Pope Francis on Paris Attack - "one who throws insults can expect a 'punch'"

[The Mikado]

I'll take Pope Francis' take on this issue over Bill Maher's any day. I'm not sure how an abstract, nebulous notion like "freedom of speech" is supposed to negate the far more visceral "I'm going to kill you for what you said about me" reaction. Obviously, the perpetrators of such an offense must be punished, but insulting people for a living is a very, very dangerous career. I'm not particularly sympathetic to the circus performer who sticks his mouth into a lion's maw and has it bitten off.

[The Mikado]

Victim blaming nonsense. Would those defending the Pope's remarks have said the same about the Sony hacks? They had it coming, no? I'm not sure even John Paul II would have been so callous. Perhaps Francis is overcompensating for being seen as a progressive Pope.

I don't know about you, but I saw the Sony story as one of the most heartening things of 2014. One of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world recklessly published tasteless material and ended up losing a fortune and suffering from public humiliation and ridicule as their unsavory internal workings were revealed, and the worst elements of Hollywood were exposed to daylight. I have no idea who hacked Sony but that group is clearly the protagonist of the story for proving to be the private sector's version of Snowden.

[The Mikado]

afleitch: Yes, I think the subjective nature of what constitutes ‘mockery’ is indeed the problem with, or at least the difficulty of, holding this position—I think at a minimum I’d say that to constitute mockery something has to be in some way targeted towards addressing whatever the issue is on whose basis it’s claimed to be mocking. The ham sandwich and gay marriage examples are clearly not intended to comment in any way on what they’re purportedly mocking.

I'm aware that this isn't necessarily a sufficient distinction to make and that the question remains subjective and liable to case-by-case judgment calls, in any event. Which, again—the difficulty of holding this position.

I think my problem is that you're suggesting (and the Pope obviously) we have this 'distinction' in terms of religious belief systems which I profoundly disagree with (because they are no more than systems of thought/morality/philosophy) That aside, even if I did agree with the need to be 'careful' I can't honestly trust nor expect religious bodies or religious people to properly determine what is 'mockery'. There is no rational/reasonable basis for them to do so, because religious belief does not operate according to those lines. I find it as impossible to 'offend god' as it is to offend pixies (and I make no apologies for a 'cheap' comparison.). It's just not possible for a non-believer to offend some being that cannot express how offended it actually is. People are a different matter of course, but nor can they express their offence on behalf of god for the same reason. And that is essentially what blasphemy is.

I don't see why the question of if God exists or not is relevant to blasphemy, blasphemy is and always has been about the sensibilities of believers, not their deities. If there were a widespread fairy-believing movement, you could blaspheme against them as well, no need for fairies to exist.

In any practical sense, at least, God is as real as "freedom of speech" or any other nebulous non-physical concept...it exists at least as much as you believe in it.