satire or hate speech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Pope Francis, a human Pope who understands people's realities and psyches quite well.

Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that "every religion has its dignity."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631

Indeed, the Catholic church has sued CH many times over the years. Although I am surprised by Pope Francis's words. What about turning the other cheek?

The men who murdered all of the cartoonists were not Catholic. Did you forget?

I am not surprised at all, the Catholic church has a very long history of strict control of the press and total intolerance toward anything that goes against the teaching of the church or that it may be considered blasphemous. in the middle ages the death penalty was normally administered. Galileo had to recount his scientific publication on heliocentrism after being tried for heresy and then spent the rest of his life under house arrest. if he did not recanted, he would have been executed (and for a scientific paper). the Church State (the area of Italy under control of the Pope) had the death penalty until around1860, when it was conquered by Italy's king and the Pope lost control of the land except for the Vatican, and offending the Church was a crime. Changes on the Church have been forced from the outside society. The Church certainly does not advocate the execution of somebody for blasphemy (although it happily did it in the past), but on the limitation to the freedom of speech and expression as far as religion is concerned, it is fully aligned with Islam

[Anonymous]

Really.....galileo......and thats back when Islamic governments were actually semi tolerant. I like this pope but he's being a total apologist and needs to shape up.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Pope Francis, a human Pope who understands people's realities and psyches quite well.

Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that "every religion has its dignity."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631

Indeed, the Catholic church has sued CH many times over the years. Although I am surprised by Pope Francis's words. What about turning the other cheek?

The men who murdered all of the cartoonists were not Catholic. Did you forget?

I am not surprised at all, the Catholic church has a very long history of strict control of the press and total intolerance toward anything that goes against the teaching of the church or that it may be considered blasphemous. in the middle ages the death penalty was normally administered. Galileo had to recount his scientific publication on heliocentrism after being tried for heresy and then spent the rest of his life under house arrest. if he did not recanted, he would have been executed (and for a scientific paper). the Church State (the area of Italy under control of the Pope) had the death penalty until around1860, when it was conquered by Italy's king and the Pope lost control of the land except for the Vatican, and offending the Church was a crime. Changes on the Church have been forced from the outside society. The Church certainly does not advocate the execution of somebody for blasphemy (although it happily did it in the past), but on the limitation to the freedom of speech and expression as far as religion is concerned, it is fully aligned with Islam

I don't know enough about catholicism to know if there is a limitation on freedom of speech. Islam is a religion that challenges and invites dialogue. The Qur'an, doesn't just ask us to have faith. It challenges all criticisms, it challenges you to be very open minded, think critically and avoid blind faith BUT that's not how some Muslims behave.Any limitations on this issue are those self-imposed by Muslims themselves. More than 60,000 books have been written against Islam in a the last 150 years and those authors moved on with their lives....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your lack of comprehension is not my problem. I still remember when the first amendment meant nothing to the right.

Right, that must be why we outlawed all speech against Christianity in the United States. And we outlawed flagburning. You're right, we don't have free speech in the United States. Or your wacky.

we have free speech because liberals defend it. The first thing the conservatives did after ratifying the constitution was to pass the alien and sedition acts.

48 states outlawed flag burning and the conservatives in congress tried to pass an amendment in one or the other house over a dozen times.

We have free speech, no thanks to you.

No thanks to me? I'm not a conservative you ninny. And what great protection of free speech have you accomplished?

So you just jumped in the middle of an exchange with another poster. Thanks for that.

Oh, sorry, didn't know this was your private thread. And you assumed you were only talking to one other poster.

[Anonymous]

I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....

Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.

Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

WRAL says that it was canceled because of a "credible and serious security threat". Ironic.

[Anonymous]

Anger at the cartoonist doesn't explain why they shot the policeman in the street. In cold blood pleading for his life. A Muslim policeman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

Not according to the Duke spokesman on NPR.

Duke gets creepier by the day

It's difficult to understand the point you are making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Pope Francis, a human Pope who understands people's realities and psyches quite well.

Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that "every religion has its dignity."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631

Indeed, the Catholic church has sued CH many times over the years. Although I am surprised by Pope Francis's words. What about turning the other cheek?

The men who murdered all of the cartoonists were not Catholic. Did you forget?

I am not surprised at all, the Catholic church has a very long history of strict control of the press and total intolerance toward anything that goes against the teaching of the church or that it may be considered blasphemous. in the middle ages the death penalty was normally administered. Galileo had to recount his scientific publication on heliocentrism after being tried for heresy and then spent the rest of his life under house arrest. if he did not recanted, he would have been executed (and for a scientific paper). the Church State (the area of Italy under control of the Pope) had the death penalty until around1860, when it was conquered by Italy's king and the Pope lost control of the land except for the Vatican, and offending the Church was a crime. Changes on the Church have been forced from the outside society. The Church certainly does not advocate the execution of somebody for blasphemy (although it happily did it in the past), but on the limitation to the freedom of speech and expression as far as religion is concerned, it is fully aligned with Islam

Seems to me that this paradigm might be changing fast. For the first time in well over 1000 years, there's finally a Pope who actually seems to be following the Gospels as opposed to one who's just caught up in playing and pandering to various factional and partisan politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Pope Francis, a human Pope who understands people's realities and psyches quite well.

Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that "every religion has its dignity."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631

Indeed, the Catholic church has sued CH many times over the years. Although I am surprised by Pope Francis's words. What about turning the other cheek?

The men who murdered all of the cartoonists were not Catholic. Did you forget?

I am not surprised at all, the Catholic church has a very long history of strict control of the press and total intolerance toward anything that goes against the teaching of the church or that it may be considered blasphemous. in the middle ages the death penalty was normally administered. Galileo had to recount his scientific publication on heliocentrism after being tried for heresy and then spent the rest of his life under house arrest. if he did not recanted, he would have been executed (and for a scientific paper). the Church State (the area of Italy under control of the Pope) had the death penalty until around1860, when it was conquered by Italy's king and the Pope lost control of the land except for the Vatican, and offending the Church was a crime. Changes on the Church have been forced from the outside society. The Church certainly does not advocate the execution of somebody for blasphemy (although it happily did it in the past), but on the limitation to the freedom of speech and expression as far as religion is concerned, it is fully aligned with Islam

Seems to me that this paradigm might be changing fast. For the first time in well over 1000 years, there's finally a Pope who actually seems to be following the Gospels as opposed to one who's just caught up in playing and pandering to various factional and partisan politics.

By not pandering or playing politics, he's very unpopular with the church establishment and is unlikely to make any signficant lasting change to the church. I have been very impressed with many of his speeches, but he's had zero impact on the church itself.