Pope's idiotic comment.

DEFTLEFTHAND

newballsplease wrote: »

If someone had insulted Jesus's mother all them years ago, surely he would just forgive them?
Not go heavy on their ass

In his younger years he may have handed out an ass whoopin. He was a very volatile young man who was prone to flying off the handle.

conorh91

I thought the written translation didn't quite convey the tone of Pope Francis's words.

I'm not sure if it was posted already, but you should watch a video of everything the Pope said; his intention to promote peace and respect is without question. It's also worth bearing in mind that he said "you can expect a punch", he did not say that "you can punch", as RTE radio originally reported.

If I knock on your door and start making vile comments, of course I can expect to be punched. It doesn't mean that either behaviour is the correct course of action.

Video and full context here
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-limits-to-freedom-of-expression

jobbridge4life

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

In his younger years he may have handed out an ass whoopin. He was a very volatile young man who was prone to flying off the handle.

OR he mightn't have existed...:pac:

_Brian

Cienciano wrote: »

There's a big difference between condeming the shootings and saying they're to be expected. The 2 aren't the same.
But he was talking about the Charlie Hebdo shooting and his analogy was "Insult my mother, expect a punch", you don't have to be a professor of english to understand what he meant. He didn't say it was right.
But not a great analogy either, anyone that punches someone because their mother was insulted is a scumbag.

Indeed..
But these people are known to murder whole villages who dont convert to their extreme thinking, so one would well expect that mocking their profit so openly is not going to go unanswered. I wasn't a bit shocked that this happened.
One of the twelve shot was the editors bodyguard, so the editor knew he was a target.

I cant honestly say they used their right to free speech wisely and one could easily say that unconnected people got killed along the way as a result !

ScumLord

Montallie wrote: »

But the Paris cartoonists weren't in someone else's house illegally, or in a forest where there were bears (Muslims) lurking. They were in their own house (their own country) and, if anything, the Muslims were in their house (assuming they weren't native French). Their cartoons were also apparently regularly aimed at all religions and other targets, rather than specifically at Muslims. It was only the Muslims who objected. Unless we are to take the Pope's words as a response to the cartoons Charlie Hebdo did of him, but the situation is the same anyway - Charlie Hebdo was in its own house.

Your correct, everything you say is true, it's morally and legally correct, any sane person would agree with you.

But the fact is we all know there was a bunch of extremists sitting around a table just waiting for them to make a cartoon that offended them. They said as much, it's not like they haven't reacted before. The paper has the right to print what they want but there are always consequences and that's an unavoidable fact.

Montallie

ScumLord wrote: »

Your correct, everything you say is true, it's morally and legally correct, any sane person would agree with you.

But the fact is we all know there was a bunch of extremists sitting around a table just waiting for them to make a cartoon that offended them. They said as much, it's not like they haven't reacted before. The paper has the right to print what they want but there are always consequences and that's an unavoidable fact.

For some reason I'm reminded of something that happened way back (showing my age now). It was when the Yorkshire Ripper was being hunted, and a young girl walking home from college was murdered. Someone belonging to the authorities said that if young women insisted on walking home wearing next to nothing, they should expect the consequences. This might sound like common sense, but to an unstable mind it sounds more to me like an invitation.

Once more: the question is not the wisdom or otherwise of publishing cartoons that you expect some group will find offensive - that's a personal choice. The question is whether or not you have the right to kill someone you believe has offended you. For me the answer is 'No, no, no,' every time.

I think it would have been better and more truthful for the Pope to say that if you insult someone's mother you might expect them to feel like punching you, but they desist because that is not something that they should do.

I found it interesting also that he should have equated Muhammad with Muslims' mother. It seems to me many Muslims definitely revere this semi-mythic figure far more than they do their mothers or wives.

Actually, now I think of it, they are really treating Muhammad the way they do their women, whose images also should not be seen in public. Considering this is a homophobic society, this may be psychologically interesting.

NotASheeple

5starpool wrote: »

The pope is basically saying everyone should adhere to the overriding principle of boards.

"Don't be a dick".

I totally agree.

Areyouwell

Cienciano wrote: »

anyone that punches someone because their mother was insulted is a scumbag.

Or maybe just a gentleman/good son, doing what a gentleman/good son should do.

K4t

Areyouwell wrote: »

Or maybe just a gentleman/good son, doing what a gentleman/good son should do.

Nah, he's a scumbag. And a criminal. And an idiot.


Papa Francis is a clown. An amusing clown but also a dangerous one.

Galwayguy35

K4t wrote: »

Nah, he's a scumbag. And a criminal. And an idiot.


Papa Francis is a clown. An amusing clown but also a dangerous one.

Seems he's not the only one...

K4t

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Seems he's not the only one...

He's not. Those who would laugh at his comments and make him out to be a harmless, funny old man are also clowns. Doubly so if they call themselves atheists and such.

blade1

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

He said he'd deck someone if they insulted his mother. Which is fine and all, but isn't he meant to turn the other cheek?

Easily known his mammy isn't Irish.
If someone insulted an Irish mammy, she would tear them a new Assh0le!

K4t

fiachr_a wrote: »

Freedom of speech isn't about provocatively insulting people's beliefs no matter how daft these are.

It's exactly that.


Otherwise it's not freedom of speech.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yes it is.

One person knows.

K4t

RobYourBuilder wrote:

He said he'd deck someone if they insulted his mother. Which is fine and all, but isn't he meant to turn the other cheek?

You forget, Christians can commit crimes but they are absolved of those crimes by fellas such as pope Francis at confession.

JONJO THE MISER

So the pope condones violence, the pope is infallible and his words come from god, so lets take it to its natural conclusion if you believe in infallibillty of the pope, god is condoning violence against others.

Delirium

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

So the pope condones violence, the pope is infallible and his words come from god, so lets take it to its natural conclusion if you believe in infallibillty of the pope, god is condoning violence against others.

Papal Infallibility doesn't apply to everything that the pope says. If he referred to you as Dave instead of Jonjo, he's clearly not infallible in that instance.

Rabo Karabekian

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

So the pope condones violence, the pope is infallible and his words come from god, so lets take it to its natural conclusion if you believe in infallibillty of the pope, god is condoning violence against others.

To be fair, God used to always be condoning violence against others. He just went a bit soft in the New Testament.

ScumLord

Montallie wrote: »

The question is whether or not you have the right to kill someone you believe has offended you. For me the answer is 'No, no, no,' every time.

That's not the question, we already have laws that tell us that's wrong. Nobody is saying that the terrorists were justified in their actions. What is being said is that their actions were the inevitable result of the magazine taunting them. The magazine made international headlines to promote the fact they were publishing the pictures, we all knew what would happen and it happened.

Boskowski

Shenshen wrote: »

Funny how people don't seem to grasp the difference between "a reaction" - for example, politely asking a person to stop shouting, and, if that has no effect, simply walking away, and a violent reaction - for example punching someone for something that person said.

And no, you can't say anything anywhere. If you're publishing your views on a platform you don't own, you follow the owner's rules.

I am not condoning it I'm only saying that you can't be surprised or even not expect it. Really though it is unrealistic to expect people just to be 'politely asking'. Maybe that works with you and me, but I don't think thats happening in the real world.

Also I didn't say anything about your clothes/rape comparison in my first post, but I think you're also very much off the mark on that one. These two are not the same thing at all.

If you are wearing revealing clothes you are not aiming a sexual provocation/encouragement at anyone directly. Maybe a little encouragement to chat you up but no more. If you are repeatedly and strongly insulting someone directly and then not expect a reaction that would be more like doing a lap dance on someone, showing them all your lovely bits while dirty talking to them and then be surprised when they thought they should fvck you.

The_Valeyard

K4t wrote: »

Nah, he's a scumbag. And a criminal. And an idiot.


Papa Francis is a clown. An amusing clown but also a dangerous one.

Such bile and hate in this post.

Certainly not a scumbag, his degrees and masters in chemistry/ science do not make him and idiot, and he has committed no crimes.


Are you sure he is the idiot?


There is to much hate in your posts to debate with you. /thread.

K4t

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Such bile and hate in this post.

Certainly not a scumbag, his degrees and masters in chemistry/ science do not make him and idiot, and he has committed no crimes.


Are you sure he is the idiot?


There is to much hate in your posts to debate with you. /thread.

I was referring to the instance of someone punching someone else for insulting their mother.


Did you think I was referring to the pope? Because he's much worse than I described. Hate of religion is a good thing in a world which does its best to hide and pretend its evils are not there. Openness and honesty probably aren't the best known traits of the catholic church though I suppose.

ScumLord

K4t wrote: »

Hate of religion is a good thing in a world which does its best to hide and pretend its evils are not there.

Hate of religion is a pointless waste of energy. It's a huge part of our history and it's not going anywhere soon.

AndonHandon

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

So the pope condones violence, the pope is infallible and his words come from god, so lets take it to its natural conclusion if you believe in infallibillty of the pope, god is condoning violence against others.

Wow.

Do you write for the Daily Mail?

AndonHandon

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Such bile and hate in this post.

Certainly not a scumbag, his degrees and masters in chemistry/ science do not make him and idiot, and he has committed no crimes.


Are you sure he is the idiot?


There is to much hate in your posts to debate with you. /thread.

+1

K4t please do yourself a favour and stop posting.

K4t

ScumLord wrote: »

Hate of religion is a pointless waste of energy. It's a huge part of our history and it's not going anywhere soon.

It should remain in the past along with its many atrocities. Have you not noticed the worrying trend on boards recently as they have slowly forgotten even the abuse scandals that dominated our news only a couple of years ago, thanks to an apparently "cool" "with the times" "new age" "modern" pope and the fact that we still live in a society where our supposed 'educated youth' are still socially conditioned to just 'accept' religion and the catholic church as it is as culturally pervasive as ever. It is frightening.

RobertKK

K4t wrote: »

It should remain in the past along with its many atrocities. Have you not noticed the worrying trend on boards recently as they have slowly forgotten even the abuse scandals that dominated our news only a couple of years ago, thanks to an apparently "cool" "with the times" "new age" "modern" pope and the fact that we still live in a society where our supposed 'educated youth' are still socially conditioned to just 'accept' religion and the catholic church as it is as culturally pervasive as ever. It is frightening.

The department of education polled a number of parents going to certain school over the patronage. I think for most of these they didn't want the patronage changed.

Valetta

K4t wrote: »

It should remain in the past along with its many atrocities. Have you not noticed the worrying trend on boards recently as they have slowly forgotten even the abuse scandals that dominated our news only a couple of years ago, thanks to an apparently "cool" "with the times" "new age" "modern" pope and the fact that we still live in a society where our supposed 'educated youth' are still socially conditioned to just 'accept' religion and the catholic church as it is as culturally pervasive as ever. It is frightening.

You must be easily worried and frightened.

ScumLord

K4t wrote: »

It should remain in the past along with its many atrocities. Have you not noticed the worrying trend on boards recently as they have slowly forgotten even the abuse scandals that dominated our news only a couple of years ago, thanks to an apparently "cool" "with the times" "new age" "modern" pope and the fact that we still live in a society where our supposed 'educated youth' are still socially conditioned to just 'accept' religion and the catholic church as it is as culturally pervasive as ever. It is frightening.

I've noticed nothing of the sort. As you've demonstrated the child abuse scandal is brought up in just about every thread that even mentions religion. I've also never heard anyone describe the new pope as cool or with the times.

I dislike many things the church does but I'm not going to invest the energy or let the church take up so much of my thoughts as to hate them.

SpaceTime

It's the classic wife beater defence though : "she (France) doesn't know when to shut up".

Very unimpressed with the Pope on this one but, I didn't really expect much more. He's just a new PR man for the same old out of touch organisation.

K4t

Valetta wrote: »

You must be easily worried and frightened.

Yes, I am terrified of religion, and with good reason.


I envisage a life and a society without it. Finally free.

Bootros Bootros

K4t wrote: »

Yes, I am terrified of religion, and with good reason.


I envisage a life and a society without it. Finally free.

That couldn't be anything other than a totalitarian society.

Bootros Bootros

Unlike the popes comments on gay marriage (where completely unshockingly he is opposed) this was a crass statement which he should be ridiculed for.

Bootros Bootros

ScumLord wrote: »

That's not the question, we already have laws that tell us that's wrong. Nobody is saying that the terrorists were justified in their actions. What is being said is that their actions were the inevitable result of the magazine taunting them. The magazine made international headlines to promote the fact they were publishing the pictures, we all knew what would happen and it happened.

You know you start off by saying the terrorists were not justified but then argue that they were. It's of this form of argument.

Nobody is defending the rapists but what do the scampilly dressed girls expect with their provocative clothing?

K4t

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

That couldn't be anything other than a totalitarian society.

I disagree. If it happened without force, but by reason and rationale, it would not be a totalitarian society. It of course would require the removal of medieval freedom of speech and expression limits and restrictions so we are going the opposite way in fact.

ScumLord

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

You know you start off by saying the terrorists were not justified but then argue that they were.

I'm not arguing they were justified. If you go up to a man and insult his mother, then that man tells you if you say that again I'll hit you. What do you expect to happen if you call him a bollox the second time. I'm not choosing any side I'm just describing what will actually happen in the real world, laws and a sound moralistic positions mean nothing in the reality of the situation and won't change human behaviour.

It's not like they didn't know that Muslims were upset by the images in fact they played on that outrage to promote their publication. They made sure every Muslim knew it was coming and then they insulted them. I'll defend their right to free speech but saying people have the right to free speech does not mean the real world won't react. The fact is extremists will react and expecting them to take it on the chin given their track record is just naive.

If they want to publish pictures they can but they should bear in mind that Muslim extremists will react and people may very well die just so they could tell a joke that's sole intention is offence rather than humour.

Bootros Bootros

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not arguing they were justified. If you go up to a man and insult his mother, then that man tells you if you say that again I'll hit you. What do you expect to happen if you call him a bollox the second time. I'm not choosing any side I'm just describing what will actually happen in the real world, laws and a sound moralistic positions mean nothing in the reality of the situation and won't change human behaviour.

It's not like they didn't know that Muslims were upset by the images in fact they played on that outrage to promote their publication. They made sure every Muslim knew it was coming and then they insulted them. I'll defend their right to free speech but saying people have the right to free speech does not mean the real world won't react. The fact is extremists will react and expecting them to take it on the chin given their track record is just naive.

If they want to publish pictures they can but they should bear in mind that Muslim extremists will react and people may very well die just so they could tell a joke that's sole intention is offence rather than humour.

Ok. So basically your are saying that brave people should take the consequences of their free speech. That logic would apply to the atheist blogger in Saudi too wouldn't it? Or the anti-religious through the ages. Or anybody who spoke truth to power.

In The "real world" islamists might in future get upset or "offended" by gay pubs, or night clubs ( which have been targeted by Islamists) or churches. Or anything. Your arguments is basically to cower before the murdereously offended.

ScumLord

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

Ok. So basically your are saying that brave people should take the consequences of their free speech. That logic would apply to the atheist blogger in Saudi too wouldn't it? Or the anti-religious through the ages. Or anybody who spoke truth to power.

Well basically that's an unfortunate result of standing up to a corrupt authority. You will become the focus of their attentions. I'm not saying it's right but it is a fact.

In The "real world" islamists might in future get upset or "offended" by gay pubs, or night clubs ( which have been targeted by Islamists) or churches. Or anything. Your arguments is basically to cower before the murdereously offended.

It's not, it's to have some responsibility for your actions. Like I've said I defend their right to publish the pictures, if they want to publish more tomorrow I won't stand in their way. But the fact remains that the day after they publish those pictures Muslim extremists are going to use them as an excuse to murder people.

Is publishing offensive pictures as a sign of defiance worth some random persons life? It's not like they listen to reason so I don't see why they'd see an offensive picture and be compelled to rethink their whole life philosophy.

catallus

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30869019

Six million turn up for mass in Manila.

It is gratifying to see such an uplifting affirmation of the growth of faith in the world.

If only we could open the eyes of those benighted theophobes who seem to be so prevalent on this side of the world!

Delirium

catallus wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30869019

Six million turn up for mass in Manila.

It is gratifying to see such an uplifting affirmation of the growth of faith in the world.

If only we could open the eyes of those benighted theophobes who seem to be so prevalent on this side of the world!

The Philipines has a Roman Catholic population of 83 approx, that means the overwhelming majority didn't show up. It's the equivalent of 200,000 of the Irish RC population showing up for a Papal mass here.

catallus

You really are a "glass half empty" kinda person aren't ya?

Such arithmetical relativism could only be embraced by a paganistic soul...

Delirium

catallus wrote: »

You really are a "glass half empty" kinda person aren't ya?

Such arithmetical relativism could only be embraced by a paganistic soul...

eh, I'm not a pagan

catallus

SW wrote: »

eh, I'm not a pagan

That's so cute.

Montallie

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not arguing they were justified. If you go up to a man and insult his mother, then that man tells you if you say that again I'll hit you.

But this really is saying they were justified, not in the moral sense but in the instinctive one. As has been said elsewhere on Boards, and in an article the other day by Polly Toynbee, this is the classic wife-beater's defence. She made me do it. She wouldn't stop annoying me. She talked back to me. She did the things I told her not to.

And I'm beginning to think that some entity has taken over the body of Francis, with his more recent statements about gay marriage being such a contrast to his earlier Who am I to judge? They couldn't get him to go along with them so they put something in his tea.

floggg

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

You know you start off by saying the terrorists were not justified but then argue that they were. It's of this form of argument.

Nobody is defending the rapists but what do the scampilly dressed girls expect with their provocative clothing?

That's really not what was said (either by scumlord or the pope).

They aren't addressing or arguing whether or not violence would be a justified or proportional response. They are aomply speaking to the probability of being met with a violent response.

if it helps you understand the point better, let's pretend the pope said if you smoke, you can hardly be surprised when you get lung cancer.

In that instance, nobody would think he was saying you deseve lung cancer - simply that it is more likely to occur.

In the same way, if you ridicule and offend people, while you don't deserve to be met with a violent response, you must be aware that there is a reasonable prospect you will be met by one.

porsche959

He could have been Pope!! But the f.ecking Jesuits have it all sewn up!

Akrasia

Popey boy is at it again
Catholics shouldnt be breeding 'like rabbits'
Women, 3 kids are enough, but don't ye be using no artificial contraception though

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/pope-says-contraception-ban-does-not-mean-breed-like-rabbits-1.2072312

Baggy Trousers

Akrasia wrote: »

Popey boy is at it again
Catholics shouldnt be breeding 'like rabbits'
Women, 3 kids are enough, but don't ye be using no artificial contraception though

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/pope-says-contraception-ban-does-not-mean-breed-like-rabbits-1.2072312

How did he expect people not to have lots of kids without contraception?

kylith

K4t wrote: »

It should remain in the past along with its many atrocities. Have you not noticed the worrying trend on boards recently as they have slowly forgotten even the abuse scandals that dominated our news only a couple of years ago, thanks to an apparently "cool" "with the times" "new age" "modern" pope and the fact that we still live in a society where our supposed 'educated youth' are still socially conditioned to just 'accept' religion and the catholic church as it is as culturally pervasive as ever. It is frightening.

What this pope has done is change people's perception of the RCC/Papacy. He gives a couple of soundbites of meaningless platitudes and people think he's Fr. Trendy even though all he is doing is glossing over the fact that the church is doing exactly what it always has and it's teachings on women, homosexuals, and everything else haven't changed one iota.

mikom

Akrasia wrote: »

Popey boy is at it again
Catholics shouldnt be breeding 'like rabbits'
Women, 3 kids are enough, but don't ye be using no artificial contraception though

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/pope-says-contraception-ban-does-not-mean-breed-like-rabbits-1.2072312

More than three kids and he will come around and punch you in the ovaries.

Honestly, anyone who takes advice from this piece of Vatican window-dressing needs their head examined.

Peist2007

catallus wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30869019

Six million turn up for mass in Manila.

It is gratifying to see such an uplifting affirmation of the growth of faith in the world.

If only we could open the eyes of those benighted theophobes who seem to be so prevalent on this side of the world!

I doubt the Phillipines being religious is a sign of the "growth of faith in the world" to be honest. You saying that just highlights the church's weakening position. Phillipines being religious = dog bites man.