The Other Shoe Dropping - Pope Francis Says About Paris Attacks "Freedom of Speech Has Limits"

[jordan179]

Introduction

Recently -- barely noticed amidst the other reactions to the Al Quaeda Arabian Peninsula attack on Paris that killed 17 people and resulted in the destructioln of 3 physically-humanoid animals carrying out the attacks in Paris -- Pope Francis made a very interesting comment, reported here on BBC News:

The pontiff said religions had

Comments

[chocolate_frapp]

I'm an atheist and I will not be censored.

[jordan179]

As long as the American authorities continue to stand behind freedom of speech, yes.

You should be worried by the fact that Obama's response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris was, in part, to pledge to crack down on anti-religious hate speech.

In other words, he wants to restore de facto anti-blasphemy laws.

Luckily, the First Amendment to the US Constitution makes this harder here than it is in Europe.

You should remember this, when someone goes on about the need for a "living" Constitution. A "living" Constitution might flinch away, cowed by Muslim Terrorist threats. The old-fashioned 18th-century dead and mechanical Newtonian Constitution, on the other hand, stands firm and fast, ensuring that we cannot easily appease the Muslims by the sacrifice of your liberties.

[gothelittle]

Interestingly, when Pope Francis met with President Obama, Obama was irked because he wanted to talk about the social justice stuff the Pope had been translated as advocating, and the only thing the Pope would do was to address his concern about the limits Obama was putting on freedom of religion in the U.S.

[jordan179]

It's a sign of Obama's fundamental cluelessness about the world that this attitude of the Pope's would surprise him, given that Obama has famously been persecuting Catholic organizations for their opposition to abortion. Did he not get that the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church? Or was that lost in his fantasies of 58 states and Austrian as an international language?

[benschachar_77]

"Ultimately monotheism would win, to the great sorrow of the human race for two more millennia, and to our great sorrow today

[jordan179]

Hey, Pope Francis has the interests of the Church at heart. Which is his job, so I can't fault him for it.

Were the Western Powers standing strong, that interest would dictate that he align the Church with the Western Powers, the Defenders of Christendom. Instead, the Western Powers are whimpering and blubbering and offering concessions -- so he's getting in line to make sure the Church gets some.

Understandable.

Venus has a price

[ilion7]

"So sorry your precious child sacrificing religions didn't make it."

Actually, those gods have made a come-back. Though, instead of sacrificing children to Moloch or Astarte for fertility, their worshippers sacrifice to Venus for non-fertility.

Still, at least the modern pagan worship is more logical in regard to the desired benefit.

Re: Venus has a price

[jordan179]

The reason abortion is legal is very simple.

Fetuses don't vote.

[benschachar_77]

"When Moses claimed to be Hebrew, and took Yahweh as the patron deity of his rebel movement, the first three of his Ten Commandments all dealt with the sacred status of Yahweh under his laws

[jordan179]

Why do you use the term Yahweh, no one actually knows the name. It has been lost to history.

"Yahweh" and "Jehovah" are the two normal renderings of the personal name of the Hebrew God.

I'm well aware not only that "different gods means different standards" but also that the same god in different periods often means different standards. The modern Jews are highly-tolerant, and believe that their god enjoins them to be tolerant; the Ancient Jews were the Muslim Fundamentalists of the Classical Mediterranean world. One of the reasons the Judeans rejected Jesus was that he did not raise an army, rebel against Rome and attempt to conquer the world. That is what the Messiah was supposed to do!

[benschachar_77]

"I'm well aware not only that "different gods means different standards" but also that the same god in different periods often means different standards."

I disagree with that...because of what I've learned from you.

You wouldn't use the same tactics to deal with, say, an ally like Britain when you are dealing with Iran (a theocracy with an irrational belief that they will be saved from nuclear holocaust by the intervention of Allah).

You know that and I know that. I merely extend it to other areas.

Like the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites fleeing Egypt and IIRC hounded them for centuries. How would you deal with such an incorrigible, violent people when you have the limited resources of the bronze age nomads? You can't leave some alive because disproportionate retribution is big even when you are correct to defend yourself and how do you even reason with such people? The only reasonable response in extreme circumstances is an extreme.

[keross]

"... no one actually knows the name. It has been lost to history."

Incorrect. There are still many people who recognize Yahweh as a name of the Judeo-Christian God. We just tend to not speak it aloud.

[benschachar_77]

I guess this is the U.S.S.R. and communism itself takes its revenge. The meme poison is slowly running its course.

I just thought I should explicitly denounce what the Pope said even if it was just him looking out for his tribe it was kinda a dick move to modernism when it desperately needed a helping hand.

[shadowfox24]

Umm, point of order.

He didn't threaten violence over religion. He threatened it over insulting his mother aka personal family honor.

[jordan179]

He argued that the two were functionally the same thing.

[little_e_]

For most religious people, it *is* the same thing. You can say that it *shouldn't* be, but we would do well to understand what religion actually means to people, rather than what I think it ought to mean.

For people in most of the world, especially outside of the West (and the Pope is not from Western Europe, but Latin America--likewise most Catholics these days are not from Western Europe, despite the Vatican's location) religion is deeply tied up in notions of ethnicity, culture, family, honor, belonging, etc. This is why a Jew who worships Anubis or Allah or Ganesha is no longer a Jew.

[shadowfox24]

The more I read your replies the more I can't help but think that you're most likely from a deeply religious family but that you never really bought into it and over time having to fake it made you more and more resentful of it. The things you say make no sense but I've heard similar 'logic' from vocal "brights", "humanists",etc.

I still have trouble grasping the convoluted reasoning you have trying to tie religion to race/genetics. That last sentence really gives the humanist game away though. A Jew that worships Anubis or allah or Ganesha doesn't stop being a Jew because some mean person/hater/bigot says so. They're not Jews because that's not Judism as illustrated by centuries of documentation and practice. The "nothing means anything", "everything is equal to everything else" isn't evoled thought, it's nihilism and it's nothing new.