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

[angus]

"one who throws insults can expect a 'punch'"

haha. 

I'm glad someone finally said it.  Or at least someone important. 

[angus]

Seriously, after reading the Pope's actual response, he has said nothing wrong or untruthful. I continue to gain respect for the Pope more and more with each passing day.

Indeed.  Very few world leaders are saying anything intelligent about this, and it's refreshing to read that at least one person is.  Mostly people are talking about press freedom and free speech.  I'm a big fan of free speech.  I've fought over it and fretted over it.  I cannot count all the times my big mouth has gotten me in trouble.  I've been suspended from school, fired from jobs, and thrown in jail.  My own youth was terribly misspent and I'm still a loudmouth.  Certainly I think you have the right to insult my mother.  But you also have the right to expect me to punch you hard in the face when you do with the intention of breaking all your teeth.  I've had to deal with this sort of thing almost daily with the boy.  He has a very weak social filter, perhaps because he has no siblings, perhaps because he has me as a father, or perhaps it is because of his own personality.  I cringed so many times when I'd hear things like, "Daddy, look at the size of that man's head.  It's huge!"  Once, in Kindergarten, the teacher emailed me with what she considered a very funny episode.  A little girl got up to read her poem and my son blurted out, "Oh, that's now how she read it in my dreams."  Over the years we have worked out a system, and finally, he is starting to figure out a few social skills.  I've always been clear on my respect for free speech and about how I wouldn't want to abridge it, and about how he should always feel free to speak openly to Mama and Daddy, but there are certain things that society will frown upon, and certain things you should avoid saying or doing in school.  You'll live longer if you figure this stuff out quickly.
 
We could blame French society for helping radicalize muslims, or the editors of this magazine for cleverly propagating bigotry even while purporting to oppose it, but that would be exceedingly hypocritical because our own society just as guilty.  We have double and triple standards regarding whom one can offend, we profile them at airports, we snicker, or worse, we avoid.  We engage in faux outrage when we learn that "they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero" even though having an Islamic cultural center a few blocks from the site of the former towers might promote interfaith dialogue and cultural understanding.  It has taken our president six years to figure out how to get the congress to close Guantanamo (by making the per-inmate cost so high that they'll finally cave).  Better late than never, but it's a slow process and we still give the radicals plenty of recruitment tools. 

Obviously the pope is not condoning violence.  His diatribe was very clear on this point.  Moreover, he is not condoning political correctness, thankfully.  He is, however, suggesting sensitivity.  Alas, I predict that his wisdom is not likely to have any effect.  By the time I was in my mid-20s, I started to figure out that if you constantly provoke people you will experience retribution from time to time, and much of it may be disproportionate, likely the explosion of pent-up frustration.  Many of those with the poison pens are in their 40s, 50s, or older, and if they have made it this far in life without learning basic societal etiquette, then it is unlikely that a pronouncement by the pope will have any effect.  Still, it's nice when someone speaks the truth.  The usual statements are of the apologist variety, and of the abject defense of stupidity in the name of Free Speech. 

[angus]

I too chose to not read the linked story, but am commenting on it anyway.

It's more fun that way, isn't it?  Maintains the mystery. 

Actually, in this case it's interesting to click on the link because then you get to hear him in Italian.  Better still, mine was preceded by a 15-second spot encouraging me to enjoy a Big Mac for only @2.49.  What's most interesting is how different outlets spin this in their headline, like they do all stories, knowing that most folks only read headlines.  The linked article (NBC News) points out in bold caps "Pope Francis Says A Punch Awaits An Insult."  CBS leads with "Pope Francis: There is a limit to free speech" and starts by saying that the pope discourages violence in the name of religion.  LA Times blandly points out in their headline that "Pope Francis stirs controversy in debate."  The Guardian (UK) headline somewhat humorously reads:  "On Charlie Hebdo Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence." 

None of them are claiming that the pope is suggesting legislation to limit speech.  They all seem to basically understand that he is saying that just because you're allowed to be a jerk it doesn't mean that you should be one, and that if somebody pops a cap in your sorry ass I'll feel sorry for you and pray for your soul, but don't say that I didn't advise you against being a jerk.  Of course, you actually have to read the stories to get those details.  Just reading the headlines is more fun. 

Oh, damn.  Politicus said something to me.  I guess I'll have to read that and post later. 

[angus]

Seriously, after reading the Pope's actual response, he has said nothing wrong or untruthful. I continue to gain respect for the Pope more and more with each passing day.

Indeed.  Very few world leaders are saying anything intelligent about this, and it's refreshing to read that at least one person is.  Mostly people are talking about press freedom and free speech.  I'm a big fan of free speech.  I've fought over it and fretted over it.  I cannot count all the times my big mouth has gotten me in trouble.  I've been suspended from school, fired from jobs, and thrown in jail.  My own youth was terribly misspent and I'm still a loudmouth.  Certainly I think you have the right to insult my mother.  But you also have the right to expect me to punch you hard in the face when you do with the intention of breaking all your teeth.

Comparing political and social satire to primitive insults and "fighing words" is plain wrong. One is an instinctive response in the heath of the moment, the other is a planned attack. In a civilized society violent responses to satire are unacceptable - there is no free speech without the right to insult.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Social etiquette does not - and should not - apply to satire. It is a free room where the normal conventions of polite society does not apply. Otherwise the satire becomes toothless and bland. Satirists fulfill a very important function in a democracy and should be respected and protected.

Also, a lot of us admired and respected the death from Charlie Hebdo. I would never talk so disrespectful of an American artist or cultural icon if he or she had died under similar circumstances.

I'm not sure that's what the pope is doing.  I know that I'm not.  I know what political satire is.  There was a paper in the 90s in the US called The Onion and it was a free weekly alternative newspaper, usually in little stands in coffeeshops and university campus buildings.  I haven't seen any around lately, but then I haven't been looking for them.  I know that it still maintains a web presence.  That was satire.  It was cute and quirky.  Much of it was lame, but from time to time there was something funny. 

This paper, Charlie Hebdo, on the other had was hate speech.  It was openly anti-religious and agenda-driven.  The pope seems to understand this.  He also clearly agrees with your assessment that violent is not a justifiable response.

Personally I do not admire what they do.  You are free to admire it, of course, but I cannot in all good conscience admire propagators of bigotry.  What's more, I cannot find myself in any disagreement with all those muslim students who refuse to have a "we are all Charlie" moment and to expect them to is unreasonable and much too authoritarian.  Don't read too much in between the lines:  just because someone does not admire the toxic hatemongering which hides behind freedom of the press does not mean that they are condoning murder.  I cannot imagine that you really believe that the pope is trying to justify murder.  Some of these posters might be, but I suspect that you are too intelligent to really believe that.  You also ought to understand that we do not all share your admiration for those who impugn in hateful ways just because they have the right to do so.

[angus]

Ah, the embedding tactic.  Okay, I'll give it a go, then I'm going to stop arguing with you because much of what you have said seems absurd.  

1) You made a clear parallel between your sons lack of social filter and the satirists work.

2) Proper political satire is not "cute and quirky". It has bite.

1.  Yes, in an attempt to be generous, I did.  Perhaps I should not forgive adults as easily as children.  Certainly these "grown-ups" really don't have any excuse for what they're doing.  

2.  I disagree with the first sentence, although I'll agree that biting makes it more enjoyable. 
Still, satire is not properly defined as "being offensive just to be offensive" which at this point is what the Charlie people are doing.  As for whether any of their work was actually entertaining, I cannot reasonably say that it is.  Of course I recognize that it may be funny to Frenchmen.  I do read enough French to read most of the short cartoon sentences, but I also respect that there are some subtle cultural differences that I might not catch.  In this regard, I may be in the role that Chinese poster who is always asking "what does the red mean?" when he posts English paragraphs that he can more-or-less read, but cannot quite get the gist of it, or "can somebody please tell me why this joke is funny?"  Well, if you have to ask...  Anyway, I'm not asking.  I do get some foreign jokes well enough, just not these ones.  They are not amusing to me.  They are, however, deeply offensive.  They go far beyond what I'd consider satire.

1) It is not hate speech to mock religion (and I say that as a religious person myself).

2) Charlie Hebdo did not generally mock religion. They mocked the abuse of religious authority and the reactionary views and norms of many religious people. There is a clear difference.

3) There is nothing wrong with having an agenda if that agenda is fighting for freedom and against abuse of power.

1.  As astonishing as I find your pronouncement to be (and I say that as an irreligious, agnostic person myself), I find it morally reprehensible to mock religion in the way that they were doing it.  Every fiber of my being tells me that such mockery is crude and wrong.  I will not argue with you because at this point it's all normative.  We will simply have to agree to disagree.  

2.  Heuristic and misleading.  First, mocking the way religion is implemented is mocking religion.  Second, they weren't just mocking implementation, and they are quite open about their anti-religious bigotry.

3.  Having an agenda is not, in the abstract, wrong.  It was the hateful agenda specifically to which I was referring.

They were not bigots in any meaningful sense of that term.

Okay.  Right.  Our newsmedia also call the publication "satirical" rather than "hatemongering."  If the TV says it's so, it must be, right?

I am not attacking the French generally or their treatment of Muslims.  As crude as their mentality toward muslims have been, I know that US society is just as nasty when it comes to treatment of muslims.  We have given radical islamic recruiters just as much fodder as the French have.

I said nothing against Muslim students and I respect their views. Do not put words into my mouth (this seems to be totally out of left field).

Of course, we have both taken the thread a bit off course, as have many others.  It's really about a statement made by the pope on an airplane in response to a reporter's question.  A statement, by the way, which contains no inaccuracies as far as I can tell.  

  

I never said that.

Perhaps not.  Has anyone claimed that you did?

All I asked for was a little respect for the dead...

Seriously?  Give us a break.  It is not as though the pope said that the families of these pseudo-intellectual "journalists" should be exorcised.  In fact, he condemned the violence immediately and called upon muslim leaders to condemn them as well.  Of course we all have sympathy for their families, many of whom are probably thinking, "WTF?  I told him not keep provoking them like that!  Now how in the hell am I going to raise little Pierre and little Georgette on my milkmaid's salary?"

I agree that murderers should be apprehended and tried, when possible.  It is a matter of public safety.  I do not think anyone, including the pope, is claiming that any of this violence is justified.  Nevertheless, these "journalists" acted stupidly.  It's really hard for me to feel sorry for them.  They spread hatred, and what's worse, they claim not only to be above prejudice but also to oppose it.  They also claim to be against oppression.  Highly ironic considering the vitriolic attacks against those with whom they disagree.  Of course they are free to mock religion, if they want.  They are free to curse and spit and claim that they are better than anyone else because they are above everyone else.  I for one will support the right of all US citizens to mock religion.  I'm not well versed on French law, but one assumes that the French have a right to do so as well.  Still, I will not object to Darwin Awards all around for those stupid enough to continue to do what these Charlie Hebdo people are doing.  

[angus]

Ah, the embedding tactic.  Okay, I'll give it a go, then I'm going to stop arguing with you because much of what you have said seems absurd.  

No need to be condescending.

What?  That really wasn't meant to be the condescending part.  (I actually tried very hard to remove all the condescending, and animated, parts of my post before I posted it.)

[angus]

You used the word unacceptable many times.  You'll notice that I never used it.  (To quote politicus, don't put words in my mouth.)  I accept all of it.  I suggest that you learn to accept as well.

[angus]

I do not suggest that making vitriolic attacks against ideas with which one disagrees is ironic.  I am tempted to say "learn to read, man" but it occurs to me that at that point I was not completing sentences.  Politicus has mastered English well enough to convince me that she understands vernacular.  One would assume that you do as well, being as how it is your native language.   

Irony occurs whenever the actual result contradicts the expected result.  For example, on Phineas and Ferb when Phineas says something like, "It's not like a giant anvil is going to fall out of the sky" and then a giant anvil falls from the sky.  Similarly, it occurs when those who say that they will not tolerate intolerance show such intolerance toward perceived intolerance that they will not tolerate it.  Certainly it occurs when a self-ordained anti-religious publication is so religiously devoted to stamping out all religion, as well as when those who claim to be so deeply devoted to the cause of freedom that they feel they are free to so attack the freedoms those immigrants who emigrate from lands seeking economic or other freedoms.  

I cannot find any other substance in your post, but perhaps that is my shortcoming so in the spirit of polite debate I will ask:  Is there anything else that you need explained?  If you need French-English translations of the many spiteful pieces of "literature" created by Charlie Hebdo, you might first try google translate.  The sentences are generally simple, meaning that they do not contain subordinate clauses, so google does a pretty good job in translating them.  You may have to be imaginative once in a while because cartoon writers, like me, often do not write proper and complete sentences, but I bet you are smart enough to figure it out if you try.

[angus]

I, too, thought it was bizarre to post the thread in the US General Discussion thread, and thought that the OP might have considered more wisely.  Now, you have given the OP yet another reason to think more carefully about thread placement in the future.  If you're not careful, it gets moved into the graveyard known as the "Religion & Philosophy" section.  I'm sure your intentions were noble, Ernest, but you realize, I assume, that removal of a thread to this board amounts to a death sentence for the topic.

[angus]

What I understood Pope Francis to be saying, in a nutshell, is that free speech and prudent speech are not alway the same thing.  

Of course, but that headline wouldn't sell newspapers, would it?

What I understood Pope Francis to be saying, in a nutshell, is that free speech and prudent speech are not alway the same thing...   Killing the satirists was bound to provoke precisely the social, political and quasi-religious polarization that it has.  Creating that polarization makes it easier to depict westerners as anti-Muslim to the core, and in turn makes it easier for these organizations to recruit disaffected immigrants that they couldn't recruit otherwise.  I myself wish that westerners would stop jumping as fast as they can at the bait--and demonizing one another in the process--and treat a monstrous crime as just that, a monstrous crime.

yes, it's probably good to keep such things in perspective.  We seem to have devolved into two camps:  one in favor of free speech and one in favor of being nicer to muslims.  In fact, none of that remembers the fact that some murders were committed.  Some widows were created.  Some fathers and one mother were lost.  So, before we go back into our camps and argue--and I know we probably will because that's more interesting than all this serious shit--I just wanted you to know that I enjoyed reading your post.