“Freedom of speech has limits – Pope http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625 ”
According to the BBC, “Pope Francis has defended freedom of expression following last week’s attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo – but also stressed its limits. The pontiff said religions had to be treated with respect, so that people’s faiths were not insulted or ridiculed.”
My respectful question to the “pope”, and all YOU religious faithful, is this: aren’t non-religious people entitled to the same degree of respect, a life free of insults, or threats, or ridicule, to the use of which you feel to have been commissioned by the object/subject of your religious beliefs?
And if you don’t remember when you have disrespectfully insulted and ridiculed us, let me respectfully ask you the following:
-when was the last time you zealously read, or accepted as true those passages of your scriptures which call all those on the other side of your self-righteous fence, “sinners, wicked, infidel, evil…”, just because we refuse to believe your beliefs?
-when was the last time when you thought to been entitled to judge our law-abiding lives as “worthy of god’s wrath, on our way to hell and eternal fire”, desperately needing your “loving” god’s “merciful grace and salvation”, just because we refuse to believe your beliefs?
-when was the last time you considered yourself superior, heir to the world to come, above the rest of us all, “sinners in the hands of an angry god”, worthy only to be condescendingly prayed for by you, the “holier-than-thou” lot, just because we refuse to believe your beliefs?
So mr. “pope”, and all YOU religious zealots, why do you think we have to quietly swallow your ongoing slanderous attitude, while being expected to respect the very grounds through which you feel entitled to insult, threaten and ridicule us, our lives, our families, our children, our right to a life of peace and dignity?
Would HYPOCRISY be an appropriate alternative to categorize YOU?
THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHY 
Greetings my friend.
The religious people call us immoral, think our lives are meaningless, think we are sad and hateful of their god and we laugh about it.
There is no way a belief that a donkey saw an angel of god and talked to a man cannot be ridiculed.
LikeLike
Beautifully said. After hearing his words my head’s been spinning, incapable of organising my thoughts as perfectly and concisely as you have here.
LikeLike
I think you may be selling Pope Francis short on this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html
It is one thing to be critical of views in a constructive way. This stirs intellectual curiosity and is good. It is another to simply ridicule people for views you do not agree with in order to stir emotions of hatred or contempt.
People should be entitled to their own beliefs. And of course people are entitled to express whatever they want. However, those who chose to try to ridicule others to stir emotions of contempt and hatred are acting wrongly IMO.
LikeLike
Hi Joe, thanks again for stopping by.
I have to disagree with you about the “constructivism of critique”, which in my opinion is just a politically corrected version of the profound impact carried by antagonisms. It doesn matter how palatable some people would want their beliefs and convictions to be treated/considered, such expectations would imply the a priori acceptance of religious beliefs as something to be respected by all. Well, my friend, religious people have come to expect such an error, because mankind still lives the aftermath of the dark ages, where this wasn’t something to be questioned with an expectancy of a long life…
And yes, people are entitled to their beliefs, but so do others to their disbeliefs.
Also, as weird as it may sound, I am utterly convinced that Charlie Hebdo did not “chose to try ridicule others to stir emotions of contempt and hatred”. They exercised their right to ridicule something they have the right to disconsider. Reactions meanwhile of contempt and hatred should be kept at bay and controled, as expected from humans in general.
And I may even agree with you that open, press condoned ridicule of beliefs held in high respect by entire nations is ethically questionable, nevertheless anyone who feels entitled to respond with murder to such insults, doesn’t deserve to be called a human being.
LikeLike
I am not familiar with the Hebdo cartoons. I purposely decided not to look at them. I did that for a simple reason. It doesn’t matter what they were. No matter what he drew no one should think they can kill someone over it. On the other hand the fact that he died does not mean that he is somehow excused for being rude or obnoxious. Rudeness is rudeness whether the rude actor was murdered or whether he died peacefully in his sleep. So you may be right about Hebdo.
I created my own view that people should be respectful to others and not try to provoke or insult them long before the Hebdo tragedy. I would prefer I try not to form/change my beliefs based on emotional responses to emotionally charged situations.
I posted the article from the Pope because I think he seemed to have views very different than the views your article suggest Christians hold.
LikeLike
Well my friend, looks like the pope has gone on another ex-cathedra rampage, ignoring both the catholic dogma of salvation, and the biblical soteriological principles. According to the bible, salvation is by grace through faith, ineffective one without the other. And what I wrote about the right of non-religious people to be treated the way religious ones expect, I just reiterated the biblical principle of “do unto others…”.
As a law professional you may consider the fact that one day non-religious people might think about why should they be treated with less respect, by being called sinners of all sorts, evil, fools etc, just because writings considered holy by some people, called them so…
Hate has many, ugly faces.
LikeLike
I am not sure he intended it to be ex-cathedra. I also don’t think what he said is so unbiblical.
I think we might have a different idea of what faith is. From my perspective he is expressing faith in Jesus by recommending people obey his instructions.
LikeLike
According to vatican dogma, when the pope speaks, god speaks, so by default, when he speaks, it is ex-cathedra, even if nowadays, the vatican seems to resort more and more to the stratagem of dissociating from a pope’s words, by claiming his right to private opinion.
And you are absolutely right, we do have different ideas of what faith is, nevertheless, from a biblical/doctrinal/dogmatic point of view, which as a professional I must embrace, faith is what a holy text claims to be, which is doctrinal, and what different denominations claim, which is dogmatic.
LikeLike
I am not familiar with any dogma that says when the pope speaks god speaks. I think the doctrine was defined at the first vatican council and has always allowed that popes can have private opinions.
As far as what faith in God means I take it to mean belief and trust in God. I get this from the translation of the word pistis pisteou that the scripture authors used.
LikeLike
The point isn’t the meaning and definition of faith, but the purpose of it, which is salvation. For the pope therefore to “offer” some sort of salvation to good deeds doing atheists, is in contradiction with their own dogma of salvation, which requires infant baptism, a life of good deeds, confessions, penances, last rites, etc.
LikeLike
Yeah I am not so sure of the contradiction. The church as far as i know has never definitively said any particular person is not saved. (Like they do with Saints who they definitely say are in heaven) However they do offer what they think is the normal route of salvation. That is what you went through regarding baptism, faith, a life in accordance with Christs commands, and repentance for our sins etc.
LikeLike