Posted on 01/16/2015 6:37:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If free expression is a fundamental right, why does it not apply to mocking a faith?
We heathens can leave the theological debate to others.
But Pope Francis, the bishop of Rome and world leader of the Roman Catholic Church, has some ideas about laws governing the secular world. We expect Francis to defend the dignity of faith, to bring clarity to the Catholic position. Yet instead, the pope, while en route to the Philippines, offered a number of comments about freedom of expression, which ranged from the unclear to the contradictory.
More than simply saying that poking fun at religion is ugly, he argued that there should be limits on freedom of expression and limits on mocking faith. (All this with the caveat that the pope’s words were not misrepresented or taken out of context as they so often are by the media.)
First, the pope claimed that “one cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion — that is, in the name of God. To kill in the name of God is an aberration.”
That is inaccurate. One absolutely can. I imagine most contemporary Catholics — and most others, for that matter — agree that murder in the name of God is a deviation from tenets of faith. Others, however, kill in the name of God every day. When gunmen make a concerted effort to yell “God is great!” before sweeping into a village to participate in a slaughter, they offer the world an incredibly precise explanation for their actions. I imagine many of them could provide you with a list of sacred justifications for why they do what they do. Not even the pope can liberate them from the purpose of their actions.
Then again, perhaps the pope, like many others, was alleging that those who “cite” Islam in their violence are engaged in something completely disconnected from religious belief (even though they are in no position to make that assertion). But then the rest of his comments make no sense.
“Every religion has its dignity” is Francis’ arguable contention. “One cannot provoke. One cannot insult other people’s faith. One cannot make fun of faith.” If those who kill are not members of a religion, surely Francis is offering us a non sequitur. If you can be provoked to kill, you are not a person of faith, right?
But then the vicar of Christ went on to explain that those who mock faith should expect to be punched in the face. “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” said Francis.
The pope is unimpressed by provocateurs. He wants them barred. Someone should ask him whether provocateurs should expect an asymmetrical response. For instance, if Gasparri uttered a curse word against the pope’s mother, should he expect to have his family blown up? That would be a more pertinent analogy.
But let’s take it further. Where are the limits? Why does “mockery” hold a special distinction in our debate? And what constitutes contemptuous language or behavior toward another faith? For instance, can we intentionally criticize another person’s faith without expecting to be punched? What if that faith is in direct conflict with the beliefs of our own set of beliefs — beliefs that deserve, according to the pope, the same respect as any other? Is it ever worth getting punched in the face?
What if one of these faiths is unable to live in free and open society because the principles of the faith conflict with those of others? What if one religion feels mocked by the things that other religions put up with in society — such as wearing skirts above the knees or eating pork sausages or failing to accept that Mohammed is God’s prophet? What if those of a certain faith feel this is ridicule toward them? What if they believe it worthy of retaliation? Should the rest of us avoid these things so as not to upset anyone?
Obviously, I comprehend there’s a distinction to be made between secular debates and the way people of faith conduct themselves. I get that there are religious reasons for not mocking others — and I also imagine people of faith avoid this because they do not want to be mocked themselves.
The pope himself defended free speech as a fundamental human right and claimed that Catholics have a duty to speak their minds for the sake of the common good. But then he also asserted that this fundamental right should not extend to faith. Any faith. Any government.
I’m not sure whether Charlie Hebdo has added to the common good (I had only heard of the magazine in passing before the terrorists struck), but the right of people to be critical of religion — even their own, if they feel it or its leadership has wandered from the principles that make it worthwhile — is a defense of the common good. The pope’s contradictions do not make clear that he believes the same.
— David Harsanyi is a senior editor at the Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.
Agreed.
Sadly the Pope is showing his Marxist roots. He obviously has no understanding of the concept of God given liberties including the freedom of speech or of the dehumanizing effect of socialism where the individual is subservient to the state. The concept of individuals being endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is the basis of our Constitution is a product of the Protestant Enlightenment.
Important point here.
While CH was trashing Christians, the Leftists and their media running dogs were fine with it - after all, Christians are easy targets; any complanit was dealt with by the smear machine.
But when Allah Snackbar attacks and kills them, THEN AND ONLY THEN is there solidarity from the Left.
Sorry American Catholics. He's not on your side.
Being utterly Christian doesn’t border on Islamic.
The two concepts of deity are grossly different.
Sometimes it takes the Evil Meanies to remind the secular world who their worst enemies are — and that this is not Christians.
Truly, I don’t think they think this. By the time they figure it out, it may be too late.
What Did the Saints Say about Islam?
Spirit Daily ^ | August 12, 2014 | By Andrew Bieszad on
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3247130/posts
“On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, the point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Theologian and Doctor of the Church. Quoted from his De Rationibus Fidei Contra Saracenos, Graecos, et Armenos and translated from Fr. Damian Fehlner’s Aquinas on Reasons for the Faith: Against the Muslims, Greeks, and Armenians (Franciscans of the Immaculate. 2002.).
Even if all the things contained in his law were fables in philosophy and errors in theology, even for those who do not possess the light of reason, the very manners (Islam) teaches are from a school of vicious bestialities. (Muhammad) did not prove his new sect with any motive, having neither supernatural miracles nor natural reasons, but solely the force of arms, violence, fictions, lies, and carnal license. It remains an impious, blasphemous, vicious cult, an innovention of the devil, and the direct way into the fires of hell. It does not even merit the name of being called a religion.”
-St. Juan de Ribera (d.1611), Archbishop of Valencia, missionary to Spanish Muslims, and organizer of the Muslim expulsions of 1609 from Spain. Quoted in several locations from his 1599 Catechismo para la Instruccion de los Nuevos Convertidos de los Moros (my translation).
“The Mahometan paradise, however, is only fit for beasts; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the believer has to expect there.”
St. Alfonsus Liguori (d. 1787). Quoted from his book, The History of Heresies and their Refutation.
What I meant was the idea that what happened in this world was really irrelevant.
There is a superficial commonality in holding eternity to be the most important thing. But it makes a vast difference what kind of God you acknowledge eternity to be in the hands of.
And anyhow, not even Muslims preach such a thing. Why would they bother doing anything in this world at all if it did not matter.
They don’t care what kind of wasteland they create around them as long as Allah is pleased. They don’t care about dying themselves or killing other people as they will enjoy 99 virgins in heaven. In that sense they don’t. It’s like medieval theology on steroids.
Well, sometimes the medievals got a bad rap as being even worse than they were.
A proper focus on eternity will cause it to be mirrored, however imperfectly, on earth.
Allah is not Jehovah. Get that perfectly straight. One is evil, one is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.