• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Pope Francis: “You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others…In freedom of expression there are limits”

Jan 15, 2015 8:48 am By Robert Spencer

PopeThe Pope is speaking generally of religions here, but clearly he is only talking about one religion, and not his own. For those who insult the Pope’s religion, and there are many, have no reason to “expect a punch” from believers, and the Pope must be aware of that. Moreover, in these remarks he flatly contradicts himself. He says: “Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending.” “Without offending”? So the freedom, right and obligation to say what one thinks for the common good ends wherever someone else takes offense? But what if the offense is unreasonable or unwarranted? Is the fact that some people get offended to the point of murderous rage over a handful of cartoons really sufficient reason to curtail the freedom, right and obligation of others to say what they think for the common good? Then any tyrant can silence his critics by claiming that he is offended, and we will be ruled over, and indeed tyrannized, by the perpetually offended. And that is pretty much the situation we are heading toward these days.

“After Paris attacks, Pope speaks out against insulting religions,” by Philip Pullella, Reuters, January 15, 2015:

(Reuters) – Pope Francis, speaking of last week’s deadly attacks by Islamist militants in Paris, has defended freedom of expression, but said it was wrong to provoke others by insulting their religion and that one could “expect” a reaction to such abuse.

“You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith,” he told reporters on Thursday, aboard a plane taking him from Sri Lanka to the Philippines to start the second leg off his Asian tour.

Francis, who has condemned the Paris attacks, was asked about the relationship between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

“I think both freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights,” he said, adding that he was talking specifically about the Paris killings.

“Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending,” he said.

To illustrate his point, he turned to an aide and said: “It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if (he) says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal.

“You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others,” he added. “These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits.”

Seventeen people, including journalists and police, were killed in three days of violence that began with a shooting attack on the political weekly Charlie Hebdo, known for its satirical attacks on Islam and other religions.

Referring to past religious wars, such as the Crusades sanctioned by the Catholic Church against Islam, the Pope said:

“Let’s consider our own history. How many wars of religion have we had? Even we were sinners but you can’t kill in the name of God. That is an aberration.”…

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Catholic Church, Featured, free speech, Useful idiots Tagged With: Pope Francis


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. King Dave says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 8:54 am

    Capitulation to threats and actual Islamic violence. Why in good conscience would anyone, including the Pope promote the demands of the Islamic militants?
    The result is the only one speaking openly and honestly without fear of offense is the Islamic militants.

    • Frank says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 11:48 am

      I feel offended by the Pope.
      Can I kill him now, please?

  2. Ed says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:01 am

    This is one of those many occasions where he should have simply stayed out.

    • Stacy says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 9:13 am

      Yes, one of the many times. His job is to be a shepherd for the true Faith, not an apologist for Satan.

    • Spot On says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 10:45 am

      What makes Islamic Militants’ shooting of innocent people or cutting their heads off any different from the actions of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. The Pope is giving these Islamic barbarians cover and one more excuse to murder innocent people. Islamic Militants have been at war with either Christianity or Western Society for 14 centuries non-stop. Mohammed successfully developed a theology to go along with his warring conquests of people. Hitler tried to develop his theology too, but fortunately failed. Stalin and Pol Pot’s theology was communism. Either this Pope is not aware of history or he is unable to put things together or think things through. Maybe his age has something to do with it. Maybe his upbringing under a dictatorship has something to do with it but he is simply wrong.

      • ECAW says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 11:09 am

        What can you expect from someone who thinks Argentina has a claim to the Falkland Islands?

        • Sergio says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 11:54 am

          Actually, those islands are Argentinean.

        • ECAW says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm

          Actually, ie in reality, they are British. Only in fantasy are they Argentinean. The same fantasy that led the Generals into a ruinous war.

        • Jen says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 7:27 pm

          “Actually, ie in reality, they are British.” Britain shouldn’t have been anywhere near that piece of land in the very first place…I’m British but geez, it’s a bit far away from the British mainland if you know what I mean..

        • ECAW says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 12:58 am

          What has distance got to do with it? Australia was a long way from Britain. Brazil was a long way from Portugal, the East Indies was a long way from Holland. In those days European empires competed for undeveloped places (and dragged them into the modern world). Would you rather that Australia was left to scattered tribes of people whose most advanced technology was the boomerang?

          I read up about the Falklands situation once and came to the conclusion that it was all six of one and half a dozen of the other 150 years ago and that the continuous settlement by the British since then was the deciding factor. I even tried imagining the roles reversed and came to the the conclusion that if Spain or the fledgling Argentina had occupied the islands for that time then they would have the strongest claim.

          No more from me about this off topic subject.

  3. RonaldB says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:22 am

    One characteristic of most modern popes is that they were scholars. Agree or disagree with them, they generally knew what they were talking about.

    It seems this Pope is extremely moderate in his education and general knowledge. He seems to exhibit the lack of curiosity and imagination that one would expect to find in the left-wing, useless academic fields, such as gender studies or literary deconstruction.

    I’m sorry for the Catholics, who have at least a scholarly tradition, that they are now represented by someone as flat as this Pope.

    • AnneM says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 9:27 am

      I am a Catholic and more and more Pope Francis is becoming an “embaressment” with each new day.

      • Emilie Green says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 9:39 am

        More “Deep Thoughts” (Jack Handey style) from Pope Frank.

    • umbra says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 9:53 am

      He is first and foremost a modern jesuit (which entails Social Justice, blah, blah, blah …), then the Catholic pope. Modern jesuits are the progressives within the Catholic Church today. Overall, he is quite hopeless.

  4. Arjuna Krishna-Das says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:24 am

    Maybe he’s still pissed off about Martin Luther making all those offensive statements about the Roman Catholic church and people reading the Bible for themselves in their own language. If only we’d shut that bastard up then we wouldn’t have all these hereticical bloody protestants.

  5. Michael Copeland says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:24 am

    “He has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values and told us that our forefathers were misguided.”
    (Al Tabari) http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/antagonizing.htm
    It might be “offensive” to say who that was.

  6. Don McKellar says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:28 am

    Another foolish, ill-conceived comment from the pope.

    This is the problem with people who are so devoutly religious that they can’t step back and see the reality of the big picture. And I’m addressing fundamentalist Christians who try and weasel in a “but” all the time like this pope — they’re a bad as the leftist fascists are in defending childish moslems! My ability to say anything the hell I want about your religion means, ironically, that you can have and practice your religion as you want. For if I can’t freely speak my mind about ideas, then who is to say when somebody else will prevent YOU from speaking your mind about ideas? In Islamic nightmare countries, this is what happens, because there is no real freedom of speech. As soon as they gain enough of a foothold, they shut down free speech like in any dictatorship and, eventually, their are no other ideas, except the myopic nightmare world of the death cult of the moon god. The only ideas discussed then is about who is the most pious and who must die because they are not.

    • Bill says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:21 pm

      I’m a Protestant, Evangelical, aka “Christian fundamentalist.” To be accurate and non slanderous you need to replace the term “Christian fundamentalist” in your post with “Roman Catholic.” “Christian fundamentalists” have no “pope(s)”, abhor the idea of infallibility and are virulently anti-Islamic. This “Christian fundamentalist” understands Islam as the “body of antichrist,” and completely hostile to liberty and Christianity.

      • Jen says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 8:19 pm

        It’s often Protestants though (there are many branches of this so we could be referring any number of them), who are the ones that are more inclined to say “read the Bible” instead of advocating for Christian self-defense. Not leaders specifically but individual members of Protestanism sometimes elect to lose their common sense entirely, in favour of advising people to just “read the Bible”! Absolute madness…God gave everyone a brain and it is up to people to use whatever tools they have at their disposal. They’re too busy being holier-than-thou to realise that allowing yourself to be overcome by evil (being killed or raped by Muslims or allowing anyone else to be killed or raped on your watch) isn’t Christian at all. I don’t believe that people who enable this, due to their holy roller mentality are guiltless in the eyes of God. I have not met many Catholics who think like this, to be honest. It is more often than not found among some of the Protestant branches and I believe this is because there is a lot of inconsistency in their understanding of the Bible. They look to their church leader or a website whom they trust as their “authority” or “adviser” on Biblical matters; but often those interpretations are all different from one another. Or an individual reads a Bible on their own and cherry-picks certain parts from the Bible which is why their thinking is lopsided. They may abhor “infallibility” but they end up with a version of Christianity by their own design, because they make themselves master “interpreters” of the Bible as individuals. I think that is capable of producing an even worse outcome among individuals sometimes.They’re not more devoutly religious than Catholics, despite their claims; but just stupid. Something more worthy of being “abhorred” than “infallibility” are the fundie Christians who seem to lack the ability to put themselves in the shoes of persecuted Christians who deserve the right to defend themselves. In other words, they lack compassion; which I would have thought was of great importance in Christianity. I’m sure that self-preservation would kick in, if they had to face the situation themselves and they would hop down from whatever cloud they are living on.

        • Bill says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 9:46 pm

          The Roman Pope makes a statement stifling the freedom of speech and in an indirect way supporting the Islamic suppression of speech in the name of “decency” and a writer and you slam “fundamentalists.” While it is evident that all Christians, including “fundamentalists” are lacking in their reactive and proactive responses to the threat of Islam, only the slanderous and dissemblers can point a finger at “fundamentalists” while it was the Pope and Roman apologist Bill Donahue who made the statement supporting Islamic censorship and Islamic violence toward censorship. Also, Protestant “fundamentalists” have no comparable theological error like 841 of the Roman Catechism which states that Christians and Muslims “worship the same God.” Liberal Protestants, being similar to Roman Catholics and the Vatican, are pro Palestinian, anti-Zionist and conciliatory toward Islam. Protestant “fundamentalists” are universally anti-Islamic, see Islam as apostasy and Satanic, and believe that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. I am a Protestant fundamentalist, I pray daily for the persecuted Christians, my church prays DURING EACH SERVICE FOR THE PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS, I give money to rescue persecuted CATHOLICS and others and I believe in the use of force through the state to defend the innocent who are being brutalized by Muslims. I also believe, in complete juxtaposition to the Roman Church, that Islam is Satanic, Islam is the body of antichrist, Islam is to be opposed, and the antichrist will be a Muslim.

        • Jen says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 2:40 am

          ” I believe in the use of force through the state to defend the innocent who are being brutalized by Muslims.” – I’m sorry to point this out Bill, but much of the time the “state” in countries where Christians are being butchered by Muslims cannot be trusted and in fact, have Muslims within the ranks of the military itself. The fundamentalist Christians who slam those Christians who had to take matters into their own hands due to their dire situation are the kind of Christians whose opinion I cannot possibly respect. The reason why your crowd take that approach is because rather than having a sense of genuine compassion for their suffering, which is what Christianity actually encourages people to do; you decide to “champion” this cause instead: “The historical Christian champions of freedom of speech and of liberty, limited government, etc. are PROTESTANTS.” Those values are obviously more important than a shared sense of humanity. I’d rather cheer for those who defend themselves, whatever the means because I know these people just want to survive. I couldn’t give a toss about “through the state” or these other values which matter not, in the face of grave danger.

  7. Mark DeFord Eletion says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:29 am

    “You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others…In freedom of expression there are limits”

    The pope’s comment above can be applied to any sort of religion – including devil worship – or worse.

    There have been a great many religions. If humanity lasts long enough, there will be many more. Some of them have been outlandish enough that they needed to be suppressed, regardless of which “god” they claimed.

    Religion is a powerful tool (for controlling thought and behavior). It needs to be used carefully and kept under control – preferably by its own adherents. If a religion’s adherents are unable or unwilling to control it, outside forces may feel a need to take on the responsibility.

    The islamic religion leaves no way for its adherents to control it. Few of them even want to. Only non-islamic countries can control islam. The process won’t be pretty, but it must be done.

    • Don McKellar says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 10:36 am

      Well said, and true.

  8. Fesseha Akalu says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:36 am

    In a way you can’t help but feel sorry for the Pope. Similar to the mainstream media, politicians and the useful idiots, he feels besieged by Muslim violence and the war they’ve declared on a way of living other than their own.

    • rev g says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 10:34 am

      No need to feel sorry for him, he is remiss in his duty to the his faithful everywhere. He should be the voice of Catholic Christians in standing firm, not apologizing for past battles against muslim aggression, and calling islam out. He should be one of the voices in the wilderness calling the press and world politicians out on their pandering, and affirming that ISIS and the many islamic terror organizations are indeed real islam.

  9. Peter says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:43 am

    Didn’t the Pharisees have the same opinion about Jesus?

  10. rev g says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:49 am

    Time to come up with a new version of Father Guido Sarducci”s game of “find-a the Popes in-a da pizza”.
    This pope is a disgrace.

  11. Jack Diamond says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:57 am

    The Christian faith itself gives offense to Muslims, Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ give offense to Muslims. Will the Pope stop proclaiming them because Islam claims ownership of Jesus? Are not Islamic teachings about Christians deeply offensive to those Christians, not to mention imperiling their life and limb? But it’s not like they were insulting your mother…. Muhammad is now mom to all Muslims and as off limits as your own sweet mom would be. Your own sweet sword-wielding, head chopping, war-mongering, tyrannical, demoniacal mommie dearest. Talk about a dysfunctional family.

    “you can’t kill in the name of God” re: “fighting (qital, killing, slaughtering) has been ordained for you..even though you dislike it” (2:216); “fight (kill, slaughter) against those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (or the Messenger or Islam)..even the People of the Book” (9:29); fight until there is no more fitna (sedition, discord, dissent, 8:39); kill the idolators wherever you find them (9:5); “so be not weak and ask for peace while you are having the upper hand” (47:35). fight the unbelievers near to you and let them find hardness in you (9:123);they fight in Allah’s way so they slay and are slain (9:111); slay them wherever you find them for al-fitna, trial in religion, is worse than killing (2:191); “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those who are with him are severe against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.” (48:29); Killing in the name of God is normative Islam, hardly an aberration. So it seems you really can kill in the name of God, Pope Francis!

    • Bill says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:06 pm

      Your post is insightful and correct. I will add this. The current Roman Catholic Catechism (841) states that Muslims and Catholics “worship the same God.” Documents from Vatican II, the most cited Council outside of Trent in the current Catechism cite common beliefs between Muslims and Catholics such as veneration of Mary, the final judgment, etc. Those who look to the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church as a leader or deliverer from the evil and oppression of Islam are whistling through the graveyard. Roman Catholicism is largely COMPLICIT with undermining our liberty.

      • Jen says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 8:28 pm

        “Those who look to the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church as a leader or deliverer from the evil and oppression of Islam are whistling through the graveyard.”

        No, don’t be a fundie. Most Catholics dislike what the pope is doing; including that Cathecism, I imagine. Most Catholics who know about Islam have a brain of their own I imagine? That’s one of the better qualities of Catholics, versus the fundies. They don’t seem as inclined to lose common sense, in spite of their Christian beliefs. Something which many “read the Bible” and just “read the Bible” and just “read the Bible” Christians seem to lack, unfortunately! This “just read the Bible” mentality is likely to lead them whistling through the graveyard when they get their head cut off by a practicing Muslim! Lmao..

        • Bill says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 10:02 pm

          Again, the Pope makes a statement which has the effect of suppressing freedom of speech and which indirectly excuses Muslim murder of critics and you attack me as a “fundamentalist.” I am a fundamentalist and the prevalent thought among fundamentalists is that speech should be protected (opposite of the Pope and the history of the Roman Church), and that Islam is Satanic (read 841 of the Catechism and documents similar in Vatican II-in those you will find the Roman Church being conciliatory with Islam even to the point of stating that both “worship the same God.”). Then you use a derisive term ridiculing my faith and slam all Protestants. I never uttered one word against a Catholic, but you have slandered and vilified Protestants. Unlike the Pope, I welcome your freedom to speak your mind and display your HATE.

        • Bill says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 10:52 pm

          One more point Jen. Chris Kyle, the “American Sniper,” was A FUNDAMENTALIST PROTESTANT.

        • Jen says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 10:58 pm

          Bill, there is probably much more behind your comments, than what you’re simply laying out here by quoting from Catholic teaching. It’s not as if this is rare among Protestants, who are all-to-gleeful to point these things out. It’s about time that somebody said something to the “Bible Believing” wing of the Protestant crowd about this because they don’t attempt to reign in their own lunatics who needlessly criticise the Catholics constantly. Especially Christians who defend themselves against being butchered. Those people are just flimsy characters who are Christian by name and get away with saying these things with few people actually standing up to them because typically, it isn’t the non-Protestants who are used to adopting that holier-than-thou mentality that some Protestants have.

          Bill, it’s not “HATE” – it is the Catholic-bashing (often very hateful- I can show you websites of your “Bible Believing” crowd and their blogs, if you want or you can Google them) that leap at any opportunity to use the internet as a platform for their Protest-tant Protestant evangelizing which almost always includes Catholic bashing within it; even in subtle form, as if people don’t notice it. For instance, your “Bible believing” crowd keeps commenting on internet forums like youtube about their “Christian brothers and sisters” who are being persecuted but then in the same comment, they repeatedly bash the Catholics as well! Many of those “brothers and sisters” they claim to have are Catholic, Bill. They’re not following the “Bible Believing” version of Christianity. They’re not part of the “Bible Believing” crowd who tell Catholics they aren’t Christian or leap at any opportunity to show off their superiority. There is little humility in that version of Christianity. You may not be defending anything other than your own ego which unfortunately is more common among Protestants than Catholics, I’ve found. Your crowd is prone to losing common sense and but that is just what probably happens when you get a bunch of individuals making their own interpretations of the texts without enough guidance or a template. Catholics are individuals who are not mind-slaves of whatever the Pope says or does. Nobody cares, Bill. Protestants are more inclined to take themselves that seriously. Other Christians have a brain of their own and will do what is required to prevent Islamization of non-Muslim countries, because they can think for themselves. I have never heard any Catholics say they will “read the Bible” as a solution to these problems; but I have seen and heard, one to many “Bible believers” say that.

  12. Jonathan says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 10:02 am

    Elderly virgins sometimes have a hard time speaking & thinking clearly. Of course Monty Python style humor should and must be implemented regarding Islam, probably & hopefully by ex-Muslims.

    Comedy & parody helps us see clearly & to be honest.

    Here’s one small attempt to mix the two I just found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGe2YI6DdoE

  13. Mannie says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 10:04 am

    Freedom has never been high on the agenda of the Catholic Church. They used to burn people at the stake for blasphemy, and would probably not object to doing it again.

    I would argue, and argue as a religious person, that religion must be mocked and insulted. It doesn’t grow in the shade, but in the harsh light of the public forum. My God is powerful. He can not be harmed by your slings and arrows, and may get a good laugh at some of them.

    You cannot consider yourself a civilized society unless you can laugh at religion, and your religion can tolerate the laughter. You don’t have to like it.

    The Pope appears to have aligned the Church with Barbarism.

    • Bill says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:09 pm

      Well stated. As much as I dislike the ideology of someone like Bill Maher and his constant insults against my faith, I must and will defend him and those like him in the name of liberty.

  14. sencit says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 10:05 am

    Perhaps the Pope would care to explain what those innocent shoppers in the kosher Deli had to do with offending anyone’s religion, having had no responsibility for anything produced by ‘Charlie Hebdo’.

  15. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 10:17 am

    “You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others,” he added. “These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits.”

    Whoa, Pope Frank is sounding just like Bill Donohue, but a bit snippier. So valid criticism of another religion is a provocation, and so must be limited. Bottom line, Frank is for full reserve status for a religion, which is understandable for a guy running one.

    Criticizing Islam, then, is toying with them to piss them off and hurt their feelings. If that is so, the Moslems are looking down a ten lane freeway headed to Global Sharia. It’ll be a bumpy ride, but a civilized one.

  16. Wellington says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 10:20 am

    Benedict XVI just keeps looking better and better.

    • Spot On says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 11:31 am

      You got it!

      • rev g says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 11:36 am

        In 1272, Arabic muslims invented the condom, using a goat’s lower intestine.

        In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

        • Spot On says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 12:11 pm

          LOL!!!

  17. Angemon says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 10:31 am

    You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith

    And who decides what’s a provocation, an insult or a jest? For the most part, it’s in the eye of beholder – it’s not only subjective but it is also context (and sometimes mood) dependent.

  18. wildjew says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 10:52 am

    Paris Attacks Blamed on ‘Shape-Shifting Jews’

    http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/paris-attacks-blamed-on-shape-shifting-jews/

  19. Joe Shmo says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 11:14 am

    The pope is a dope!

    • Bill says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:12 pm

      The Pope represents Roman Catholicism accurately and authentically. So does Bill Donahue. The historical Christian champions of freedom of speech and of liberty, limited government, etc. are PROTESTANTS.

      • Jen says

        Jan 16, 2015 at 2:00 am

        Historically speaking…Oh Bill….Bill…..Bill….We can only focus on what’s in front of us. There are thousands of different versions of Protestants and I don’t hear many of them being particularly vocal about any of these issues surrounding Islam either. It is so easy to blame the Catholics because they have a centralised “authority” and fundies can criticise them endlessly, feeling that they can escape responsibility; because they can claim that whatever “that” Protestant church does “over there” is different to what “their” church does. Protestants fragment their sense of global community by doing that. The lack of consistency is one of the many present day negatives that stem from this. You know as they say sometimes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

  20. vlparker says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Well, this pope has offended me many times with his idiotic statements. Maybe he should shut up.

  21. Charli Main says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 11:24 am

    “You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith,”
    Unless you are a Muslim. Then its OK to abuse and insult the faith of all non Muslims, not to mention raping, murdering and enslaving them.
    If this Pope wasn’t such a dangerous moron, he could be dismissed as a pathetic buffoon.

  22. Spot On says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 11:26 am

    Pope Francis is somewhere out there on a different planet. There is no justification to defend Islamic Militants while they are cutting off heads and shooting innocent people. Where is his sense of priorities. One possibility is that he is a strong Obama/Islamic supporter.

  23. duh_swami says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 11:29 am

    I’m glad I’m not an RC…If I was I would have to excommunicate myself just to get away from that kind of thinking. But as far as threatening free speech, The Pope is not the problem…Rasool Obama is a much bigger problem.

  24. Sergio says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    I am from Argentina. There’s no excuse for what he said, but you have to understand that he has no idea of what Islam is. Not so long ago, he invited Jewish and Muslim leaders to an interfaith meeting and he said: “…despite our differences we must recognize that we are all children of the same heavenly Father..”. This shows that he has no idea of what Islam teaches, since Islam says that claiming that God has a son is the greatest blasphemy.

    I started by saying that I am from Argentina just because I wanted to explain that Argentinians in general know absolutely nothing about Islam. Our small Islamic community is comprised almost entirely of nominal Muslims. He should know better though, since he is a religious leader.

    • Bill says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:15 pm

      Your comments are correct. I would add his comments display he (the Pope) has no idea what Jesus teaches about the exclusivity of Christ’s salvation (John 14:6).

      • Sergio says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 1:27 pm

        Yes, that’s true.

  25. Mirren10 says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    ”There’s no excuse for what he said, but you have to understand that he has no idea of what Islam is.”

    Then it’s about time he found out. He has **no** excuse.

    ”Pope Francis, speaking of last week’s deadly attacks by Islamist militants in Paris, has defended freedom of expression, but said it was wrong to provoke others by insulting their religion and that one could “expect” a reaction to such abuse.”

    This Pope is a disgrace. He is saying that the murder of twelve people for drawing cartoons of mohammed was to be expected. He is condoning murder. In my opinion, he’s an evil man.

  26. Clifford Hall says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Do the writers on this post wish Francis to call a crusade? Is the job of a world religious leader to bring people together or drive them apart? And was he saying no more than ‘where there is action there is reaction’?

    What is it about this Pope that most of you detest so much? To some of us he walks in the footsteps of Christ – who said what about ‘forgiveness’ and ‘love’? It’s really not an easy one, certainly not as all-or-nothing as you all seem to suppose – with no responsibility for anyone very much.

    • rev g says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:21 pm

      “Bringing people together” under false pretenses is not a commendable behavior.

    • Mirren10 says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:27 pm

      Clifford Hall says:

      ” Is the job of a world religious leader to bring people together or drive them apart?”

      So, you think condoning **murder** is ‘bringing people together’ ?

      You say:

      ” And was he saying no more than ‘where there is action there is reaction’?

      ”Pope Francis, speaking of last week’s deadly attacks by Islamist militants in Paris, has defended freedom of expression, but said it was wrong to provoke others by insulting their religion and that one could “expect” a reaction to such abuse.”

      It’s quite clear what this pos is saying. **Murdering** people for drawing mocking cartoons of the putrescent mohammed is the expected, and by implication, acceptable, reaction to the ‘provocation of others by insulting their religion’.

      And you are *defending* this repulsive and evil stance ?

      ”What is it about this Pope that most of you detest so much?”

      He is an apologist for *evil*.

      ”To some of us he walks in the footsteps of Christ – who said what about ‘forgiveness’ and ‘love’?”

      If you think this cretin ”walks in the footsteps of Christ”, I would say you are egregiously deluded. Where in the Bible does Christ say, ”if you mock a false religion and it’s adherents murder you for it, that’s only to be expected, and you deserve what you get” ?

      You’re an idiot.

      • EYESOPEN says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

        Mirren10, I agree wholeheartedly with you. What is more, is that this pope voiced no objection to Charlie Hebdo over another vile and blasphemous attack on Christianity, that was, in its essence diabolic. I can only describe the piece with the words of Ann Barnhardt:

        a cartoon “depicting the Holy Trinity – in retaliation for the Church reiterating that sodomite “marriage” was an ontological impossibility, and that the farce of “gay marriage” was a grave evil. I can’t post the cartoon of the Trinity because I just can’t. But I will describe it, and then you can decide whether you want to look at it or not. God the Father is on the left, depicted as a grey, bearded man, glassy-eyed, mouth open, tongue hanging out like a dog, bending over at the waist being sodomized by God the Son, also glassy-eyed, wearing the crown of thorns, holes visible in His hands and feet, who is in turn being sodomized by the Holy Spirit, depicted as the triangle with the all-seeing eye in the center.”

        And it took the murder of people at the Charlie Hebdo magazine over a really innocuous depiction of Mad Mo for this piss-poor excuse for a pope to say what he did? All I can say is that the Roman Catholic flock on Earth had better only look to Jesus Christ as Shepherd, because there surely is NOT one representing Him here on Earth – and I’m Catholic!

      • Wellington says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 9:44 pm

        Ditto, Mirren.

      • Patrick James says

        Jan 16, 2015 at 4:31 am

        I am a Catholic and can only agree. This guy is an embarrassment. Since when was it the way of Christ to retaliate to an insult with a punch? Since when was the Jesus of the gospels a meek and mild, non-confrontational wimp, afraid he might hurt someone’s feelings?

        • dave says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 7:31 am

          I think I heard that the bible reads that Jesus said, “If someone speaks against me, strike them. And when they turn the other cheek, strike that also.”

          And there was also that verse, so I am told, that reads, “Judge others before they are able to judge you.”

      • gravenimage says

        Jan 16, 2015 at 1:38 pm

        Agreed, Mirren. Excellent post.

    • TH says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:47 pm

      Jesus never shied away frm controversy when ir was a matter of proclaiming the truth. Everyone knows that the time of Popes proclaiming crusades is over. The time for proclaiming the truth with love is always. It seems that Pope Benedict attempted to that. If we are going to wait until muslims stop being offended by the truth, then we will all be subjugated to islamic barbarity.

      • TNT says

        Jan 16, 2015 at 12:48 am

        I miss pope Benedict , he was right and still is right and the world condemned him for it, I don’t know what pope Frances is doing is he appeasing the world instead of God? Or is it all part of the great apostasy spoken about. With each word he utters supporting this ideology he drives another nail in the coffin for Christanity. And as people loose faith in God, a vacumn is created with Islam one foot in the door to replace it.

        • Rob Porter says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 9:54 am

          TNT, anyone who judges Christianity by this fool of a pope is themselves a fool. Anyone who is driven away from Christianity by this pope or any other human who professes to being a Christian and then talks like an imbecile, did not have much faith in the reality of God. No coffin exists for Christianity and so this clown is not going to drive a nail into a non-existent coffin, but Pope Francis does drive a nail into the Roman Catholic Church and his being regarded a wise, brave and intelligent servant of Christ. The man behaves like a lost fart in a haunted toilet.

    • Angemon says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 12:56 pm

      Clifford Hall posted:

      “Do the writers on this post wish Francis to call a crusade? Is the job of a world religious leader to bring people together or drive them apart?”

      The job of a religious leader is to lead his religion. Lying (or speaking ignorantly) about islam is bound to do more harm than good.

      “What is it about this Pope that most of you detest so much? To some of us he walks in the footsteps of Christ – who said what about ‘forgiveness’ and ‘love’?”

      You would benefit from reading the NT. Jesus Christ didn’t walk around talking about forgiveness and love, meekly lowering his head when he was attacked and standing silent, staring at the ground, waiting until the abusers stopped. He confronted people and told truths that people didn’t like to hear. When the Pope says that there’s nothing in islam that justifies the violence against non-muslims is doing the exact opposite of what Christ did.

      “It’s really not an easy one, certainly not as all-or-nothing as you all seem to suppose – with no responsibility for anyone very much.”

      Once again, you get everything wrong. Many of the commentators here know the responsibility that comes with the position of Pope. That’s part of the reason they’re so critical of his position on islam.

    • CogitoErgoSum says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 1:00 pm

      IF the Pope expects the normal reaction to offending someone to be a punch in the nose, then the normal reaction to murder is more murder in return. This is not a teaching of love, tolerance and forgiveness. The Pope is now thinking according to the old rule of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Christ replaced the old law with a new one revolving around forgiveness and love. Christ would probably have told someone who insulted His mother not to do it again and He probably would have kept His mother from hearing that person’s insults but I don’t think He would have punched the offending person in the nose. He would have said something like, “Go in peace and sin no more.” I’ll admit it’s not a “normal” reaction … either now or then. I’m sorry the Pope seems not to see things the same way I do …. but I won’t punch him in the nose because of it.

      • mgoldberg says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 5:42 pm

        Just to correct your notion about the ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’. You misstated what it meant. And for the record: since the creator the universe, G-d gave me these laws, they couldn’t be changed by any man, nor were they for any observant Jews. As for the misstated eye for an eye by yourself: the notion that a man gets say, paralyzed, by anothers acts. The punishment is NOT to cause paralysis in the perpetrator. Nor was there ever such understanding of the meaning. If someone damages or destroys anothers eye tooth or other bodily part, the punishment is not corporeal but rather monetary. But why then use the literal analogy in the Torah? Because the Torah is trying to teach that on some level, yes, the tooth or eye, should be for a tooth or eye, since it isn’t merely about money- there is real damage that otherwise money could buy, or rather buy off the perpetrators actions, if he felt like doing such harm and had the money to do such damage. In practice monetary retribution has to be the consideration since it’s too barbaric to perform bodily retribution punishment. And the monetary punishment is only meaningful if the commiter of the action internalized the severity of his action.
        And there is from what I see, no evidence that this was ever the application of the phrase eye for an eye, in literature, or archeologically, or in Talmudic records of any such barbarity. There are lengthy discussion of the verse I’m told in the Talmud in Bava Kama 83b-84a, showing that one shouldn’t even entertain such a literal idea, but rather that one who does commit these actions should commit to understand what he has done to his fellow human being and the damage done, and that money isn’t merely enough, but rather sincere repentence, begging for forgiveness, performing acts of changes in one’s character to actuallze the idea of the repentence.
        One last thing: there was a case last couple of years, if I remember where a man in Saudi Arabia caused another man to be paralyzed. The religious and legal punishment there had them asking surgeons to perform a procedure to paralyze the doer.

        • CogitoErgoSum says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 8:29 pm

          Thanks, mgoldberg. That’s an interesting explanation you give and I should do some more research into it. I had a feeling that making the assertion about the new covenant replacing the old would rankle some of the Jewish visitors here. I’ve often wondered about this idea of old and new covenants and maybe my thoughts are not complete but here’s how some of my thinking goes: What if the Old Testament is valid for Jews and the New Testament is valid for all others? I don’t believe that God ever goes back on His word. God made a covenant with the Jewish people and He will always honor it. However, through the birth and death of Jesus Christ God instituted a new covenant or contract (I know Jews and others don’t believe this, but I do) and those who wish to sign on to this new contract may do so while those who wish to remain under the old contract may do just that. Now that makes two contracts available to mankind with both being valid at the same time. However, people of the Earth need to be made aware that a new contract is available to them so they can make a choice of their own free will. That idea probably has some sticking points with a lot of people but I think it’s worth some thought. I’m open to other opinions on this. In the meantime I wish peace to you and to all of who share this world of wonder.

      • mgoldberg says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 10:28 pm

        I understand your reply quite clearly. It does cause umbrage, nor disdain, neither anger, nor hurt. It is indeed your belief and you and I can disagree till the cows come home. As one man mentioned soberly, ‘the christian might come to my house on shabbas (sabbath) with his dedication to the ‘good news’ and not realize that it is rather an insult. ‘but it’s of no real importance. You see, he might ‘bore my head off’ if he insisted on lecturing me endlessly, but that is nothing, comparing to cutting my head off :^) by the religion of the always offended and always offensive.
        We are as all the other religions, having taken those commandments and in their own ways laid some claims to that firmer divinity: this is fine because…. we all in similar manners try to set the bar(s) higher. It is a standard of good, and evil, or right and wrong that we can visualize and stand for, in our own ways.
        Only one faith commands that ‘all others’ must bow and submit or ….. else. I believe you do wish peace to me, and you can feel as you wish about superiority of belief because it’s your actions, and mine that count, from my perspective.
        For a bit of humor- an old yid is walking down the streets of brooklyn, ratty black suit, and white shirt with black hat. Some rough young irish guys, on their lunch break are sitting at a restaurant in summer, in tee shirts, at a small outdoor table. They see the old guy with his black suit and tie and overcoat in the heat of summer and it of course looks odd to them, but they are just headstrong young fellas’s but they can’t help but egg each other on, and one yells out to the old Yid as he walks on the sidewalk near them. ‘Hey old man’, ‘we’re having pork sandwiches for lunch and man are they goooood!’ ha ha ha.

        The old man looks at them and their meals and smiles at them unafraid and unoffended.
        ‘Young man’… he says quietly and with some enthusiam, they do look very tasty, indeed and you should all enjoy such a delicious meal’. ‘But you know what would make that meal really tasty?
        ‘You should offer a prayer of thanks to he who created you, made you, made the animals from which your tasty lunch comes, and offer thanks and then… that meal will really taste good!!!

      • mgoldberg says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 10:30 pm

        Sorry, I posted this without checking and the first sentence should say as below, ‘does not’
        pardon the carelessness.
        Mark

        I understand your reply quite clearly. It does NOT cause umbrage, nor disdain, neither anger, nor hurt. It is indeed your belief and you and I can disagree till the cows come home. As one man mentioned soberly, ‘the christian might come to my house on shabbas (sabbath) with his dedication to the ‘good news’ and not realize that it is rather an insult. ‘but it’s of no real importance. You see, he might ‘bore my head off’ if he insisted on lecturing me endlessly, but that is nothing, comparing to cutting my head off :^) by the religion of the always offended and always offensive.
        We are as all the other religions, having taken those commandments and in their own ways laid some claims to that firmer divinity: this is fine because…. we all in similar manners try to set the bar(s) higher. It is a standard of good, and evil, or right and wrong that we can visualize and stand for, in our own ways.
        Only one faith commands that ‘all others’ must bow and submit or ….. else. I believe you do wish peace to me, and you can feel as you wish about superiority of belief because it’s your actions, and mine that count, from my perspective.
        For a bit of humor- an old yid is walking down the streets of brooklyn, ratty black suit, and white shirt with black hat. Some rough young irish guys, on their lunch break are sitting at a restaurant in summer, in tee shirts, at a small outdoor table. They see the old guy with his black suit and tie and overcoat in the heat of summer and it of course looks odd to them, but they are just headstrong young fellas’s but they can’t help but egg each other on, and one yells out to the old Yid as he walks on the sidewalk near them. ‘Hey old man’, ‘we’re having pork sandwiches for lunch and man are they goooood!’ ha ha ha.

        The old man looks at them and their meals and smiles at them unafraid and unoffended.
        ‘Young man’… he says quietly and with some enthusiam, they do look very tasty, indeed and you should all enjoy such a delicious meal’. ‘But you know what would make that meal really tasty?
        ‘You should offer a prayer of thanks to he who created you, made you, made the animals from which your tasty lunch comes, and offer thanks and then… that meal will really taste good!!!

    • SallyA says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 1:57 pm

      Mouthpieces as the pope and his apologists have become for ideologies of inequality (islam being the world’s current worst) typically hide behind platitudes of forgiveness. It is typical and part of eons-old patterns of oppression for oppressors to want to be forgiven aka luuuv’d unconditionally by those they subjugate. Of course oppressors, being oppressors, would want that. The pattern of oppressors seeking forgiveness (also victim-blaming) is so ubiquitous as to be boring. But reading JW remains worthwhile. JW suggests the extent to which the islamic oppressors’ violence may soon be encroaching on our neighborhoods, so reading JW is prudent self-care to some extent in the realm of knowledge being power.

      No longer do I dignify by capitalizing the mouthpieces and ideologies of oppression. Their names? Not proper, not proper at all.

    • Salah says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 2:09 pm

      I am a Catholic. And I believe that Pope Francis is an anti-Christ.
      The Church itself is forever protected, but individuals are not, including Popes.

    • Chabuco says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 2:46 pm

      “Do the writers on this post wish Francis to call a crusade?”—

      Cool projection and historic revisionism, bro!

      http://is.gd/BlORul

    • somehistory says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 4:05 pm

      Jesus said about those who religiously opposed Him, “You offspring of vipers…(Matt. 23:33) and, “You are from your father, the devil and wish to do the desires of your father….(John 8:).”

      He spoke the truth, not only to those men, but he told everyone what they needed to do to be *saved.* To have the approval of the True God.

      Now, to many of us, the pope is just an ordinary man with a lot of clout and money. And what he is saying about not offending someone’s faith is offensive to the faith of many who do not share his thinking. Should I not be free to write that?
      islam, is offensive, both to the mind and murderous to the body of countless victims. muslims are offended by this being written. Should I not be free to write it?
      The Bible says we are under obligation to tell the truth…so if people listen, they can be *saved.* This might *offend* some who are not followers of Christ, may be not believe in the Bible or have any religious conviction. Should I not be free to write it?
      The pope is saying that we should say things that offend, but by his saying that, he is offending. And he is giving power to the muslims who wish to kill the rest of us. He is saying that Catholics should not say what will offend those who wish to kill them because by living as non-muslims, they are offending muslims. He is also saying it to non-Catholics, but this one is not going to heed his words.

      • somehistory says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 4:12 pm

        I omitted “not” from “The pope is saying that we should say things that offend..” Sorry for the typo error.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 8:15 pm

      How is it “bringing people together” to excuse murder for daring to point out violence and evil? How does it “bring people together” to call for the suppression of freedom of speech?

    • Wellington says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 9:42 pm

      Among other things, Clifford Hall, the present Pope doesn’t “get” freedom. Shame on him for this. In fact, increasingly where Islam is concerned, and I consider Islam a kind of spiritual Nazism, he seems a rank apologist for this heinous belief system. At best, he’s an ignoramus. Again, shame on him, especially calling for limits on free speech right after the Islamic massacre in France. Really, can you be as blind as you appear to be?

    • TNT says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 12:56 am

      The Egyptian Coptic Pope, makes more sense when it comes to forgiveness, as head of the Coptic Orthodox Church which is being severely persecuted in EGYPT, he said that it’s important to forgive our oppressors, because by forgiving them, we then have the right to go to the Almighty and demand justice. This is a holy war not a secular war. They want to do as they have done so many times in their past and that is to dominate the world for the cause of allah. As long as secular liberalism is the main stream way of thinking, we will always be in danger.

    • Peggy says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 1:26 am

      He is just a man, no more, no less.
      What he is saying is that when we mock their prophet we deserve to be killed. You can’t see that? Are you that one eyed about your Catholisism?
      A drawing cannot harm you but a bullet can. They could’ve drawn Christ in a bad way which would be equal reaction to “provocation” but they chose to kill. The Pope should have said that.
      No, this spineless man says that well if they provoke what can they expect?

      • ECAW says

        Jan 16, 2015 at 1:38 am

        Just heard from a friend in Italy that a priest appeared on TV this morning saying that a religion that kills you for leaving it is not a real religion and shouldn’t be called such. If only this wretched pope would speak so plainly.

        Instead he once said “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

        He could have usefully asked his own secretary Father Yoannis Lahzi Gaido, a Coptic Catholic Christian about Islam. Here he writes of the:

        “…difficulties under which Christians must live in places with a Muslim majority. These difficulties are not caused by a few Islamists, but by a culture of death and violence that is based on very clear verses [of their scripture] that they quote, calling for violence and jihad, saying they should murder all who are different and killing [those who express] freedom of conscience. Just to think differently is enough to be sentenced to death.”

    • jay says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 4:06 am

      When the pope isn’t crying out against the murder of his own brethren and is doing the ‘everyone needs to calm down, now I don’t care who started it, play nice now’ BS; he is NOT being a leader of any kind, let alone one for his own faith. He’s being an appeasing politician. Nothing else.

      Islam’s leaders and pope equivalents on the other hand have all called for the victory of Islam over everything else.

    • Pavelina says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 3:15 pm

      I don’t agree with the Pope. Freedom of speech must be limitless.

      Concerning the Christian faith, Jesus’ teachings about forgiveness and love should be applied to those who slander us and our faith. Those who caricature and insult Jesus do not know what they do. Those people do not need to apologize to me for their work. They are more to be pitied, not killed. Their insults and cartoons do not change anything, unless we let them affect us. Their work should be ignored and we should pray for their souls. The Muslims can apply the same teaching to caricatures of Mohammed but they don’t.

      Our G-d is powerful enough to defend Himself; that’s not our job. G-d does not expect me to be his avenger, as the Muslim god apparently commands. The Bible tells us: “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay.” and “do not repay evil for evil.” So Christians must not take revenge; but Muslims do because their god Allah is not the same as the Christian G-d.
      ..

    • Green Infidel says

      Jan 17, 2015 at 5:10 am

      So, whatever happened to “turn the other cheek”?

      Sure, if someone insults those who are close and dear to me, I may get into a rage and attack them – but that doesn’t make it right.

      Besides, where to draw the line? Should Christians now go after those who make “art” such as “piss Christ”, to get revenge? Should “militant Mormons” go after the makers of the Book of Mormon and do the same?

      And, above all, the victims in Paris did not insult anyone’s mother or father or any further family. At most, they insulted one very distant ancestor (who may or may not have existed), who was not just a “holy figure”, but a very earthly warrior responsible for, among other things, decapitating a whole tribe – the Banu Qurayza. And in return for these depictions many years ago, the cartoonists were not just “punched” – they were mercilessly slaughtered. The analogy here does not seem to have any application to the present situation.

      • rev g says

        Jan 17, 2015 at 5:44 am

        I have to give the Mormons credit for a sense of humor, and good marketing. In the programs for “The Book of Mormon” they had an advertisement. Something to the effect of “You’ve seen the play, now learn about the religion”.

  27. Keith says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    If the truth conflicts with the cloud cuckoo land multicultural belief that everything is equal except western christian based civilization which is lower than all the rest no you can’t.

  28. MK says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    But… An Israeli college has a display using religous objects holy to many leaving in the MidEast, degraded by using them as wome’s underwear. Would the pope feel that this is improper, and the display should be removed?

  29. Sam says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    No respect for this “Christian Leader” from me. NONE.

    • Islamisdeath says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 2:49 pm

      He leads Roman Catholics. He is not the leader of Protestants. That said many of my Catholic friends are not in his camp.

      • jay says

        Jan 16, 2015 at 4:08 am

        He is not the leader of anyone BUT Catholics, not just protestants. Utterly HATE that everyone thinks the RCC is or speaks for the whole of Christianity.

  30. mgoldberg says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    The Pope of Rome said that “”Freedom of speech is a right and a duty that must be displayed without offending.”He defended freedom of expression as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one’s mind for the sake of the common good, but he said there were limits.
    By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side.
    He said: “If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. It’s normal.”

    Now, if is were to curse someone’s mother why I would be silly not to realize that I might get punched in the mouth. However if I got my head cut off, I would be highly surprised if anyone, would dare do such a thing….. of course, except a muslim.
    Parenthetically, if I quoted Mohammed, and referred with hard dollars and cents in depth analysis of the man’s own words, then showed the history of Islamic slaughtering in the name of those principles, I can expect that the shock troops of all Islam, will attack, will kill, will demand blasphemy laws to punish anyone who dares question mohammed in any way… let alone an infidel who is considered less than human by mohammed’s dictates.

    So, the Pope of Rome can expect to keep his mouth shut, and or otherwise muslims will be highly offended if he mentions that Islam and muslims using mohammed’s words are encouraged to burn churches, slaughter christians and generally command and demand all other peoples and faiths say and do nothing except enjoy what they’re getting.

  31. rage against injustice says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    “In freedom of expression there are limits”
    I agree.
    Respecting someone else’s right means peace, and it is the lack of respect betwen humans the reason why, in this world as long as there are humans there will be conflicts and therefore wars. Muslims are a good example, muslims love to hate and discriminate anybody who doesn’t think like them. They will never respect other people’s beliefs and will try to impose their beliefs on you.

    • mortimer says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 2:08 pm

      According to Sharia law, Islam is ‘perfect’ and may not be criticized. The critic of Islam must be killed.

      There is no criticizing Islam without ‘offending’.

      • rage against injustice says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 2:48 pm

        “According to Sharia law, Islam is ‘perfect’ and may not be criticized. The critic of Islam must be killed.”
        And this is the reason why I don’t like islam.
        However if the muslims were respectfull towards other, along with with everyone in this planet, and if people didn’t mock or ridiculed others because of their religion, ethnicity, nationality, physical appearance, gender, or color of skin, then we would live in a perfect world, without wars, and without the need of guns.
        But unfortunately In this this world wherever there’s light there will be darkness, as long as we have the concept of a winner there will be a loser, the mere wish of living in peace has created wars, and hate was born to protect love.

        • gravenimage says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 8:41 pm

          If a religion or other ideology teaches violence, abuse, and oppression, then I believe it is not just a right but a moral duty to mock, ridicule, and expose it.

        • rage against injustice says

          Jan 15, 2015 at 9:00 pm

          @gravenimage

          I agree you cannot demand respect when you’re not respecting other that makes you a hypocrite as the majority of muslims are. See I respect anybody who lives their lifes without hurting other mentally or physically, regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or color of skin. It’s arrogance and discrimination what I can’t stand.

        • gravenimage says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 1:55 pm

          Agreed, rage against injustice.

  32. AnneCrockett says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    Tell Pope Francis I said his mama is so fat she doesn’t eat with a fork she eats with a forklift

    • Arthur says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 9:35 pm

      A little more levity?

      She’s so fat that when she hauls ass, she has to make two trips!
      She’s so fat that when it rains, her feet don’t get wet!
      She’s so fat that when her beeper goes off, people think she’s backing up!
      She’s so fat that light bends around her!
      She’s so fat that she comes at you from all directions!
      She’s so fat that Weight Watchers won’t look at her!
      She’s so fat that she had to go to Sea World to get baptized!
      She’s so fat that when she turns around, people throw her a welcome back party!
      She’s so fat that she could sell shade!
      She’s so fat that she’s on both sides of the family!
      She’s so fat that she sets off car alarms when she runs!
      She’s so fat that when she cut her leg, gravy poured out!
      She’s so fat that she eats “Wheat Thicks”!
      She’s so fat that she has her own area code!
      She’s so fat that she stands in two time zones!
      She’s so fat that she fell out of both sides of the bed!
      She’s so fat that her blood type is Ragu!

      Dear Pope,
      Instead of punching people in the nose, my mother taught me this rhyme:
      “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!”
      It may make you a bit less quick to violence!

  33. eduardo odraude says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 1:59 pm

    Catholic Christianity has some brilliant civilizational accomplishments to its credit. This Pope however is an example of why my Christianity will never be of the Catholic variety. Catholicism has often defended freedoms, but it has too much of a counter-tendency to authoritarianism, too much taken from its Roman Empire matrix, I think. At the same time, I’m sure some Catholics will have excellent and considered reasons for disagreeing with my assessment.

    Anyway, if there are differences between Catholic Christianity and other Christianities, those differences are as nothing compared to the difference between all Christianities and Islam. All non-Muslims must unite against Islam, since the core texts of Islam — canonical Hadith, the earliest Muslim bio of Muhammad, and the Qur’an — and polls of Muslims worldwide, demonstrate conclusively for those willing to look that Islam is an aggressive, global, totalitarian political system.

  34. mortimer says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Supremacism. Is Pope Francis clueless. He’s no intellectual. Mind you, there are dozens of first rate Roman Catholic scholars who understand Islam…Henri Boulad, SJ of Alexandria, is one…but Pope Francis does not call on them for comments. No. Pope Francis indulges in uninformed verbal diarrhea about telling the truth without offending! Uh-huh.

    There is no way to tell Muslims anything without offending. Why? Because Sharia law does not permit even the utterance of a hint that Islam is not ‘perfect’, ‘eternal’ and ‘complete’.

    ANY AND ALL criticism of Islam is blasphemy that must be punished by death.

    I have a feeling Pope Francis is going to get a very accelerated course in Islamic theology.

    Can someone near the pope PLEASE get him to listen to a TOP RC scholar who knows Sharia, etc.??? Thank you.

  35. eduardo odraude says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    Right now, a great crime the present generation is committing, and in particular our political leaders, but we all — except a few like Spencer — are responsible for the fact that some 100,000 Muslims a year are legally emigrating to the U.S. This is a disaster of catastrophic proportions, and most of our people are asleep to the catastrophe.

    All you counterjihadis, here is a brilliant article about the remarkable parallels between Churchill’s position, and the position of today’s counterjihadi position. For years Churchill was “in the wildnerness” — he was warning the Brits about the rise of the Nazis, and he was ignored for many years, until war became unavoidable, and then he was made prime minister. The following article points out a half dozen parallels — problems and challenges Churchill faced that counterjihadis also have to deal with, since we are in the wilderness now, just as Churchill was for so long. Read it!

    http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2015/01/the-wilderness-years.html

    • mortimer says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 2:14 pm

      Would we have invited 100,000 Nazi party members a year in the 1940s?

      15% or more of Muslims are as indoctrinated and angry as Nazi party members were.

      • gravenimage says

        Jan 15, 2015 at 8:48 pm

        Before the US and the rest of the free West wised up about the threat of Fascism, we did indeed have an open Nazi presence in the US. There were Hitler Youth summer camps in several states, and the German-American Bund held a huge rally right in NYC’s Madison Square Garden, complete with huge swastikas draped on the podium.

  36. Jackbo Godfrey says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Pope Francis = Sharia Compliant!

    (Where is good ole Pope Urban II, you know what I mean?!)

  37. JFK Mulder says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    I KINGS 18 VERSE 27

    “And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said Cry aloud: for he is god; either he is

    talking, or he is persuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.”

  38. jmjlori says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    As a devout Catholic, I do wish Pope Francis was more careful with what he says. He sometimes reminds me of myself in that I talk so much it gets me in trouble…

    I looked at the cartoons and found them funny. But as the leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope would have spoken more appropriately by stating that Christians are all called to charity. If he wanted to point out that the cartoons were not charitible, He would have been correct. But addressing the murders as being insanely excessive in response would have served a much better purpose than making it look like the cartoonists bear all the responsibility. 🙁
    He has called for arms in Syria in the past, which I made me very pleased. At least he is not speaking ex cathedra when he is quoted by the media so often.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm

      There is nothing “charitable” about refraining from speaking out against evil.

      • jmjlori says

        Jan 16, 2015 at 2:13 am

        I have NO problem speaking out against evil. Never have in my life (it’s gotten me nearly killed and nearly arrested at different times before).
        I saw the cartoons that drove the followers of the dead anti-Christ into a killing frenzy, and though I found them funny, they were not done in charity.
        One of the seven Spiritual Works of Mercy (that devout and educated Catholics should know) is “To admonish the sinner”. Admonishing the sinner has the requisite th at it be done with love in charity. Just sayin’….

        • gravenimage says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 2:06 pm

          jmjlori wrote:

          I saw the cartoons that drove the followers of the dead anti-Christ into a killing frenzy, and though I found them funny, they were not done in charity.
          …………………………..

          jmjlori, Charlie Hebdo first wound up on the Jihadists’ radar by reprinting the Danish MoToons. All these cartoons do is note that Islam is violent and presents a threat to freedom of speech. They are actually quite gentle.

          All those cartoons did was point out the evil of Jihad.

          That hasn’t stopped both Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo from violence from members of “the religion of peace”.

          They didn’t wait for Charlie Hebdo’s more outrageous, less “charitable” cartoons to start issuing threats.

  39. Geoff Miller says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    The more I see of religion the less I am liking it.

    Frankly, if I think that Islam is the creation of a warmongering sadist and paedophile who used it to create a socio-political ideology in order to galvanise Arabs against other people by requisitioning their beliefs and calling his version the “latest, washes whiter, version” I not only have the right to say so but I would EXPECT the deluded Muslims to be offended by my questioning of their “prophet” and the desert sky fairy they worship.

    Islam is so blatantly corrupt and irrational that forcing others to “respect” their ramblings is, in itself, offensive.

    Is the Pope saying that any drivel, from any headcase, has to be respected?

  40. St. Croix says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    Yo! Francis da man! Doing a little karaoke, to this song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE0gLh4_Su8

  41. varn says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    I would suggest that the comments on this article go someway to underscoring instances where there should be self imposed limits on freedom of speech. They attack the person of the Pope rather than what he is saying.

    Further, I would suggest that what the Pope says in another language can be lost in its translation into English. ‘Can’t’ can mean ‘shouldn’t’.

    Having made those points, I believe that the Pope is being a peace maker and speaking plainly. He is saying very sensibly that “you don’t poke a stick at an angry dog!”

    Well catechized Catholics who know their history know that there is no real comparison between the crusades and terrorism and the Pope knows he doesn’t have to explain himself to people who can discern the difference because he isn’t speaking to them. He is speaking to the world in general. Catholics are used to being offended and expect it. It would be worrying if the world wasn’t sneering at Catholics as it would mean a lack of relevance. Yet the Church endures throughout the ages as Jesus told us it would.

    It is about peace right now or at least stabilizing the current situation. If pressed, there may need to be crusades, inquisitions and just wars but not right now and not if they can be avoided and only as a last resort.

    Don’t add fuel to a blazing fire. Educate yourself and know thy enemy certainly but dampening hatred with words of peace is always the first offensive. That is what the Pope is doing, that is his job.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 9:08 pm

      varn wrote:

      I would suggest that the comments on this article go someway to underscoring instances where there should be self imposed limits on freedom of speech. They attack the person of the Pope rather than what he is saying.
      ………………………………….

      What he is saying—that we should limit our freedom of speech in order to appease violent savages—is appalling.

      More:

      Further, I would suggest that what the Pope says in another language can be lost in its translation into English. ‘Can’t’ can mean ‘shouldn’t’.
      ………………………………….

      The idea that it is impossible to translate what the Pope is saying is absurd. The Pope expects his comments to be translated into scores of languages. And the idea that one “shouldn’t” criticize barbarism is scarcely better than the idea that one “can’t” do it.

      More:

      Having made those points, I believe that the Pope is being a peace maker and speaking plainly. He is saying very sensibly that “you don’t poke a stick at an angry dog!”
      ………………………………….

      You don’t invite that angry dog into your home, give him pride of place, and suppress anyone who would dare annoy him, either. That is *exactly* what we have done with violent, supremacist Muslims.

      More:

      It is about peace right now or at least stabilizing the current situation. If pressed, there may need to be crusades, inquisitions and just wars but not right now and not if they can be avoided and only as a last resort.

      Don’t add fuel to a blazing fire. Educate yourself and know thy enemy certainly but dampening hatred with words of peace is always the first offensive. That is what the Pope is doing, that is his job.
      ………………………………….

      Appeasing Muslims when they murder us is not creating peace—it is just emboldening Muslims. We have seen *exactly* what that appeasement has done over the past dozen years in emboldening Muslims to use violence against us for daring to point out how violent Islam is.

      You can’t appease your way to peace with Islam anymore than you could with Fascism. Thugs just consider this a sign of weakness, and will be more violent than ever.

    • Arthur says

      Jan 15, 2015 at 9:43 pm

      There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:
      … a time to be silent and a time to speak,
      a time to love and a time to hate,
      a time for war and a time for peace.

      Let’s not call for silence, love, and peace at all costs when it may actually be time for a different response.

  42. profitsbeard says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 8:05 pm

    If you resist reading the Koran you will remain a holy fool.

    Francis betrays the faith he professes to lead.

    I do not forgive him for there is no goddamned excuse for such studious ignorance.

  43. George Hale says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    People will take offense, choose to react, or believe in their own best interest. Selfish? No. It is his or her responsibility to do that. As Pope Francis explains, “without offending” means the messenger’s intent is not to offend, rather to deliver a message. How the receiver of the message takes it, responds to it, acts on it is their responsibility. That the receiver of the message is offended is not the messenger’s responsibility. The author misses the point like strike three in the World Series!

  44. Jon says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm

    Obviously the Pope would say something like this. Don’t call us pedophiles please HmmmmMFfffuuuhnnn.!!! Jeez, these pedophiles whether they be Catholics or Muslims sure are easily offended.

  45. Dracula says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    “Your rights end where my feelings begin.”

    I guess if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em?

  46. gravenimage says

    Jan 15, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    Pope Francis: “You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others…In freedom of expression there are limits”
    …………………………………….

    Does the Pope then believe that criticizing the religion of Baal and the Aztecs—both of which demanded human sacrifice—was wrong?

    And why should religion be different from any other ideology? Does he likewise believe that no on should have criticized Fascism or Stalinism?

    More:

    The Pope is speaking generally of religions here, but clearly he is only talking about one religion, and not his own. For those who insult the Pope’s religion, and there are many, have no reason to “expect a punch” from believers, and the Pope must be aware of that. Moreover, in these remarks he flatly contradicts himself. He says: “Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending.” “Without offending”? So the freedom, right and obligation to say what one thinks for the common good ends wherever someone else takes offense? But what if the offense is unreasonable or unwarranted? Is the fact that some people get offended to the point of murderous rage over a handful of cartoons really sufficient reason to curtail the freedom, right and obligation of others to say what they think for the common good? Then any tyrant can silence his critics by claiming that he is offended, and we will be ruled over, and indeed tyrannized, by the perpetually offended. And that is pretty much the situation we are heading toward these days.
    …………………………………….

    Exactly. This is letting the biggest, meanest thug on the playground set the standards for civilized society.

    More:

    (Reuters) – Pope Francis, speaking of last week’s deadly attacks by Islamist militants in Paris, has defended freedom of expression, but said it was wrong to provoke others by insulting their religion and that one could “expect” a reaction to such abuse.
    …………………………………….

    Why? Christians and Jews and other religious people are often offended over the comments of others about their beliefs, but they don’t react to such with threats and murder. What he means is that we have come to expect that reaction *from Muslims*.

    More:

    “Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending,” he said.
    …………………………………….

    Insanity. Under Islam, *anything* that criticizes or even questions that violent creed is punishable by death. Any reference to Islam being violent or oppressive or flawed in any way is regarded as “offensive”.

    More:

    To illustrate his point, he turned to an aide and said: “It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if (he) says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal.
    …………………………………….

    Is *the Pope* saying that he punch out anyone who says anything bad about his momma? Is the Pope twelve?

    Moreover, is he saying that one cannot say anything critical about *anyone’s* mother—even is she is a violent criminal? This is madness.

    More:

    “You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others,” he added. “These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits.”
    …………………………………….

    “Something can happen”—Pope Francis here is exonerating the cold-blooded Jihad murderers, while blaming the brave victims for their own deaths. How *utterly appalling*.

  47. Jen says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 12:28 am

    Of course he would say that. Religious organizations are all against freedoms. Each one in their own way want everyone to shut up especially when it comes to criticism ot their organizations and doctrines that somehow have found their way in to the lives of even those that do not want to have anything to do with it. Practice your religion and let me practice my criticism. I am a secularist in free society no topic no ideology is off limits. Live with it.

    • rev g says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 1:12 am

      Your purely secular nature does expkain your generalizing regarding religion. Of course your generalization sorely misses the mark. Woukd you like a list of the purely secular nations/leaders that were rabidly against free speech? It is quite an impressive list.

    • Jen says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 2:00 pm

      Ermmm…Someone else with the same screen-name as me….Lol.

    • Bill says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 3:09 pm

      Your statement is incorrect. Christians wrote the First Amendment.

  48. jay says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 4:00 am

    I’m so glad I’m not Catholic and never was. I would feel so utterly betrayed and disillusioned by the appeasement and pro-Christian murdering stance of this pope.

    But hey, he did some hippie things and played his part like a good politician (which is all a pope is), so he’s awesome, right?

  49. E. Alexandra Pierce says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 4:50 am

    In the words of Bill Maher –

    “These days, when people ask ‘Is the Pope Catholic?’ the answer is “F#*k if I know.”

  50. Ian says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 6:12 am

    Unless I am sadly mistaken I exist, at least there is a reflection when I look at the mirror. So, I think it’s safe to safe to say that I and everyone else exists in a real, a natural world.

    The question is does God exist?

    If God exists then by definituon God is real, God is natural. And, if God is natural ‘she’ is not supernatural.

    Come on adults apply a little bit of logic. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SUPERNATURAL!!

    • rev g says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 11:26 am

      Wrong. Since God existed before the creation of the natural world, created the natural world, and exists outside of the constraints of the natural world, God is super-natural.

      • Ian says

        Jan 16, 2015 at 1:45 pm

        @Rev g. The greater the claim of truth the greater the burden of proof you have.

        But you have just acknowledged that what I said is true, please read your reply: ‘Since God existed before the creation of the natural world, created the natural world, and exists outside of the constraints of the natural world, God is super-natural.’

        You claim God existed! Therefore God is natural, no matter how you would like to twist the English language, if God exists, God is natural. Wishful thinking on your part will not alter that.

        • rev g says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 2:21 pm

          Sorry, but your cutesy attempts to use word play do not change reality. There once was a time when the “natural” world did not exist. However, God did exist even before nature did. That makes it quite simple, God is super-natural. Perhaps you have trouble with simple logic?
          Full Definition of SUPERNATURAL

          1
          : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
          2
          a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
          b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

          The One who creates nature must by definition be outside of that which He creates. Thus, super-natural.

          Also, since you bring up the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, I agree completely. Since from the dawn of humanity, it has been clear (and evidenced archaeologically) that humans have believed in gods, or a god, (more often monotheistic in fact) the ordinary claim would surely be one of the existence of a god. Therefore, I will patiently await your proof for your extraordinary claim to the contrary. Good luck with that.

        • Ian says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 2:50 pm

          Rev G. the fact that someone has written a definition of the word ‘supernatural’ does not prove anything. There is no evidence of of any independently verified interaction between what you describe as the supernatural and the ‘real world’..

          As for ancient man, the Torah waqs written by ignorant and fearful men, who had no idea what science was never mind how the world worked. they had no understnading of germs/bacteria, weather, illnes – both physical or mental etc etc. Everything to them was outside the bounds of their knowledge so everything was attribued to outside agencies that they though they could ‘sway’ by their pleadings – hence religion.

          Try again;O)

          Ian

        • rev g says

          Jan 16, 2015 at 3:29 pm

          Ah, so you speak from ignorance. You try to engage word play with definitions but when the definitions are shown to you, you cop a plea downplaying definitions It was you who first tried to assert using man-written definitions. OOPS. So, definitions only count if you can use them to support YOUR allegations? Supernatural is most easily explained as outside of nature. God, who created nature, set forth its rules, and who can transcend it, as well as time, knowing the end from the beginning, etc….is outside of nature. Do I have to use smaller words perhaps? Is that too hard for you to comprehend?
          As to times past, you are quite deluded. For instance, the medicinal regulations brought forth through the mosaic law are quite amazing. No other civilizations of that era, nor even later civilizations (the middle ages come to mind), had regulations that were as adept at controlling the spread of disease. Even in not knowing what germs were, they knew how to combat them. That quite refutes your ignorant accusation. The Egyptians, for example, used crocodile dunk poultices to treat wounds, very scary stuff. Moses sure didn’t get his medicinal rules from Egypt.
          The human intellectual capability has not grown over the ages, only the aggregate of recorded knowledge to build upon. People were not stupid, or fearful, as you assert. Your ignorance does not change that. Unfortunately, you are proving only too well that people of today can be far less intelligent and far more ignorant than people of antiquity.
          Still waiting for your extraordinary proof.

        • Ian says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 5:37 am

          Rev G, you’ve got it the worng way round. It is you who is asserting that there is a God, therefore the onus of proof lies with you you and not me. As for definituons, my definition is simply that anything that is not natural must be supernatural, and if something exists then it is natural, what is wrong with that? If god exists then God is natural, no matter when it was.

          Your comments are nothing more than wishful thinking, pretense if you like; you are just making claims of true that you cannot substantiate.

          As far as medicine and scientific knowledge is concerned please explain why, if there was so much knowledge about in the Levant that in James 5:14 when you were ill you had to summons the elders who would anoint you with oil and pray over you, and you would get better. I must have missed than when it was in the Lancet.

          And if people were as intelligent in Biblical times as you would assert please explain th eGarderine Swine and the practoise of ‘scape goating’. Highly intellectual stuff that.

          Ian

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 5:49 am

          But no. I do not assert that their is a god, it is indeed the common assumption throughout the ages. It is you who asserts the opposite. WHen you have the extraordinary claim, as you do, the proof is your onus.
          I am still waiting for your proof.
          You apparently do not realize that some of the annointing oils did have healing properties. Besides that, apparently medicine today does not do anything to soothe or give encouragement to the patient? Yoiu must have skipped that part of medicine.
          Get working on that proof, ok?

        • Ian says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 8:34 am

          Rev G. Really? You have never claimed there is a God? You are not a man of god then? I take my lead from the late, great Carl Sagan: when there is evidence, verifiablew evidence , to show that there is a Creator then I will consider it. There never has been anygenerally acceptable evidence that such an entitiy exists therefore it is upon you to produce the evidence; unless, of course, you are not a cleric as you appear to claim you are.

          I am merely stating the currently held state of knowledge: There is no proof of a God.

          And you are moving the goalposts. First you refer to the great knowledge of the ancients, contradicting my comments about their ignorance in such matters as science. now it appears that you are referring to emotional support. What happened to their knowledge of disease, and how about explaining the science behind the Garderine Swine and Scapegoating.

          Incidently I never claimed to be a doctor, I just staed that I read the Lancet, which I do from time to time. Assumptions can lead you into some tight cul-de-sacs.

          Ian

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 9:38 am

          More proof of your pandering. No I am not the originator of the assertion that there is a god. I merely examined the evidence for myself, and agreed with that popular age-old conclusion. I did not exhibit contempt prior to investigation. Nor did I limit myself to cursory and one-sided examination. Nor did I wrongly assume that ancient people were less intelligent, as you do.
          If anyone is moving goalposts, it is you. Attempting to inject Carl Sagan as some sort of evidence?
          We have limited our discussion to very pertinent facts. The common assumption throughout the ages is the existence of a god, or gods. The extraordinary claim is that no such thing exists. You are the one making the extraordinary claim. Thus, you are required to provide your extraordinary proof.
          Obviously, you cannot.
          I guess I gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding the Lancet, I should have known better.
          Until you provide your extraordinary proof of no god, I bid you adieu.

        • Ian says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 12:36 pm

          I have never claimed that the people who lived in the bronze age in the Levant were less intelligent, I said they were ignorant, as in lacking knowledge. In that respect they are blameless but in the 21st century we have the knowledge and you are not!

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 12:45 pm

          They were not ignorant. You do not understand the meanings of words well. You are ignorant.

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 9:43 am

          Even the Sagan claim to need “verifiable evidence” is a red herring. One cannot apply the scientific method to a great many things, the great majority of things historic. It is a an emotional appeal made to sound rational. Of course, that also leads us back to the definition of supernatural. He knew that, I guess he fooled you though.
          See ya.

        • Ian says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 11:05 am

          Your mindset is about 700 years out of time. You deserve what you portray – pure ignorance.

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 11:22 am

          Ignorance is your forte. You are too ignorant to even see that.

        • Ian says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 12:34 pm

          I bow to a past master in the art of ignorance!

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 12:45 pm

          You bow to yourself.

        • Ian says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 11:07 am

          You think you’re more intelligent than Carl Sagan? Now that is delusion.

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 11:21 am

          First off, Sagan was not some super genius. Second, I made no such statement. Third, with regard to items of biblical import, I most likely am more knowledgeable than he was.

        • Ian says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 12:33 pm

          Israel Finkelstein, Professor of archeology at Tel Aviv for many years said a few years ago: ‘There are two typesof archeologist, those who go into the field armed with their trowel to investigate and follow where the evidence leads, and the others who go into the field with their holy book in one hand and a trowel in the other saying, we know the truth now let’s find the evidence to support it.’

          The trouble with claiming absolute knowledge is that you remain ignorant because you know you are correct. That is the worst kind of delusion. Enjoy yourself.

          Ian

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 12:49 pm

          I never claimed to be an archaeologist. But I can read. Apparently you cannot. You keep dancing around making idiotic claims. You only continue to prove your ignorance.

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 5:54 am

          James also is not part of the Mosaic law. Surely you have studied the problems associated with the Black plague, and are familiar with how the return to cleanliness and quarantine laws of the OT were key in averting disaster. Or are you a charlatan?

        • Ian says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 8:40 am

          Which of the 613 Mosaic laws are you referring to?

          And as far as the legend surrounding the Patriarch referred to as Moses you are of course aware that it is just a re-cycling of the legend of Sargon of Akkad, or is that an assumption too far: http://history-world.org/sargon_the_great.htm

          The Bible in many respects is very green, especially when it comes to the re-cycling of myths.

          Ian

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 9:22 am

          There are more than one Mosaic laws that apply.
          The Akkadians stole more than a few tales from the Bible, to include the flood.
          http://creation.com/noahs-flood-and-the-gilgamesh-epic
          http://creation.com/comparative-study-of-gilgamesh-and-genesis-introduction
          Actually, in the flood epics, the degree of difference between the tales makes the reverse assimilation more likely. Especially when considered that where errors are made in the Akkadian texts, they were not transcribed into the Hebrew one? Seems the Hebrews wrote what they passed down orally, without errors. The jury will likely be out for a long time, but your assumption of Moses as Akkadian is without merit. The Akkadians apparently liked to write. They just weren’t imaginative. Apparently being the first to write something, rather than having a longer oral tradition, makes all the difference in the eyes of simpletons.
          http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/sargon.php

          You also appear to have no merit.
          You are indeed a charlatan, only here to attract attention. I have given you too much already. I bid you adieu.

        • rev g says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 6:03 am

          Your definitions of natural and supernatural do not coincide with those of the rest of the world. I see now, the whole world is wrong, and you are right. You keep on thinking that.

    • Champ says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm

      Ian wrote:

      The question is does God exist?

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Question: “Is there an argument for the existence of God?”

      Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html

      • Ian says

        Jan 17, 2015 at 5:21 am

        Champ, this is notbhing but fancy words and ciruclar arguments plus not afew assumptions,e.g. God is male. Have you not realised that ‘God’s’ attributes, no matter what religion you look at, are the same as those that pre-xist the religion in that particular society.

        This piece is just play acting. Making claims of true for things that no-one could possibly know and then mixing it up to confuse those who want to believe that it is fact, when it isn’t/

        Ian

  51. Clifford Hall says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 6:48 am

    The comments of most of you are entirely predictable. You are indeed part of the problem.

    Actually, it’s pointless debating with most of you since you run in blinkers. But someone tell me. What did Pope Francis say about the Paris murders? Did he say they were acceptable or justifiable, could ever be acceptable or justifiable?

    I am not a Roman Catholic. I think Francis’ comments were ill advised taken as they’ve been translated. However, I accept the Varn and Jim Hale approaches. But I also think Francis was giving expression to what many outside this incestuous little blog, replete as it is with hate mongers going nowhere, actually think.

    I don’t share that view. I think that if there had been no ‘follow up’ from Charlie Hebdo it would have meant capitulation. Satire is part of the way we do things, and it means we don’t take ourselves too seriously, and can laugh at ourselves and others without malice. That in itself is a divine virtue and the one thing we human beings can share – laughter. Now if the idea offends a Muslim it is sad, but it’s the way of life he’s accepted, or must be deemed to have accepted, when he came to Europe.

    Now – I can say that or a politician can say that, but I don’t think a Pope can, at least not all of it. I remember DeBlasio fuelling fires. People with responsibility don’t do that. They search for peace, understanding and harmony. And that’s what Francis has sought to do, I think. His remarks about the murders, however, are a very different matter and I’m sorry that no one here, or the blog master, has sought to quote them.

    Over to you, gravenimage the pedant – go for it.

    • rev g says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 7:00 am

      Apparently, given your view, the pope capitulates regularly, even often. He offers not even lip service in the face of worse displays denigrating his religion. Yet he does not expect others to be so capitulating. Of course, capitulate is improper, tolerate is the appropriate word. Capitulating better applies to the papal attitude roward islam.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 2:56 pm

      Clifford Hall wrote:

      Now if the idea offends a Muslim it is sad, but it’s the way of life he’s accepted, or must be deemed to have accepted, when he came to Europe.
      ………………………………….

      I’m afraid that Clifford Hall has completely misunderstood why most Muslims have come to the free West—it is not that they have accepted civilized Western norms, but as a Hijira. Jihadists intend to “islamoform” the West, and are working both violently and through stealth Jihad to impose Islamic law here.

      This is why so few Muslims have make any efforts to assimilate—most of them don’t intend to.

      More:

      Now – I can say that or a politician can say that, but I don’t think a Pope can, at least not all of it… People with responsibility don’t do that. They search for peace, understanding and harmony. And that’s what Francis has sought to do, I think.
      ………………………………….

      I don’t believe that calling for self-censorship in the face of violence and tyranny actually engenders peace, understanding and harmony. If that makes me a “hate monger” and
      “pedant” in Clifford Hall’s estimation, so be it.

      More:

      His remarks about the murders, however, are a very different matter and I’m sorry that no one here, or the blog master, has sought to quote them.
      ………………………………….

      Actually, Robert Spencer does quote the Reuters’ article noting that Pope Francis made a pro-forma condemnation of the attacks before going on to blame the victims:

      “Francis, who has condemned the Paris attacks…”

      Robert Spencer has also quoted the Pope in other Jihad Watch stories saying that “such horrific violence in God’s name couldn’t be justified and was an ‘aberration.'” (Of course, Francis does not note that such violence is not actually an “aberration” in Islam, but is so common it is the norm).

      If Clifford Hall demands that other posters here further quote Francis, that is odd—he could certainly do so himself.

      But it can be arranged. The Pope backpeddled on his comments above here:

      “Vatican: Pope’s Charlie Hebdo Comments Do Not Justify Attack”

      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-28240968

      From that article:

      “He noted that Francis has spoken out clearly against the Paris attacks and that violence in God’s name can never be justified…

      “Francis, who has called on Muslim leaders in particular to speak out against Islamic extremism…”

      Alas, he then goes on to reassert what he said earlier re limits to freedom of speech:

      “There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others,” he said. “They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasbarri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.”

      In other words, if anyone questions the violence of Islam, they are a “provocateur” and essentially deserve what they get. It is rather dismaying that some believe that this will engender “peace, understanding and harmony”.

      I’m sorry that Clifford Hall believes that daring to point this out is “part of the problem”.

    • Angemon says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 5:12 pm

      Clifford Hall posted:

      “it’s pointless debating with most of you since you run in blinkers.”

      I assure you that’s not why you keep getting stomped.

      “Now if the idea offends a Muslim it is sad, but it’s the way of life he’s accepted, or must be deemed to have accepted, when he came to Europe.

      Now – I can say that or a politician can say that, but I don’t think a Pope can, at least not all of it. I remember DeBlasio fuelling fires. People with responsibility don’t do that. They search for peace, understanding and harmony. And that’s what Francis has sought to do, I think.”

      People with responsibility don’t shout “FIRE!!!” on a crowded room, but they also don’t say “there’s nothing to be afraid of, true flames don’t burn people, so please everyone keep calm and embrace the fire”, which is a more akin metaphor to the Pope’s stance on islam.

  52. Mark says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 6:54 am

    Why Not Elijah did!! Elijah mocked and ridiculed the priests of Ba’al to their faces. Come to think of it so did Mohammed!!

  53. Dan says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 10:16 am

    Just another case of Obama logic, we play nice and the world will follow. Just because they are murdering innocent Christians is no concern to the Pope. The Catechism and St. Augustine would make good reading before Jihad comes to the Vatican.

  54. Truth Seeker says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 11:25 am

    Pope says, insulting one’s Religion will lead to Clash; thereby abstain from it.Good. There are many who criticize and mock Christianity. What Action Pope suggests against them?

  55. Spot On says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 11:56 am

    This Pope seems to agree with Obama on nearly everything.

  56. Veritas says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    I believe in speech limitations. If someone starts screaming Allah Akbar anywhere it is an immediate breach of the peace and I will take him out. It is far scarier than screaming fire in a theatre. If someone preaches the violent provisions of the Koran I believe it is a clear and present danger and they should be prosecuted for incitement of violence. Time for better Alien and Sedition laws as well.

  57. voegelinian says

    Jan 16, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    By the by, Pope John Paul II, and one of the most influential (and in many ways, liberal) Catholic theologians of the 20th century, Hans Küng, came down pretty much on the wrong side of the whole Salman Rushdie fatwa fiasco — issuing statements on the side of how religious sensibilities should not be “offended”, rather than on the side of human liberty and the human right not to be killed or threatened with death for “offending” someone’s religious sensibilities.

    • gravenimage says

      Jan 16, 2015 at 10:26 pm

      I don’t recall if Pope John Paul II himself opined on the threats to Salman Rushdie, Voeg, but I do remember how dismayed I was by the official Op Ed at the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

      I looked it up, and these comments are just as disturbing today. After a brief, pro forma condemnation of the death Fatwa, the article goes on to say this:

      “In comments published Sunday, the newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said that millions of Muslims had been offended by the Rushdie novel.

      “‘The very attachment to our own faith induces us to deplore that which is irreverent and blasphemous in the book’s contents,’ it said.

      “But L’Osservatore Romano added: ‘It should not, however, be difficult to understand that the sacredness of the religious conscience of every individual cannot be set apart from the sacredness of the life of other men. The solidarity of those who have felt wounded in their dignity must be accompanied by a pressing vow to abandon attitudes of hate that also sound like offenses to God.’

      “‘It is certainly fair to ask what kind of art or liberty we are dealing with when, in their name, people’s most profound dimension is attacked and their sensitivity as believers is offended,’ the newspaper said.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/07/world/vatican-newspaper-faults-rushdie-book.html

      Plus ça change…

    • ECAW says

      Jan 17, 2015 at 3:02 am

      Dead right. It seems to me that around the time of the Rushdie affair the Catholic Church’s leaders simply decided they had more in common with Muslims than with the moral relativists of the West (Benedict’s particular bete noir).

      • Jay Boo says

        Jan 17, 2015 at 3:59 am

        Dead right ????

        ECAW You seem to be extrapolating some specific comments into a much broader generalization of your own making (eg. Dead right ) about the Catholic Church when you say “more in common with Muslims” even with the qualifier “than with the moral relativists of the West “.
        This is a false equivalence.

        A better generalization would be that Judaism has more in common with Islam than the Catholic Church.

        It would seem that the Catholic Church has left itself way too vulnerable to criticism with the sex abuse scandals to effectively challenge Islam no matter who is the Pope.
        http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/local-news/brief-timeline-catholic-churchs-priest-sex-abuse-s

        • ECAW says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 4:23 am

          Jay Boo – I am not a Vatican watcher and have no more time for Christian theology than I do for Islamic theology. The only point of interest to me is that one mandates my conversion, subjugation or death and the other doesn’t. When they argue about whether they all worship the same god or not it appears to me like discussing the form of a pantomime horse.

          I agreed with Voegelinian’s point and added my own general reaction to what I’ve heard coming out of the Vatican since the Rushdie affair (which was long before the priests’ sex scandals).

          When I see gatherings of the sacerdotal classes of all stripes I see the same fancy dress, the same big hats, the same complacent enjoyment of their status with their various flocks. They might disagree about whether there are no gods, one god, three gods or thousands and whether there are various tenets which are blasphemous to the others but they have so much in common. I see them banding together as best they can, even though one is the implacable enemy of the others, because they see themselves on the same side in the struggle between belief and disbelief.

        • gravenimage says

          Jan 17, 2015 at 1:25 pm

          Jay Boo, it is of note that the Vatican’s comments from twenty-five years ago—and under a different pope—are almost identical to those of Pope Francis today.

          These are not just random comments.

          And these earlier comments had nothing to do with the sex abuse scandal, which may have been ongoing at that earlier time but were not much known to the public.

          I’m certainly not saying that most Catholics feel this way—I don’t believe they do. This is not intended to be Anti-Catholic, and perhaps Pope Benedict would have responded differently—but this *does* appear to be a disturbing tendency out of the Vatican, and is important to make note of.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jan 18, 2015 at 7:30 pm

          @ Jay Boo.

          ECAW You seem to be extrapolating some specific comments into a much broader generalization of your own making (eg. Dead right ) about the Catholic Church when you say “more in common with Muslims” even with the qualifier “than with the moral relativists of the West “.
          This is a false equivalence.

          No. I don’t think it is. When you have the **Pope** stating that it is ‘normal’ to murder someone who mocks your religion, then one is moving into dangerous and foul waters. And one should be *extremely* critical of someone who purports to be the ‘Vicar of Christ’ but advocates, by implication, that it is ‘normal’ to murder those who insult another’s belief system.

          This is not a ‘general statement ‘ about the Catholic Church. This is the *leader* of the Catholic Church, stating that basically, it’s OK to murder journalists for mocking mohammed, because, hey, if someone disses his momma, that’s the same thing ! I am astonished you cannot see this.

          I believe you are a Christian, I don’t know if you are an RC. Irrespective, it is not a Christian tenet, to murder those who mock Christ. Neither it is a Christian tenet to murder those who blaspheme against Christ, and call it good.

          Your reference to the paedophilia sex scandals of the RC Church are illuminating.

          You seem to be saying, (forgive me if I’m incorrect) that

          ”It would seem that the Catholic Church has left itself way too vulnerable to criticism with the sex abuse scandals to effectively challenge Islam no matter who is the Pope”

          Now, that suggests to me, that because the Catholic Church has, reprehensibly, sought to cover up this unsavoury scandal, that the Church is in no position to challenge islam ? Surely not. The Catholic Church is, to me, an extremely faulty engine for disseminating Christianity; but that doesn’t mean that the Curia, for instance, could not declare that the ‘Pope’ was not following Christian tenets, and is in fact, a heretic ?

          Your thoughts ?

  58. Psycho says

    Jan 17, 2015 at 1:58 am

    The Pope got it wrong. No surprise, he has a vested interest in Faith

    ahead of Reason. If not, his followers would become atheists. Free speech may involve giving offence, but whether a listener takes offence or not is up to the listener. They’re not robots, are they? Also, Robert reminds us that often the choice to take offence is not rational. By contrast, hate speech & threats of violence (& worse, death) are offensive to all listeners, including freedom of speech advocates. Why can’t leaders see the clarity of all this? They seem to bend over backwards to have it both ways!

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Michael Copeland on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • Dude on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.