by D.J. Webb
Did the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo actually have it coming? Did they deserve it?
The Pope seems to think so. The Independent quotes him in the following terms:
“If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction.
He added: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
This is rather sad. Did the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists “deserve a punch”?
This prelate is forgetting his role — to promote Catholicism. The traditional view was that Christian baptism was a prerequisite for salvation — and that Islam was not a path to God. The Crusades were declared by Popes who believed that a clash between Christianity and Islam was one between good and evil.
Respect for manmade religions is not part of the consensus fidelium. Did not Jesus ridicule the Pharisees? Recall how the prophet Elijah held the priests of Baal up to ridicule in 1 Kings 18:
21And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. 22Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men. 23Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: 24And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
25And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. 29And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.
30And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down. 31And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name: 32And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed. 33And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood. 34And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time. 35And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.
36And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. 37Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. 38Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. 40And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Muslim god, Allah, is the real God — worship him! It really is quite simple. Our Christian duty, as members of the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, is to ridicule Islam and show it up. While interfaith dialogue is, according to a traditionalist understanding, heresy, what is worse that Francis I has ended up condoning terrorism. Where are the Elijahs of the church today?
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
The Meaning and Importance of Righteousness
Real Christianity
The Fast Disappearing American International Dictatorship and The So-Called Rules Based International Order RBIO – Where is This Leading?
The Core of Modern Russia
A Nation Betrayed: Outrage of a Voluntary Englishman
Powered by YARPP.
Is Charlie Hebdo guilty of provoking the terrorist attack? Will you get the answer wrong ON PURPOSE?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/is-charlie-hebdo-guilty-of-provoking.html
Besides all else, last I checked it was actually illegal to punch other people.
Yes – and how does it leave the church combating domestic violence? He’s bending over far too far backwards to appease the left. This is ridiculous. He’s in the Philippines and ought to be appealing to the Muslim south of that countr to abandon Mahometanism and follow Christ. That is what he is employed to do.
So far as I can tell, Christianity now seems to be reduced to telling people to believe in something, anything, and it doesn’t matter if it’s Jesus. How this fits in with the Christian message exactly leaves me entirely baffled. Either Jesus is the way and the light, or He isn’t. I’m hard pressed to find any middle ground in that.
Well, it is reduced to just “be nice to people”. I’m leaning towards supporting folding up the organizational church and turning the churches into community centres for the English, so that the remaining church funds can be used for upkeep. This would turn Christianity from part of our (living) culture into a part of our heritage – which, arguably, is all that is now.
If you insult the pope’s mother, he’ll punch you rather than turning the other cheek. Isn’t that just bizarre?
Oh, the CofE can be made fine and new again. All it needs is a revived Ecclesiastical High Commission with someone like me in charge of it. Deprive all the bishops and a few thousand priests, and make their replacements sign up in public to the Thirty Nine Articles and the Oath of Supremacy – that should do the trick nicely.
Good idea!
I’m not an ecclesiastical historian, but it seems to me that the CofE got itself into trouble rather early on in its inception. It sort of allowed itself to become a political instrument of the British State, by accepting direction from Henry VIII – and in effect headed by him – in his (admittedly correct and strategico-nationalistically-right) defiance of the Pope and his catspaw the Monarchy of Spain.
It’s now, I suggest, hard to see how it could be reconstituted peaceably, so that it fails to embrace leftist turds like the odious and smelly Justin Welby, for example. I thought that bugger Rowan Williams was bad enough, but this guy is far worse. He even _looks_ like a secret policeman – whereas Williams merely looked intellectual, badly-groomed, and confused. Bet you 2p that Welby was unpopular and stressful to work with, when he was an oil-man: probably fired on the way up all those he thought he might have to meet on the way down. Lucifer will have to put sand on his claws for that one.
Disappointing and undignified words from the Pope indeed; whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Unfortunately he is not sound on economics either.
And neither is the politicised C of E, whose leaders seem to be more interested in having the state fight “inequality” than they are in preaching the Gospel.
Western culture seems to be suffering from a kind of moral vacuum.
… I think a bit of disrespect is always a healthy thing. It’s when it turns into bullying that it becomes unhealthy. I think Mr Pope is confused on this issue (I suspect he has never been bullied and that he doesn’t respond well to disrespect …).
My view is that Charlie Hebdo showed healthy disrespect to Islam, as it will have done on other topics. It is a good thing to provoke questioning in individuals. It is a good thing for individuals to think for themselves. It may help them strengthen their views or beliefs even.
The terrorists responded like the bullies that they are. not like the thoughtful members of the faith which they espouse to represent.
France is an overtly secular country. When in Rome … and that applies to the Pope and muslims alike …
I have no problem with punching out people who insult me, “pour encourage les autres.” I think you’ve got to accept that speaking freely will have consequences that will include offending people enough that they’re motivated to use violence against you. My problem is with government pre-emptively shutting up people and therefore (inevitably) misusing that power.
The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were grossly offensive for sure, irrespective of what they were actually meant to be about, and I say that as a non-Muslim.
I’m all for people saying what they want but I’m also for them being responsible for what they say and suffering the consequences. That is not to condone the Hebdo attackers – if they really had the support they could have made the business of the magazine non viable without actually shooting anyone, for instance by persistently destroying Hebdo’s / the magazine’s property without actually killing anyone.
No, you don’t have the right to punch people who insult you. No law recognises that right. Especially when the “insult” is of a general sense against your values, religion, preference for Star Wars over Star Trek, etc. You have the right to walk away. You have the right to argue back. You have the right to stop your ears. That’s it. The boundary around the person and their property is the basis of a libertarian society, and you don’t get to violate it just because you’re upset.
But, back in the real world, insulting someone can be a prelude to violence – “calling someone out.” Who throws the first punch isn’t necessarily who started the fight, back in the real world. We’re not talking about somebody’s preference for “Star Trek.” The straw men are all around this place like zombies.
There’s a fundamental difference between individual action and collective action in that the individual is individually responsible for his or her actions. Try to get your head around that.
“No law recognises that right” – think, for instance, of the code duelo that was not criminalised for a long time, or the situation in feudal Japan. Plenty of societies used trial by combat as a basis for law.
While it is true that inferior people do respond to insults with violence, civilised people don’t. So the Pope is actually saying something very negative about Islam and the Muslims. We know if you upset these people, some of them resort to violence, but that is another way of saying that, culturally, they’re centuries behind us.
Except that out here in the real world, thuggery is illegal and generally considered unacceptable, and under libertarian ethics it is as well. And calling it “individual action” doesn’t make any difference.
Your response though reinforces my perception that there is a certain cohort among those who strenuously argue for some form of right-anarchism, who really just want the State out of the way so that they can brutalise others without interference. In practical terms, moving away from the primitive cycle-of-violence feud system is one of the necessities of civilisation.
Trial by combat? Yes, whether or not I can beat you in a sword fight is obviously an excellent way of ascertaining whether I committed a crime or not. Sheesh.
I agree with Ian. The individual has no more right to limit other peoples freedom of speech (good and bad, including racist, anti feminist, homo phobic, anti/pro religious, crude, vile, obnoxious, ect) with violence, or threats; than does the state.
As a christian believer, I find the gross hypocrisy of the PC/hate crimes brigade; particularly objectionable: considering the decades of cultural anti-christian abuse. I have even asked in the workplace, where we have been drilled in the usual PC agenda, if I can put in a complaint when I hear people blaspheming the Lord Jesus (not that I would) and they seemed surprised and said no!
Popery has had centuries of using violence against its critics and also centuries to develop a persecution complex, in cultures where it couldn’t openly kill it’s critics.
At an anti-abortion protest some of the stricter Romanists, with whom I had some debate, (they were unusually trying to convert the Prods and stop them converting the Papists) did express the desire to reinstate the practical aspects of the inquisition and saw this as a good, moral, positive thing.
https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/feminists-and-other-puritans/
IanB: Another one for your perusal–perhaps you should comment over there as well.
If the mother of Pope Francis had approved of the murder of an old blind poet for mocking her, and then when a pregnant female poet had protested against the murder, had approved of her murder also – I would insult her.
Perhaps, on balance and all things considered, a Jesuit Pope was not a terribly good idea.
Paul, I think he got appointed because he is an Argentine. The “Hispanic World” has lots of money and people, and great graft always with the UN. It also makes itself out to be “poor, beaten and starved by the Anglosphere”…(Crap.) So an Argentine Pope was a shoe-in. The bastards were able to get an anti-English scmu-bag and a socialist in one hit.
However, that is not to say that Argentine People are bad people, for this is not so. They are Italians, living in cleared-razed-residually-Inca-lands, who are forced to speak Spanish, forced to be socialists, and yearn to be English liberals. That’s why they are all called things like “Wilson Pedrosa” and so on.
I would try to help them, by giving them British Nationality. This is so they then don’t need to listen to their crazed “President” “mombutawoman” or whatever she is called – I cannot remember, and I cannot be arsed to try (she’s got long hair I think, and rants on about The Falklands now and then when she’s run out of some more money), and so that their country can become part of The Falkland Islands Dependency”, and then it will be all right. But nobody will listen to that I guess.
Ah Argentina – the country that defaults on its government debt every few years (and has done for a century or so).
Surely the bankers, who keep lending them other people’s money, are as much to blame as the criminal regimes in Argentina? Well perhaps not “as much” to blame – but negligence certainly.
Strictly speaking Pope Francis is not a Liberation Theology man – he agrees with the economics, but disagrees with the political dictatorship and disguised Marxist atheism bits.
Of course “agrees with the economics” is not exactly good…….
Meanwhile in the Philippines…….
The Muslim part of the population are openly celebrating the murders in Paris. I watched them do so on Al Jazeera television – not exactly an “Islamophobic” source.