Under New Management!: Do You Agree With The Pope?

[Luigi]

Thank you for your thoughts on this. Finally, a post that relates to the topic.I do understand and agree that there have to be limits, but I guess I'm just not sure where they are and what the punishment should be. Hate speech is wrong, but are the laws applied equally and are they even determined yet? No, they're all determined,; no the determined laws are not applied equally. But that's just the way the world works. If it's ok to hate on one religion (for example), why is it not ok to hate on another? II don't think it's okay to hate on any religion. Shouldn't they all be treated with respect Yes. ?

 

But then again what about satire and parody? What was once considered obscene and foul language when used by comedians to shock and inflame others, is now used on TV and in films without a blink of the eye! That doesn't make it good or right. I haven't watched television in years; if I see two movies in a year, it's a lot for me. One reason being that I find it all disrespectful and puerile. 

 

So where does free speech end and hate speech begin? This thread is an example of it. When is it ok to post an accusation and then hide it behind supposed comedy? It's not okay. Lots of people do it because they're too chickenspit to stand on their own two feet and express their opinion like an adult.  This is free speech, isn't it? It's not political free speech - it's interpersonal speech. And speaking like a moron gets any number of people into any amount of trouble frequently. But is it justified? No. 

 

So apart from things like actual slander (lying) - is it ok for someone to say something in a (to them) funny way and expect the other person to 'have a sense of humor'? This is bound to happen, and it happens often, often in cross-generational, cross-gender, or cross-cultural conversations. But when I say something that I intend as a joke and I see that the listener has heard it as an insult (or a challenge, or whatever), I know how to apologize and clarify, change my direction, adapt my speech to meet the listener's expectations. Not everyone does that, because they don't know how or because they don't want to. 

 

What if St Peter made fun of Mary in front of Jesus, but in a way that he could later say was 'just joking' - and 'why don't you have a sense of humor about it?'. Would that be ok? No. And if St. Peter wanted to stay on good terms with Jesus, St. Peter would apologize and show more respect for Jesus' mother. Now that is a stupid example because Jesus knows who is joking or not, but if you get the principle behind it, I am asking where does one draw the line between humor / free speech and hate speech or just plain offensive speech? Of course the Charlie Hebdo thing made me aware of all this, but the Pope's recent comment about punching someone in the nose who offends us really made me question what I believe about it all. I doubt the pope would punch anyone in the nose. I assume he was trying to sound like "a regular fella." 

 

One of the problems (and only one) when Europeans & North Americans deal with Muslims is that we have different cultural expectations about what is permissible speech. And we don't seem willing to even listen to complaints - including loud complaints like the mass demonstrations following the Danish newspaper cartoons of Mohammed - when Muslims tell us we've gone to far. Which is not to be wondered at, because the media feel they have an inviolable right to say anything about anyone, so they don't listen to complaints from Catholics, Christians, conservatives, or cooks, either.  

 

If we can stay on track for a little while, I am seriously interested in what others think about this.

There you have some of what I think. 

 

I'm tired and I'm going to bed. 

 

G'night. 

[ST BERNARD]

There you have some of what I think. 

 

I'm tired and I'm going to bed. 

 

G'night. 

 

Thank you Luigi. I have more to think about now.

[PhuturePriest]

I'm not what you might call a "fan" of Pope Francis, but to his credit, he wasn't saying we should punch people or that it is justified to punch someone if they call your mother names. He was merely making the point that if you say something deeply offensive and personal to people, it is only logical to expect a heated and violent response back, which goes further to his general point that we should be respectful of each other and should not mock each other's religions, as it is not conducive to converting them and only furthers division.

[Basilisa Marie]

Be nice.  :getaclue:

 

I don't think Francis said "religion," I thought it was quoted as "faith." Like, when someone insults your faith, not just your religion. 

 

It might be silly, but I think those mean two different things. Religion is the whole set of ideas, beliefs, practices, institutions, stuff people acting on behalf of that belief system, etc. Faith is that theological virtue, that really personal commitment to really believe in something and really speaks to your relationship with God. When someone insults my faith, they insult me personally, the idea that I believe in Catholicism, the fundamental reason why I live my life the way I try to. It's usually malicious. When someone insults my religion, it's because they're ignorant or making a priest joke. 

 

It's probably just semantics. But I think there's a difference between insulting the idea of the Catholic Church and insulting someone for being Catholic. 

 

Regardless, it's rude and disrespectful to insult someone's faith. And people should expect those they insult to react as if they had been personally insulted. People would get insulted if, say, I said "Your girlfriend's a [colloquial for prostitute]" or "Your boyfriend is a [colloquial for mentally disabled]." People can't just expect people not to get mad when they are insulted. Even if it doesn't end up with someone punching someone else, maybe it means you're no longer friends. 

[Ash Wednesday]

My thoughts, which I also expressed on Open Mic --

 

I believe the pope was reminding people to show respect for religion and what others hold sacred. His wording, expression and rhetoric was very strong -- but I don't think he was advocating censorship. When he was discussing the violent retaliation with the insult of his mother, I didn't feel that he was trying to preach against Jesus teaching about turning the other cheek -- I felt that he was demonstrating the fact that provocation can bring on an angry response. 

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uchJh8Cyx7Y[/media]

 

I found it a lot more helpful to actually see with my own eyes the actual discussion taking place.

 

[ST BERNARD]

My thoughts, which I also expressed on Open Mic --

 

I believe the pope was reminding people to show respect for religion and what others hold sacred. His wording, expression and rhetoric was very strong -- but I don't think he was advocating censorship. When he was discussing the violent retaliation with the insult of his mother, I didn't feel that he was trying to preach against Jesus teaching about turning the other cheek -- I felt that he was demonstrating the fact that provocation can bring on an angry response. 

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uchJh8Cyx7Y[/media]

 

I found it a lot more helpful to actually see with my own eyes the actual discussion taking place.

 

 

Thanks Ash Wednesday. I actually watched this scene when it was aired on NBC Nightly News after it happened, and that is what made me wonder how I felt about it. I appreciate your post here and also read the one you made in Open Mic.

 

I have always liked and admired Pope Francis so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and just accept that what he said is what he said without trying to understand what he 'meant' by it. I still feel it was a bit insensitive coming so soon after the Hebdo massacre- because those people had families and loved ones who are still hurting and his statement could come across as 'they got what deserved' kind of thing. It's ironic that he is criticizing others for what they say when what he said seemed to be a little insulting to the families of those who died but then I am confident that this is NOT what he meant by his statement -  it just seems that he wasn't really aware of how his statement would come across to some people. But we are all human and we all say things without fully considering how others might take it. His intentions were good, I am sure.

[Ash Wednesday]

Thanks Ash Wednesday. I actually watched this scene when it was aired on NBC Nightly News after it happened, and that is what made me wonder how I felt about it. I appreciate your post here and also read the one you made in Open Mic.

 

I have always liked and admired Pope Francis so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and just accept that what he said is what he said without trying to understand what he 'meant' by it. I still feel it was a bit insensitive coming so soon after the Hebdo massacre- because those people had families and loved ones who are still hurting and his statement could come across as 'they got what deserved' kind of thing. It's ironic that he is criticizing others for what they say when what he said seemed to be a little insulting to the families of those who died but then I am confident that this is NOT what he meant by his statement -  it just seems that he wasn't really aware of how his statement would come across to some people. But we are all human and we all say things without fully considering how others might take it. His intentions were good, I am sure.

 

 

Indeed!

 

I think he used very strong wording, almost like a parent scolding a child saying "you can't do that!" That in light of the timing, I can understand why people were upset about it.

 

I guess that's why I didn't wade too much into the "debate" aspect of it as far as others finding the remarks unsettling. I can't really put a measuring stick on someone else's emotional response to Francis expressing a personal opinion and it is subject to respectful disagreement. Plus I can only debate so much with someone else about it, given that I'm not a mind reader of the pope, and the third party -- the pope -- isn't here with us to shed light and discuss it further. Sure would be interesting if he was, though. :)

[Lil Red]

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2015/01/16/pope-retracts-punch-in-the-face-remark-says-he-would-kick-them-in-nuts/ 

 

:P 

[Lil Red]

Okay on a serious note, here is this perspective: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/pursuedbytruth/2015/01/limiting-free-speech-five-reasons-pope-francis-is-right.html

[ST BERNARD]

Okay on a serious note, here is this perspective: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/pursuedbytruth/2015/01/limiting-free-speech-five-reasons-pope-francis-is-right.html

 

 

Thank you - that was an interesting article to read. For me the controversy wasn't about freedom of speech so much as about the physical response to a verbal attack. And that wasn't made clear in the article completely (to me at least) because it said:

 

...

 

5. Pope Francis is Promoting the Gospel Values: When Pope Francis refers to punching someone in defense of one’s mother, I do not think he is saying that violence is an acceptable way to work out one’s differences. This is made clear later in the interview when he responds to a question about the best way to respond to terrorist threats against his own life. His response?

 

     The best way to respond is always with meekness — meek, to be humble. Like bread, no? Without causing aggression.

 

To me, these two statements seem to be in conflict. So is it right to punch someone who insults your mother or faith, but if a terrorist threatens your life, you should turn your cheek? The article seems to have no problem reconciling these statements, but I do. It seems to be a contradiction.

 

Anyway, I think some people might be misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not trying to criticize the Pope, but to better understand him. I know that Jesus often said things that sounded contradictory too, and I accept that I can't understand everything - especially as I don't know the heart of the Pope and what he was really trying to say. I gather that for him it was about freedom of speech not giving people carte blanche to say whatever insulting thing they want to, and I agree with that in principle, but it was his statement about punching someone who makes an insult that seemed contrary to everything he has said or done so far.

 

But it is true - he is a spiritual leader and not a politician, so his words are more directed towards our spiritual well being than our political ideology.

 

I appreciate all the intelligent and thoughtful comments that everyone has made about this topic. Questioning is not a bad thing if it helps someone to come to an understanding. I don't think that blindly accepting everything that any leader says is a healthy thing - whether they are spiritual or political leaders - that way lies extremism. So when the Pope is speaking about his personal opinions and not dogma or doctrine of the Church, I am always trying to understand more clearly what he means and why he is saying it. It is a help to me because my faith is informed by reason.

 

Edited for awkward phrasing.

Edited January 17, 2015 by ST BERNARD

[dUSt]

 

To me, these two statements seem to be in conflict. So is it right to punch someone who insults your mother or faith, but if a terrorist threatens your life, you should turn your cheek? The article seems to have no problem reconciling these statements, but I do. It seems to be a contradiction.

 

Did the pope say it was right to punch someone? No. I'm pretty sure he was simply explaining human emotion to those that don't seem to understand that they can't act any way they want and never expect retaliation.

 

It's easier to reconcile the statements when you don't interpret them incorrectly to begin with.

[Winchester]

He didn't say it was okay. So I'm going to edit your poll question.

[ST BERNARD]

He didn't say it was okay. So I'm going to edit your poll question.

 

 

You are correct, he said, '...expect a punch on the nose' - obviously not the same thing at all - how silly of me.

 

Your poll wording is also incorrect but since this thread has served its purpose (for me at any rate) - do whatever you want with it! :)

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Did the pope say it was right to punch someone? No. I'm pretty sure he was simply explaining human emotion to those that don't seem to understand that they can't act any way they want and never expect retaliation.

 

It's easier to reconcile the statements when you don't interpret them incorrectly to begin with.

 

I agree with this.  From the video Ash provided it looks like the Pope was demonstrating why we should be careful when we say something about another persons faith, since what we say could provoke them to act violently. Especially if what we're saying is done to be rude and hurtful.   We are all susceptible to human weakness and I'm sure all of us have been guilty of acting in an un-Christian manner when someone or something we love has been attacked. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Winchester]

 

 

Your poll wording is also incorrect but since this thread has served its purpose (for me at any rate) - do whatever you want with it! :)