Pope Jumps Into Politics and Science.

[mvanwink5]

Looks like he has decided to suspend the 1st amendment and has become a climate scientist all at the same time. Of course this is not the first time the Catholic church has pontificated on various subjects (and has a poor record on the positions it's taken).

[hanelyp]

One attribute of a good leader is care in not just what they say, but how they say it so as to not be misunderstood. Somewhere in there this current pope misses that mark.

[mvanwink5]

Somewhere this pope has forgotten the Catholic church's history of being on the wrong side of politics and science matters. Charity is one thing, personal charity that is, socialism is another thing as gubermant transforms charity into entitlement by bureaucrat and the taxman, which is not charity at all. Morality, good and evil, is 100% about choice. Take choice out of it, substitute gubermant bureaucrat action, and you get amoral action, and charity becomes corrupted.

And Church science, well, that is like gubermant intelligence. Whoever this pope is listening to, he needs to change his adviser.

[Tom Ligon]

He gets to state his opinion, same as us.

These days, nobody has to do what he says. There was a time when he had an army to back him up, the seas would rise when he gave the word, and he felt the fear in his enemys' eyes. These days he just gets some time in front of the media.

[mvanwink5]

What do I know, I'm not Catholic, so, all those Catholics treat his statements as just opinion? Hmmmm, there goes the 'divinity' of 'Popeness' out the door (and my misconception), and now he's just another guy looking for camera face time.

[GIThruster]

. . . there goes the 'divinity' of 'Popeness' . . .

I'm not catholic either, but it's good to note that although it is the official doctrine of Rome that the Pope is the Vicar, or living replacement for Christ on Earth, almost no American Catholics believe this. The Roman Catholic church has really seven different manifestations around the world. It is entirely different in American as compared to Latin America, or Ireland, or Italy and Poland, etc.; and American Catholics have never really bought the catholic doctrine of the Pope. Why would they? It's based on a secular Emperor, and without one of those, the notion of Pope is much harder to sell. American Catholics treat the Pope like they would a favorite sports team. They'll be happy to point out where they think things have gone wrong but in a clutch, they will side with the team. Not really a prescription for real loyalty but enough for parents to drum into their kids they need to marry Catholic.

[Tom Ligon]

My wife was raised sorta Roman Catholic and pays him no mind.

I was raised in the Episcopal Church, which is the American version of the Church of England. Technically, the Episcopal Church is "Catholic", just not Roman Catholic. Just as the Church of England split from the Catholic Church due to a dispute with the Pope, it turns out the Episcopal Church had some problem accepting that the King of England had much religious authority, either. So yeah, ignoring the Pope is a time-honored American position.

I find the Pope's views interesting and sometimes inspiring, but never consider them to have any authority. They are the views of a person who ought to have strong spiritual, ethical, and moral reasons for those views. I think this particular Pope is an alright kinda guy and is, at the very least, fun to watch.

Neither my wife nor I are religious or church-goers. I do recognize that a Christian upbringing has affected my sense of morality, love for the human race, and sense of right and wrong.

[mvanwink5]

Yes, his heart is in the right place it seems.

[ScottL]

I disagree with his opinion on freedom of speech.

[Tom Ligon]

I watched a clip from the Pope tonight, and was amused at his comment, which I believe translated something like, "If you insult my mother, you can expect a punch in the face." John Paul II (who forgave Ali Ağca for the attempted assassination) probably would have said, "Turn the other cheek."

Have you ever seen the work in Charlie Hebdo? Some of this stuff is incredibly offensive, and religion is a favorite target. Its not just offensive, it is juvenile. Pictures might, for example, show the Pope and Islamic and Jewish leaders engaged in mutual buggery. Works like that carry no useful satiric value, or social commentary, they are just there to say "Religion eats $#!+." I've never seen things this gross in even the irreverent Mad Magazine. It would have been over the top even in 1970's underground comics.

The correct response to this is public outcry, condemnation, and most pointedly a boycot and diminished sales. Do they have a right to publish it? Of course. Voltaire never actually said "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." Any of us who love freedom of the press like the sentiment even if it is an 20th century interpretation of Voltaire's actual ideas. Certainly, even if we are not quite ready to lay our lives down for CH, we don't think they should pay that penalty.

However, we can say, and the Pope can say, "Charlie Hebdo, you should be ashamed of yourself for printing that. It is untrue, it is offensive, it is unfair, and you should stop."

I've done satirical cartoons myself. One, published back when I was in college (and I never intended it for publication, but only to tease a guy down the hall in my dorm) depicted UVA students at their commencement, in a scene that would have been perfect Charlie Hebdo stuff. It was unkind, untrue, gross, and I'm not proud of it. I deserve a beer poured over my head for it. So I can actually say "Je suis Charlie."

The killings have taken gross cartoons with no mass appeal at all, with a circulation of about 50,000, and put them on the world stage, so that now a billion people have access to them. I sat down a couple of nights ago to see what all the fuss was about. Killing cartoonists didn't fix a dammed thing.

[choff]

There is the Babel fish in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, a universal language translating fish, which according to scientists is a dead giveaway that God doesn't exist.

The whole argument runs, roughly, as follows.
1.God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.
2.Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. So the fish proves that God exists - but hence also, by God's own reasoning (see 1) that God does not exist.
3.God says that (S)He hadn't thought of that (hadn't thought of 2) and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

I've sort of had my own version of a proof that god does in fact exist. God wants to test our faith so that only the hardcore truly faithful will follow him. In order to winnow out those of weak faith, he sets up leaders of the faith who say and do things that drive everybody except the most blindly devout from the church. Everybody that leaves thinks those left behind are idiots, since they keep on doing things that empty out the pews, so when he finally does reveal himself to humanity it makes non believers look foolish and believers look like geniuses.

[mvanwink5]

However, the Islamists don't differentiate between gross insult and mere printing of an image, so it is really the straw man attack. In its extreme logic I can take offense to anything and shutdown all but 'approved' speech, and Islamists are nearly there. That is the point to be defended. The pope has done a disservice to the argument by saying free speech should be restricted to that which is not offensive. One other point is that the Muslims use public loud speakers to broadcast their prayers. In my mind, public broadcast in that mode is not free speech. Further, broadcast on a radio listened to with ear plugs or in ones home so that thin walls aren't tested would still be regulated and punishable in Sharia, so PC'ing this issue isn't going to work.

Islam has a thousand years to bridge, not a small thing to sweep under the rug try as the make nice pope might.

[Tom Ligon]

Oh, I don't think they're a thousand years behind. Closer to 500. Remember how Christianity was a few hundred years ago. (And by the way, the Muslims in Spain back then could tell you some tales).

Yup, intolerance can't be tolerated in Western society. They're getting a lesson in bad press right now. It may take decades for it to sink in, and then they may regress and have to learn the lesson all over again.

But also, Western society has become tolerant of diversity, and the US probably more than Europe. With that comes a certain learned sensitivity. You can be a satirist but be fair about it, not just crude and indiscriminate. So I'm hoping CH comes out of this more grown up.

Wanna know the best story to come out of this? The Muslim employee of the kosher grocery store.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 06,00.html

A Malian Muslim who hid shoppers from an Islamist gunman during an attack on a Jewish supermarket in Paris will be given French nationality, the Interior Ministry said on Thursday.

After the gunman had already killed people during a hostage taking in the store on Friday, 24-year old shop attendant Lassana Bathily
hid several people in the store's freezer, turned off the light and told them to stay calm.

"I helped Jews. We're all brothers," Bathily told BFM TV. It's not a question of Jews, Christians or Muslims, we're all in the same boat," he said.

Following the acts of bravery by Mr Bathily during the hostage taking in the Hyper Casher market on Jan. 9, the Interior Ministry has fast-tracked (his) request for citizenship," the Interior Ministry said in a statement.

[mvanwink5]

Just so that we are talking the same language when using the word intolerance...
http://newsninja2012.com/isis-throw-men ... 3k.twitter

This is not some dark alley rough up, this is broad daylight, full public spectacle, in front of a crowd. Not quite the same as giving someone a cold shoulder. Makes Putin look like a friendly guy towards 'Gays.' Don't forget 'honor' killing, not in the middle east somewhere, but in major European socialist 'tolerant' 'liberal' cities. Or, acid in the face, that is what intolerance means to these guys, and this isn't about ISIS or extremists.

[GIThruster]

I hope this is a mischaracterization of what the Pope actually said. There's no context and he might very well have said something that much better supports freedom of speech and we're not seeing it. Certainly I can't agree with him. It's one thing to think these guys jerks who published these cartoons. It's another thing to murder them. And it is the murdering part that is the real problem. We will always have people act like assholes. This does not mean other people can just indiscriminately murder them.

I would just note to you, this is what caused the Crusades. Christians around the Mediterranean put up with constant abuse from Muslims for 600 years before the first Crusade, and it was the outcry of the common man who wanted to be able to travel to the Holy Land on pilgrimage that incited the first Crusade. For 600 years, Muslims had preyed upon travelers and anyone else who does not fit their description of their faithful, because their Holy Book tells them to do this. It tells them they are justified to murder infidels, thieve from them, raid their camps (which Mohamed did himself), kidnap and ransom them, etc. People go on and on about extremist Islam, but you need to understand--all real Islam is extremist. If you're not an extremist in Islam, you are not one of the faithful, because you don't believe people ought to murder each other like the Koran says they should.

I'm sorry Mr. Pope but WTF were you thinking to get yourself quoted like this?