• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion against hate speech.

JP Cusick

The Expert
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
177
Location
Hollywood, MD. USA, 20636
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Link = BBC News - Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." ~ Pope Francis

This was the 2nd time in my entire life that I was truly proud of the Catholic Church and in particular proud of the Pope.

So finally there is a real Man in Pope Francis who speaks boldly and honestly, and on top of that he speaks like a true Christian by having compassion and consideration for other people.

The freedom of speech does not mean some right to throw around provocative insults at any one.

And his defense is for the sake of persecuted Muslim people which is taking Pope Francis into the territory of being a true Holy Man.

Before this the high moral ground was only being promoted by the Muslims and the powerful religion of Islam.

My one other time of pride for Catholicism was when the Church defied President Clinton 1993 pushing abortion onto the rest of the world, LINK.
 
The Pope is free to say whatever he wants about the morality of insulting a religion. He is free to shame himself, and to advance the rule of the jungle, by making excuses for Islamic supremacist mass murderers. So are the many leftists who, for reasons known best to themselves, are always ready to carry water for these savages. But nothing he, nor they, nor anyone else says about the matter changes the First Amendment. Thank God for that.

Anyone in this country is perfectly free to insult any religion he wants, in the most scathing terms, and to insult it as loudly and as often as he pleases. No damned Muslim jihadist bastards are going to cow Americans, through the threat of violence, into letting them dictate what we can and cannot say. They can go straight to hell. And if they want a fight, let us give them violence on a scale they have never even imagined.
 
Last edited:
The Pope is free to say whatever he wants about the morality of insulting a religion. He is free to shame himself, and to advance the rule of the jungle, by making excuses for mass murdering savages. But nothing he or anyone else says about the matter changes the First Amendment. Thank God for that.

Anyone in this country is perfectly free to insult any religion he wants, in the most scathing terms, and to insult it as loudly and as often as he pleases. No damned Muslim jihadist bastards are going to cow Americans, through the threat of violence, into letting them dictate what we can and cannot say. They can go straight to hell. And if they want a fight, let us give them violence on a scale they have never even imagined.
I can not believe that kind of hateful mentality is in the majority, and in due time then decent people will suppress the hate speech and rightly so.

At least now the Muslims and Islam are no longer alone on the higher moral ground, as now we have Pope Francis to share in this call for decency in our ignorant society.
 
"...Attack on Saint Michel theater, Paris[edit]On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel theater while it was showing the film.[Last Temptation of Christ] This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.[9][10] ..... Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." ...The attack was subsequently blamed on a Christian fundamentalist group linked to Bernard Antony, a representative of the far-right Front National to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and the excommunicated followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre....Similar attacks against theatres included graffiti, setting off tear-gas canisters and stink bombs, and assaulting filmgoers.[..... Rene Remond, a historian, said of the Christian far-right, "It is the toughest component of the National Front and it is motivated more by religion than by politics. It has a coherent political philosophy that has not changed for 200 years: it is the rejection of the revolution, of the republic and of modernism."...several Christian fundamentalist groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' parent company MCA;[11] one of the protestors dressed as MCA's Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross.[6] Evangelist Bill Bright offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it.[11][12] The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film...In some countries, including Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the film continues to be banned in the Philippines and Singapore....."
 
Link = BBC News - Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." ~ Pope Francis

This was the 2nd time in my entire life that I was truly proud of the Catholic Church and in particular proud of the Pope.

So finally there is a real Man in Pope Francis who speaks boldly and honestly, and on top of that he speaks like a true Christian by having compassion and consideration for other people.

The freedom of speech does not mean some right to throw around provocative insults at any one.

And his defense is for the sake of persecuted Muslim people which is taking Pope Francis into the territory of being a true Holy Man.

Before this the high moral ground was only being promoted by the Muslims and the powerful religion of Islam.

My one other time of pride for Catholicism was when the Church defied President Clinton 1993 pushing abortion onto the rest of the world, LINK.

Congratulations, in a simple OP you have confirmed that both Islam and Christianity view special limitations on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression even showing support for the notion by a "high moral ground." A call for Theocracy to determine what is off-limits to criticism and within the confines of religion defining what is and is not hate speech. Well done, that undermined just about every principle this nation was founded on and went a great length in validation of responding to hate speech in the most terrible way. Censorship and oppression.

That is not a call of a "real man" or someone of moral high ground... just a call for forced obedience by determining what is off-limits simply because you do not like what was said. Society just stepped backwards with this brilliance.
 
The Pope is free to say whatever he wants about the morality of insulting a religion. He is free to shame himself, and to advance the rule of the jungle, by making excuses for Islamic supremacist mass murderers. So are the many leftists who, for reasons known best to themselves, are always ready to carry water for these savages. But nothing he, nor they, nor anyone else says about the matter changes the First Amendment. Thank God for that.

Anyone in this country is perfectly free to insult any religion he wants, in the most scathing terms, and to insult it as loudly and as often as he pleases. No damned Muslim jihadist bastards are going to cow Americans, through the threat of violence, into letting them dictate what we can and cannot say. They can go straight to hell. And if they want a fight, let us give them violence on a scale they have never even imagined.

I'm not sure where he supported the murdering of people that criticized religion. He's just stating (as the leader of a religious organization) that people shouldn't ridicule religion. Are you surprised he has that stance?
 
I'm not sure where he supported the murdering of people that criticized religion. He's just stating (as the leader of a religious organization) that people shouldn't ridicule religion. Are you surprised he has that stance?

Who gets to define what ridicule means and why should it be off-limits?
 
Who gets to define what ridicule means and why should it be off-limits?

I'm not saying I agree with him (in principle or in regards to actual laws)....I'm just pointing out as someone in charge of a religious organization are you surprised by his views? It doesn't mean he supports the attacks in France.
 
Congratulations, in a simple OP you have confirmed that both Islam and Christianity view special limitations on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression even showing support for the notion by a "high moral ground." A call for Theocracy to determine what is off-limits to criticism and within the confines of religion defining what is and is not hate speech. Well done, that undermined just about every principle this nation was founded on and went a great length in validation of responding to hate speech in the most terrible way. Censorship and oppression.

That is not a call of a "real man" or someone of moral high ground... just a call for forced obedience by determining what is off-limits simply because you do not like what was said. Society just stepped backwards with this brilliance.


I can imagine the Pope in November, 1938, a few days after Kristallnacht, suddenly sweaty about who the Nazis might turn on next and anxious to kowtow to them, lecturing everyone that it was natural for them to have attacked and killed German Jews--and that when those Jews insisted on provoking German gentiles by running businesses successfully and making money, that's what they should have expected. What a courageous blow for a free world he would have struck!
 
The freedom of speech does not mean some right to throw around provocative insults at any one.

Yes it does. And, contrary to what you and a lot of religious people seem to think, criticism is not "provocative insults."
 
The Pope is free to say whatever he wants about the morality of insulting a religion. He is free to shame himself, and to advance the rule of the jungle, by making excuses for Islamic supremacist mass murderers. So are the many leftists who, for reasons known best to themselves, are always ready to carry water for these savages. But nothing he, nor they, nor anyone else says about the matter changes the First Amendment. Thank God for that.

Anyone in this country is perfectly free to insult any religion he wants, in the most scathing terms, and to insult it as loudly and as often as he pleases. No damned Muslim jihadist bastards are going to cow Americans, through the threat of violence, into letting them dictate what we can and cannot say. They can go straight to hell. And if they want a fight, let us give them violence on a scale they have never even imagined.

Do you not believe that, in the case of these jihadi bastards, that insulting them is tantamount to hollering fire in a theater.

That wouldn't be acceptable under the First. IMO
 
I'm not sure where he supported the murdering of people that criticized religion. He's just stating (as the leader of a religious organization) that people shouldn't ridicule religion. Are you surprised he has that stance?

At this time and in this situation, right after a savage, murderous attack on a freedom that many hundreds of thousands of servicemen have died to protect, one that is at the very heart of Western Civilization, it was inexcusable moral cowardice for him to say anything that smacked in even the slightest degree of an excuse for the savages. The Pope's lack of spine stands in sharp contrast to the great courage Mr. Sisi showed in the remarkable speech he made in Egypt only a couple weeks earlier, calling on Muslims to reject jihadism.
 
Do you not believe that, in the case of these jihadi bastards, that insulting them is tantamount to hollering fire in a theater.

That wouldn't be acceptable under the First. IMO

No, I sure as hell do not. The right response to efforts by jihadist bastards to impose their will on the world is to insult the bastards even more. These murders were part of the same assault on the civilized world being carried on by Muslim jihadists in many countries. If they really want to die, they should consider themselves unlucky that the United States has become so filled with hand wringers and navel gazers. I have no doubt that if Theodore Roosevelt were President today, a couple million of the SOB's in a number of countries would have been blown to bits already, the appeal of their monstrously evil, supremacist ideology shattered forever, and Muslims everywhere acting very peaceful and talking about drastic reforms.

Your reference to the famous phrase from Schenck and the lack of First Amendment protection for speech that presents a clear and present danger of lawless action obviously does not apply to France. I doubt speech is as strongly protected there as it is here. The rule in this country, from Brandenburg v. Ohio, is that speech may be prohibited by law if it is both directed at producing or inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce or incite such action. Speech that bruises someone's precious feelings and makes him feel all mad and icky? Depending on the details, the targeted person might have a viable defamation suit. Barring that, they can just G-- damned well suck it up and get over it. We are living in a free country, not a kindergarten.
 
No, I sure as hell do not. The right response to efforts by jihadist bastards to impose their will on the world is to insult the bastards even more. These murders were part of the same assault on the civilized world being carried on by Muslim jihadists in many countries. If they really want to die, they should consider themselves unlucky that the United States has become so filled with hand wringers and navel gazers. I have no doubt that if Theodore Roosevelt were President today, a couple million of the SOB's in a number of countries would have been blown to bits already, the appeal of their monstrously evil, supremacist ideology shattered forever, and Muslims everywhere acting very peaceful and talking about drastic reforms.

Your reference to the famous phrase from Schenck and the lack of First Amendment protection for speech that presents a clear and present danger of lawless action obviously does not apply to France. I doubt speech is as strongly protected there as it is here. The rule in this country, from Brandenburg v. Ohio, is that speech may be prohibited by law if it is both directed at producing or inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce or incite such action. Speech that bruises someone's precious feelings and makes him feel all mad and icky? Depending on the details, the targeted person might have a viable defamation suit. Barring that, they can just G-- damned well suck it up and get over it. We are living in a free country, not a kindergarten.
I had a feeling you would respond like that. Just wanted to hear you do it. ;)
 
Link = BBC News - Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." ~ Pope Francis

This was the 2nd time in my entire life that I was truly proud of the Catholic Church and in particular proud of the Pope.

So finally there is a real Man in Pope Francis who speaks boldly and honestly, and on top of that he speaks like a true Christian by having compassion and consideration for other people.

The freedom of speech does not mean some right to throw around provocative insults at any one.

And his defense is for the sake of persecuted Muslim people which is taking Pope Francis into the territory of being a true Holy Man.

Before this the high moral ground was only being promoted by the Muslims and the powerful religion of Islam.

My one other time of pride for Catholicism was when the Church defied President Clinton 1993 pushing abortion onto the rest of the world, LINK.

I find your views on limiting my free speech utterly offensive. I, emotionally, want to explain that to you with my fists. But that would be wrong. You have the right to offend me. I have the right to offend you.

If we are to live in this vast world society that we do live in then the rules have to be as they are. Otherwise we will be constantly at war with everybody else.
 
I don't entirely agree with his statement. We should ALWAYS provoke. Unless we challenge, question, investigate, deny, support, explain, etc...how can we ever make progress? The truth is, there are a lot of aspects of Islam that are unpalatable to many people. And since those aspects are often front-and-center among the hateful radicals who do harm, it is perfectly acceptable to challenge those aspects of the faith. Blindly tolerating another religion is not going to keep people safe or promote respect. It only provides tacit acceptance of unacceptable behavior.
 
I can not believe that kind of hateful mentality is in the majority, and in due time then decent people will suppress the hate speech and rightly so.

At least now the Muslims and Islam are no longer alone on the higher moral ground, as now we have Pope Francis to share in this call for decency in our ignorant society.

Guess what, **** that, **** the pope, **** anyone who wishes to take away my rights.

**** **** **** **** **** **** them.

I can say what I want regarding Islam. I think it's a trash religion and I'm free to say so in this blessed country.

The constitution trumps everything in this land. If you want to restrict speech, it'll be through nothing but an amendment.
 
Shame on you, Mr. Cusick.

I can not believe that kind of hateful mentality is in the majority, and in due time then decent people will suppress the hate speech and rightly so.

Once again, my common observation is demonstrated, that those who most loudly proclaim their opposition to bigotry usually turn out to be the very worst bigots of all.

To believe what one will, and to express one's beliefs, is one of the most basic and essential of all human rights. Only a bigot and a tyrant would advocate that this right be suppressed for those whose beliefs he finds disagreeable.

Shame on you, Mr. Cusick.
 
"...Attack on Saint Michel theater, Paris[edit]On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel theater while it was showing the film.[Last Temptation of Christ] This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.[9][10] ..... Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." ...The attack was subsequently blamed on a Christian fundamentalist group linked to Bernard Antony, a representative of the far-right Front National to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and the excommunicated followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre....Similar attacks against theatres included graffiti, setting off tear-gas canisters and stink bombs, and assaulting filmgoers.[..... Rene Remond, a historian, said of the Christian far-right, "It is the toughest component of the National Front and it is motivated more by religion than by politics. It has a coherent political philosophy that has not changed for 200 years: it is the rejection of the revolution, of the republic and of modernism."...several Christian fundamentalist groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' parent company MCA;[11] one of the protestors dressed as MCA's Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross.[6] Evangelist Bill Bright offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it.[11][12] The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film...In some countries, including Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the film continues to be banned in the Philippines and Singapore....."
I can not decipher whatever you mean by all of this but I will still give my take on that controversy.

The movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" has some offensive stuff in it but it was really just trying to interpret Jesus as a Man which really is much different then the French publishers who are spewing their hatred and bigotry.

Still there was a lot of Christians who tried to resist the showing of that movie and the producers did not care about the objections.

In that regard the publishers here are the same as in France that we can not reason with them or protest against them because their intention is to offend and it is non negotiable.

The difference in France is that this time the resistance did use violent force, and in France it was up against the powerful religion of Islam instead of the much weaker Christians and THAT makes a big difference.

I remember stories about old Greece being attacked by the huge Persian Empire under Xerxes, where Greece had the more civilized city-state of Athens who had no hope of fighting the Persians alone so they turned to the other city-state of Sparta which had a society of obedience and warfare, so Sparta led the battle and the Persian Empire was sent back defeated.

So now today the bigots and haters have long been pounding on Christianity but now with the powerful Muslims joining the fight then it becomes a new battle ground.
 
Who gets to define what ridicule means and why should it be off-limits?
Because that hate speech incites violence and civil unrest.

That is a fairly substantial definition.

Duh.


========================================


Yes it does. And, contrary to what you and a lot of religious people seem to think, criticism is not "provocative insults."
That is contrary to the reality that there was a blood bath massacre in France which indicates that the insults were indeed provocative.

And it is not like the Gov or the French or the Publishers did not know that.

They had two (2) police officers standing guard outside the front, and a secondary security lock inside the building, and they had bars on the windows, so they knew that they were being provocative as THAT was their point and purpose.
 
I find your views on limiting my free speech utterly offensive. I, emotionally, want to explain that to you with my fists. But that would be wrong. You have the right to offend me. I have the right to offend you.

If we are to live in this vast world society that we do live in then the rules have to be as they are. Otherwise we will be constantly at war with everybody else.
We have jails and prisons full of people who get offended at other people and that is not the issue here.

Even in Islamic Countries they too have jails and prisons full of citizen criminals who got offended at others.

The issue here is taking cheap hate speech and publishing it for profit and having that hate speech as empowered by the laws.



=============================================



I don't entirely agree with his statement. We should ALWAYS provoke. Unless we challenge, question, investigate, deny, support, explain, etc...how can we ever make progress? The truth is, there are a lot of aspects of Islam that are unpalatable to many people. And since those aspects are often front-and-center among the hateful radicals who do harm, it is perfectly acceptable to challenge those aspects of the faith. Blindly tolerating another religion is not going to keep people safe or promote respect. It only provides tacit acceptance of unacceptable behavior.
The French publishers were not and still are NOT trying to discuss the merits of faith or of religion with anyone.

It is fine to question and to challenge religion - yes, but we can not view insults and hate speech as trying to communicate like decent people - certainly not.

Go to any person of any religion and ask them about their religion and they are all happy to talk and debate and argue about their faith, and the Islamic people are open to real communications too.

You are trying to polish up the hate speech as if it was just trying to discuss the religion which their hate speech was NOT trying to discuss anything.
 
Because that hate speech incites violence and civil unrest.

That is a fairly substantial definition.

Duh.

Then do it, define how you would go about making certain speech off-limits by legislation or otherwise. The exact wording of whatever you need for Theocracy to have what it needs.
 
We have jails and prisons full of people who get offended at other people and that is not the issue here.

Even in Islamic Countries they too have jails and prisons full of citizen criminals who got offended at others.

The issue here is taking cheap hate speech and publishing it for profit and having that hate speech as empowered by the laws.

The issue is that you seem to think that you are able to tell me what is acceptable and what is not.

You are, I think, intellectually stunted and inferior to me. You are ethically vacuous. These things I say because you do not understand that whatever rules you would apply to me should, in any ethically decent society, apply equally to you. If I am not allowed to say that your God is a pile of drivel and that any preacher is a fraudster who is guilty of ripping off vulnerable people and should be in jail for such crimes then you are not allowed say that a thief is a bad person. Equality. Freedom of speech is the only answer that allows a decent society.
 
Then do it, define how you would go about making certain speech off-limits by legislation or otherwise. The exact wording of whatever you need for Theocracy to have what it needs.

If I say I find JP Cusack a prat and a fool for the reasons given above. That is OK.

If I tell others to attack JP Cusack and to do him harm, that his relatives should be killed and his dog spat upon. Then I am inciting violence and that is out of order.

Easy.
 
I don't think many people actually like hate speech.. especially when it's pointed at them.
however, most of us like .. LOVE.. the freedom of speech and expression we enjoy.

most of us understand the perils of limiting speech... even if it's only a conceptual understanding.

I usually wouldn't even bother thinking about insulting religion, any of them... but the more anti-free speech folks run their gums , the more I want to let loose with some good old fashioned hate speech, just because i'm free do to so.
 
Back
Top Bottom