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

[Maxwell]

A link here of the story

Mega HP.

[Boston Bread]

Huh, that seemed uncalled for.

[Simfan34]

Media fails at reporting what the Holy Father actually says, once again:

Pope Francis says there are limits to freedom of expression
Vatican Radio

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actual transcript:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly the Pope was not in any way, shape, or form, condoning any sort of violence against people for expressing their beliefs; he rather explicitly said "one cannot kill in the name of God". Your title, Maxwell, is also a rather disappointing decontextualisation, deliberate or not: the "punch" was not in reference to the attack but rather a hypothetical response if someone were to insult his mother. What he is saying is, while unambiguously condemning the use of violence, that provocations and insults are generally bound to produce violence responses. Nowhere does he say this the appropriate response. But it is an expected one. This oughtn't to shock or surprise anyone, but the press again shows its inability to properly quote and contextualise what the Pope says...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, the idea that the Pope would ever actually mean what the thread title here insinuates him to have meant is ludicrous.

[Brittain33]

Support of maximal free speech has never been a core Vatican value the way it theoretically is in the U.S. and France.

[angus]

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

haha. 

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

[DemPGH]

Wow. A complete and utter milquetoast response at very best on religious violence by the Bishop of Rome. Not surprising, all things considered. 

[Simfan34]

Wow. A complete and utter milquetoast response at very best on religious violence by the Bishop of Rome. Not surprising, all things considered. 

I see you didn't bother to read what he said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also liked how he slipped in an admission of guilt for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in there.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm very disappointed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm very disappointed.

Why?  Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how wrong one of the wrongs may be.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wrong board, btw.

[Lambsbread]

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.

[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. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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

[politicus]

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 terror against those who use political and social satire to a reaction to primitive insults and "fighing words" is plain wrong. One is  a planned attack, the other is an instinctive response in the heath of the moment. 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 do not apply. Otherwise the satire becomes toothless and bland. Satirists fulfill a very important function in a democracy and should be respected and protected.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm very disappointed.

Why?  Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how wrong one of the wrongs may be.

Except that mocking religions isn't "wrong" in any way. It's the right of any person in a secular society, and religions should finally understand it.

[politicus]

I'm very disappointed.

Why?  Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how wrong one of the wrongs may be.

There was nothing wrong with what Charlie Hebdo did (and does). They fullfill a vital service to democracy by highlightening and mocking abuse of power and reactionary views.

[Lief 🗽]

What a cool pope. Is it too late to break up Italy and reform the Papal States?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm very disappointed.

Why?  Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how wrong one of the wrongs may be.

Except that mocking religions isn't "wrong" in any way. It's the right of any person in a secular society, and religions should finally understand it.

There is a difference between mocking and insulting, and too many people fail to comprehend the difference.  In their eagerness to push the boundary between mocking and insulting, Charlie Hedbo often crosses that boundary.  It did so with their latest cover, not because it depicted Mohammed, but because it put words into his mouth.  (They're words he might well have spoken were he alive today, but that's not their call to make.)

[politicus]

Angus answered an early draft of my post with a phrase that meant the opposite of what I intended to say, so please don't quote his post without deleting his quotes from my post. Use the present version of my post instead.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm very disappointed.

Why?  Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how wrong one of the wrongs may be.

Except that mocking religions isn't "wrong" in any way. It's the right of any person in a secular society, and religions should finally understand it.

There is a difference between mocking and insulting, and too many people fail to comprehend the difference.  In their eagerness to push the boundary between mocking and insulting, Charlie Hedbo often crosses that boundary.  It did so with their latest cover, not because it depicted Mohammed, but because it put words into his mouth.  (They're words he might well have spoken were he alive today, but that's not their call to make.)

There is nothing wrong with insulting religions either. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting believers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

BTW, I really hope the next Charlie Hebdo features a couple of particularly nasty caricatures of the Pope. That's the kind of response he deserves.

[politicus]

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.

(In response to: "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.")

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All I asked for was a little respect for the dead (and I deleted that part because it is unrealistic to expect on this forum). But try to imagine how you would react if Europeans showed disrespect to people with a similar status in US society, who died under similar circumstances. At least two of the dead satirists were great artists and another of the victims a prominent intellectual.