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

[albeto.]

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.

The historical record shows that some ideas are stronger to crush and suppress than boots, bullets, and bombs can address. The origins of the United States is an illustration of this concept.

 

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.

No one is making the argument that it's more important to see a cartoon rather than read a description of it. For most members of society, demanding to see graphic images of the dead victims doesn't serve any purpose other than to satisfy morbid curiosity.

 

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.

Some people believe there are certain values that are more important than their individual lives. Arguably, many of those people wearing the boots, shooting the bullets and bombs are among that group.

[hornblower]

What do you suggest?

 

Well, that is an interesting question & I'm not sure I can answer it since I do self-censor to comply with the T's & C's of this board. In other fora, I can be more outspoken about certain issues.

 

Secularization is certainly a critical element.

 

I would suggest one line of thinking would consider this: why did we stop burning witches at the stake? What happens to people who burn witches now?

 

There are some ideas which need to be vigorously criticized until they stop being prevalent. The concept of blasphemy is one such idea.

 

 

[hornblower]

 

 

I notice we are not talking about the violent acts of Boka Haram in Nigeria. Such ethnocentric hubris.

 

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. I am quite prepared to talk about the atrocities committed by religious fundamentalists in all areas of the globe. Many people are talking about it. Many of us are appalled by the attacks in France, by the flogging of a blogger in Saudi Arabia, the burning of teachers in schools in Pakistan, the terror of Boko Haram. 

 

 

[albeto.]

I agree. But blaspheme collided with racism in Hebdo. This is inescapable.

 

Have you read the link I shared that offers an explanation for their style? They suggest the following with regard to this image,

 

 

Here's what the cover shows: a group of headscarf-wearing, pregnant Nigerian women shouting "Don't touch our welfare!" The title reads, "Boko Haram's sex slaves are angry."

 

On the surface, then, it would appear that the magazine is ridiculing Nigerian human trafficking victims as welfare queens; hence the outrage among non-French readers. However, that is not actually what the cover is conveying. In many ways it's saying the opposite of critics' interpretations.

 

French satire, as Vox's Libby Nelson explained, is not so straightforward as it would seem; jokes usually play on two layers. In this cover, the second layer has to do with French domestic politics: Charlie Hebdo is a leftist magazine that supports welfare programs, but the French political right tends to oppose welfare for immigrants, whom they characterize as greedy welfare queens cheating the system.

 

What this cover actually says, then, is that the French political right is so monstrous when it comes to welfare for immigrants, that they want you believe that even Nigerian migrants escaping Boko Haram sexual slavery are just here to steal welfare. Charlie Hebdo is actually lampooning the idea that Boko Haram sex slaves are welfare queens, not endorsing it.

 

I don't think the paper is a racist paper, as it satires the very elements of society that interpret life through a racist lens. It addresses social justice through a different avenue - satire. It doesn't strive to impede social progress, but promote it.

 

But even if they were a homophobic, communistic, white supremacist paper, a religious figure coming forward to make an appeal to limit criticism against religious ideas and beliefs is morally and ethically unjustifiable, regardless of the impetus of his comments. They should not only be criticized, in my opinion, but ridiculous beliefs ought to be ridiculed.

[Pam in CT]

re: Book of Mormon: Funny / not funny?  (spoiler alert...)

It could be. What is the context?
 

 

It comes directly after a rather frightening scene in which a missionary heads alone into a deeply feared warlord's camp and makes this pitch:

 

 

... and then the scene shifts to other character's action, and the audience is left worried that the missionary might be killed.  The, um, book scene takes place off stage, and it's actually a dramatic relief when the missionary character re-appears.

 

 

FWIW, my overall takeaway from the musical was of the hope of human (not sect-specific) redemption and universal value of compassion, kindness and courage.

 

And yes, the LDS church has taken out an ad in the playbill.  As I recall, the message was along the lines of "So the play made your evening... this book will change your life.  Read the Book."      #brilliant...

[Pam in CT]

I never read Charlie before this.  There is undoubtedly a place for satire in the slow march towards a better world.  They did not deserve what happened.  

 

I read the Pope's remarks as an off-the-cuff, unrehearsed and imperfect effort to make a distinction between speech that is legally allowed, and nonetheless still bad manners.  It seems like different versions of the conversation are evolving now within France and elsewhere.  Here on BAW we played a different variant of the same issue a month (only a month?) ago re: Kim Jong-un and The Interview and the ensuing threats of violence against theaters.  

 

Is it legal in the particular country in which it is produced?  Yes.  Is it beyond the pale in a different culture / country?  Yes.  Is violence a justified response on the part of the offended party? No.  

 

Not justified.  

 

 

 

Yet I think it is extremely appropriate for a moral leader to remind us that the question of whether we have the legal right to do something is not the only valid question for consideration.  I think it is actually incumbent on our moral leaders to remind us that societies run more smoothly when we try to be kind to one another, and sometimes that does in fact mean that we hold our tongue and refrain from certain types of speech even though we have a legal right to it -- that we self-censor.  

 

 

I don't think the Pope chose his words well, here... he didn't make his case very articulately.  But I think that is the idea that he was groping towards... and I think it's a gray area, with a lot of nuance that varies across different countries' legal systems and different cultures' norms... that doesn't much lend itself to black-and-white absolute thinking...

 

 

 

 

albeto - actually on a related note -- have you by chance read Steven Pinker's doorstop of a book, The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined ?  I'm about a third through it, enjoying it immensely, and finding much there that makes me think of you...

 

 

 

 

ETA to insert add the word "not" into "not the only valid question..."

[LucyStoner]

Humor isn't always comfortable.

 

http://time.com/22993/key-and-peele-make-fun-of-everything/

 

There's a sketch from Key and Peele about two middle class black men sitting in a soul food restaurant trying to out order each other with progressively more absurd orders. The first time I saw it the friend I watched it wth thought it was racist. I thought it was taking aim at several things at once- gentrification, poor people food as a trend, insecurities about keeping your cred, and I thought it was pretty hilarious. Only the most simple of thinking would see it as just a sketch that insults soul food or by extension black people. That said, would two white comedians doing that sketch feel the same? Um.

[hornblower]

Humor isn't always comfortable.

 

humor really never is comfortable

 

I spent a lot of time dissecting humor (back when we were all writing chicklit, before the bottom fell out & got replaced by vampires and werewolves). It's very interesting stuff, figuring out why humor works, why black humor works, why certain jokes cross cultures and others do not....  & why good comedy writers are always teetering on the edge of funny & really, horrifically flat.

 

thx for sending me off to look at that clip LucyStoner. I laughed hard.

[Laurie4b]

Did anyone post this yet? The co-founder of Charlie Hebdo was also critical of the magazine going "too far." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-founder-says-murdered-editor-dragged-staff-to-death-with-provocative-cartoons-9979104.html

[poppy]

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.

I would assume many major Muslim figures have similarly condemned critics who insulting faith.

When the pope said what he said, do you interpret it to mean he condones violence ? Because I think that's absurd.

 

Do you think he means we should change the laws to forbid free speech? I have no ideas what the laws of Vatican City are, but I wouldn't want to live there. But I have not heard anything about him using his considerable political capital or his millions of followers to lobby for legislative change.

[albeto.]

It's astonishing to me how few people actually want to discuss the core issue of blasphemy laws, but want to hold individuals at least partially accountable for their own deaths. And how few people differentiate between the private life and the public square. And how few people understand what the role of the artist is.

 

It's really quite interesting to watch, isn't it? We can see certain pieces of information wilfully dismissed, ignored, or demoted seemingly in pursuit of protecting a particular opinion.

[albeto.]

albeto - actually on a related note -- have you by chance read Steven Pinker's doorstop of a book, The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined ?  I'm about a third through it, enjoying it immensely, and finding much there that makes me think of you...

 

I have not read it. I have issues with attention (eep), but am familiar with it, and have seen and read a few talks and interviews and summaries of it. Fascinating stuff, don't you think? It offers hope, I think.

 

[LibraryLover]

I thought the statement was very human of him.  Nothing wrong with being human. He answered without a filter. Good. 

 

Imo,  he's not a man who is wanting to see bloodshed.

[LibraryLover]

dp.

[albeto.]

Did anyone post this yet? The co-founder of Charlie Hebdo was also critical of the magazine going "too far." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-founder-says-murdered-editor-dragged-staff-to-death-with-provocative-cartoons-9979104.html

 

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

 

But this opinion doesn't change anything.

[LucyStoner]

humor really never is comfortable

 

I spent a lot of time dissecting humor (back when we were all writing chicklit, before the bottom fell out & got replaced by vampires and werewolves). It's very interesting stuff, figuring out why humor works, why black humor works, why certain jokes cross cultures and others do not.... & why good comedy writers are always teetering on the edge of funny & really, horrifically flat.

 

thx for sending me off to look at that clip LucyStoner. I laughed hard.

For anyone else who wants to see it:

 

 

What's a cellar door without gravy? It's not food.

[albeto.]

I would assume many major Muslim figures have similarly condemned critics who insulting faith.

 

You don't have to assume it. It's a fact that many major Muslim figures condemn criticism, and critics, who insult their faith.

 

When the pope said what he said, do you interpret it to mean he condones violence ? Because I think that's absurd.

 

Not really. Except, yeah. In a way, albeit subtle and indirect. By excusing violence, one supports an environment in which violence is condoned, and sustained. It's why the wife-beater's defense is such a perfect analogy of that. If I say I don't condone violence against women, but then encourage women to not piss off their abusive husbands, can I get away with saying I don't condone violence? Not even indirectly? What about condoning rape culture? If I suggest women who are raped "ask for it" in some way, do I support a culture of rape? Not even indirectly?

 

Do you think he means we should change the laws to forbid free speech? I have no ideas what the laws of Vatican City are, but I wouldn't want to live there. But I have not heard anything about him using his considerable political capital or his millions of followers to lobby for legislative change.

 

I don't think he was speaking legally at all, but appealing to people's emotions in his characteristic, informal, friendly way. Everyone knows what it feels like to be on the receiving end of being humiliated, I think. No one likes it. We avoid it. We get angry on behalf of those we love who are humiliated. I think that's why he referenced the idea of insulting his mother. This is a universal feeling to which we can all relate. Nevertheless, the message he conveys with this analogy is the message of the wife-beater's defense, and that's unjustifiable morally. I think one of the reasons the Muslim community was so notably thanked and respected throughout all this was that religious leaders of the Muslim world came out to publicly condemn this exact thing the pope is excusing.

 

 

[Pam in CT]

I agree that most of the time, some degree of self censorship is in order, especially in the private sphere. I've asked dd not to wear a particularly snarky atheist t-shirt when my Orthodox friends come over, for example ( though I do draw a line re these sort of requests by respecting her right to wear clothing that identifies her as GAY OK no matter who is coming over.)

 

My concern is if we all vacate a satirical, secular pov in the public sphere, who is left to hold it ? Do we simply say, OK, a secular pov that satirises religion is just too expensive, religions will have to be treated respectfully by everyone now ? Which, in effect, means de facto blasphemy laws that all are pressured to follow, whether or not they are of faith.

 

Do we tell artists there are now religious limits on what their work can deal with ?

 

What kind of society do we end up with long term, if religious satire and secularism in the public sphere is silenced ? Do we want religion to hold the power to censor, overtly or covertly ?

 

:iagree: that the balance is different in the private vs. public spheres... and applaud you for efforts both to support your daughter, and also to provide a comfortable-enough environment for the guests in your home.

 

 

I guess in my mind, each balancing act is different, so much as by nature I prefer to work from abstract universally applicable principles, I find it very hard to articulate many bright lines for this legal-yet-bad-manners zone... though of course there some.  It's wrong to kill people even if they offend us, for example.  (And I believe that the context of the Pope's unscripted remarks makes clear that he does hold to such a bright line.)

 

For me personally -- and I am no artist, nor satirist, so my fulcrum is in a different place than for those of whom LucyStoner speaks upthread -- it comes to a judgment of might the benefits outweigh the likely costs... is this really art, or is it just provocation for provocation's sake; is this really satire, or just foaming at the mouth.  And such judgments are subjective and culture bound and era-bound and yada yada... and we tend to be vastly more sensitive to satire against our own -- whatever that is -- than about satire against others...

 

... and so, as public policy, we do and must continue to protect speech, up to and including offensive speech (though different countries draw lines in different places); yet as kind and compassionate people, we can and -- imo -- must think before we speak, consider how the words which (in the US, in Australia) we have an incontrovertible right to articulate, will sound to a person sitting in a very different quarter.  Because, manners.

 

(and I say that as a person whose FOO is pretty cynical, and as a recovering snark, myself... who's still subject to relapses.  But I've discovered that such relapses are rarely tactical...)

 

 

It's messy and equivocal and wishy-washy and doesn't reduce well to Twitter-sized sound bytes and I don't know how to state it any better.  But I think that's what the Pope was trying to work towards, and I think it is within the scope of our moral leaders to try to take public discussion into this arena, even though it is messy and shades-of-gray.

[albeto.]

  But I think that's what the Pope was trying to work towards, and I think it is within the scope of our moral leaders to try to take public discussion into this arena, even though it is messy and shades-of-gray.

 

Can you explain this interpretation from the things he said? I don't follow.

[Pam in CT]

re: distinction between free speech as public policy, vs. refraining from certain types as a matter of manners:

Can you explain this interpretation from the things he said? I don't follow.

 

I can't.  I'm disinclined to parse / justify the specific comments he made on on the plane, because IMO those comments were unscripted, poorly worded and raised more questions than were answered.  The Vatican's subsequent efforts to "clarify" suggest that he too feels he didn't express himself well.

 

 

(I'm quite glad I'm not a public figure.  Very often I need a couple of runs before I'm able to express myself as I mean...)

 

 

By context, I mean his response directly after the attacks -- his prompt denunciation of the attack, the Mass he dedicated to its victims and his statements about it directly after; and the joint statement that he and four French imans released shortly after the attacks.  I can't seem quote directly; but this excerpt is the "balance" I understand him to be trying to drive toward:

 

[We] "wish once more to echo the words pronounced by Pope yesterday and this morning, denouncing this cruelty and blind violence. Like him, we invite believers to show through friendship and prayer their human and spiritual solidarity towards the victims and their families.

 

In these circumstances, it should be noted that, without freedom of speech, the world is in danger: it is imperative to oppose hate and every form of violence that destroys human life, violates the dignity of the person and radically undermines the foundation of peaceful co-existence between persons and peoples, notwithstanding differences of nationality, religion and culture.

 

Religious leaders are called upon to further promote a “culture of peace and hope†able to conquer fear and to build bridges between people.

 

Considering the impact of the media, their leaders are invited to offer information that is respectful of religions, their followers and their practices, thus favouring a culture of encounter.

 

Interreligious dialogue remains the only path to follow together to dissipate prejudiceâ€.

 

 

 

Big picture, I do not believe he is calling for tightened blasphemy laws in the public policy realm; I think he is exhorting us as individual moral agents to remember to be our Best Selves and to foster a "culture of encounter" rather than antagonism.  Which IMO is his job as a moral leader.  

 

 

 

(I am BTW pretty disconcerted to find myself defending the Pope on the interwebs. :blush:  Irony abounds.)

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am reading that last portion differently, as I believe that statement (to me) pitches blame back on to the satirists /cartoonists and other members of the media who do target religious beliefs.

[poppy]

I don't think you can be for free speech and instruct that religion can never be offended, like, ever.

 

Oh well, the Pope and I will have to disagree. It won't be the first time!

 

I'm still curious about what people think the logical outcome will be if religion becomes beyond critique. And what people think the role of artists, as opposed to private individuals, is.

 

But I doubt anyone will tell me :)

 

Total straw man . Absolutely no one here has argued that religion should be beyond critique, or that the right to free speech should be limited to avoid offending anyone who is religious.

[albeto.]

Total straw man . Absolutely no one here has argued that religion should be beyond critique, or that the right to free speech should be limited to avoid offending anyone who is religious.

 

The pope said, "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

 

And

 

"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. 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 is very specifically saying that free speech should be limited to avoid offending the religious (after all, a religion itself cannot be offended, and no god has ever spoken up about this directly). He's saying that by avoiding offending the religious, one can avoid getting hurt.

 

 

[SarahB82]

The pope said, "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

 

And

 

"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. 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 is very specifically saying that free speech should be limited to avoid offending the religious (after all, a religion itself cannot be offended, and no god has ever spoken up about this directly). He's saying that by avoiding offending the religious, one can avoid getting hurt.

He is right. If CH had avoided offending the religious extremists they would have avoided getting hurt. He isn't speaking that into truth and existence. It already is.

[*Lulu*]

Ran across this blog post ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/01/19/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not/) and thought about this discussion.

[poppy]

The pope said, "You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

 

And

 

"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. 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 is very specifically saying that free speech should be limited to avoid offending the religious (after all, a religion itself cannot be offended, and no god has ever spoken up about this directly). He's saying that by avoiding offending the religious, one can avoid getting hurt.

I do not agree with your assertion that he is saying free speech â€should be limited. â€

'Provocateurs who push limits get hurt' is stating a fact.

You can say it's excusing the Charlie Hedbo murders, that it is approval rather than explanation-- but I think that is an extreme interpretation.

[poppy]

Ran across this blog post ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/01/19/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not/) and thought about this discussion.

Very interesting, thanks. I have wondered about the odd use if the word "cannot" and what language it was being translated from.

[albeto.]

He is right. If CH had avoided offending the religious extremists they would have avoided getting hurt.

Sure. I think this is undisputed. The problem comes from condoning violence by excusing it. By laying the blame on the victims, the perpetrators of the aggression are not culpable in this view. That presents all kinds of moral and ethical problems for anyone to support, never mind coming from an authority within a religion that identifies itself as peaceful.

 

He isn't speaking that into truth and existence. It already is.

I don't understand this sentence. Words aren't magical. They don't create things into existence.

[albeto.]

I do not agree with your assertion that he is saying free speech â€should be limited. â€

'Provocateurs who push limits get hurt' is stating a fact.

You can say it's excusing the Charlie Hedbo murders, that it is approval rather than explanation-- but I think that is an extreme interpretation.

 

He said, "You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others." This comment was in reply to questions asked by a French journalist about whether there were limits when freedom of expression meets freedom of religion. I can only interpret this as a direct relation:

 

Question: Is there a limit to free speech?

Answer: The limit is insulting the faith of others.

 

Do I understand you correctly to say this isn't his commentary about the limits of free speech, just a commentary about what will happen if you do? Because to me, that's just one step away from the implied, "Or Else." In his analogy, it was a punch. In Paris, it was murder. And so his response was to just... not speak those words. Insulting words. Mocking words. In other words, limit your words.

 

The correlation is so direct in my mind, I'm having trouble seeing it otherwise.

[albeto.]

And of course, if those Jewish people had avoided shopping at a kosher supermarket, they wouldn't have got hurt either! It's an offensive argument, but some people only see the offense if it's framed in religious terms.

 

Behaving within the law doesn't cause violence. Violence arises within the person who commits violence. I think it's an important distinction to make.

 

Well, let's follow the logical line of thought here. If the pope offends my sense of morals and ethics, do I have the right to punch him in the nose? If I'm so utterly verklempt by his dismissive nature to the brutal slaying of innocent artists for the "crime" of drawing pictures the wrong people didn't like, is he culpable for my inability to withhold my impulse to pop him one right in the kisser? If he were assassinated, would there be similar support to my saying, "Well, if he didn't piss off the wrong people, he'd still be alive today. Make a note of this, guys. Don't incur the wrath of people who feel very strongly about free speech!"

 

I'm waiting with you, Sadie, on the answer to your question upthread. I think it's an interesting question.

[albeto.]

Ran across this blog post ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/01/19/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not/) and thought about this discussion.

 

That is, there is a limit. Every religion has dignity; every religion that respects life, human life, the human person. And I cannot make fun of it. This is a limit and I have taken this sense of limit to say that in freedom of expression there are limits, like that in regard to my mom.

 

This is no better, in my opinion.

 

"There is a limit."

Says who? According to whom? What is this limit, and where do I go to find an objective source to know how close I am to this limit? His sensibilities? A Muslim cleric's? Any Muslim cleric's? Any religious person? A non-religious person? What is this limit and how do can we know it?

 

"Every religion has dignity."

I patently disagree! But let's say I did, who cares? Only things that are universally considered dignified are closed to criticism and mockery?

 

"every religion that respects life, human life, the human person."

I disagree his religion does that. I can't go into that here (oh the irony), but suffice it to say, this is an impossible claim to prove because it is a purely subjective claim. It is no more true or false than the claim "Lavender is the most dignified color."

 

"And I cannot make fun of it."

Okay, this I can agree with. He's made this rule for himself, he can proceed as he wishes with regard to upholding this standard, modifying this standard, or rejecting it altogether. I, on the other hand, am under no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to follow his personal standard of behavior.

 

Well, you get the idea.

 

[6packofun]

So, artist who push the boundaries are all 'dicks' ? - excuse the word, it's vulgar, it was in the patheos article linked upthread.

 

Real case - elderly artist paints non-pornographic painting of Hindu gods and goddesses. They are nudes. Elderly artist is hounded by government and nationalists who issue death threats. He dies in exile. Is he the 'dick' ?

 

Is Rushie a 'dick' ?

 

What if a satirist drew a crude but sharp cartoon on Scientology ? 'Dick' ?

 

What if a culturally Muslim atheist mocks aspects of his former religion ? 'Dick' ?

 

Are you a 'dick' if you criticise religion everywhere, or only a 'dick' if you criticise it in a country that won't flog you for your views ?

 

These are the things it would be interesting to discuss.

 

I agree.  I don't believe in censorship, however, I also don't believe that all free speech is worthwhile or brave or necessary.  This doesn't seem to enter the conversation too often, even though it doesn't mean we should ban or censor anything.  If it doesn't add to any real dialogue on an opinion, worldview, or religion, why do we bother with it?  So, for example, drawing a picture of one religion's prophet being sodomized says what, exactly?  (I assume I could Google it and find what the artist says it's suppose to "mean", but really, how does it say much more than, "You're religion sucks"?)  How does that further the conversation or even help free speech?  Just because it's speech?  Sure, draw and publish it!  And recognize why so many people don't take that seriously or consider that braver than a child blurting out swear words in an empty room just because he's free to dare when mommy's not there.

 

Again, I don't believe much of anything should be censored.  But I find it interesting that CNN wouldn't dare put up humiliating images of Mohammed and only in trying not to be total hypocrites did they take down the "Piss Christ" image from their site that was up for so long.  Maybe they are dicks for only allowing criticism of a specific religion over another?  Is censorship the same as intelligent people ignoring or even shunning angry, stupid sh*t that really does nothing for humanity other than to let one person express an emotion?  This would also be an interesting thing to discuss.

[mamajag]

He clarifies himself in this interview: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/full-transcript-popes-press-conference-flight-manila

 

"In theory we can say that a violent reaction in the face of an offense or a provocation, in theory yes, it is not a good thing, one shouldn’t do it. In theory we can say what the Gospel says, that we should turn the other cheek. In theory we can say that we have freedom of expression, and that’s important. But in theory we all agree. But we are human and there’s prudence which is a virtue of human coexistence. I cannot constantly insult, provoke a person continuously because I risk making him/her angry, and I risk receiving an unjust reaction, one that is not just. But that’s human. For this reason I say that freedom of expression must take account of the human reality and for this reason one must be prudent. It’s a way of saying that one must be educated, prudent. Prudence is the virtue that regulates our relations. I can go up to here, I can go up to there, and there, beyond that no. What I wanted to say is that in theory we all agree: there is freed of expression, a violent aggression is not good, it’s always bad. We all agree, but in practice let us stop a little because we are human and we risk to provoke others. For this reason freedom must be accompanied by prudence. That’s what I wanted to say."

[poppy]

I'm gonna try for the last time!

 

Who thinks every single writer/visual artist/dancer/actor needs to 'limit their words/images/performances' to the extent that faith communities will find them polite and respectful ? Imagine they are otherwise working within the law.

 

As opposed to me, walking down the street, smiling at whoever and peacefully supporting their right to wear hijab, cross etc and go worship freely where they like, and saving my religion-what-the-heck's ? for friends in private homes....and only getting personally cross when religion wants to stick its nose into government ( or art...)

It's like you are arguing with someone in your head who isn't here. But I will play. Freedom of expression shouldn't be limited to polite and respectful images and text. Peace and tolerance is good. Sounds like we completely agree.

[poppy]

Well, let's follow the logical line of thought here. If the pope offends my sense of morals and ethics, do I have the right to punch him in the nose? If I'm so utterly verklempt by his dismissive nature to the brutal slaying of innocent artists for the "crime" of drawing pictures the wrong people didn't like, is he culpable for my inability to withhold my impulse to pop him one right in the kisser? If he were assassinated, would there be similar support to my saying, "Well, if he didn't piss off the wrong people, he'd still be alive today. Make a note of this, guys. Don't incur the wrath of people who feel very strongly about free speech!"

 

I'm waiting with you, Sadie, on the answer to your question upthread. I think it's an interesting question.

I guess the difference is it sounds like you think the pope is asserting that the murderers have, your words, 'the right' to commit those brutal slayings. I've read it several times and just don't see the thumbs up to killers that you do.

[Jasperstone]

lol

 

No, its like I have a lot of questions and ideas, and it would be so awesome if, on a forum of homeschool moms, we could enjoy a meaty discussion about the logical end point of a de facto ban on offense towards religion :)

 

I really do get tired of laundry threads.

How dare you put down laundry threads! They stimulate me so much!!!!! You can't be serious????

 

;-)

[mamajag]

I don't see drawing a cartoon as anything different than private life. It is private thoughts put on paper and circulated around the world. if anything that's where you try to be prudent. I get it. The magazine existed to provoke. That provocation had consequences that were not entirely unexpected given the target audience. Was it wrong on every level? Absolutely. Did the choice of the magazine to publish those drawings knowing what could come of it leave some weight of responsibility on those who chose to publish it? Absolutely.

 

We live in a world of cause and effect. That's just how it is.

 

What really interests me is that people of religious persuasions are supposed to not say they believe homosexuality is a sin because it might hurt someone's feelings and make them feel bad about their life choices, but if the target is religious, they don't get the same protection. It's perfectly okay to belittle someone for those beliefs because that's called freedom of expression...

[Audrey]

lol

 

No, its like I have a lot of questions and ideas, and it would be so awesome if, on a forum of homeschool moms, we could enjoy a meaty discussion about the logical end point of a de facto ban on offense towards religion :)

 

I really do get tired of laundry threads...

 

I say this kindly, Poppy, but for the sake of your blood pressure, you should really just put me on ignore.

 

 

Well, I think that is what we had in place not that many decades ago, and in the last 3 or 4 decades many societies have been slowly crawling out from the shackles of religious dominance toward more secular societies -- societies where there is freedom OF religion, but also freedom FROM religion. 

 

That change is unwelcome to many of those who choose to remain religious. Some of those are choosing to react with violence.  Others attempt to legislate religiosity that was once just in de facto social 'law.' Others expend their frustrations with hand-wringing.  Still others do and say nothing but continue their religious lives as before.  I'm sure you'll find all sorts in between those, as well. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What really interests me is that people of religious persuasions are supposed to not say they believe homosexuality is a sin because it might hurt someone's feelings and make them feel bad about their life choices, but if the target is religious, they don't get the same protection. It's perfectly okay to belittle someone for those beliefs because that's called freedom of expression...

 

No, the issue is when those religious arguments are used to justify laws that prevent others from having equal rights.

 

[hornblower]

In 2012 The Onion printed a rather infamous & very nsfw cartoon. It is crude & rude & depicts Jesus, Moses, Ganesha & Buddha.  Is it not relevant that nobody was threatened by this cartoon? That there was no violence due to its publication?

[poppy]

lol

 

No, its like I have a lot of questions and ideas, and it would be so awesome if, on a forum of homeschool moms, we could enjoy a meaty discussion about the logical end point of a de facto ban on offense towards religion :)

 

I really do get tired of laundry threads...

 

I say this kindly, Poppy, but for the sake of your blood pressure, you should really just put me on ignore.

I am afraid I will be sticking around, and whenever you post something ridiculous as if it were obviously true ('ban on offense towards religion‘?? ) I'm going to question it. I am. I promise I am not obsessed, I am just stuck visiting family and am really bored.

 

The people who want to ban free speech are the terrorists. They are intolerable and are our enemy.

 

A political figure coming out trying to talk about causes and consequences and start a dialogue on the topic-- he might be wrong. He is not proposing a ban. The remarks did not result in any change, any proposed change, any challenge, any threat to free speech. No ban in sight.

[poppy]

In 2012 The Onion printed a rather infamous & very nsfw cartoon. It is crude & rude & depicts Jesus, Moses, Ganesha & Buddha. Is it not relevant that nobody was threatened by this cartoon? That there was no violence due to its publication?

What is the point you wish to make- that satirical depictions of Muhammed incite violence by Muslim extremists in a way unseen in other world faiths? I think that is simply obvious.

[albeto.]

I agree.  I don't believe in censorship, however, I also don't believe that all free speech is worthwhile or brave or necessary.

 

 Not all free speech is worthwhile or brave or necessary. Arguably, what "good" is Winnie The Pooh? How does that contribute to the human experience in any noble way? Or the comic strip Dilbert? Or the movie Harold and Maude?

Well, I could say something about all these, but Beethoven they are not. But we don't expect that. But that's what sets Beethoven apart - he was head and shoulders above others with regard to his contribution to the human experience. His contributions have stood the test of time and provide as much joy today as they did 100 years ago and more. But you know what? Some people believe that each individual, each single person, gets to determine what contributions are valuable to them. We each get to decide what is noble, what is fun, what is worth our attention, and what is best left unattended.

 

This doesn't seem to enter the conversation too often, even though it doesn't mean we should ban or censor anything.  If it doesn't add to any real dialogue on an opinion, worldview, or religion, why do we bother with it?

Because what you don't want to bother with, I may go out of my way to know more about, and vice versa. Who is to say whose what adds to the Great Conversations in life? When did the Enlightenment begin? What was the first conversation that inspired a movement that focused on the value of rational thought over abdication of authority? Did they know they were contributing to a world-changing paradigm shift? Does every conversation have to be so grand in the big scheme of things? When I brought my kids home from brick and mortar school, they played Lord of the Rings for hours. They made up their own languages, characters, story lines, everything. There was no goal, no purpose, no end point. They enjoyed the experience and I enjoyed my experience watching them. I got a tiny reminder of how life feels when you're young and everything is exciting and grand and possible. That was precious to me in a way I cannot capture in words, but there's no contribution to "any real dialog." That doesn't mean it wasn't important.

 

So, for example, drawing a picture of one religion's prophet being sodomized says what, exactly?  (I assume I could Google it and find what the artist says it's suppose to "mean", but really, how does it say much more than, "You're religion sucks"?)  How does that further the conversation or even help free speech?  Just because it's speech?  Sure, draw and publish it!  And recognize why so many people don't take that seriously or consider that braver than a child blurting out swear words in an empty room just because he's free to dare when mommy's not there.

Arguably, it contributes to the Great Conversation that exposes the traditionally respected demands for reverence to religious beliefs, authority figures, rituals, or ideas as unjustified, and devoid of objective (or even subjective) value. There are traditional demands for reverence, and the general illusion that certain beliefs or ideas are universally valuable, or should enjoy universal privilege. There are traditional policies that protect the age-old idea that some beliefs are simply too important or objectively valuable to face criticism or ridicule. These are what is being targeted. One way of doing that is to mock those very figures or ideas. If homosexuality is considered a particularly abominable taboo, then being sodomized is a powerful imagery of ridicule. It's knocking a figure down off a pedestal that has been judged to be unjustified.

 

You might find this collection of philosophical answers helpful. From this section:

 

But when it comes to satire and comedy as genres, the rules must simply be different. We need satire. We need comedy. They play vital roles of puncturing the airs of reverence around authority figures. And in that context, religion must be fair game for the reasons I spelled out in the section on why blasphemy is justifiable at all. Religions’ entire authority and real-world power are undergirded by their abilities to command reverence and deference and create the illusion that they are sacred, sacrosanct, and immune from fundamental criticism or ridicule.

 

Satire and blasphemy are the strongest tools for those who want to challenge that. And for those of us who believe religious influence is way out of proportion to the genuine intellectual or moral authority of religious institutions, we must insist on the right to use these tools for criticism when they are necessary and ultimately fair for this vital moral and intellectual purpose. It is vital as a matter of defying religious privilege and keeping it from gaining political footholds that deep criticisms and deep disrespect for religions’ pretensions be allowed morally.

 

Again, I don't believe much of anything should be censored.  But I find it interesting that CNN wouldn't dare put up humiliating images of Mohammed and only in trying not to be total hypocrites did they take down the "Piss Christ" image from their site that was up for so long.  Maybe they are dicks for only allowing criticism of a specific religion over another?  Is censorship the same as intelligent people ignoring or even shunning angry, stupid sh*t that really does nothing for humanity other than to let one person express an emotion?  This would also be an interesting thing to discuss.

 

Arguably, when people are being systematically oppressed, imprisoned, flogged, beheaded, hanged, left to starve, blamed for the crimes held against them, and any other number of horrifyingly common responses to the "crime" of heresy (be it religious or political), images promoted by Charlie Hebdo does more than simply express an emotion. They provide an image that makes a point quickly and effectively. I argue the point is made effectively because it sticks in your mind more than a calm, rational, emotionally tepid dialog might. It also reaches a much larger audience. For you or me, that dialog might be more interesting, but for someone else, that image might speak powerfully enough to read the article, to think about the points made, to learn something they didn't know, to be aware of what their government is promoting, and what they are supporting even indirectly.

 

CH did what US media refuses to do - exercise their right to free speech unhindered by threats of loss of customers or aggressive or violent retribution. Arguably, CNN is more concerned with profits than taking a stand. There's nothing wrong with that, I think "taking a stand" isn't really part of their purpose, and never was. No one expects that from them. For CH however, it is. CH takes the opportunity to expose oppression, injustice, extremism, irrational policies, and whatever else they decided was worthy of their attention. I'd say these things do far more for humanity than politely staying out of it.

 

 

[albeto.]

Censorship is definitely not the same as deciding not to buy a copy of CH. Boycotts are a very civilised way of expressing disagreement without limiting the legal speech of others.  I'd support the right of anyone not to see/buy/view material that offends them, for sure. This is one area where I agree the market can make a big difference.

 

The media issue is interesting. Given they live under the threat of violence if they show certain works, it's not surprising that many of them choose safety over publication. My personal view is that once the cartoons became a supposed reason for murder, it was incumbent on newspapers to show a sample cartoon, as it was now 'news'.  If I was the editor of a major newspaper, I might have chosen not to though.

 

I guess Piss Christ didn't result in as many firebombings and death threats ?

 

I don't know a lot about French satire - not nearly enough to attempt an analysis of the CH cartoons - but my guess would be that mocking religion is part of a secular resistance of de facto blasphemy laws. They push at the edges of free speech, because without that, it collapses to a polite centre that is vulnerable to actual blasphemy laws.

 

Hollande says that many critics really don't understand the French attachment to secularism and satire. In a way, we're not being culturally sensitive to the French saying that CH 'asked for it.'

 

Holy moley, I should have just read on and saved myself some time!

[albeto.]

He clarifies himself in this interview: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/full-transcript-popes-press-conference-flight-manila

 

"In theory we can say that a violent reaction in the face of an offense or a provocation, in theory yes, it is not a good thing, one shouldn’t do it. In theory we can say what the Gospel says, that we should turn the other cheek. In theory we can say that we have freedom of expression, and that’s important. But in theory we all agree. But we are human and there’s prudence which is a virtue of human coexistence. I cannot constantly insult, provoke a person continuously because I risk making him/her angry, and I risk receiving an unjust reaction, one that is not just. But that’s human. For this reason I say that freedom of expression must take account of the human reality and for this reason one must be prudent. It’s a way of saying that one must be educated, prudent. Prudence is the virtue that regulates our relations. I can go up to here, I can go up to there, and there, beyond that no. What I wanted to say is that in theory we all agree: there is freed of expression, a violent aggression is not good, it’s always bad. We all agree, but in practice let us stop a little because we are human and we risk to provoke others. For this reason freedom must be accompanied by prudence. That’s what I wanted to say."

 

So to change his words around, let's see how that same defense sounds in a different context.

 

"In theory we can say that a rape in the face of a provocation, in theory yes, it is not a good thing, one shouldn’t do it. In theory we can say what the Gospel says, that the man should pluck out his eye if prayer does not work. In theory we can say that a woman has the freedom to wear what she wants, and that’s important. But in theory we all agree. But men are men and there’s prudence which is a virtue of human coexistence. A woman cannot constantly flirt, provoke a man continuously because she risks making him aroused, and she risks receiving an unjust reaction, one that is not just. But that’s human. For this reason I say that her freedom to wear what she wants must take account of the masculine reality and for this reason she must be prudent. It’s a way of saying that she must be educated, prudent. Prudence is the virtue that regulates our relations. I can go up to here, I can go up to there, and there, beyond that no. What I wanted to say is that in theory we all agree: there is freedom of fashion, a violent rape is not good, it’s always bad. We all agree, but in practice let us stop a little because we are human and women risk to provoke others when they dress provocatively. For this reason freedom of fashion must be accompanied by prudence. That’s what I wanted to say."

[albeto.]

I guess the difference is it sounds like you think the pope is asserting that the murderers have, your words, 'the right' to commit those brutal slayings. I've read it several times and just don't see the thumbs up to killers that you do.

 

Not so much the right, as they can't be held fully culpable because they were provoked. The post just above this really illustrates this idea, I think. Chillingly so.

[hornblower]

What is the point you wish to make- that satirical depictions of Muhammed incite violence by Muslim extremists in a way unseen in other world faiths? I think that is simply obvious.

Apart from the greater issue that I disagree one can't/ought not/should not/must not -or whatever he was trying to say-

 

The pope's statement about not mockig other faiths becomes even more untrue - as evidenced by the fact that one clearly can mock many faiths. Although honestly, that cartoon is way more complicated... Since it's using the ability to depict some religions as a foil for its subtext of the inability to depict others.

 

It's quite subtle and not as in your face as CH but it's making uncomfortable points.

 

& Art isn't about making us feel comfortable.

 

Bottom line still is, a great leader missed an opportunity to say something profound and defaulted back to the equivalent of boys will be boys.

 

Perhaps that's not surprising in some ways as it does tie nicely to his faith, doesn't it? Thats how we are, try hard to be better, but ultimately the only way you can get away from your deep-down awfulness is through my prophet....

 

Bottom line for me is this - he ought not be speaking off the cuff if that's what he did, and he could have said so many more helpful things, things which reaffirm freedoms of speech and secular societies, but he chose to say - well, what do you expect? Don't insult people if you don't want a punch.

[hornblower]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30890989

"Every people deserves to conserve its identity without being ideologically colonised," the Pope said.

 

That's the most baffling statement coming from an institution with hundreds of years history as an ideological colonizer.

[albeto.]

I don't see drawing a cartoon as anything different than private life.

 

It seems you do not understand the difference between public and private communication.

 

It is private thoughts put on paper and circulated around the world. if anything that's where you try to be prudent. I get it.

 

I don't think you do get it. Private thoughts that are purposefully put on paper and circulated around the world are not private. By definition they are public. Private thoughts that are purposefully kept private are private. That's the difference.

 

The magazine existed to provoke. That provocation had consequences that were not entirely unexpected given the target audience. Was it wrong on every level? Absolutely. Did the choice of the magazine to publish those drawings knowing what could come of it leave some weight of responsibility on those who chose to publish it? Absolutely.

 

We live in a world of cause and effect. That's just how it is.

 

Yes. The pope's pandering to terrorism is the point of interest here, not the fact that terrorists did what terrorists promise to do.

 

What really interests me is that people of religious persuasions are supposed to not say they believe homosexuality is a sin because it might hurt someone's feelings and make them feel bad about their life choices, but if the target is religious, they don't get the same protection. It's perfectly okay to belittle someone for those beliefs because that's called freedom of expression...

 

What do you mean they're not supposed to say these things? People of religious persuasions are not only allowed to say they believe homosexuality is a sin, but they are allowed to teach their young, impressionable children to believe homosexuality is a sin, they are allowed to speak to great numbers of people all at the same time, encouraging them to maintain the belief that homosexuality is a sin, they get to profit from movies, books, tv reality shows, museums, and universities that all contribute to the promotion of the idea that homosexuality is a sin, some people get paid extraordinarily well to deliver sermons that include such ideas as homosexuality is a sin, and these churches and mosques and synagogues that do so are supported by the tax dollars of American citizens, even those of us who do not agree homosexuality is a sin, to the tune of some 80 billion dollars every year.

 

It's perfectly okay to belittle these beliefs because they should be belittled. They're based on faulty reasons, they are developed to the exclusion of evidence, they are promoted through tactics of fear and shame, and these ideas motivate public policy that affects entire communities. They're held to a standard of acceptance and privilege that is damaging to individuals, and to society in general. They get belittled because people want them removed from our culture in the same way speaking out against interracial marriage and women voting was removed from our culture - by an appeal to progress through better access to information and more appropriately placed compassion.

 

Being uncomfortable for speaking your mind isn't the same as being targeted for pain or murder for speaking your mind. How are you connecting the two?

[albeto.]

Well, I think that is what we had in place not that many decades ago, and in the last 3 or 4 decades many societies have been slowly crawling out from the shackles of religious dominance toward more secular societies -- societies where there is freedom OF religion, but also freedom FROM religion. 

 

That change is unwelcome to many of those who choose to remain religious. Some of those are choosing to react with violence.  Others attempt to legislate religiosity that was once just in de facto social 'law.' Others expend their frustrations with hand-wringing.  Still others do and say nothing but continue their religious lives as before.  I'm sure you'll find all sorts in between those, as well. 

 

I'm curious how this evolution occurred in Europe. European societies have been slowly but consistently losing their religious identity. Was there a kind of "extinction burst" of behavior in politics like we're seeing in the US (starting, perhaps, with the "moral majority" of the late 70's, early '80's), or did everyone just sort of... let it go? And if so, I wonder how. What's the difference?