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

[Laurie]

 

 

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.

 

What do you think of President Obama's carefully prepared remarks to the UN General Assembly:  (I copied this from white house dot gov)

 

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  (Applause.)"

 

Sadly,  I think some people in the world could interpret that as permission to kill.   Now these remarks were made before the killings in Paris, but isn't President Obama saying that in a tolerant/polite society there's no future for the magazine?   No future could mean it goes out of business because people refuse to buy it, but it could also mean that  the cartoonists get slaughtered and can't draw anymore cartoons.   Why even bother saying   "the future must not belong to those who slander..." since he supposedly believes in a free society?   "Must not" sounds kind of churchy/preachy. 

[hornblower]

What do you think of President Obama's carefully prepared remarks to the UN General Assembly:  (I copied this from white house dot gov)

 

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  (Applause.)"

 

well, I fundamentally disagree with the statement "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"

 

I hadn't seen that quote. I find it kind of jaw-dropping & the lumping of slandering a prophet to holocaust denial... it almost has a godwin's law feel to it; a) they're not the same thing b) you're allowed to holocaust deny in the US. It's like your first amendment is being Emily Positified into a 'shush now, that's not polite' version.

 

The idea being promoted here & by the Pope, that the way to avoid religious strife & 'the battle for God' (viz. Karen Armstrong) is to not criticize religions is imo just plain wrong.

[albeto.]

The idea being promoted here & by the Pope, that the way to avoid religious strife & 'the battle for God' (viz. Karen Armstrong) is to not criticize religions is imo just plain wrong.

 

Right? Good grief, it goes against the ideals of the Revolution for Independence the US fought so hard to solidify! To abdicate to authority to a person or institution by virtue of the belief that authority is of a "higher level" than can be gleaned from reason or evidence is completely counterproductive to the rational roots of a secular government!

 

Ugh. Such an embarrassment. From the pope, I can see. From a president of the United States? It's absurd! It should be ridiculed! 

 

While it may be tempting to placate tempers for an immediate cease fire, it does not solve the problem in any way, shape, or form. It's nothing more than an appeal to the ancient moral code that says Might Makes Right (the ones with the biggest clubs make the rules).

 

It's disappointing to hear from a president of the United States, and I imagine it wouldn't matter which president was in office at the time of this event. It would be political suicide to uphold the ideal of freedom of speech as it pertains to mocking religion. And therein lies the big shame, because freedom of speech doesn't exist if there are limits placed on it. Might Makes Right is a morally bankrupt proposition, but, it is an evolutionarily successful one. One should hope that today discussions can be held by reason of rational thought and critical thinking, not appeals to emotions and fear.

 

And so, satirists march on...

 

 

[Spy Car]

For me to quality as "satire" a work has to be funny, creative, and/or serve a serious intent. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons to my mind fail on all fronts. They are simply provocative and inflamitory (in the crudest and least cleaver sort of way).

 

How are their "cartoons" more enlightened (or enlightening) than the crude antisemitism of the Third Reich or the anti-black images of the KKK? Because they come from the "left" they are less hateful? 

 

I am so not Spartacus.

 

Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo. 

 

 

Bill

[hornblower]

For me to quality as "satire" a work has to be funny, creative, and/or serve a serious intent.

 

But first of all these things are subjective.

 

Secondly, they're irrelevant to freedom of speech. 

[Elisabet1]

Because a few comics most people do not read is so much worse than killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, beheading people, raping, and everything else?

 

I hope I am misunderstanding what the Pope said. I did not read the whole thread.

[LibraryLover]

Nobody deserves to die over any issue of free speech. Nobody. That's never going to be OK. What happened is a horror. They didn't 'deserve' it. 

There is such a thing as being inflammatory. Why such viciousness?  There is such a thing as propaganda.

[poppy]

Because a few comics most people do not read is so much worse than killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, beheading people, raping, and everything else?

 

I hope I am misunderstanding what the Pope said. I did not read the whole thread.

"So much worse" is entirely your invention.

[Spy Car]

Well, Bill, you may need to do some more reading on French current affairs, and the anti-clerical, secularist, low brow tradition in which they were working to comment on events and attitudes within France.

 

I'm pretty aware of the anti-clerical, secularist, low brow tradition in France, as well as the anti-Semetic, anti-Muslim, nativist-nationalistic traditions in France.  

 

Count me with the unimpressed.

 

Bill

[albeto.]

Because a few comics most people do not read is so much worse than killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, beheading people, raping, and everything else?

Well, I feel kind of dopey, because I'm sure this makes sense to everyone else, but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. How are comics themselves better or worse? Do you mean 12 staff members is worse than thousands dead? Producing satirical comics is bad? I'm just not sure what you're asking. Can you clarify?

[albeto.]

There is such a thing as being inflammatory. Why such viciousness?  There is such a thing as propaganda.

Some ideas about this have been shared in this thread not too far back, if you're interested.

[Aelwydd]

I'm actually much more interested in the Pope's comments regarding the projected ideal number of children, around three per couple.  He, of course, still maintains the Church's ban on contraception, but he affirms that natural family planning methods are ideal, and in fact, and that such considerations are part of responsible parenthood.    

 

 

I think the number of three children per family that you mentioned – it makes me suffer- I think it is the number experts say is important to keep the population going. Three per couple. When this decreases, the other extreme happens, like what is happening in Italy. I have heard, I do not know if it is true, that in 2024 there will be no money to pay pensioners because of the fall in population. Therefore, the key word, to give you an answer, and the one the Church uses all the time, and I do too, is responsible parenthood. How do we do this? With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do carry out a responsible parenthood.

That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth child and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is a an irresponsibility That woman might say 'no, I trust in God.’ But, look, God gives you means to be responsible. Some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood. This is clear and that is why in the Church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can search; and I know so many ways that are licit and that have helped this. You did well to ask me this.

 

 

 

I don't agree with his perspective in several key respects, but this is fairly surprising to me, that he should actually make such a statement. 

[albeto.]

Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo. 

 

 

Bill

 

I understand the catch phrase, Je suis Charlie to be one of solidarity with the value and desire for protection of free speech, not being a fan of the paper itself.

 

Je suis Charlie = I support the idea of freedom of speech without retribution from tyrants as a noble idea; I identify with those who value, and apply this freedom.

[Spy Car]

Oh, I'll count you with the others happy to use the wife beater defence then ?

 

It doesn't even really matter what anyone thought of the magazine before the slaughter.

 

Once people are slaughtered for legal use of free expression, any of us who care about free and legal expression are Charlie, whether we want to be or not.

 

Nah. I tried (I really did). I just don't see how this magazine is any better than the The Westboro Baptist Church.

 

Bill

[albeto.]

Nah. I tried (I really did). I just don't see how this magazine is any better than the The Westboro Baptist Church.

 

Bill

 

Other than one exposes the absurdity and danger of adopting extremist policies inspired by faith-based values, and the other promotes it?

[Spy Car]

Other than one exposes the absurdity and danger of adopting extremist policies inspired by faith-based values, and the other promotes it?

 

 

We'll have to disagree, I suppose, over whether Charlie Hebdo promotes extremist values (or not). 

 

The unfortunate reality is the whole affair will only strengthen the fascist far-right in France and the extremist Islamists as well.

 

It's a great big font of enmity flowing from a poisonous source to start with. Charle Hebdo didn't "expose" anything, they just crudely mocked and inflamed. It was the most juvenile, obvious, and deliberately provocative crap imaginable.

 

Bill

[albeto.]

The unfortunate reality is the whole affair will only strengthen the fascist far-right in France and the extremist Islamists as well.

In addition to exposing that far-right element encroaching upon France, Sweden, Finland, and every other society that seems to lately be turning an evil eye toward immigrants, Jews, Muslims, etc. Are they particularly good at what they do? I dunno. I don't really care, though. And I don't mean to sound flippant, but if they're the Captain Underpants of the Satirical world, it doesn't change anything about the impractical, problematic, and morally offensive approach to blaming the victim.

 

It's a great big font of enmity flowing from a poisonous source to start with. Charle Hebdo didn't "expose" anything, they just crudely mocked and inflamed. It was the most juvenile, obvious, and deliberately provocative crap imaginable.

 

Bill

Nevertheless, the wife-beater's defense is morally bankrupt, most especially when it comes from one who is identified by some (including himself) as being the vicar of the King of Peace.

[Laurie]

 

 

Je suis Charlie = I support the idea of freedom of speech without retribution from tyrants as a noble idea; I identify with those who value, and apply this freedom.

 

Je suis Charlie= I support the idea of freedom of speech without responsibility for any harm that may come to others

 

I don't know how many people in the world had heard about/read Charlie before the attack;  I hadn't. 

 

I don't know how many people knew of the Koran-burning preacher before he started applying his freedom.

 

I don't know how many people knew of the  "film maker" before his youtube video about the prophet was blamed for inciting the attack on Benghazi and the killing of our ambassador. 

 

Are these people all worthy of admiration? 

 

We've got world leaders trying to deal with terrorism and save lives but these obscure people keep coming out of the woodwork and causing worldwide problems, just because they can.  What's so noble about that?

[albeto.]

Are these people all worthy of admiration?

It's not about the people and whether or not they are worthy of admiration. It's never about that.

 

It's about speaking without fear or expectation of violent or aggressive retribution from tyrants, be it a legal governmental body or a terrorist group.

 

We've got world leaders trying to deal with terrorism and save lives but these obscure people keep coming out of the woodwork and causing worldwide problems, just because they can.  What's so noble about that?

Criticizing tyranny exposes unjust policies to those who otherwise would not know. It's what progress is all about. It's what motivates culture to evolve to be more ethical instead of less ethical. Arguably, as a Christian this is part of your ethical code of conduct, is it not? To help offer comfort, compassion, and help when possible? Is it not in part to discern what behaviors might contribute to unjustified suffering and then avoid them, help others to avoid bringing undue suffering on themselves and on others? Isn't there some component to your faith to recognize the pain and suffering of others, and do what you can in a concrete, practical way? That's a noble use of your time and energy: To see where others suffer, notice what can be done to alleviate it, and contribute to that alleviation. That's noble because there is no more profound component to the life of a person than their experiences. To experience pain or pleasure determines how we respond to any event, how we interpret events, and remember them. It contributes very directly and profoundly to our sense of self, our identity, our sense of relationship to others and the world in general. To have empathy is to assume the pain of another person based on what you know from your own experiences, even when it requires the use of your imagination. It's noble to take the time out of your own day to notice and contribute to the relief of someone else suffering. It's noble because it's not necessary, but it can make such a huge difference for a person. Or a whole community.

 

Freedom of speech allows people to expose the suffering of others, suffering that is understood to be unjust and unethical, deemed worthy of taking notice for the purpose of eliciting change. Freedom of speech allows people to expose the suffering done at the hands of those tyrants who enjoy the privilege afforded to the victors, at the expense of the victims, who do not wish to give up their power, who do not wish to lose their position of power.

 

Freedom of speech allows us to know what's going on in parts of the world to which we are personally unaware, but nevertheless triggers our empathy. It shouldn't matter if we don't know someone personally. When the oppressor systematically and forcefully crushes the quality of life from innocent people for the sake of their own profit and pleasure, the noble thing is to get involved, even if the safe and comfortable thing is to turn the channel/page/open new tab/distractdistractdistract.

 

This thread isn't about the noble characters of the staff at Charlie Hebdo. It's about the pope of the RCC using a morally bankrupt excuse to codify the oppressors in hopes of appeasing their wrath, rather than standing up to oppression in general and calling on people to be noble, not to capitulate to tyranny.

[Spy Car]

Mon dieu!

 

The folks at Charlie Hebdo were not speaking out of "comfort, compassion, and help" to anyone. On the contrary, they used (abused) their freedom of speech to enrage Muslims. They added to the pain of a group that doesn't have life so easy in France in any case (and might benefit from "comfort, compassion, and help").

 

The moral bankruptcy includes not following the Golden Rule.

 

Bill

[JoJosMom]

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

 

Summed up on page one.

:thumbup1:

[MSNative]

I think this quote is pertinent.

ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro:

"The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes. You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated. You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive — because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to prevent the government from doing that."

 

I'm surprised some people are so quick to blame the victims by saying they dared to enrage Muslims. People criticize religion all the time. Piss Christ was a noteworthy example. I still see no redeeming value in it and found it offensive, coarse and lacking in any artistic merit. But does that mean the artist should expect me to attack him and that he will deserve what he gets because he dared to enrage me? Of course not. He is free to produce his "art" and I am free to not support him financially. Despite how little value I think it has, I still support his right to free speech.

[SarahB82]

Nm

[poppy]

Funny how the popularity of Piss Christ has spiked. I think it's been mentioned two dozen times in this thread. Thank goodness we have it as an example, huh?

[albeto.]

Mon dieu!

 

The folks at Charlie Hebdo were not speaking out of "comfort, compassion, and help" to anyone. On the contrary, they used (abused) their freedom of speech to enrage Muslims. They added to the pain of a group that doesn't have life so easy in France in any case (and might benefit from "comfort, compassion, and help").

 

The moral bankruptcy includes not following the Golden Rule.

 

Bill

 

I'm talking about censorship, not the value [or lack thereof] of Charlie Hebdo. Who do you think ought to be in charge of censorship? What authority do you think should be in charge of whose speech should be protected? How do you think the line ought to be drawn between free speech and censorship with regard to criticism of public policy, policy makers, and figures (as some satirists do), or with regard to criticism of religion and religious beliefs (as the pope supports)? Who decides if satire is funny enough or appropriately creative? If an authority has already made that decision (like say, the nation of France), but someone feels very strongly about it (because they're following God's Law, not man's), who's culpable for violent retribution of speech that is protected by the law? 

[Spy Car]

I'm talking about censorship, not the value [or lack thereof] of Charlie Hebdo. Who do you think ought to be in charge of censorship? What authority do you think should be in charge of whose speech should be protected? How do you think the line ought to be drawn between free speech and censorship with regard to criticism of public policy, policy makers, and figures (as some satirists do), or with regard to criticism of religion and religious beliefs (as the pope supports)?

No authority censored Charlie Hebdo. To the contrary, the French government attempted to protect the magazine and lost 3 police officers in the effort.

 

Who decides if satire is funny enough or appropriately creative?

À chacon son goût. To each his taste. As with any literary/art form judgements of merit are somewhat subjective. But for adding anything of merit to the conversation the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are an easy "fail" as satire. Nothing remotely clever there.

 

If an authority has already made that decision (like say, the nation of France), but someone feels very strongly about it (because they're following God's Law, not man's), who's culpable for violent retribution of speech that is protected by the law?

Not following. Sorry.

 

Bill

[MSNative]

Funny how the popularity of Piss Christ has spiked. I think it's been mentioned two dozen times in this thread. Thank goodness we have it as an example, huh?

Well isn't it the perfect example? Not only was it offensive, the artist was originally funded partially with tax dollars - though due to the controversy those grants were rescinded. Hmm, the government funding anti-religious pieces. Surely that is much more enraging and offensive than some cartoons. And yet, no one was murdered. Why?

 

The question though isn't whether or not Charlie Hebdo was clever satire or offensive drivel. The question is whether or not people are free to express themselves. Do we really want to say that we sort of have freedom of speech, but that speech can only be nice and it can't say anything mean about anyone's religion? Putting aside the fact that that isn't actually free speech, it's not desirable.

 

Do you support gay marriage? Well, if we had the whole don't say anything against anyone's religion, I seriously doubt gay marriage would be legal now. Proponents absolutely challenged many religious views on the subject - some did it rationally and very articulately, some were offensive and insulting. Doesn't matter. Their freedom of speech doesn't hinge on whether or not I find their prose to be pleasing. They ought to be free to express their thoughts and challenge religion (or politics or anything else) without fear of being attacked and killed.

 

Heck let's bring it closer to home. Do you support these boards? Posters here say offensive things about other religions (or politics, or shopping carts). Sometimes they mean to, sometimes it is inadvertent. Other posters will jump in and there is usually a heck of a discussion. In the end, there may not be consensus but all sides get to have their say and others get to rebut. Is that the dialogue we want to suppress?

[Spy Car]

To compare the provocation of Piss Christ to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and argiung they are equivalent ignores (or shows ignorance of) the very different cultural, theological, and political realities that prevail in contemporary Islam vs. Western Christendom.

 

Reasonable discussions (even sharply critical ones) on the role of religion in modern life are good to have, including topics like marriage (including marriages between two individuals of the same gender). Freedom of speech and open discussion are core values.

 

But Charlie Hebdo was not adding to a conversation. If you want talk about "gay marriage" the best foot forward is not to go to gay events with signs that say "God hates fags." If you show up in a Jewish neighborhood shouting "Hitler should have finished the job," or in a black neighborhood and start shouting "nigger, nigger, nigger" at every black person who passes, one is likely (given enough time) to get punched. Westboro made a living off such tactics. The Pope is spot-on about that.

 

Freedom of speech is a most valuable human right. It is freedom one would hope would be treated with respect and used responsibly, even when used to advance ideas that are unpopular. I certainly don't want to stifle dissent. There are ways to express opinions responsibly, and there are was to irresponsibly provoke and inflame.

 

Bill

[MSNative]

I would like to know what piece of information I am missing that makes it ok to kill several people on French soil because they printed a cartoon. Then please tell me why it ok for one person to submerge an image of a religion's prophet in urine while it's not ok (in fact, it is asking for death) for another person to print an objectionable cartoon image of another religion's prophet. Why is one considered commentary and art while the other is considered inflammatory, enraging and deserving death?

 

In all of the examples you listed above, do you believe a person who punched one of the provocateurs would be in the right? I hope that's not what you are saying. I think you simply mean that there are several ways to express opinions and that one ought to figure out a non-offensive way to make a point. I agree but the problem comes when we try to figure out who gets to decide what is offensive. Let's take your view that Charlie Hebdo was not adding to the conversation, that is your opinion. Why should your opinion carry more weight than someone else who thinks Charlie Hebdo is brilliant satire? That's kinda the thing with freedom of speech. It has to protect even speech we don't agree with or it doesn't really count as freedom of speech.

[poppy]

The Pope said if you insult someone's religion, you will get a punch (illicit a strong reaction). Piss Christ certainly did provoke a punch - it lost funding and became a famous rallying point against contemporary art.

 

No one, including the Pope, thinks the French journalists deserve death. I believe he gave a mass in their honor and spoke publicly about what a terrible act of cruelty the murders were. (Can't link - on phone).

 

I am astonished that anyone interprets the mans words to mean 'they got what they deserved' or to think he is ok with murder.

[Word Nerd]

Freedom of speech is a most valuable human right. It is freedom one would hope would be treated with respect and used responsibly, even when used to advance ideas that are unpopular. I certainly don't want to stifle dissent. There are ways to express opinions responsibly, and there are was to irresponsibly provoke and inflame.

 

Bill

 

If an individual or entity exercises their freedom of speech and expresses opinions in a disrespectful or irresponsible way, then what should happen in your view? Should freedom of speech apply only to responsible expression of opinions, and if so, who should draw the line?

[SarahB82]

If an individual or entity exercises their freedom of speech and expresses opinions in a disrespectful or irresponsible way, then what should happen in your view? Should freedom of speech apply only to responsible expression of opinions, and if so, who should draw the line?

Nothing should happen. But it does. We can't make murder any more illegal than it is or free speech any more legal than it is. I don't understand why posters keep asking this question over and over? Nothing should happen, but it does and everyone knows that it may before they choose to speak, draw, etc. We are all free to draw the line for ourselves where we see it appropriate to do so.

[MSNative]

The Pope said if you insult someone's religion, you will get a punch (illicit a strong reaction). Piss Christ certainly did provoke a punch - it lost funding and became a famous rallying point against contemporary art.

 

No one, including the Pope, thinks the French journalists deserve death. I believe he gave a mass in their honor and spoke publicly about what a terrible act of cruelty the murders were. (Can't link - on phone).

 

I am astonished that anyone interprets the mans words to mean 'they got what they deserved' or to think he is ok with murder.

Piss Christ became a rallying point against government funding of the arts. That is different than freedom of speech.

 

And previous posters have said that Charlie Hebdo deliberately enraged and provoked Muslims. Perhaps I'm reaching but that sounds a whole lot like blame the victim - they had it coming to them.

 

Do I think the Pope thought they should be murdered? No. However, his word choice and timing were horrible. It's rather like someone saying after a rape, well, you know if a woman is showing a lot of cleavage and flirting and dancing pretty close with some guys, she should know that she is going to be provocative and arouse some men. She shouldn't be surprised if some guy gets carried away.

My concern with the Pope is that he seems to think that saying anything offensive against a religion is off limits. I wish he would come out with a clarification on his thoughts.

[hornblower]

I wanted to share this page, highlighting some famous political cartoonists of the past. http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/10/01/stars-of-political-cartooning-archive/

Have a look for ex at Art Young who was indicted for criminal libel.

Daumier spent time in jail & eventually political cartoons were banned altogether in France.

Zec got in trouble with Winston Churchill and there were parliamentary meetings about shutting his paper down over his cartoon.

I think most of the cartoons look quaint to us now but in their time, they were infuriating & offensive to many. 

There were times (& there still are places) where certain forms of expression were illegal.

Now, what I hear some saying is 'well, no it shouldn't be illegal but people should not make them, they should control themselves and stay tastefully unoffensive'

This is just unsupportable IMO. 


I support CH for several reasons but one of them is that we need to keep poking at this issue of one faith taking an extremist view of freedom of expression & some of its adherents seeking to impose those views on secular societies.
 

[MSNative]

In addition to exposing that far-right element encroaching upon France, Sweden, Finland, and every other society that seems to lately be turning an evil eye toward immigrants, Jews, Muslims, etc. Are they particularly good at what they do? I dunno. I don't really care, though. And I don't mean to sound flippant, but if they're the Captain Underpants of the Satirical world, it doesn't change anything about the impractical, problematic, and morally offensive approach to blaming the victim.

 

 

Nevertheless, the wife-beater's defense is morally bankrupt, most especially when it comes from one who is identified by some (including himself) as being the vicar of the King of Peace.

Double like on this post. Clear, succinct and introduced the phrase "the Captain Underpants of the Satirical World!"

[MSNative]

I wanted to share this page, highlighting some famous political cartoonists of the past. http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/10/01/stars-of-political-cartooning-archive/

 

Have a look for ex at Art Young who was indicted for criminal libel.

 

Daumier spent time in jail & eventually political cartoons were banned altogether in France.

 

Zec got in trouble with Winston Churchill and there were parliamentary meetings about shutting his paper down over his cartoon.

 

I think most of the cartoons look quaint to us now but in their time, they were infuriating & offensive to many.

 

There were times (& there still are places) where certain forms of expression were illegal.

 

Now, what I hear some saying is 'well, no it shouldn't be illegal but people should not make them, they should control themselves and stay tastefully unoffensive'

 

This is just unsupportable IMO.

 

 

I support CH for several reasons but one of them is that we need to keep poking at this issue of one faith taking an extremist view of freedom of expression & some of its adherents seeking to impose those views on secular societies.

 

Great post and fantastic link. Thank you for sharing! That is definitely going to liven up history so my kids thank you too!

[KungFuPanda]

Yeah, I'm surprised by the number of progressives who are apparently OK with what the Pope said ( remembering that what he said is the topic of the conversation). It's not a progressive attitude to allow religion to draw lines around what can and cannot be talked about. It's regressive. Makes me feel like I'm in a Tudors episode ( swoon, sorry, off topic ).

 

The Pope's statement was directly analogous to blaming a rape victim or a domestic violence victim.

I think it's directly analogous to blaming the guy who yelled fire in a theater, and then was trampled to death in the stampede.

[hornblower]

I think it's directly analogous to blaming the guy who yelled fire in a theater, and then was trampled to death in the stampede.

 

I disagree. It's reasonable to want to flee a burning theater & if there really IS a fire & it's a tragic mistake of circumstance if the yeller is trampled. If there was no fire, it's sheer irresponsibility.

 

It's not reasonable to murder people over a cartoon & it's not irresponsible to critique or analyze or make fun of ideas.

 

I read this a couple days ago & just remembered it.

 

Why God-Fearing Social Conservatives and Politically Correct Liberals 'Are Not' Charlie Hebdo - pretty much sums up all the arguments.

[KungFuPanda]

I disagree. It's reasonable to want to flee a burning theater & if there really IS a fire & it's a tragic mistake of circumstance if the yeller is trampled. If there was no fire, it's sheer irresponsibility.

 

It's not reasonable to murder people over a cartoon & it's not irresponsible to critique or analyze or make fun of ideas.

 

I read this a couple days ago & just remembered it.

 

Why God-Fearing Social Conservatives and Politically Correct Liberals 'Are Not' Charlie Hebdo - pretty much sums up all the arguments.

I find the incessant comparison to rape horribly insulting to women. Like some how just being a woman and leaving your house is exactly the same thing as inciting a riot.

[hornblower]

I find the incessant comparison to rape horribly insulting to women. Like some how just being a woman and leaving your house is exactly the same thing as inciting a riot.

 

but in some cultures & religions it is considered the same. Going not properly dressed or not being attended by a male chaperone are considered provocations by some

[KungFuPanda]

but in some cultures & religions it is considered the same. Going not properly dressed or not being attended by a male chaperone are considered provocations by some

Yes, but the comparison isn't being made in those cultures. The comparison is being made on THIS board, on every 4th comment, where NOBODY thinks this way about women.

[hornblower]

Yes, but the comparison isn't being made in those cultures. The comparison is being made on THIS board, on every 4th comment, where NOBODY thinks this way about women.

 

oh, sorry I didn't realize that's what you were talking about.... I don't recall that comparison being made, I thought it was the wifebeater defense that was being brought up, ie, the idea that the spouse abuser claims s/he was provoked by the actions of the spouse....

 

 

[And actually, not to derail this thread but I know when we discussed college sexual assault here a few months ago, I would not have said 'nobody here thinks this way' because there were a number of comments which were victim blaming (by going to a frat house, by drinking, by drinking too much, drinking with strangers) and  there were also some comments about not acting or dressing suggestively & leading partners on...   ]

[swimmermom3]

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

 

Never mind. It's been said. I really have to remember to keep reading before responding.

[poppy]

I don't think the rape analogy really holds either. 

What do terrorists want? To punish. Publicity. To recruit other terrorists.

What do rapists want? Who the heck knows, but it's not that. 

 

Someone might say, but ---- after the Charlie Hedbo killings, other papers wouldn't reprint the cartoons due to fear for their own reporters, doesn't that mean the killers effectively squelched freedom of speech?  But that is where the cartoon's cruelty and offensiveness  comes into play.  I'll absolutely defend the satirists right to print as they wish, but I also get that it was not cowardice that prevented other papers from reprinting them.

 

Yeah, they did print Piss Christ - back in the pre-Internet era.  Now the AP says, basically, we chose not to print this, but if you want to find it, it's easily accessible via search engine.

[poppy]

Rape, terror, extremism...all brutal exercises in power.

 

Nobody who is a victim of any of the above 'deserved it' or 'should have expected it' or 'provoked it.'

 

No one provokes terrorism?  I think that's a pretty ridiculous statement. Terrorism is a political act, and it's retribution by its very nature.

 

No one at Charlie Hedbo deserved to die, that's for sure.  But that is a truth we all agree on, including the pope.  His statement on the killings:

“The Holy Father expresses his firmest condemnation of the horrible attack. Whatever its motivation might be, homicidal violence is abominable [and] is never justified.†   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/pope-francis-charlie-hebdo-paris-terror-abominable/

[albeto.]

No authority censored Charlie Hebdo.

 

Exactly. They were free by the standards of their law to publish what they published. The terrorists decided that there should be a limit on criticism, on mockery and ridicule to religion, specifically their own. The pope not only agreed with this sentiment¹, but encouraged others to adopt and embrace it as well. You keep talking about the quality of the periodical, as if one's speech should merit freedom or not. I'm wondering how you would draw the line. I don't mean just with regards to CH, but in general. Where would you like to see this line drawn between what opinions people have, and what opinions people ought to be allowed to share in public, or with each other. Specifically, I'm curious about this line as it pertains to criticism of religion.

 

À chacon son goût. To each his taste. As with any literary/art form judgements of merit are somewhat subjective. But for adding anything of merit to the conversation the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are an easy "fail" as satire. Nothing remotely clever there.

 

What is the point of this comment? In what way does it contribute to the conversation regarding whether or not excusing the action of terrorists because one can sympathize with their frustration is more noble and practical than advocating freedom of speech?

 

Not following. Sorry.

 

Bill

 

Reiteration of the same points I've (hopefully) clarified just now.

 

 

 

¹For those who might be confused and assume I'm implying the pope is pro-terrorist, let me take this opportunity to dispel that idea. I'm talking about the sympathizing with sentiment behind the impulse to lash out - to punish those who inspired a sense of "righteous" fury.

[albeto.]

The question though isn't whether or not Charlie Hebdo was clever satire or offensive drivel. The question is whether or not people are free to express themselves. Do we really want to say that we sort of have freedom of speech, but that speech can only be nice and it can't say anything mean about anyone's religion?

 

It's interesting to me to see how this concept is so easily forgotten in the process of discussion.

[poppy]

 

 

I'm talking about the sympathizing with sentiment behind the impulse to lash out. I'm referring to sympathizing with the frustration and subsequent anger at watching one's dearly held beliefs, a figure one assumes is as real and true and existent and loving and nurturing as one's own mother (if not more, because of perfection) be criticized and mocked without hesitation, without reservation. The sentiment that one's beloved is worth killing over, that one's beloved is worth censoring others for the purpose of protecting their honor. The sentiment that inspires others to be persuaded to self-censor for the sake of compassion, or for the sake of honor, or for whatever reason is imaginable.

 

As long as "lashing out" is within the bounds of human decency and the law, I don't see what the problem is.    And the idea that no one (let's even say no publication) should self-censor for the sake of compassion is crazy to me.  Graphic photos or offensive images are not shown all the time, and that's not a terrible thing.

[albeto.]

But Charlie Hebdo was not adding to a conversation. If you want talk about "gay marriage" the best foot forward is not to go to gay events with signs that say "God hates fags." If you show up in a Jewish neighborhood shouting "Hitler should have finished the job," or in a black neighborhood and start shouting "nigger, nigger, nigger" at every black person who passes, one is likely (given enough time) to get punched. Westboro made a living off such tactics. The Pope is spot-on about that.

 

I disagree. People can mock, ridicule, and scorn LGBTQ people and not fear violent retaliation by others defending their honor (hell, there's a legal defense that is used to defend such attacks by claiming the aggressor was so creeped out they couldn't help it). People can mock, ridicule, and scorn Christians, their gods, their saints, their holy days and not fear violent retaliation by terrorists seeking to silence blasphemers through murder. People can mock, ridicule, and scorn new age gurus, dress up as gypsies and fortune tellers and crazy witches on Halloween and not expect threats against them or their communities for insulting their religion. The KKK can march through a predominantly Jewish city during a public parade, and not expect to be targeted for death as a result. WBC can stand outside certain emotionally touching events and spew the most hurtful things without fearing violent retribution either where they stand, or where they work and live. 

 

I do wonder (but don't have the time to look), what the former pope's response to other acts of terrorism was. When women's health clinics were bombed in the 80's for religious reasons, I wonder if Pope John Paul II suggested people should not enrage the terrorists any more. What was his response to the IRA? As I recall, he didn't have a problem joining the criticism of the USSR and subsequent Solidarity movement. Freedom of speech was honored there if I recall correctly. While that's not a religious thing, it's a rejection of the very defense this pope is offering. What did Pope Francis say about the bullying of the Orthodox Jews in Israel to school girls, if anything? Don't upset these genuinely religious men and just wear more modest clothes and you won't get hurt? It would be interesting to know what, if any, pattern of behavior could be seen. But anyway...

 

I think he dropped the ball in any case. He could have sympathized with the Muslims around the world who do suffer whatever measure of distress to see their religion mocked and ridicule, as any genuinely caring religious believer might. The pope could have sympathized with the impulse to want to punch the nose of the person insulting your mother. He could have encouraged people, all people because he knows his words will be read around the world, to instead adopt the approach of turning the other cheek, of offering charity in response to offense, of praying for the peace of those who are hurt, on both sides of the issue. Instead he encouraged people to embrace censorship, self and universal. What a shame.

[albeto.]

Nothing should happen. But it does. We can't make murder any more illegal than it is or free speech any more legal than it is. I don't understand why posters keep asking this question over and over? Nothing should happen, but it does and everyone knows that it may before they choose to speak, draw, etc. We are all free to draw the line for ourselves where we see it appropriate to do so.

 

Arguably, we can make free speech more safe than it is now, and the way to do that is to stand in solidarity against the oppression of tyrants, and to demand as a global community that they acquiesce to a standard of behavior that includes security for everyone, rather than demand everyone honor a de facto theocracy under threat of death and destruction. One way to do this is to stop capitulating to these theocratic demands. It is (arguably) against the rules in Islam to portray their prophet in imagery. It is against the rules in Islam to mock him (I'm assuming that's solid, but I don't know for sure). It should not be against the rules for non Muslims to do these things. There should not be an expectation of punishment, and there certainly should not be encouragement to willingly abide by the suppressive rules of a religion to which one does not belong.