The Pope And Freedom Of Speech

[sp1814]

Do you agree with the Pope, that freedom of speech should have limits?

He is reported to have said:

"...religions had to be treated with respect, so that people's faiths were not insulted or ridiculed"

To illustrate his point, he told journalists that his assistant could expect a punch if he cursed his mother.

Leaving aside the glorious image of the Pope 'doing a Naomi Campbell' - what are your feelings on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625

[vetuste_ennemi]

"Freedom of speech does not extend to the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.".
This remark has a totally undeserved reputation for profundity. How exactly does it clarify the arguments for or agaisnt free expression?

[jomifl]

Atheists of course cannot be insulted quite so easily...

[jomifl]

The pope should read the bit in the bible about 'turning the other cheek', just as muslims should read the bit in the koran about not killing other muslims (assuming that they can read arabic).

[naomi24]

But Jom, there are provisos in the Koran. A Muslim employed by a western government as a policeman ….. mmm …. he’s on seriously dodgy ground.

[sandyRoe]

Render unto Caesar...

[vulcan42]

" I agree with him and I also feel that freedom of speech in Europe has double standards."
And it's fine in the rest of the world keyplus?

[vetuste_ennemi]

"Render unto Caesar..".
This, as we know, comes from the gospels. You will search in vain for any equivalent statement in the Koran, just as you will search in vain for anything like the beatitudes, "Turn the other cheek", "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and the like.
There is a fundamental philosophical difference between Christianity, founded at the time of the Roman empire (of which Judaea was a part), and Islam which was founded in the anarchic tribal societies of 7th century Arabia. Thus Christianity has always recognised the legitimacy of secular authority (Romans 13: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher power...". Islam, on the other hand, has never theoretically recognised the legitimacy of secular rule: legitimacy derives from submission to the will of Allah, hence the Muslim Brotherhood etc. That is why fundamentalists here will say quite openly that democracy is an un-Islamic concept, and why even in the most secular Muslim majority countries like Turkey there are tensions between secularists and those who want Sharia.

[vetuste_ennemi]

In summary, every fundamentalist must believe that no rule prescribed by secular authority which contravenes what Holy Writ and the Sharia ordain (or, in the Charlie Hebdo case, allows what Sharia forbids) can be just. Rather it is contrary to the will of Allah and must be opposed.

[jomifl]

'Freedom of speech should stop at shooting people'