Posted on 01/08/2015 7:43:14 AM PST by Kevin C
In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech. But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads. "Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day. "Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," says Donohue. "But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction." The statement says Charlie Hebdo has "a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning" of religious figures. "They have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms," Donohue says. "They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses." Among the covers is a too-racy-for-WorldViews depiction of the Christian Holy Trinity locked in a three-way homosexual orgy (as part of a critique of French religious leaders' opposition to gay marriage) and a whole array of images mocking pedophilia by priests. Charlie Hebdo doesn't pull its punches. But some critics say it goes too far, specifically with Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The downside in this country is the erosion of Constitutional rights.
Blasphemy and pornography themselves are two separate and different categories.
To ban pornography is to ban a source of physical and emotional harm among people.
To ban blasphemy is not the same thing.
I’m pointing out this difference just in case you added pornography for the sole reason of making your case appear stronger.
First of all, censorship is not about arresting anyone. With Rickles I m not familiar, but yes, I can imagine a comedian being asked, for example, to not swear in public.
Seriously? They will be, what, less Jewish or less Christian with age?
The answer to offensive speech, is to answer the offensive speech
No; that is exactly the point: one cannot answer offensive speech. One can swear back. If one shouts "@#$%^&!!!" what is the answer? There is none. The reactions are (1) tolerate or (2) use force. There are cases for both, -- it depends. The case on hand is that the Hebdo Whatever should not have been allowed to operate.
Exactly, and if a court can decide whether something is libel or slander, it can just as easily decide if something is a pure insult, or blasphemy, or pornography. And historically, the courts have decided that and nothing ground to the halt.
That is very casual and mild, but yes, since to reasoning is attached to it, yes, it is an insult.
How is blasphemy not “a source of physical and emotional harm among people”?
No, — not stronger, simply once we are talking about restoration of censorship, pornography is first on the list. Silly cartoons are really an outlier case.
Blasphemy harms the deity, and it is settled between the deity and the blasphemer.
It also harms the people exposed to it and that aspect is settled in courts.
Alright then. We don’t need to censor blasphemy.
Can you not see that Voltaire was no Charlie Hebdo? And are you truly ignorant of the psychological damage incurred as a result of what Voltaire wrote?
As your argument is based on a mandate for reasoned discussion, I have a suggestion. Commence to clawing amidst the thorns and thistles around you—search in earnest for the tiniest bit or remnant of reason that might be lying beneath the noxious dust of the disordered, whimsical idea that you can magically read the mind of cartoonists and know their intentions.
No competent judge of any courtroom would accept otherwise.
That is what I said. Re-read, please.
clawing amidst the thorns and thistles around you
I see, for example, atheists who make rational arguments. I see Protestants who make rational arguments. At times, even Muslims, -- religion not known for attachment to reason, -- make rational arguments. But I also see a legal climate of absolute off-the-cliff identification with any kind of unreasoned insult-laden speech that has no value and should not be protected.
Note, too, that it only works for select politically correct causes. Religious speech is never protected by the left-wing governments of today in the same way as atheist speech is protected.
At a moment when, because of the terrorist killings of the Charlie Hebdo staff and six other victims in Paris, free speech -- no matter how provocative -- is being defended with almost religious fervour, it is deeply ironic that a sincere Christian is being persecuted for publishing views which, until five minutes ago historically, were absolutely mainstream.I am Kelvin Cochran (but I'm not Charlie Hebdo)
Any good lawyer with knowledge of philosophy could argue, using your standard pertaining to reasonable speech, that Voltaire’s writings has no value and should not be protected.
No. Voltaire — as a whole — obviously used reason.
What appears to be reason is truly unreason—and thus has no value—when it leads one to false conclusions.
No, that is not the case either. When an atheist, for example, reasons that there is no God because there is a natural way for the universe to form itself, that is use of reason, despite the error in the conclusion.
Simply because Hawking is known to be highly intelligent doesn’t mean he’s right when he says the universe “can and will create itself,”
The statement is a good example of logical incoherence, or unreason. A thing cannot precede itself, therefore it cannot create itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.