Pope's idiotic comment.

brooke 2

StormWarrior wrote: »

I don't have a link but in the newspaper today the pope is quoted as saying, free speech is a fundamental right and people have a duty to speak their minds, but if you mock religion you deserve to be punched. What a tw@t!

Did you bother to read ALL of what he said?

Caliden

What ever happened to the child's poem "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me" ?

jimgoose

Caliden wrote: »

What ever happened to the child's poem "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me" ?

That one always left out the last stanza, the one about the name being written on a piece of parchment and wrapped around a claymore. :pac:

Galwayguy35

OP you get very worked up over nothing, the Pope doesn't like to see religion mocked, wow who would have thunk it!

MonkeyTennis

Im not sure.

MRnotlob606

The Backwards Man wrote: »

That's not what he said. He said if someone cursed his mother he'd lamp them.

Anyhoo, I'm not much of a pope lover, but is he all that wrong?

No his words were misconstrued and put out of context.

brooke 2

faceman wrote: »

That's not what he said at all. He said that if someone "cursed his mother", they could expect to get a smack.

I believe the point he was trying to make was that while he supports freedoms of speech, it's not ok to use it as an excuse to insult or antagonise people for the sake of it.

+100.

the dark phantom

StormWarrior wrote: »

I don't have a link but in the newspaper today the pope is quoted as saying, free speech is a fundamental right and people have a duty to speak their minds, but if you mock religion you deserve to be punched. What a tw@t!

Politically correct ass-licker offended by Pope speaking like a normal person shocker.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this whole "you can't go round offending people because you might get hurt" argument is a bit too close to the "if you go around in a short skirt and get raped it's your own fault" argument for my liking.

I don't think that's what he meant to be fair. I think it was more that you just shouldn't be surprised if some-one reacts badly if/when you insult or ridicule them.

Grayson

Jon Stewart talked about something like this on the daily show.
There were millions marching in france to support freedom of speech but can you imagine if someone stepped into the middle of it and said "Charlie Hebdo deserved to die"? They'd probably get a quick punch from someone. Possibly quite a lot more.

Timberrrrrrrr

cml387 wrote: »

What the pope actually said.

Just makes me like the guy even more, this one actually seems human and in touch with the common people.

AndonHandon

faceman wrote: »

That's not what he said at all. He said that if someone "cursed his mother", they could expect to get a smack.

I believe the point he was trying to make was that while he supports freedoms of speech, it's not ok to use it as an excuse to insult or antagonise people for the sake of it.

I think he means that it is okay insult or antagonise but expect repercussions. A lot of spineless people are professing a dogma of freedom of expression but there are of course limitations necessary and in existence through recognition within our laws.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don't think that's what he meant to be fair. I think it was more that you just shouldn't be surprised if some-one reacts badly if/when you insult or ridicule them.

As in, if you wear revealing clothes, don't be surprised if someone rapes you?

I'm sure that the similarity probably escaped him, but I still find the statement dubious to say the least.

tradhead

I think he's spot on.

For those claiming that this means he is in some way condoning the murders in Paris, there is quite a significant difference between a punch and shooting somebody in cold blood.

Galwayguy35

Shenshen wrote: »

As in, if you wear revealing clothes, don't be surprised if someone rapes you?

I'm sure that the similarity probably escaped him, but I still find the statement dubious to say the least.

No it's not the same thing at all.

jobbridge4life

tradhead wrote: »

I think he's spot on.

For those claiming that this means he is in some way condoning the murders in Paris, there is quite a significant difference between a punch and shooting somebody in cold blood.

It is a continuum of violence. Would it have been okay for those men to beat their victims instead of extinguishing them?:rolleyes:

anncoates

StormWarrior wrote: »

But where did the pope say that you need to "grossly" insult religion to deserve a punch? Where did he say that to "lightly ridicule" it is ok? He didn't. His comments read as you deserving to be violently assaulted no matter how constructive or light your comments.

Maybe I read it wrong but I thought he was implying free speech isn't something that should be censored, but that you have to decide what how to use it wisely and live with the consequences of what you say.

It's analogous to the Charlie Hebdo affair in a way. I defend to the hilt their right to publish the pictures and I share their secularist views but personally I'd be that bit smarter and constructive with how I use free speech to criticize religion and oppose fundamentalism.

Like in here, I enjoy criticism and pisstake of religion, especially fundamentalists but I turn off when it's a superior circle-jerk insulting normal people.

_Brian

Caliden wrote: »

What ever happened to the child's poem "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me" ?

I think the Muslim Fundamentalists were thought a slightly different version..

"If you continually openly mock our profit then we're gonna come and try kill you"

Shenshen

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

No it's not the same thing at all.

It's not?

Enjoying your freedom to express yourself and then being held responsible for other people's violent reactions to your expression?

tradhead

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It is a continuum of violence. Would it have been okay for those men to beat their victims instead of extinguishing them?:rolleyes:

Again, there is a huge difference between a punch and a beating.

Would it have been better for those misguided, deluded terrorists to lamp Charlie Hebdo instead of murdering him? Absolutely!

Dr. Mantis Toboggan

anncoates wrote: »

Like in here, I enjoy criticism and pisstake of religion, especially fundamentalists but I turn off when it's a superior circle-jerk insulting normal people.

So true.

Galwayguy35

Shenshen wrote: »

It's not?

Enjoying your freedom to express yourself and then being held responsible for other people's violent reactions to your expression?

He didn't say that, he was saying freedom of expression is important but sometimes it can be dangerous to say certain things because it can lead to a violent reaction.

brooke 2

My name is URL wrote: »

I think the message he was trying to convey was that every person has a breaking point, and at some point it becomes unreasonable for you to not expect an emotional reaction if you are intentionally offending someone.

It is the responsibility of the person who is offended to control their anger.

He also said that violence is never the answer. Amazing how some people choose
to ignore this part of his statement.

Dog of Tears

Completely idiotic comment by the Pope.

The amount of people who don't understand that his comment is not about 'mother insults' or 'punching' is hilarious.

It's a metaphor which is basically excusing violent responses for those who mock religions - in the wake of 12 people being killed in Paris for that very reason, the comments are at best ill-advised and at worst very sinister indeed.

suicide_circus

One thing I like about pope frankie is that I'd say, in private, he'd be the first man to tell you that he is not infallible.

anncoates

To be fair, I wouldn't view caution re: constructive free speech as kowtowing to fundamentalists and terrorists. I'd see it more as isolating them by not going out of your way to insult normal believers of that religion.

The problem is that the view (mine) that religion exists and we have to balance respecting people's faith without letting that faith unduly influence a secular society or impinge on people's freedom whereas I think the root of a lot of this satire is a dislike of religion (and intellectual grandstanding of course) which is fair enough (I agree to an extent) but it's not the most constructive way to approach the issue, especially with an issue so fundamental to people's beliefs.

MonkeyTennis

I didn't vote for him

jimgoose

suicide_circus wrote: »

One thing I like about pope frankie is that I'd say, in private, he'd be the first man to tell you that he is not infallible.

They're not always infallible anyway. Pronouncement ex Cathedra happens only under certain conditions and regarding certain matters. Think of it as something like a Papal "Kernel Mode"! :pac:

Beefy78

faceman wrote: »

I don't know about that, I guess they're only insecure if they respond to it?

What motivates people to do the mocking in the first place?

Comedy? Satire?

I agree that people shouldn't just be dicks for no reason but plenty of segments of society open themselves up for ridicule to one degree or other and I don't see any reason why people of certain faiths should consider themselves off-limits to being made fun of.

Bootros Bootros

Religions should be criticisable. Maybe not the religious though. That includes El papa.

McTigs

So does this fully exonerate Zidane?

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

Practically everything insults somebody's religion.

Are religious people that insecure that words said by someone else can shake their beliefs?

Think you will find it's mostly mocking organised religions not peoples personal beliefs. People can believe in any sky wizard they want. But when you have huge organisations exerting massive power over their flock. Yes they can come into the firing line.

Bootros Bootros

Grayson wrote: »

Jon Stewart talked about something like this on the daily show.
There were millions marching in france to support freedom of speech but can you imagine if someone stepped into the middle of it and said "Charlie Hebdo deserved to die"? They'd probably get a quick punch from someone. Possibly quite a lot more.

je suis dieudonne

darkpagandeath

Grayson wrote: »

Jon Stewart talked about something like this on the daily show.
There were millions marching in france to support freedom of speech but can you imagine if someone stepped into the middle of it and said "Charlie Hebdo deserved to die"? They'd probably get a quick punch from someone. Possibly quite a lot more.

Why did the artists go out and shoot a bunch of random innocents on the street ? Its not the same at all, People were outraged at an actual action that of murder. And not of about perceived victimisation due to faith and being mocked. Every religion pretty much has their version of live and let live turn the other cheek and all. They don't preach death to all for a comment.

shruikan2553

Looking at a video of it it he doesnt say that at all.

ahnowbrowncow

The Backwards Man wrote: »

That's not what he said. He said if someone cursed his mother he'd lamp them.

Anyhoo, I'm not much of a pope lover, but is he all that wrong?

So you're adamant against self defence in violent situations but you're for retaliating against a verbal insult?

Quite hypocritical.

Ghost Buster

conditioned games wrote: »

Are we that hollow and insecure that we need to insult religion?

Surely its the flip side of this?
Is religion so insecure and foundation less that it cant take insult?

If they are so happy with the talking snakes, prophets who dont like images of them selves, space ships and volcanos and that then why be worried if I take the piss?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

As in, if you wear revealing clothes, don't be surprised if someone rapes you?

I'm sure that the similarity probably escaped him, but I still find the statement dubious to say the least.

No that's not even close to what I'm saying.

Boskowski

Shenshen wrote: »

As in, if you wear revealing clothes, don't be surprised if someone rapes you?

I'm sure that the similarity probably escaped him, but I still find the statement dubious to say the least.

You can't be serious.

Are you saying I should be able to scream any kind of insult into someone's face and not expect a reaction?

Funny thing is I can't even insult you (not that I'd want to) or anyone here. I'd get banned.

So what is it now?

Davei141

You know it says something when the pope makes way more sense than a lot of people on boards.

Ghost Buster

Boskowski wrote: »

You can't be serious.

Are you saying I should be able to scream any kind of insult into someone's face and not expect a reaction?

Funny thing is I can't even insult you (not that I'd want to) or anyone here. I'd get banned.

So what is it now?

But religion isnt a sentient thing, its an idea. Mocking religion isnt remotely like insulting a person in a personal manner.
Can i say I think smoking is ****ing stupid in general?
Yup

Boskowski

Ghost Buster wrote: »

But religion isnt a sentient thing, its an idea. Mocking religion isnt remotely like insulting a person in a personal manner.
Can i say I think smoking is ****ing stupid in general?
Yup

Are we still talking about what the pope actually said?

Galwayguy35

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Surely its the flip side of this?
Is religion so insecure and foundation less that it cant take insult?

If they are so happy with the talking snakes, prophets who dont like images of them selves, space ships and volcanos and that then why be worried if I take the piss?

So would you walk up to a muslim and make fun of his religion?

You wouldn't cos chances you would get your ass handed to you or in some countries a lot worse.

What the Pope was saying was words and insults, or what people perceive as an insult to their beliefs can lead to violence.

He didn't say violence was right as a response, much as some on this thread would like to believe he did.

darkpagandeath

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So would you walk up to a muslim and make fun of his religion?

You wouldn't cos chances you would get your ass handed to you or in some countries a lot worse.

What the Pope was saying was words and insults, or what people perceive as an insult to their beliefs can lead to violence.

He didn't say violence was right as a response, much as some on this thread would like to believe he did.

Are we back to all Muslims are a hive mind again ? Most moderates would just walk away or think you were a crackpot. You know just like you walk away the them the end is nigh guys on O'Connell street. If you instantly turn to violence over a comment about your Religion any of them you're in a pretty weak position aren't you. I mean normal people would put another point of view across and not just face punch.

The Backwards Man

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

So you're adamant against self defence in violent situations but you're for retaliating against a verbal insult?

Quite hypocritical.

Not at all.

I agree with what he said, I wouldn't agree with him actually doing it.

Ghost Buster

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So would you walk up to a muslim and make fun of his religion?

You wouldn't cos chances you would get your ass handed to you or in some countries a lot worse.

What the Pope was saying was words and insults, or what people perceive as an insult to their beliefs can lead to violence.

He didn't say violence was right as a response, much as some on this thread would like to believe he did.

Not generally. Neither would i walk up to a catholic and do the same. But if they try to affect my life what so ever with their horse **** I will call it for that it is.

Eramen

How dare the Pope try to deny me the right to be 'edgy'.

Dirty hipsters/atheistkult will cry.

Je suis Charlie Martel

Peist2007

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Completely idiotic comment by the Pope.

The amount of people who don't understand that his comment is not about 'mother insults' or 'punching' is hilarious.

It's a metaphor which is basically excusing violent responses for those who mock religions - in the wake of 12 people being killed in Paris for that very reason, the comments are at best ill-advised and at worst very sinister indeed.

This is actually my opinion on it. Last week people were murdered and the reason why it happened was that they insulted Islam and were killed by religious extremists. A week later the Pope says this which, like it or not, gives justification for the ridiculous reaction to the printing of cartoons.

When he talks about his mother he is actually referring to religion and the "punch" is the cartoons. Stupid comment.

Why is everyone trying to rationalise the reasoning behind these murderers? Their actions and their reasoning are as bat sh1t mental and backward as each other.

Galwayguy35

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Are we back to all Muslims are a hive mind again ? Most moderates would just walk away or think you were a crackpot. You know just like you walk away the them the end is nigh guys on O'Connell street. If you instantly turn to violence over a comment about your Religion any of them you're in a pretty weak position aren't you. I mean normal people would put another point of view across and not just face punch.

Most people would walk away, say it to the wrong person and you're in trouble, that's basically what the Pope was saying.

He was using the mother comment as an example, if someone called your mother a c**t how would you react?

Happened to mine and I would happily have dropped the guy who said it.

Peist2007

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Most people would walk away, say it to the wrong person and you're in trouble, that's basically what the Pope was saying.

He was using the mother comment as an example, if someone called your mother a c**t how would you react?

Happened to mine and I would happily have dropped the guy who said it.

So the pope wasnt talking about the terrorist attack in Paris then?