What's new

Pope Francis On Charlie Hebdo: 'You Cannot Insult The Faith Of Others'

Saifullah Sani

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
3,339
Reaction score
2
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Pope Francis said Thursday there are limits to freedom of expression, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith.

Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good.

But he said there were limits.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.

"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

Many people around the world have defended the right of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed in the wake of the massacre by Islamic extremists at its Paris offices and subsequent attack on a kosher supermarket in which three gunmen killed 17 people.

But recently the Vatican and four prominent French imams issued a joint declaration that denounced the attacks but also urged the media to treat religions with respect.

Francis, who has urged Muslim leaders in particular to speak out against Islamic extremism, went a step further when asked by a French journalist about whether there were limits when freedom of expression meets freedom of religion.

Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence.

But he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs.

"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," he said. "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."

In the wake of the Paris attacks, the Vatican has sought to downplay reports that it is a potential target for Islamic extremists, saying it is being vigilant but has received no specific threat.

Francis said he was concerned primarily for the faithful, and said he had spoken to Vatican security officials who are taking "prudent and secure measures."

"I am worried, but you know I have a defect: a good dose of carelessness. I'm careless about these things," he said. But he admitted that in his prayers, he had asked that if something were to happen to him that "it doesn't hurt, because I'm not very courageous when it comes to pain. I'm very timid."

He added, "I'm in God's hands."

Pope Francis On Charlie Hebdo: 'You Cannot Insult The Faith Of Others'
 
. .
There must be a Limit to any Freedom
Yes, but the differences are how that limit came to be and the extent of it.

Take an ordinary interaction between you and I, for example. If we meet for the first time, simple decency would compel us to be polite and respectful to each other. However, that does not mean respect equals to fear. It does not matter about politics, dress, language, whatever. We must not fear each other. Fear will compel us to create limits, yes. If you are larger than me, then yes, you can induce enough fear in me that will be silent in everything. But if you treat me with respect and common decency, then even though I am smaller than you, I will not fear you.

But when there is a threat of violence that if I do not act A, write B, and say C, then fear is the foundation of my relationship with you, and intimidation is the foundation of your relationship with me. There is no respect and simple decency here. The intimidation can be overt or covert. It can even be politely presented. My response, whether I am larger than you or not is irrelevant, will be predictably -- unpredictable. I can change the foundation of my relationship with you into something you are unaware of.

This is what the Pope was talking about.
 
.
No wonder, He had his axe to grind with Charlie too
 
.
Yes, but the differences are how that limit came to be and the extent of it.

Take an ordinary interaction between you and I, for example. If we meet for the first time, simple decency would compel us to be polite and respectful to each other. However, that does not mean respect equals to fear. It does not matter about politics, dress, language, whatever. We must not fear each other. Fear will compel us to create limits, yes. If you are larger than me, then yes, you can induce enough fear in me that will be silent in everything. But if you treat me with respect and common decency, then even though I am smaller than you, I will not fear you.

But when there is a threat of violence that if I do not act A, write B, and say C, then fear is the foundation of my relationship with you, and intimidation is the foundation of your relationship with me. There is no respect and simple decency here. The intimidation can be overt or covert. It can even be politely presented. My response, whether I am larger than you or not is irrelevant, will be predictably -- unpredictable. I can change the foundation of my relationship with you into something you are unaware of.

This is what the Pope was talking about.

i hope when pope issue his statement , he didn't work on the intellectual side of it ....
anyway i still stand with my statement , that every Freedom must have limits .. and this part " But when there is a threat of violence that if I do not act A, write B, and say C, then fear is the foundation of my relationship with you, and intimidation is the foundation of your relationship with me. There is no respect and simple decency here. " can also be fitted on laws on Holocaust ..
 
. .
At least he is better suited than that Francois Hollande who only page his fat face on the front line, knowing nothing to address the underlying of the incident.

Let me speak out, Damt't it, Charlie the Offender.
 
.
i hope when pope issue his statement , he didn't work on the intellectual side of it ....
anyway i still stand with my statement , that every Freedom must have limits .. and this part " But when there is a threat of violence that if I do not act A, write B, and say C, then fear is the foundation of my relationship with you, and intimidation is the foundation of your relationship with me. There is no respect and simple decency here. " can also be fitted on laws on Holocaust ..
Enough with the Holocaust denial laws. You guys have a false understanding of them. But here is a reprint of my opinion of the Muslims and their useless kvetching against the Holocaust denial laws...

===
It is always entertaining to watch the Muslims kvetch against the Holocaust denial laws.

If hypocrisy is truly the focus, then one should look no further than the US regarding hypocritical laws -- the American Indians. But when was the last time any American on this forum see any criticisms regarding how unfair is the US government treats favorably the American Indians over other US citizens ? Never. In US states where gambling is illegal, the American Indian tribes in those states are immune from legal prosecution. On reservation land, the American Indians are largely left to their own business. Anyone want to do any business with the American Indians, they will have to be vetted by the US federal government. In short, there are US laws that specifically targets -- in favor -- of a very specific demographic.

The various Holocaust denial laws in Europe are not even 1/10th of what we have in the US in favoring the American Indians. In Germany, Holocaust denial laws are accompanied by laws banning Nazi symbols, including the Nazi salute so loved by the Muslims. In Australia, there are similar laws to the US in favoring the Autralian Aboriginals. Do the Australian Muslims on this forum moan about that ? No.

List of laws concerning Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the Germans, the Holocaust denial and criminalization of Nazi symbols laws are public sentiments of how they feel about that dark period of what they believe to be a glorious history of a great people. For France and the French, their Holocaust denial laws are equally public sentiments of their moral disgust for the many French who collaborated with the Nazis to produce the horror that is the Holocaust. For Germany and France, Holocaust denial is a national embarrassment that must be confronted and do so with the full measure of morality and law. The Torah is not protected by German or French laws. Rather, Holocaust denial laws are intended to be prophylactic against the still existing Nazism ideology and its supporters, not to place Jews any degree over other citizens. Their Holocaust denial laws are far less about Jews than it is about the makers of those laws and the national shame they felt about their peoples having a hand in the atrocity that involved Jews, non-whites, homosexuals, and assorted 'inferior' humans.

Just as modern Americans feels somewhat 'responsible' for their ancestors' cruelty towards the natives who were in the country before their ancestors, or modern Australians feels similarly for their ancestors's cruelty towards the Australian Aboriginals, the Germans and the French have similar feelings of being 'responsible' for the Holocaust. The Federal Republic of Germany, aka 'West Germany', officially disapproved the first verse -- Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles -- from the national anthem, out of the fear of even an appearance of association with Nazi Germany.

The 1954 World Cup: Triumph of a New Germany | History Today
...a boozy section of the German fans began singing the banned first verse of the national anthem – ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles’ rather than the Federal Republic’s officially sanctioned third verse – ‘Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit’ (unity, justice and freedom). Foreign journalists present immediately took note.
- Muslims on this forum demands Americans feels 'responsible' for Viet Nam, Korea, or Iraq, but insists Germans and French be neutral about their participation in producing the Holocaust.

- Muslims on this forum believes in the proven lie that is 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', but insists the evidence heavy Holocaust is a fraud.

- Muslims on this forum expects white Americans of today to feel a collective guilt for three generations old what their white ancestors did to blacks, but want modern Germans to shelve what their ancestors did to Jews just barely one generation ago.

In the abstract, the freedom of speech is absolute and should be unrestrained, but in reality, expression of support for Nazism when that odious ideology is still around is the equivalent of yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and all supports laws restraining the freedom of speech in those extremely unique circumstances. The Germans and their fellow Europeans who have Holocaust denial laws are not gathering in mass protests over those laws about hypocrisy. Just like the Americans and American Indians, all of us who have these seemingly hypocritical laws know that despite the appearance of such a contradiction, those laws serves a greater good and equally important directly harm no one. Preventing the expression of support for and promotion of Nazism does not deny anyone government benefits, opportunities in the capitalist enterprises, travel, or elevate any group, minority or else, over others. A German Jew cannot demand the German government deny welfare benefits to a neo-Nazi.

Comparisons are inevitable and it is a joke upon the Muslims that they would complain about Holocaust denial laws, a relatively minor inconvenience upon all citizens under those laws' jurisdictions, when the Muslims' own countries have much greater restraints on the freedom of speech upon targeted minorities. Ethicists and moralists may not always agree to issues regarding human behaviors, but often they do agree on the odds of behaviors occurring under favorable environments. If the US and the Americans have as much direct contributions to the rise of Nazism as Germany and the Germans did, or contributions to the same the way France and other European countries did, those would be favorable conditions for the US and Americans to support their own versions of Holocaust denial laws. But do take note that there is a US Supreme Court decision to uphold a law restraining the freedom of speech of US white supremacists.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds VA Cross-Burning Ban But Sends Law Back to State Court for Refinement | American Civil Liberties Union
RICHMOND, VA - The United States Supreme Court today ruled that KKK member Barry Black could not be convicted of a crime under Virginia's cross-burning statute because of the law's unconstitutional presumption that all cross-burning is intended to intimidate. However, the court upheld the other main provision of the law, which allows the banning of cross-burning when it can be shown that its purpose it to intimidate others.
For the US, burning a cross under certain circumstances is illegal. Why is this significant ? Because at one point in US history, the country and her citizens had direct contributions to a cruel national policy towards blacks. Today, persecuting white supremacy expressions under narrow conditions does not elevate blacks and other minorities over whites.

But let us grant some latitude to the argument that suppression of one group elevate other groups in relative perspective -- looking up from below. Fine. Then let us examine the reasons that became justifications for such a suppression. Do I want to suppress the argument in favor of robbery, rape, and murder ? Yes, I do. Convicted criminals believes nothing wrong with robbery, rape, and murder. Nothing wrong in the sense that such heinous acts are acceptable to them, even when they know the rest of the population do not share the same sentiments. Does that elevate me above them ? Yes, it does and I have no problems with being so 'superior' a person. Just like the Muslims in their countries have no problems believing they are 'superior' to the Christians and Jews based upon their own reasons and justifications, of them we know plenty about. The difference here is that being a Christian or Jew does not rob anyone of anything for being a Buddhist or an atheist.

This is not about hypocrisy, as alleged by the Muslims, but about petty jealousy towards a false perception of favoritism. How about a giant pacifier ?
 
.
Enough with the Holocaust denial laws. You guys have a false understanding of them. But here is a reprint of my opinion of the Muslims and their useless kvetching against the Holocaust denial laws...

===
It is always entertaining to watch the Muslims kvetch against the Holocaust denial laws.

If hypocrisy is truly the focus, then one should look no further than the US regarding hypocritical laws -- the American Indians. But when was the last time any American on this forum see any criticisms regarding how unfair is the US government treats favorably the American Indians over other US citizens ? Never. In US states where gambling is illegal, the American Indian tribes in those states are immune from legal prosecution. On reservation land, the American Indians are largely left to their own business. Anyone want to do any business with the American Indians, they will have to be vetted by the US federal government. In short, there are US laws that specifically targets -- in favor -- of a very specific demographic.

The various Holocaust denial laws in Europe are not even 1/10th of what we have in the US in favoring the American Indians. In Germany, Holocaust denial laws are accompanied by laws banning Nazi symbols, including the Nazi salute so loved by the Muslims. In Australia, there are similar laws to the US in favoring the Autralian Aboriginals. Do the Australian Muslims on this forum moan about that ? No.

List of laws concerning Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the Germans, the Holocaust denial and criminalization of Nazi symbols laws are public sentiments of how they feel about that dark period of what they believe to be a glorious history of a great people. For France and the French, their Holocaust denial laws are equally public sentiments of their moral disgust for the many French who collaborated with the Nazis to produce the horror that is the Holocaust. For Germany and France, Holocaust denial is a national embarrassment that must be confronted and do so with the full measure of morality and law. The Torah is not protected by German or French laws. Rather, Holocaust denial laws are intended to be prophylactic against the still existing Nazism ideology and its supporters, not to place Jews any degree over other citizens. Their Holocaust denial laws are far less about Jews than it is about the makers of those laws and the national shame they felt about their peoples having a hand in the atrocity that involved Jews, non-whites, homosexuals, and assorted 'inferior' humans.

Just as modern Americans feels somewhat 'responsible' for their ancestors' cruelty towards the natives who were in the country before their ancestors, or modern Australians feels similarly for their ancestors's cruelty towards the Australian Aboriginals, the Germans and the French have similar feelings of being 'responsible' for the Holocaust. The Federal Republic of Germany, aka 'West Germany', officially disapproved the first verse -- Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles -- from the national anthem, out of the fear of even an appearance of association with Nazi Germany.

The 1954 World Cup: Triumph of a New Germany | History Today

- Muslims on this forum demands Americans feels 'responsible' for Viet Nam, Korea, or Iraq, but insists Germans and French be neutral about their participation in producing the Holocaust.

- Muslims on this forum believes in the proven lie that is 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', but insists the evidence heavy Holocaust is a fraud.

- Muslims on this forum expects white Americans of today to feel a collective guilt for three generations old what their white ancestors did to blacks, but want modern Germans to shelve what their ancestors did to Jews just barely one generation ago.

In the abstract, the freedom of speech is absolute and should be unrestrained, but in reality, expression of support for Nazism when that odious ideology is still around is the equivalent of yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and all supports laws restraining the freedom of speech in those extremely unique circumstances. The Germans and their fellow Europeans who have Holocaust denial laws are not gathering in mass protests over those laws about hypocrisy. Just like the Americans and American Indians, all of us who have these seemingly hypocritical laws know that despite the appearance of such a contradiction, those laws serves a greater good and equally important directly harm no one. Preventing the expression of support for and promotion of Nazism does not deny anyone government benefits, opportunities in the capitalist enterprises, travel, or elevate any group, minority or else, over others. A German Jew cannot demand the German government deny welfare benefits to a neo-Nazi.

Comparisons are inevitable and it is a joke upon the Muslims that they would complain about Holocaust denial laws, a relatively minor inconvenience upon all citizens under those laws' jurisdictions, when the Muslims' own countries have much greater restraints on the freedom of speech upon targeted minorities. Ethicists and moralists may not always agree to issues regarding human behaviors, but often they do agree on the odds of behaviors occurring under favorable environments. If the US and the Americans have as much direct contributions to the rise of Nazism as Germany and the Germans did, or contributions to the same the way France and other European countries did, those would be favorable conditions for the US and Americans to support their own versions of Holocaust denial laws. But do take note that there is a US Supreme Court decision to uphold a law restraining the freedom of speech of US white supremacists.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds VA Cross-Burning Ban But Sends Law Back to State Court for Refinement | American Civil Liberties Union

For the US, burning a cross under certain circumstances is illegal. Why is this significant ? Because at one point in US history, the country and her citizens had direct contributions to a cruel national policy towards blacks. Today, persecuting white supremacy expressions under narrow conditions does not elevate blacks and other minorities over whites.

But let us grant some latitude to the argument that suppression of one group elevate other groups in relative perspective -- looking up from below. Fine. Then let us examine the reasons that became justifications for such a suppression. Do I want to suppress the argument in favor of robbery, rape, and murder ? Yes, I do. Convicted criminals believes nothing wrong with robbery, rape, and murder. Nothing wrong in the sense that such heinous acts are acceptable to them, even when they know the rest of the population do not share the same sentiments. Does that elevate me above them ? Yes, it does and I have no problems with being so 'superior' a person. Just like the Muslims in their countries have no problems believing they are 'superior' to the Christians and Jews based upon their own reasons and justifications, of them we know plenty about. The difference here is that being a Christian or Jew does not rob anyone of anything for being a Buddhist or an atheist.

This is not about hypocrisy, as alleged by the Muslims, but about petty jealousy towards a false perception of favoritism. How about a giant pacifier ?

As much as you deny sir , this show nothing but some sort of frustration from you ... and i would still want you to go to Germany or France and deny that... and than we will see your freedom of Speech ...Its just matter of Prospectus how you see things ... i see it differently from you ..
 
.
Pope Francis On Charlie Hebdo: 'You Cannot Insult The Faith Of Others'

Does the pope understand how exactly his missionaries convert? Do they respect the faith that they are converting people from?
 
. .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom