Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Pope Francis Supports Free Speech, Unless It Offends People

"You cannot provoke," the pope says, endorsing the terrorist's veto.

|

Today Pope Francis aligned himself with those who, after witnessing a massacre in retaliation for cartoons, say freedom of speech should be protected as long as it does not upset people too much:

Pope Francis said Thursday there are limits to freedom of expression, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith.

Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good.

But he said there were limits.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.

"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."…

"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

Francis also "said religion can never be used to justify violence," but his analogy suggests otherwise: If a punch in the nose is a normal and understandable response to an insult directed at one's mother, surely violence is a normal and understandable response to an insult directed at one's faith. It is what you would "expect," and therefore the blame lies with the one who issued the insult. Because certain messages predictably elicit a violent response, according to the pope, those messages should not be legally protected.

In the United States, this principle is known as the "fighting words" doctrine, which the Supreme Court enunciated in the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. That decision involved Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness who attracted a hostile crowd by denouncing organized religion as a "racket" on the streets of Rochester, New Hampshire. He was arrested for calling a city marshal "a goddamned racketeer" and "a damned fascist." The Court concluded that Chaplinsky's arrest did not violate the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee because those epithets qualified as words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Court never again used the "fighting words" doctrine to uphold speech restrictions, and there are good reasons for that: Censorship based on an audience's anticipated emotional response is highly subjective and hard to distinguish from a heckler's veto, which encourages violence and gives hotheads the power to squelch speech that offends them.

In effect, Pope Francis expands the misbegotten (and apparently obsolete) "fighting words" doctrine from its original context of in-person, one-on-one encounters to published words and images that make people mad. Because that anger can be expected to result in violence, he says, those words and images cannot be tolerated. Call it the terrorist's veto.

This argument demeans Muslims, portraying them as irrational brutes unable to control their violent impulses; encourages violence by deeming it normal, expected, and (apparently) justified; and provides an astonishingly wide rationale for censorship, which Francis casts as a public safety measure that is necessary to keep the peace. The pope says "you cannot provoke," which means freedom of speech extends only to messages that no one finds objectionable. In other words, there is no freedom of speech.

NEXT: Government-Subsidized Broadband? Could Obama Define 'Necessity' Down Any Further?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” — Matthew 5:38-41

    1. That also occurred to me as soon as I read that. This pope is losing his charm. Not that I put much into what any pope says.

      1. This pope is losing his charm.

        Personally, I never thought he was all that charming.

        1. I think it was more that Benedict was so bad that pretty much anyone following him would seem charming by comparison.

          1. Benedict was more of reformer than has been acknowledged. Francis is a thin-skinned socialist.

          2. Meh.

            I’d concede that Benedict was hardly the charmer. But, at least I could respect the guy’s logic. Coherent, even if wrong.

            With Francis, even to the extent I agree with him, I find his arguments incoherent.

            1. Pope Francis speaking in support of me controlling my tongue, in order to promote the public peace, pisses me off… Therefor if I see him, he can expect that I will punch him in the nose!

              1. Oooops! I forgot? Different levels of protection from threats and violence for different peoples? One standard for Popes and Presidents and so forth, and another for common scum like me!
                When my kiddo was in High School, a bully threatened him (on our home phone, we recorded it and let the cops listen) if my kiddo did not re-pay a fictional drug debt. The cops explained to us that they could do nothing, since it was a “conditional” and not an “absolute” threat.
                So I was wondering? What would happen to me if I threatened Emperor Obozo, unless he repaid a fictional drug debt back to me?
                So anyway, ooops!!!! I take back mt threat against the Pope, and I hope it is not too late? Who is that bashing in my front door, anyway? Gotta go, see ya!

            2. “even to the extent I agree with him, I find his arguments incoherent.”

              That’s generally what I find with the Left. They occasionally stumble on a truth, but they only get there by nonsense. Even when they’re right, they’re wrong.

        2. I don’t pay a lot of attention to him, but early on I liked his style and how he wanted to use less security and get closer to regular people.

          I have no stake. He’s the leader of a social club that I don’t belong to.

        3. This Pope is the best talkivist ever.

      2. Regarding the Pope’s ‘charm’

        The Pope exchanged doctrinal cohesion (homosexuality is wrong) for public good-will. Since western civs are publicly embracing homosexuality it was a way for Catholicism to score points in popularity by cashing in the little logical consistency it had.

        Not a smart long-term trade.

        It has revitalized the Catholic image somewhat away from Priest scandals and the liberal left has done a little ‘wink nod’. If you provide moral cover to something that is generally considered immoral by christians we will stop focusing so harshly on your priest scandals.

        I think its a smart move by the catholic church because the vast majority of its followers are of the generally disengaged type who don’t critically analyze ANY part of their theology. At its heart Catholicism is a social ritual, and there are far more doctrinally logical religious options out there. Those at the fringes of the faith would appreciate their religion not being socially problematic in the circles they travel.

        I bet this move is very hard for the Catholic faithful who know and practice the religion. I think Catholicism is a pagan cult, less christianity than favor-begging to dead spirits (like eastern mysticism), but catholic faithful are some of the best ppl around. They will tolerate bewildering incomprehensible ideas about 3=1, but I don’t think they will tolerate redefinitions of what is right and wrong.

        1. Believing is seeing.

          And I believe.

      3. I agree. He really stepped in it.

    2. That was my first thought. His own messiah says ‘turn the other cheek’ which must have accidentally been mistranslated into Spanish as ‘Beat the shit out of your best friend.’

      1. If the Pope is infallible, who is wrong, Francis or Jesus?

        1. I think the infallibility of the Pope is limited to specific church related matters and doesn’t apply to his opinions about worldly politics.

    3. Lol I didn’t even pick up on that. Well done sir.

    4. As Mr. Sullum intimates, the “fighting words” doctrine is indeed obsolete. See the prosecutor’s statement concerning the defendant in America’s leading criminal satire case: “He knows how to twist language, stir up controversy. As a result, what he can do is devious and disturbing. There is no way to sugarcoat this, the defendant is a menace.” No one seems to be up in arms about that; indeed, I can’t find a single word of commentary on it on any one of them there “free speech” websites. Quoted at:

      https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  2. he has a future as a college president.

  3. If I follow, the Pope would not oppose Catholics reacting violently to criticism of the Catholic Church.

    Which puts him pretty much on par with all those imams who, if they even bother with throat-clearing support of free speech, think its perfectly understandable for Muslims to slaughter uppity infidels.

    1. To be fair, one can understand things and still oppose them. I understand why people might want a big welfare state, for example. But I think they are very wrong.

      I don’t understand why Muslims think it’s OK to slaughter people who draw pictures of Mohammed, but maybe someone who goes in for the whole religion thing would understand.

  4. He hasn’t done anything good since Human the Death Dance (2007) .

    1. Sorry, big guy.

      I’ve been here forever and have never gotten a hat tip. We do it not for glory, but for the betterment of everyone.

      1. *sniffles, straightens tie and lifts chin with a determined look*

        Yes, of course, we must do this for the commentariat!

  5. If you know what the Pope’s nose is now you know how it got that name.

    No one wants to say they are against freedom of speech, so they say they are for it but with some exceptions.
    Their idea of freedom of speech is indistinguishable from that of the plethora of censorious regimes of the past and present.

    Fuck the Pope. I will decide what I think and what words I will use to express myself and I don’t give a frothy fuck about anyone’s feelings. Really, fuck that commie piece of shit.

    1. My grandmother used the Serbian term “???? ???”. I understood it to be a comparison between what’s beneath the Pope’s hat and what’s found below the similarly-shaped chicken’s tail.

  6. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”…

    Uh, yes you can. Stupid pope. People can and do.

    1. If you ask ISIS, infidels provoke them. So I guess their reaction is normal.

      1. “Look what you made me do!”

        *Throws item against wall, clenches fists, falls on floor and holds breath*

      2. Seems like it would be a lot more fitting and Christian for the Pope to say “you must not allow yourself to be provoked”. Back to the sermon on the mount stuff at the top of the thread. The problem in the provocation situation is with the person who is provoked.

  7. Just for the record, Jesus’s speech got him crucified. He pissed off the Jewish government and the Romans mostly for things he said.

    1. Do as they say, not as they say you should believe they did…

    2. And he expected it, didn’t he?

      1. Maybe the Pope wants to change the whole Jesus story to a cautionary example. “Don’t rock the boat, or you’ll get what this guy got.”

        1. OK, that is good, I don’t care who you are.

      2. So the real martyrs here are the cartoonists…your moment of ZEN

  8. Behold, the religions of peace.

    As long as you don’t speak ill of them…or believe something different…or step on the toes of their leaders…

  9. The guy jsut admitted to being less moral and mature than me and my high school buddies. We’d insult each others mothers all the time and no one got punched.

    1. Tell me more and do you have a newsletter to subscribe to.

    2. Indeed, it’s odd to say punching your best friend over a mom joke is normal when there is an extensive and popular genre of comedy devoted entirely to jokes about other people’s mothers.

      1. Heathen comedians follow Jesus’ teachigns more closely than pope.

    3. “…insult each others mothers all the time and no one got punched.”

      Pussies. We always punctuated our insults with a punch.

      1. Adding injury to insult? I like it.

  10. Religious zealot sticks up for religious zealots, news at 11.

  11. Wonder how all the prog supporters of the Pope’s will react to this.

    1. He is one of them. His “I support freedom of speech but…” is lifted straight from their playbook, so I am guessing they like it.

  12. If he wanted to say that good Catholics shouldn’t insult people’s religions, that would be fine. But fuck him for thinking that anyone else should give a crap what he thinks and making excuses for violence.

    It may be true that you should expect a response when you insult someone’s religion. Charlie Hebdo seemed to expect a response enough to hire extra security. But that is not a good situation and the people reacting violently are the ones in the wrong.

    1. Agreed. It’s not exactly Christian or nice to insult people, so I agree with that. But to morally equate an insult with a resulting violent retaliation is messed up.

  13. “Yo momma so Catholic, you’re gonna punch me over this joke.”

  14. So much for South American Popes. I’ll continue to follow the Gospel, but I’m done with this clown.

  15. “Screw You.”

    Sincerely. The ghost of Galileo

  16. You would think Church leaders would look at the history of the Church and realize that wading into politics is what led to so much of the corruption and awful decisions over the years. I had hope for Francis when he was elected. I still think he can do some good things for the Church, but I seem to be disappointed at least as much as I’m reassured.

    1. I agree with you here, see my post below. I think it’s fine for a religious leader to encourage followers to act a certain way. But when the Church pushes to achieve its goals through politics, it’s getting in bed with satan.

      1. Even if he was just speaking to the behavior of Catholics he’s still an idiot and it’s still a horrible message. He’s either encouraging Catholics to follow his example and react violently to insult, or he’s encouraging them to silence themselves if there’s a chance their speech might offend someone, or both.

      2. Getting in bed with Satan is overrated anyway.

        She snores and her hoofs are always cold. And her mother is even worse.

  17. I am a Catholic, and I look at it this way. The idea that we believe that Jesus is God is offensive to some Muslims. So saying that out loud will “provoke” someone, right? And the fact that Jews even exist is offensive to some Muslims. So a person being Jewish can “provoke” someone. Does this mean we should ban all mentions of religious views?

    That’s the whole point of freedom of speech. Anything you say will offend SOMEONE. So who decides what is offensive and what is not? You’d think the Catholic church would have learned to stay out of politics after so many bishops supported Obamacare, until they realized that part of the law required them to provide nuns with abortions.

    1. They should have made you Pope.

      I put my name down, but I’m not Catholic, so they probably didn’t consider it very seriously.

      1. This would be an opportune time to start setting up some Anti-Popes.

      2. Does the Pope ***HAVE*** to be Catholic?
        Do bears give a shit, in the woods?

    2. So now I’m genuinely curious: What do you do now that your pope has essentially sanctioned violence based on what a person says?

      I understand that for Catholics the pope is spiritually infallible. And it appears to me that this particular piece of advice of punching in the nose for saying something bad about his mother does seem to fall into a generally spiritual realm. Am I mistaken? If not, can you choose to deny his infallibility and still be a good Catholic?

      1. The pope is only infallible when writing officially on matters of doctrine as head of the church. The Catholic Church only considets this to have occurred less tham a dozen times in history. Infalliblity does not apply to a pope’s off the cuff remarks at any given moment. Sort of like a justice’s opinions are only considered legal precedent in an official SCOTUS case opinion.

  18. He also doubled down on the stupid with some nonsense about climate change and abusing nature.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/n…..3d5c5.html

    1. Even a minute before this turd was crowned pope I would never have believed that the proggies would infiltrate even the popeship.

      We are entering the age of fascism.

      1. “I would never have believed that the proggies would infiltrate even the popeship.”

        I know, right? What’s next, Absolutists?

  19. But he said there were limits.

    Everyone who thinks there are legit limits to free speech just wants their own personal like/dislikes enforced with regard to speech. To think that there are any legit limits to free speech makes one a petty tyrant because “offense” is relative to the individual. IOW, there can never be a one-size-fits-all solution to speech restriction. This makes the concept of doing so functionally absurd to its supposed purpose and morally absurd because humans should be able to say w/e they damned well please w/o gov’t violence directed at them in response. That is all.

    1. If you think there are limits to free speech (besides things like assault or fraud or perjury), then you don’t support free speech. The end.

      1. That’s short, sweet, and to the point. I just wanted to justify my position in a manner that a prog anti-free-speech shill might understand. (should any arrive to the thread)

        1. They won’t understand. It’s one of their endearing traits. They won’t actually listen to anything that contradicts their programming.

      2. I’m with ya regarding fraudulent and perjurious speech but I’m not clear on what “assault” speech is. That term makes me think that perhaps you and the pope are in agreement.

  20. The Commie Pope never fails to disappoint.

  21. “Because certain messages predictably elicit a violent response, according to the pope, those messages should not be legally protected.”

    Incorrect, or at least unsupported. The Pope said nothing about whether such speech should or should not be “legally protected.” To say “you cannot insult the faith of others” (and provide an the example he did) is a way of saying “you shouldn’t go around mocking others’ beliefs, because that’s not a nice thing to do and it will probably upset them into violence.” It’s obviously not literally true that you CAN’T do it, and there’s zero reason to believe that he’s saying it should be illegal.

    1. Except that the Pope specifically made this argument in reference to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists being murdered for ‘provocation’ and also explicitly mentioned that he would take recourse to violence if provoked.

      He’s pretty obviously saying violence is legitimate if someone upsets you.

      He literally said ‘people who insult religions are provocateurs’ (there’s the Commie Pope we know and love!) and said that when they get hit for their provocations it is deserved.

      Face it. The current Pope is a violent fascist.

  22. FUCK THE POPE.

    1. +1 Orange Order slogan

    2. You keep your gerontophilia to yourself.

      1. My friends and I were rather mean to one of our Catholic friends during high school. We were being rowdy and obnoxious high school boys, and he was the one who would be offended by our off color humor. As a result (He provoked us!!!) we would describe in lurid detail orgies involving the Catholic hierarchy, just to offend his sensibilities. At one point all of the popes of the Western schism were involved (in their current (dead) situation) , along with the (at the time) current Pope, and the cardinals of the church. Some altar boys and priests were involved, too.

        I feel a little bad for that now, especially now that he’s a brother in the church, but that’s my story about Pope orgies.

        1. Given that the Borgias and other prominent families bought several papacies, a lot of that probably was going on at one time.

          These days, our Popes, however, just seem to be bitter old men.

  23. Where is Eddie? Would love to hear his opinion on this.

    1. He had to take the day off so he could go obey the Pope’s order to punch everyone who’s ever insulted his mother.

      1. Oh shit, Eddie’s coming for a bunch of the H&R commentators!

    2. Oh, he’ll just find a way to make it about abortion and the sanctity of marriage.

      Actually, I would be interested as well.

  24. “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”…

    By this standard, Stalin was for freedom of speech. You were free to say whatever you wanted, but if you insulted Stalin or Marxism-Leninism, you were a provocateur, and NKVD would kindly explain you the error of your ways.

  25. You know, as an ex-Catholic, prior to Francis, I could say that, even if I disagreed with the Catholic Church’s premises, I could respect the fact that their position had a certain logical and intellectual coherence. Not so much anymore.

    1. ditto.

  26. Pope Francis Supports Free Speech, Unless It Offends People

    Well, in that regard his views aren’t very different from those shared by others, right Matt Welch?

    1. Oh, shut the fuck up.

      Welch saying ‘hey, Ron Paul shouldn’t publish crazy conspiracy theorists’ is not the same thing as the Pope saying ‘if violence is used against “provocateurs,” they kind of deserve it.’

      1. Re: Irish,

        the Pope saying ‘if violence is used against “provocateurs,” they kind of deserve it.’

        Well, Irish, the Pope didn’t say that and, besides, I am using the headline itself to show the hypocrisy of asking others to practice self-censorship when the things being said offends them.

        1. It’s just not a parallel situation at all. Welch doesn’t seem to be offended and I don’t see any calls for censorship. Suggesting that someone might find some advantage in making different editorial decisions is not censorship. Welch criticized the article for what he sees as it’s lack of factual basis, and because it does not help Paul’s reputation among people who don’t already like him, not because it was somehow offensive to him or anyone else.

    2. That he isn’t unique doesn’t make him any less wrong.

      1. Re: PM,

        That he isn’t unique doesn’t make him any less wrong.

        You missed the point. It is not showing the Pope is right, but that certain others are equally wrong.

        1. Yeah, my fault, I hovered over the link and thought it was pointing to a different RP article from yesterday.

          The point you actually intended to make is pretty much incoherent, as has already been pointed out. Matt Welch didn’t suggest Ron Paul censor himself because it might provoke his critics to justifiable physical violence. The Pope did.

  27. “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”…

    So he’s a Pope who goes against the ‘turn the other cheek’ thing and actively argues that violence in response to words is ‘normal’.

    The Pope didn’t choose the Thug Life, the thug life chose him.

    1. Thug Pope Life?

      Hmmm… I think you could make some very interesting rap videos from that.

  28. Is he speaking as to what Christians ought to do to be examples of God’s love, or what the law should allow? Because in the former sense, “don’t be an aggressively offensive dickhead” doesn’t seem so bad.

    1. It wouldn’t be if he didn’t say the following:

      “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”…

      “There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others,” he said. “They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.”

      He’s affirmatively arguing on behalf of violence against ‘provocateurs.’

      1. Fair enough. Probably not the worst Pope ever, but surely if anyone should be making the argument for people to let offensive shit slide, it’s the guy who’s supposed to speak for Jesus.

        Turn the other cheek if someone strikes you, but if they call your mom a ho, all bets are off. Right…

      2. I read that critically and I think he’s saying that the violence will happen, not that it should happen.

        He’s wrong, but not in the way you think he’s wrong. Look at how Christ insulted the Pharisee’s religion “You brood of vipers…” (Matthew 12:34).

    2. The Pope would quote Scripture, something like “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth,” or Aquinas, if he was merely exhorting people to avoid offensive speech.

      I interpret this to be his preference for the legal limits of free expression.

      1. The Pope would quote Scripture, something like “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth,”

        Does that mean that blowjobs are now OK according to the Pope?

  29. Yes, but he was only speaking ex catheter.

  30. The Court never again used the “fighting words” doctrine to uphold speech restrictions, and there are good reasons for that: Censorship based on an audience’s anticipated emotional response is highly subjective and hard to distinguish from a heckler’s veto, which encourages violence and gives hotheads the power to squelch speech that offends them.

    Thankfully the SC has abandoned that doctrine in general–with some exceptions (incitement, allowing states to ban/regulate violent sports & media distribution)–they’ve still upheld obscenity restrictions based on the same idea of offensiveness.

    Actually I’m all for “fighting words” if it works both ways. However I think most, if not all western countries have banned dueling.

  31. my classmate’s aunt makes $66 /hr on the internet . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $18218 just working on the internet for a few hours. check it out………
    ????? http://www.cashbuzz80.com

  32. punching someone in the face =/= murdering someone

  33. And people accused Benedict of being a fascist…

  34. What about someone who thinks of the Bill of Rights similarly to how a Muslim might feel about the Koran? Introduce God and call it a religion. Since the Koran contradicts the Bill of Rights, didn’t the Pope just declare war between Islam this “Bill of Rights” religion? Pope Francis’ logic leads to a world where it is “understandable” if today all religions that find each other offensive were to declare endless war on each other.

    1. My god is Henry Louis Mencken, and superstition offends me deeply. I want Frankie to shut the fuck up.

      -jcr

  35. “This argument demeans Muslims, portraying them as irrational brutes unable to control their violent impulses ”

    Isn’t that how Catholics portray all people?

    We’re all filthy, disgusting sinners, so offensive to God that we’re justly *deserving* of eternal torment.

    1. We’re all filthy, disgusting sinners, so offensive to God that we’re justly *deserving* of eternal torment.

      Yes, but remember that the kind and loving embrace of The Church offers you the option of avoiding eternal torment by doing good deeds–like give a shitload of money to them.

      1. “As soon as coin in coffer rings, the soule from Purgatory sprynges!”

        Back in the days of Johann Tetzel and the selling of indulges to buy your way out of damnation, rich filthy disgusting sinners had a chance.

  36. “You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

    Is it the fact that you believe your hateful troglodytic barbarisms with absolutely no evidence to justify them that is supposed to make them immune from criticism?

    1. “Is it the fact that you believe your hateful troglodytic barbarisms with absolutely no evidence to justify them that is supposed to make them immune from criticism?”
      Yes, people believe them depply, therefore they get really pissed when you say:
      ‘Got any evidence for that?’

      1. ‘Got any evidence for that?’

        Does the pope shit in the woods?

  37. I think the guy also supports prosperity, unless it means the EVUL PROFUTS!

  38. Don’t know if the pope is making a policy prescription or a personal recommendation. Bishops have complained that the pope being cryptic leads to the media twisting his words and leading people astray. I wish he would stop that, “who am I to judge.”

  39. Maybe he’s acknowledging the fact that not all Catholics are cold hearted Catholic robots that follow the bible to the T, and that some are in fact human beings and sinners.

  40. Pope’s a commie with feelingz.

  41. I place as much weight on Frankie Da Pope’s opinion as I would give to that of any other useless celebrity. What do those Kardashian broads have to say about it?

    -jcr

  42. Maybe, Revelations did speak of a horned lamb. And the black horse appears to be communism.

  43. In this case, the pope, in tryi.ng too hard to emulate St. Francis, is very wrong.
    He forgets he is infallible only in matters of faith and morals.

  44. It has not been unexpected, but certainly disappointing, that the current Pope is a Marxist idiot.

    I expected it, since this is not uncommon for priests in Latin America. Indeed, it was all the rage when Francis was a young man.

    It is disappointing, since we always hope that maturity will bring increased knowledge and recognition of the failures of one’s youth.

  45. I am an anarcho-capitalist libertarian and Murray Rothbard is my favorite political writer. Most of what has been written about this event is stupid and misses the basic point.

    If the Charlie Hebdo people did what they did in Saudi Arabia rather than in France, they would have been beheaded and no sensible person would have been surprised by it. Some people may have expressed “outrage,” but there would have been no national leaders holding hands to protest the sovereign actions of the Saudi government.

    But Charlie Hebdo was operating in France where laws protecting freedom of speech make it all right to publish things that Muslims consider blasphemy against their God and religion. What the Muslims who attacked Charlie Hebdo said by their actions is that they hold the laws of their God higher than the laws of man. That’s basically it, and it would be good for secular people to wise up and realize that’s the deal.

    True believers of every religion hold the laws of their God higher than the laws of man and it’s a good thing that they do. It’s religious people who are often in the forefront opposing totalitarian governments and it’s religious people who are the first to suffer at the hands of totalitarian governments.

    Putting aside the “right” of Charlie Hebdo to insult Muslims and blaspheme against their God, why did they do so? What were they trying to accomplish other than simply asserting their right under French law to do so?

    1. It’s religious people who are often in the forefront opposing of totalitarian governments…

      FIFY

    2. I agree with your basic premise and, generally, with the notion that religious people should hold to a higher law than that of man — and that sometimes those spiritual mores steer a country to a better place. (For the record, I am an atheist, but I do see the good the comes from religion generally.)

      But sometimes the religious do get overly zealous and when they do a confrontation is inevitable. This is because however high the religious may hold their beliefs, I too, hold my beliefs in natural rights, certain freedoms, and the Rule of Law at an equal height.

      When this happens, a fight, perhaps to the death, will ensue.

      While you may query the publishers of Chalie Hebdo what they were/are trying to accomplish, you may not kill them because you don’t like their answer.

      Perhaps you see them simply as provocateurs, “simply asserting their right.” That’s fine, that’s you’re right to interpret it as such. Nevertheless, it is their right, because they do live in France and not Saudi Arabia, and if you are offended by it, then don’t read their publication.

  46. Sadly, the SCOTUS is run by a Catholic mafia these days, so this pope’s maunderings may get more of an opportunity to infest our own jurisprudence and national discourse than they deserve.

  47. An eye for an eye, a tooth for an insult.

    Thanks Pope for re-calibrating the notion of proportional response.

  48. What the Pope says about what you should and should not say has nothing whatsoever to do with whether free speech is or is not legally protected. There are lots of things a civil, polite, thoughtful, or religious person might choose not to do even though it is and should be legal. But I think the Pope could have gone a further with his reasoning about what is natural behavior and stated that murdering people over cartoons is not a natural or reasonable reaction.

  49. Don’t provoke me, Francis. Shut up.

  50. Obama beat him to it:

    The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

    http://classicalvalues.com/201…..rom-paris/

  51. The Catholic church has been insulting, denigrating, and dehumanizing people who opposed its ideology. What Pope Francis really wants is the right to insult others under the cover of religious freedom while deflecting criticism of the wrongdoings and corruption of his own organization.

  52. What if I get pissed off at the Pope issuing such blatantly totalitarian bullshit?

    According to him, it’s OK if I bust his chops, right?

  53. Reum Novarum – Mussolini – Peron – Pope Francis

  54. my co-worker’s mom makes $75 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for ten months but last month her paycheck was $13904 just working on the laptop for a few hours. use this link………..
    ????? http://www.netcash50.com

  55. For some reason I’m not surprised that the global leader of a religion would support censorship. *rolls eyes*

  56. I wonder what Pope Frankie thinks of the anti-Nazi campaign that took place within the media up to and during World War II, or even the criticism towards the British rule that took place in the Colonies before the American Revolution. If he is to be consistent with his current opinion, perhaps everyone should have just kept their mouths closed and pens capped during these instances as well.

  57. I agree with the pope 100%.

    I cannot understand how anyone thinks making fun of Mohammad, or any religious figure is funny. I am not a Muslim but this relentless provocation is not only a very wrong but senseless, tasteless and repulsively uncivilized expression of free speech and is nothing short of bullying.

    Hey, Charlie…stop it already. Not funny. Not smart. Not called for. It’s garbage.

  58. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  59. And as much as I do not condone or encourage violent retaliation, I cannot say that the slain caricaturists did not have it coming. They must have expected it and the fact they were relentless in such provocative lampoons, they in effect chose to die than stop.

    For the record, the pope…and I are adamantly opposed to terrorism. It is simply not acceptable. Period.

  60. Thus spake Pope Barack I.

  61. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobs700.com

  62. Ok, popey-poo, fair IS fair….
    We’re going to start a list of things YOU say that might be offensive to us or anyone else we think might be offended, and you will agree to never say those things again…

    OK? Thanks.
    D’oh….

  63. Re Pope Francis Supports Free Speech, Unless It Offends People, this article’s headline,a most interesting proposition.

    Given what appears the heightened sensitivity of some people,especially these days, think that there is anything that a person somewhere might say that won’t “offend” someone, somewhere?

  64. “his argument demeans Muslims, portraying them as irrational brutes unable to control their violent impulses”
    Sound about right.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.