In Other News the BBC reported that the Pope is Catholic.
The problem is the religious groups wish to define the limits but will ignore those limits within their own texts which are read out frequently in public places.
If some historical figures say I will burn in hell then perhaps they are fair game for my own insults to them.
Unfortunately, the Pope's opinion seems to be what I've heard from any religious person they've asked about freedom of speech and religion.
My argument has always been that I refuse to have respect for the beliefs of someone who believes something that I consider to be completely bonkers.
For example, if someone states that football is the greatest sport on the planet, I can still respect them even though I disagree, as I see it as a valid opinion that just happens to differ from mine. The same with arguments for limiting immigration or leaving the EU. As long as their argument is built on a rational and factual basis I'm fine with whatever they believe. We all know that many situations are complex and can be interpreted different ways even when based on the same evidence.
On the other hand, I ain't going to respect the belief that the planet is actually run by giant lizards disguised as people, that someone died and was resurrected after a few days or that you can't eat pork because some sky fairy says you aren't allowed to. None of that deserves any respect as far as I'm concerned and should be open to ridicule.
In Other News the BBC reported that the Pope is Catholic.
Many freedoms have limits in the Catholic world including justice for victims. Why would the current oppressor of Catholics and protector of child abusers think any differently?
"Expect a punch if he cursed his mother" What the hell is he rambling on about apart from condoning physical assault?
Totally predictable and unhelpful load of pandering to bloody religion, garbage.
He does have a somewhat valid (if extremely muddled) point. The type of all-ranging "freedom of speech" that certain people dream of - where not only do you have the right to say anything without having to worry about legal consequences, but others cannot criticize you or even hold a negative opinion of you - has never existed in any actual society.
He does have a somewhat valid (if extremely muddled) point. The type of all-ranging "freedom of speech" that certain people dream of - where not only do you have the right to say anything without having to worry about legal consequences, but others cannot criticize you or even hold a negative opinion of you - has never existed in any actual society.
Do we need him to point it out?
Isn't it the caveat that everyone understands when they talk about 'freedom of speech'? Hardly anything is absolute.
Catholic thought police are as bad as Muslim thought police.
I'll have to ask my RC wife about that.
"F*ck off,"
says she,
"nobody tells me how to think. Not the pope, nor any f*ckers on a forum who want everyone to think the same as them or risk their juvenile attempts at insults."
Thats the trouble with lazy stereotypes .... real life comes along and mocks them.
Should I punch someone if they insulted my mother or Mary Mother of God?
I don't know, it is an interesting idea.
Why should my mother be more worthy of protecting then anyone else?
Surely I should simply tell my mum and she could go and see the person and that person should then explain to my mother why he or she said that?
Isn't it the caveat that everyone understands when they talk about 'freedom of speech'? Hardly anything is absolute.
You'd think that, but judging by (to name just one recent example) the number of people ranting about how the Big Brother producers violated Ken Morley's freedom of speech by throwing him off the show, it seems that a lot of people either just don't understand the concept at all, or think it should only protect opinions they personally agree with.
He staunchly defended freedom of expression, but then he said there were limits, especially when people mocked religion.
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri [who organises the Pope's trips] speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched," he said, throwing a pretend punch at the doctor, who was standing beside him.
"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit."
Another religious nutter who think its acceptable to resort to violence because of perceived insults.
His kind won't be happy until religions are beyond criticism again.
It does have limits, it's just that blasphemy isn't one of them. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not within your rights, but disparaging Jesus or Mohammed is within your rights.
Respecting people's personal beliefs is one thing - but imposing your beliefs on others and expecting them to abide by them is another thing completely,
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri [who organises the Pope's trips] speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched," he said, throwing a pretend punch at the doctor, who was standing beside him.
He seems not to have read the bit in the new testament about turning the other cheek.
Mind you there's quite a lot of the new testament the catholic church seem to have difficulty with.
Comments
"Throw all your Dave Allen tapes in the tip!"
The problem is the religious groups wish to define the limits but will ignore those limits within their own texts which are read out frequently in public places.
If some historical figures say I will burn in hell then perhaps they are fair game for my own insults to them.
Unfortunately, the Pope's opinion seems to be what I've heard from any religious person they've asked about freedom of speech and religion.
My argument has always been that I refuse to have respect for the beliefs of someone who believes something that I consider to be completely bonkers.
For example, if someone states that football is the greatest sport on the planet, I can still respect them even though I disagree, as I see it as a valid opinion that just happens to differ from mine. The same with arguments for limiting immigration or leaving the EU. As long as their argument is built on a rational and factual basis I'm fine with whatever they believe. We all know that many situations are complex and can be interpreted different ways even when based on the same evidence.
On the other hand, I ain't going to respect the belief that the planet is actually run by giant lizards disguised as people, that someone died and was resurrected after a few days or that you can't eat pork because some sky fairy says you aren't allowed to. None of that deserves any respect as far as I'm concerned and should be open to ridicule.
Many freedoms have limits in the Catholic world including justice for victims. Why would the current oppressor of Catholics and protector of child abusers think any differently?
"Expect a punch if he cursed his mother" What the hell is he rambling on about apart from condoning physical assault?
Totally predictable and unhelpful load of pandering to bloody religion, garbage.
Do we need him to point it out?
Isn't it the caveat that everyone understands when they talk about 'freedom of speech'? Hardly anything is absolute.
The RC church certainly has limited freedom of speech on the subject of sexual assaults carried out be their priests on children.
Amen.
The Pope seems to think that free speech and being sensitive to the opinions of others are one and the same thing. They're not.
Catholic thought police are as bad as Muslim thought police.
I'll have to ask my RC wife about that.
"F*ck off,"
says she,
"nobody tells me how to think. Not the pope, nor any f*ckers on a forum who want everyone to think the same as them or risk their juvenile attempts at insults."
Thats the trouble with lazy stereotypes .... real life comes along and mocks them.
I don't know, it is an interesting idea.
Why should my mother be more worthy of protecting then anyone else?
Surely I should simply tell my mum and she could go and see the person and that person should then explain to my mother why he or she said that?
Not to mention that the Catholics outdated beliefs on things like Abortion, caused a womans death. The pope can do one.
You'd think that, but judging by (to name just one recent example) the number of people ranting about how the Big Brother producers violated Ken Morley's freedom of speech by throwing him off the show, it seems that a lot of people either just don't understand the concept at all, or think it should only protect opinions they personally agree with.
Most just cant see it.
He staunchly defended freedom of expression, but then he said there were limits, especially when people mocked religion.
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri [who organises the Pope's trips] speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched," he said, throwing a pretend punch at the doctor, who was standing beside him.
"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit."
Another religious nutter who think its acceptable to resort to violence because of perceived insults.
His kind won't be happy until religions are beyond criticism again.
He seems not to have read the bit in the new testament about turning the other cheek.
Mind you there's quite a lot of the new testament the catholic church seem to have difficulty with.
the only reason he is saying it is so his religion will not be joked about.