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.
“Cannot” means “shouldn’t” in this context, not literal impossibility; I am surprised Harsanyi did not catch on to that, even while disagreeing.
Even the bible warns, however, that things can and sometimes will come to such a pass, indeed that “those who kill you [Christian believers] will think they are doing a service for God.”
It might come across better if this Pope had a better proposal for what to do than morally tut-tutting and launching a silly attempt to establish an ecumenical vision with a religion that can’t (as in impossibility) even acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord. A skilled Pope would be able to point out the advantages offered to all by Jesus Christ, and would not be ashamed to do it. But it has to be more than just “Jesus happens, and just be moral somehow .”
I no longer pay any attention to this man or anything he says. He is irrational. I had a lot of respect for Popes John Paul and Benedict. But this man is as much bad news for the world as John XXIII was bad news for the Catholic Churchin in general.
They don’t say “ God is great” before slaughtering a village, they say say “allah akbar” which addresses satan.
Church leaders should focus on saving souls, not “saving the planet” from fake crisis.
He’s an Argentine Socialist.
Nothing new here...
RE: John XXIII was bad news for the Catholic Churchin in general.
Can you elaborate as to why?
Church vision has never been the same since the church accepted the plea of a newly believing Caesar to help him govern a difficult territory.
This was the stellar opportunity for the church to say the kingdom of God is not the kingdom of earth nor can it be until the Savior returns. They will be tickled to evangelize wherever it is allowed, but will not try to take a land under their wing en masse.
But the church didn’t; it got “practical” i.e. worldly.
This attitude colors the Vatican attitude today. It feels it has to pontificate to the world on how to be a better world. God is not interested in a better world that has no particular evangelical interest. This better world is going to die and be replaced.
I think the Catholic Church GAINED adherents under John Paul and Benedict because they represented and reinforced traditional Christian beliefs: anti-abortionism, sanctity of marriage, rejection of homosexuality, etc, etc. All things which were abandoned by “traditional” Protestantism at that time.
I think the current Pope is a Marxist menace - a dilusional product of “liberation theology”, who will, in the long run, irreparably damage the Catholic Church and Christianity as whole which has always looked to the Catholic Church to help formulate a consensus on group morality.
I agree in part but going too far in that direction borders on Islamic.
Yup. You can take the Priest out of Argentina, but you can’t take the Argentine out of the Priest.
I miss John Paul.
He knew a socialist when he saw one.
Perhaps the Pope’s reservations about Charlie Hedbo stem from the fact that the magazine often skewered Catholicism.
In fact, on one cover, the magazine pictured the figures of the Holy Trinity engaging in anal sex.
Did you see any reports of outraged Catholics trying to murder the staff of Charlie Hedbo?
There is a difference between what is legally permissible, and what should in not be done, in terms of common decency. To ignore that will only result in ever increasing requests for the State to regulate speech, which coincidentally, is exactly what has happened in Western secular democracies over the last several decades.
Self-regulation is the key here, not government intrusion.
You are free to write all kinds of trash. Doesn't mean it's a good idea though. And just because you are free to do so does not mean that I have to buy or read your magazine, or celebrate it.
I agree. But not just Obummer. Socialist, leftists, communists, environazis, islamists... they all must love this pope.
He is also a Muslim "Usefull Idiot". -Tom
The pope is a vain old fool who wants to be loved by the world.
What also disturbed me was that he thought it was cute to suggest punching somebody in response to an insult his mother (and then, of course, he used this to justify the Muslims slaughtering 12 people). I guess he missed the part in the gospels about returning good for evil, turning the other cheek, praying for those that persecute you, etc., etc. And that would certainly mean tolerating or ignoring real or imagined verbal insults.
To have a Christian leader making such statements was appalling.
Roger that. If Obama were Pope, that’s what he’d say and do.
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.