Shame on the Vatican for basically agreeing with the Moslem cartoon rioters:

The Vatican on Saturday condemned the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad which have outraged the Muslim world, saying freedom of speech did not mean freedom to offend a person's religion.

Yes it does. Because without allowing the possibility of the latter, the former is meaningless. Practically anything anyone can say of some substance is likely to "offend a person's religion."

"The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion," the Vatican said.

"Especially ours," the Vatican said in subtext.

Nobody is claiming a "right to offend." Freedom of thought and expression simply means that the prospect of someone feeling offended(whether offense was intended or not) isn't something that can be allowed to legally block freedom of thought/expression. Otherwise, we better all shut up pretty damned quick.

And why should there be a special exemption for "religion"? Should an atheist, offended by something, be able to ask for legal redress? How about someone who feels a deep, abiding passion for their nation -- should their offense taken at the statements of a politician, journalist, or foreigner allow them to sue or ask for legal sanctions?

I feel very deeply about freedom of expression. Indeed, there's a religious component of that, because I believe God made us intelligent for a reason, and part of that intelligence, part of our mission, is to discern meaning. The only way to do that is through free expression and the marketplace of ideas.

So should my offense at the Vatican for claiming a special exemption for their brand of ideology mean that I should ask for their fax machines to be unplugged?

"Any form of excessive criticism or derision of others denotes a lack of human sensitivity and can in some cases constitute an unacceptable provocation," it said in a statement issued in response to media demands for the Church's opinion.

The weasel words of "excessive" and "in some cases" should be clues here. While I'm a huge believer in civil discourse and politeness and, in fact, in the value and even morality of not being offensive, any restrictions on expression need to be extraordinarily narrow in scope and reflect more than just people getting their knickers in a twist (or even, frankly, people feeling sincerely hurt).

Christ suggested turning the other cheek, and forgiving those who offend. One would think the Vatican would be more interested in preaching such forbearance and forgiveness (or trying to sway people into loving one another rather than hurting each other on body or spirit), than in trying to get Caesar to stop folks from saying bad things about them. One would think.

(via DOF)

Filed under :: Religion :: ZT & PC
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

Quoth Marn, eh ...

***Dave, here's another perspective from one of the negotiators your government uses to try to achieve peace in the Middle East.

http://a-trick-mind.livejournal.com/138779.html

Quoth ***Dave ...

While I certainly believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I do believe we have a responsibility to not be incendiary when we exercise those rights.

For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to agree. "With great power comes responsibility." That's true with pretty much all human rights.

But it's a responsibility that cannot be easily or safely imposed from outside, by a third party, by the state, without running far more grave dangers than abuse of speech and expression freedoms allows. Only in the most carefully delimited, narrowly defined, and objectively judged cases are such restrictions defensible, in my opinion.