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

[Lurker]

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.

This ludicrous comparison would be slightly less so if the only motive behind the cartoonists' work was meaningless entertainment (akin to a lion tamer at a circus). This is, of course, not the case.

I don't know what Maher have said, but doubt it is worse than the Pope's pro-censorship views. As for the reactions of a certain minority of leftists, it is quite sadening.

[Lurker]

Alcon: 'Ideological oppression' was Antonio's term, and I'm using it in response to his post. Personally, I'm not sure I think it's an entirely legitimate concept, but it's the term that he used so I'm using it too. Taking a 'side' was...yeah in this situation it was really not the best thing to say, since the results of the 'ideological oppression' in this case were so wildly disproportionate compared to any presumed contribution to material oppression that Charlie Hebdo could have made.

It would be interesting to hear you expand on the meaning of the other phrase as well. Who was under "material supression" from Charlie Hebdo (?), and how is this defined?

[Lurker]

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.

'Of course they did.' The Juche effectively consider Kim Il-sung effectively 'god-like'. He is still effectively their perpetual spiritual leader. Therefore the current leader is the grandson of a 'god'. The Interview was clearly an insult on their belief system, as was Team America. And while of course having celebrity puppets explode and have sexual intercourse was freedom of expression, they shouldn't have 'taken it too far.'

HBO should also be very careful about that documentary they are producing on Scientology. Just saying.

(which is all a logical extension of this sort of apologism)

Don't forget that Americans are very priviledged and that North-Koreans are an oppressed group of people. And as we are constantly reminded, humour should kick up, not down. In other words, there is no excuse for offending a leader that is held so dear by the North Korean people.

[Lurker]

Alcon: 'Ideological oppression' was Antonio's term, and I'm using it in response to his post. Personally, I'm not sure I think it's an entirely legitimate concept, but it's the term that he used so I'm using it too. Taking a 'side' was...yeah in this situation it was really not the best thing to say, since the results of the 'ideological oppression' in this case were so wildly disproportionate compared to any presumed contribution to material oppression that Charlie Hebdo could have made.

It would be interesting to hear you expand on the meaning of the other phrase as well. Who was under "material supression" from Charlie Hebdo (?), and how is this defined?

Well, after some of Antonio's posts in explanation of what was going on with this magazine I'm no longer sure that anybody was or was in danger of being. I don't really know how it's possible to deny that Muslim minorities are materially disadvantaged, and have this reinforced by ideological agitation, in Europe (and especially France) in general, though...

I think something that's gotten lost in this conversation is the 'free speech/prudent speech' distinction that somebody made up above, and I think that's probably what the Pope was talking about--I highly doubt that censorship would have been his preferred solution to this, except maybe some kind of voluntary prior restraint, like the Comics Code but for Islamophobia or something. To whatever extent he's calling for that, I'm not sure I agree with him (the Comics Code was flagrantly ludicrous, after all), but I don't think it's an inherently inappropriate or callous or cruel position to take, I think some of our more anti-clerical and/or European* posters are overblown in their reactions to this (although to be honest it's understandable that they would be), and that's all I've really been trying to argue in this thread.

*Like politicus said, there is literally and figuratively an ocean between (most) Europeans and (most) North Americans on the limits of prudent speech with respect to religious beliefs.

Of course, Muslims in France are on average less materially well-off than non-Muslim French people, yes. I had assumed that oppression indicated more than that though. At any rate, I think the connection between that and these cartoons/attacks is tenuous at best.