talking about the law. He's making a point about morals. He is insinuating that it is morally unjustified to criticize religion. And not only is it morally unjustified, aggressive, violent consequences are interpreted as being the victim's fault.

 

This contains all kinds of moral and ethical problems if we remove the person and personal belief of the speaker and the religion he represents, and apply this idea universally, generically. It means that the offended party isn't really acting outside his or her moral jurisdiction because, like Martha said upthread, it's only natural. You can't blame someone for acting on his or her nature (LGBTQ problems notwithstanding). The point being, this idea is capitulating to terrorism as a form of criticism, and as a means of conflict resolution.

 

It is endorsing a "Might Makes Right" moral code that the Christian religion promotes itself as replacing (removing God from the picture, just between people, I mean).

[albeto.]

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:

 

Thank you for that constructive criticism. Please allow me to reply with some constructive criticism of my own. If you are not interested in conversing, you can simply not open the thread. Move along.

 

If you are interested in conversing, I would prefer you stick to the actual points made. Your armchair psychology used to expose some hidden theatrical intent is not only inaccurate, it's inappropriate, unhelpful, distracting, and silly.

 

Moving on...

[albeto.]

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

 

This particular question was inspired by a video I saw the other day by Mr. Deity in his response to the pope's comment.

 

The video can be found here: hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xDnxv6eFNg

 

One would replace "hxxps" with "https," or cut and past the numbers and letters following the equal sign into your search browser (posting the full url linked the video automatically).

 

Due to strong language, this is not safe for work, small children, or those easily offended. In fact, he starts off his video with the following:

 

"WARNING: This video contains the strongest language I could think of. It is definitely not suitable for work, young children, devout Catholics, Mormons, or people easily offended by profane language or the mockery and ridicule of religion."

 

There is no violence, sex, or imagery that is problematic. Instead, he uses profanity and insults with great enthusiasm. There's a reason for that, it's not merely to be obnoxious.

 

Mr. Deity is the character played by professional satirist, Brian Keith Dalton. In this video he's making a point of being as offensive as possible with regard to his choice of words by way of illustrating the point he's talking about, namely, that words, as unflattering and unpleasant as they may be, do not justify aggressive retaliation.

 

For convenience sake, I'll post some of his content here, without the swear words and insults.

 

This morning I woke up to the pope, the Vicar of Christ, the head of the holy Roman Catholic church, advocating actual, physical violence in response to offensive or provocative speech, thereby inciting violence and coddling the terrorists who killed my fellow satirists last week at the French weekly, Charlie Hebdo.

 

Your claim to be connected to some higher power gets you no pass from criticism, ridicule, and mockery...

 

And by the way, does the fact that I'm so deeply offended by what you've said now give me the right to physically harm Catholics, destroy Catholic property, or say something like, "Well, you know, if the pope gets assassinated, he brought it on himself..."

 

There are, and can be, no limits of free speech, because when there were, and when your very organization [Roman Catholic Church] was in charge of imposing those limits, you locked up a man for the rest of his life for giving us one of the most important scientific findings in the history of humanity....

 

You [Roman Catholic Church] murdered people, burned them alive for speech you deemed heretical and offensive....

 

I will mock the faith of others all I want. That is my right as a human being. You don't get to harm other people simply because they said something you didn't like.... Your recourse instead is to do exactly what I am doing here - speak your mind in opposition. That's it.

 

 

In another conversation elsewhere, a friend mentioned she doesn't keep up with the news and asked if people were talking about this. I wondered as well, and so posted here.

[albeto.]

Cheap shots lower the level of discourse.

 

Or...

 

Sarcasm makes a point quickly, articulately, profoundly, and humorously.

 

;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[inb4 one star]

[goldberry]

This is not the only area where acknowledging that certain factors can contribute to an outcome is taken as "excusing the perpetrator" or "blaming the victim".  I find it rather frustrating and counter-productive.  Are we really so dense that we can't process that fact?  That certain things contribute to an outcome, without excusing it?   Last time I asked about this it seemed "slippery slope toward blaming the victim" is the answer why we can't even *consider* these things. 

 

I just think we should be smarter than that.  

[poppy]

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.

The Book of Mormon musical, while vulgar and satirical, is ultimately deeply respectful of people of faith. And has a Mormon triumphing over seemingly insurmountable evil in the end. It's not toothless satire but it's also a love letter in its own odd way. I am not surprised it's not actually controversial.

[poppy]

Or...

 

Sarcasm makes a point quickly, articulately, profoundly, and humorously.

 

;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[inb4 one star]

I don't know. If you ignore the substance of his overall ministry as well as his many speeches and publications to find one comment you can 'nail' him with, but only if you take it in the worst possible way..... Yes you can make a point in that manner. Still a cheap shot.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Cheap shots lower the level of discourse.

 

So does coming into thread after thread and complaining about the discussion/trying to derail it.

[albeto.]

I don't know. If you ignore the substance of his overall ministry as well as his many speeches and publications to find one comment you can 'nail' him with, but only if you take it in the worst possible way..... Yes you can make a point in that manner. Still a cheap shot.

 

This comment comes in direct response to a violent massacre against people whose weapon was a pen. This weapon picked no pocket and broke no bones. Its effects were not compelled on people who wished to have no such thing with the paper. The comment in reply is sympathetic to the terrorist because it is sympathetic to the idea that blasphemy is a horrendous crime, and criticism is dangerous. His recent speeches and publications are beside the point. The religion he represents is beside the point. The point is the support of censorship for the "crime" of criticism and ridicule. If you take this one piece and apply it to any religion or political ideology, would you still feel it doesn't matter? North Korea publicly executed 80 people this month for the crime of possessing bibles. Is censorship really not a big deal? Or is it only not a big deal when a likable guy makes an awkward joke about it?

[Murphy101]

This is not the only area where acknowledging that certain factors can contribute to an outcome is taken as "excusing the perpetrator" or "blaming the victim". I find it rather frustrating and counter-productive. Are we really so dense that we can't process that fact? That certain things contribute to an outcome, without excusing it? Last time I asked about this it seemed "slippery slope toward blaming the victim" is the answer why we can't even *consider* these things.

 

I just think we should be smarter than that.

I think they are and just want consequences to not apply to them.

[Murphy101]

And, you feel entitled to say this because....???

 

It wouldn't be hate speech where I come from, because religion isn't protected under the relevant legislation. Race is though.

 

And their cartoons were legal in France.

Hate speech is not only legal jargon. I don't need the law to tell me what hate is when I see it or hear it. It's a shame anyone does. Yes, it was nothing but a hate filled rag. Legal hate is still hate.

 

And I still think it hateful they were killed too. Not even a little surprised. But it was still wrong.

[Word Nerd]

Hebdo was nothing but hate speech. Hate begets hate. I think that was the over arching point the pope was making.

You've read it, have you?

[Jasperstone]

For a Pope that tries so hard to have good puplic relationship and image, it's very surpising that he came out with that!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think they are and just want consequences to not apply to them.

 

In a civilized world offending someone's religious sensibilities shouldn't result in violence. 

[SarahB82]

This is not the only area where acknowledging that certain factors can contribute to an outcome is taken as "excusing the perpetrator" or "blaming the victim". I find it rather frustrating and counter-productive. Are we really so dense that we can't process that fact? That certain things contribute to an outcome, without excusing it? Last time I asked about this it seemed "slippery slope toward blaming the victim" is the answer why we can't even *consider* these things.

 

I just think we should be smarter than that.

I agree - some are quick to point out that the pope didn't speak in a vacuum. Neither do satirists or anyone else. It is deplorable, but foreseeable that extremists would react to the work of the cartoonists.

[EmseB]

In a civilized world offending someone's religious sensibilities shouldn't result in violence. 

 

:)

 

But, there are many people walking around today who do believe they have the right to not be offended, so the sentiment expressed by the Pope and others is not uncommon I don't think.

[EmseB]

I agree - some are quick to point out that the pope didn't speak in a vacuum. Neither do satirists or anyone else. It is deplorable, but foreseeable that extremists would react to the work of the cartoonists.

 

This is not a parallel that can be drawn (no pun intended).  Killing someone (or dozens of someone's) is not analogous with drawing a cartoon that is offensive.

 

No, the cartoon was not drawn in a vacuum.  The artists knew that.  It was drawn in a world where people kill for being offended.  Which should be tolerated and which should not?  Who should be chastised here?

 

The fact that it is foreseeable that a certain group of people would kill over a cartoon drawing should be the outrage here, not the drawing, not "being offensive".

[EmseB]

This is not the only area where acknowledging that certain factors can contribute to an outcome is taken as "excusing the perpetrator" or "blaming the victim".  I find it rather frustrating and counter-productive.  Are we really so dense that we can't process that fact?  That certain things contribute to an outcome, without excusing it?   Last time I asked about this it seemed "slippery slope toward blaming the victim" is the answer why we can't even *consider* these things. 

 

I just think we should be smarter than that.  

 

I think we can consider it, and definitely should consider why a lot of people feel totally justified over killing others because they are offended.  But the answer is not requiring self-censorship of those who are crass or vulgar or inappropriate according to x, y, or z groups.  If there is violence in response to offense, the answer should be to root out the violence and make no excuses for it, not to tell those who were not violent to shut up and try not to make anyone so mad anymore.

[Murphy101]

I agree - some are quick to point out that the pope didn't speak in a vacuum. Neither do satirists or anyone else. It is deplorable, but foreseeable that extremists would react to the work of the cartoonists.

Exactly. Which was his point. I think it rather convoluted to take that to victim blaming or endorsing murder.

[Murphy101]

In a civilized world offending someone's religious sensibilities shouldn't result in violence.

There's no such thing as a civilized world, just Earth with humans. That's just what people say to politely phrase that their way is superior to another way.

 

Are there other sensibilities it is okay to be violent about? Or is it only religious ones you take exception to?

 

And note, not the pope or me or anyone else said Islamic extremist are civilized either.

 

If we go down that road, if one purposely insults and angers and humiliates those they know are not civilized - what reason would they have to expect a civilized response?

[Little Nyssa]

I think it might be important to look at what the actual Catholic reaction was to Charlie Hebdo. Unless I am misinformed, I believe that the RC church had a couple of lawsuits against them. I am not at all familiar with the cases, though. But that would seem to be one appropriate way to address the situation. Not the same thing at all as a 'punch.'

 

CH's shtick is offensiveness, and I'm sure that they meant to provoke people. I don't mean provoke to violence, I mean to provoke them to think, or to be disgusted. I've no doubt they are/were very clever.

 

I've been offended (regarding: my religion) multiple times by media here in the U.S... and I am an inveterate writer of letters-to-the-editor. The New Haven Register published one of my letters years ago. The New Yorker has heard from me many times. The New York Times, once. The New Yorker wrote back to me saying they were not trying to please ME. Kind of a snarky response actually. The NYT editor passed my letter on to the particular journalist, who wrote me a very polite and apologetic letter, which I very much appreciated. I love to read both publications, though, and I would never say that they should be stopped from publishing, and nothing that bothered me rose to the level of needing a court case. But I don't mind letting them know, politely of course, of my reaction.

 

Not sure if this is a digression or relevant, JMHO.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There's no such thing as a civilized world, just Earth with humans. That's just what people say to politely phrase that their way is superior to another way.

 

Are there other sensibilities it is okay to be violent about? Or is it only religious ones you take exception to?

 

And note, not the pope or me or anyone else said Islamic extremist are civilized either.

 

If we go down that road, if one purposely insults and angers and humiliates those they know are not civilized - what reason would they have to expect a civilized response?

 

We start by not excusing it.

[Murphy101]

We start by not excusing it.

You didn't answer my questions and for the -inth time, no one has excused it.

[hornblower]

Yes. I don't have to like it or agree with it. We can argue about whether their ideas or depictions are sound or fair or representative or worthwhile. But they are free to make their points.

 

We must be free to speak truth as we see it.

 

Similarly, you don't have to like Salman Rushdie's book. But he has a right to write it and he and his translators should not live in fear becasue someone is offended.

[albeto.]

You didn't answer my questions and for the -inth time, no one has excused it.

 

Asked and answered. Multiple times. It was excused by the pope by appealing to the "wife-beater's defense."

[LucyStoner]

If we accept that hate begets hate we must remember that the only truly effective way to triumph over hate is love. It is generally not only morally repugnant to resort to violence but it is also wildly ineffective.

 

Charlie Hebdo printed 60,000 copies before these acts of murder. Their current issue will probably sell out a three million issue run. Besides being a horrible crime against real people who regardless of anything they printed didn't deserve to die, this act of hate has given the targeted organization a much larger platform. Hardly the end result desired by the murderers, I bet.

 

(For the record, I've never read the magazine and have no idea if it is hateful. I was under the impression it was like The Onion, offensive at times but not discriminatory but I really don't know. I certainly don't think that non-Muslims should be required to observe the strictures about images of the prophet anymore than I should be required to keep halal or Muslims should be required to eat pork or pray the rosary.)

[albeto.]

Caricatures of Arabs leering with cage rated features and depicting black people as apes ?

 

 Leaving aside for the moment that the paper did not target minorities, but extremists (as was their legal right, and arguably a moral obligation), rational societies don't justify violence based on the assumed character of the victim. That's the kind of rationalization that supports oppression. It is a major rationalization of oppression, if you think about it. "They" deserve this treatment, "we" know better, "we" can, and must keep "them" in line. In fact, I can't think of a single oppressive regime that didn't depend on this rationalization in some way.

 

This is what we are defending as the epitome of free speech?

 

 We're not talking about the epitome of free speech, but the pope's rationalization of the blaming the victims in Paris (and future victims).

[LucyStoner]

Albeto the first article you linked there takes a very nuanced approach and explains the degree to which Charlie Hebdo does have an issue with racism and class privilege. I think the analogy to "punching down" generally being problematic makes a lot of sense.

 

The virtues that Charlie Hebdo represents in society — free speech, the right to offend — have been strengthened by this episode. But so have the social ills that Charlie Hebdo indulged and worsened: empowering the majority, marginalizing the weak, and ridiculing those who are different.

That said, no matter how offensive, no matter how tone deaf, no matter what, no one deserved to die over this. Clearly.

 

Turn the other cheek.

[Lisbeth]

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.

Um, they play act shoving a Book of Mormon up someone's behind. Really funny, huh?

[Ipsey]

Um, they play act shoving a Book of Mormon up someone's behind. Really funny, huh?

 

 

No, I don't think that part's particularly funny. There are a lot of people who find butt humor amusing through. It matters not to me what religious or non-religious icon is used. I don't venerate religious objects, but I understand that some people do.  

 

Overall, I think The Book of Mormon musical is one of the most touching, uplifting send up of a religion perhaps ever.  I don't think a person could come out of that musical without absolutely loving the main Mormon characters and the slightly off-kilter converts.

 

Stone calls it "an atheist's love letter to religion."  I think it absolutely is. Nothing has made me feel this positive and friendly to religion, as this musical has, in years and years.

 

ETA: The scene of which you speak is sad, it's not meant to make you feel negatively about the missionary or to say he "got what he deserved". It comes after a leap of faith and a brave move on the part of the missionary. It's a downer, in a sense. But it's more humorous (and innocent) than having him shot in the head or mutilated. It's not actually "play acted" either. It's done off stage, and you don't really even know it's been done until...well, I won't spoil it for you.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Um, they play act shoving a Book of Mormon up someone's behind. Really funny, huh?

 

It could be. What is the context?

 

[KungFuPanda]

He was saying violence towards those who insult something you hold as dear as your mother is understandable.

 

I don't see another way to read his comments, but I'm happy to hear how other people interpreted them.

I read it as "Don't act shocked when your actions have consequences." Saying you're not surprised by a violent reaction is not condoning the reaction.

[KungFuPanda]

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.

Didn't the Mormon church take out an add in that playbill?

[hornblower]

I read it as "Don't act shocked when your actions have consequences." Saying you're not surprised by a violent reaction is not condoning the reaction.

See, I think he should have been shocked. I think everyone should be shocked when someone kills others because they don't like their words, books, magazines. That is shocking.

[KungFuPanda]

See, I think he should have been shocked. I think everyone should be shocked when someone kills others because they don't like their words, books, magazines. That is shocking.

Of course it's shocking. It's a horrible thing. It's just not surprising. Just because a reaction is wrong, undeserved, and completely out of proportion doesn't mean that we can't imagine such a reaction as a response to a stimulus.

[Word Nerd]

How can something be shocking but not surprising?

[hornblower]

Ok, I'm going to tease out a few things....

 

Is it surprising? No. It's not surprising because it's part of a pattern of militant religious extremism.

 

Is it shocking? Yes. It's shocking becasue militant religious extremism is shocking in its violent interpretations of sacred duties.

 

The writers and artists at Charlie Hebdo knew full well what possible outcomes they faced so I guess in some ways you could say it wasn't surprising.

 

It's an interesting media studies project to see who in the western media published what. Who published the cartoons? Who showed the post attack cover of the current CH issue? Who published an op ed by an imam defending the murderers?

[KungFuPanda]

How can something be shocking but not surprising?

Because you are shocked by the reality of the event and the violence and the real lives of real people who were destroyed and that you know about it as a current event. However, a violent reaction by religious extremists to an intentional religious slap in the face is not something new in this world. I'm not sure who would assume that shock journalism of a religious nature is a safe, run-of-the-mill desk job. When you print covers that are purposely designed to offend people you cannot be remotely surprised that people are offended. We do not live in a world where everyone obeys the law.

[Laurie]

Because you are shocked by the reality of the event and the violence and the real lives of real people who were destroyed and that you know about it as a current event. However, a violent reaction by religious extremists to an intentional religious slap in the face is not something new in this world. I'm not sure who would assume that shock journalism of a religious nature is a safe, run-of-the-mill desk job. When you print covers that are purposely designed to offend people you cannot be remotely surprised that people are offended. We do not live in a world where everyone obeys the law.

 

 

I agree.

 

 

Each time a horrible killing like this happens I'm initially shocked because I didn't know when/where/to whom it would happen...but I'm not surprised anymore by the who did it part.  To be honest, I'd be more surprised if it wasn't radical Islamic terrorists. 

 

Of course the artists didn't deserve to die.  But it's also true that they would all still be alive today if they hadn't drawn those particular cartoons.   And why should we blame newspapers, etc. for not wanting to publish the cartoons...not everyone wants to be forever on a hit list because of some cartoons!   If people think Pope Francis was wrong because he was blaming the victims, then I guess we shouldn't blame the pre-victims for their actions either.   They didn't refuse to tell the story;  not everyone needs visual aids to be able to understand.   

 

[hornblower]

So the terrorists win? We cave to them? Because they might be offended?

 

You give up freedom of speech because of someone's religion? Where does that end?

[KungFuPanda]

So the terrorists win? We cave to them? Because they might be offended?

 

You give up freedom of speech because of someone's religion? Where does that end?

"Giving up freedom of speech" would be the French government jailing the people who drew and published the images. That is not what happened. Free to say and publish what you want doesn't mean the government will be able to protect you from random wackadoos reacting to what you said. The fact that people understand the series of events that led up to this catastrophe does not mean they support the terrorists in any way. It doesn't mean the terrorists 'win.' It just means there is no mystery to be solved as to the cause and effect of this particular series of events.

[hornblower]

Of course there is no mystery, I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

 

 

The issue is how you prevent it. I categorically reject the suggestion that the solution is that we self censor and stop "offending" people.

[SarahB82]

Of course there is no mystery, I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

 

 

The issue is how you prevent it. I categorically reject the suggestion that the solution is that we self censor and stop "offending" people.

What do you suggest?

[goldberry]

Of course there is no mystery, I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

 

 

The issue is how you prevent it. I categorically reject the suggestion that the solution is that we self censor and stop "offending" people.

 

 

People make choices on how far to take their cause all the time.  Is my belief that censorship is wrong worth the risk that I might be killed by extremists who are offended by what I write?  Some people might decide that it is.   

 

Others might say, my right to make a cartoon making fun of Muhammed is not worth it to take the chance I might be killed.  That is ok for them also, and no one should mock them or call them cowards.  They are not cowards, they are making a different choice.  I really doubt that to them that means "caving in to terrorism" and that they will continue to fight terrorism in other ways.  That is perfectly possible.  

 

OF COURSE it is wrong that people are killed because of WHATEVER they write.  Yet, it is the reality of the world today.  If someone decides it is important enough to them to take that chance, good for them.  But there is no point in pretending that no one knew what might happen.  The results are wrong, but no, not surprising.   Acknowledging it does not excuse it, nor does it mean we shouldn't keep trying to stop it.  

[Laurie]

So the terrorists win? We cave to them? Because they might be offended?

 

You give up freedom of speech because of someone's religion? Where does that end?

 

I don't consider taunting volatile people to be winning anything.   This isn't how a war against radical Islam will be won, in my opinion.  I have much more confidence in boots, bullets, and bombs.  

 

If it's so important to see a cartoon rather than read a description of it, then why aren't we also demanding to see the graphic images of the dead victims.  I've seen the bloody aftermath in their meeting room, but why was I not permitted to see all the dead bodies, too?   Shouldn't the photographers have freedom to show us all the graphic details of what happened?   I'm sure there are photographers who would be first in line to photograph the dead bodies...but they are restricted, or at least I didn't see any of these images in the news reports that I read/watched. 

 

I have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean that I value it above life itself.   And I certainly think my life is more important than an insult cartoon.

 

[albeto.]

I read it as "Don't act shocked when your actions have consequences." Saying you're not surprised by a violent reaction is not condoning the reaction.

In is in the context of his statement, "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." This is an if/then statement that he's legitimizing here. That's what people take issue with. Not that he's pointing out a likely scenario, but that he's recognizing it, validating it, and condoning it. It's heartless, and I think that would be more apparent if we removed the likable character and the unlikable victims from the scenario. It's understandable that he made a socially awkward statement. This guy must be putting the Vatican PR sector through the ringer with the constant need to clarify what he said. Still, picking apart the idea he's promoted here, I argue this conversation would be quite different if a world-wide, recognized, generally respected religious figure said the same thing. If a major Muslim authority said the same thing, would there be such sympathy for the sentiment? I think not, and I think it's particularly because this statement legitimizes and condones an ethically problematic if/then condition to a global community that is struggling with just this problem.

[OneStepAtATime]

 Because the moment 12 people were killed for creating cartoons, the cartoons stopped being an issue and instead, the issue became freedom of speech. The price of using a pen should never be death, yet it was, for these 12. That is the only relevant issue now. The moment these criminals perpetrated these murders, they made the contents of the satire irrelevant. 

 

The sole responsibility for killing these people lies with the perpetrators,

:iagree:  

[albeto.]

So Obama is an extremist? As are some members of the French political system who were depicted as apes?

I agree they are extremists. And portraying them as classy members of the upper crust won't change that.

 

Regardless I don't defend the actions of those who murdered the cartoonists. But it's no surprise that their work provoked violence. This was the point being made.

 

The pope was making the point that if you want to avoid violent retribution, don't invite the wrath the guys with the violent tempers. Also, criticism of religion should be off bounds.

 

The first is problematic in that it does defend the actions of the murderers. By supporting an environment in which that behavior is excused, that behavior is effectively sustained.

 

The second is problematic because only through careful criticisms do people find, expose, and change unethical behavior. Granted, I can understand why the CEO of any corrupt organization doesn't want members of the public to find and expose these ethical violations, but when we remove the sympathy from the group, the issue itself is problematic. It was a major motivation for the First Amendment with regards to the press.

 

I disagree the point of the pope's comment was the murders were understandable. This much is common knowledge. The editor knew this, and was prepared for this possibility. He said, I Prefer to Die Standing Up than Live on My Knees:

 

 

 

 â€œExtremists don’t need any excuses,†he added. “We are only criticizing one particular form of extremist Islam, albeit in a peculiar and satirically exaggerated form. We are not responsible for the excesses that happen elsewhere, just because we practice our right to freedom of expression within the legal limits…

 

   

“If we worried about the consequences of each of our drawings in each of our 1,057 issues, then we would have had to close shop a long time ago.†Nevertheless, he is grateful for the protection of the police, who he says “politely and with concern†inquired about the contents of the new issue already while it was being printed. “It’s crazy,†says the cartoonist with a smile. “Of all publications, our magazine, which mocks the police at every opportunity, is now protected by it. Which only goes to show that freedom of speech is protected in our country.â€

 

There will continue to be no taboos at Charlie Hebdo in the future. “It should be as normal to criticize Islam as it is to criticize Jews or Catholics,†Charbonnier says. Is he afraid of attacks or violence directed against him and his colleagues? “I have neither a wife nor children, not even a dog. But I’m not going to hide.â€