Douthat versus the Pope...and Douthat is still right

So, Pope Francis was asked today about the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris.  I found his response to be very disappointing; in essence, he said "well, violence and extremism are bad, but when you insult people's religions, what do you expect?"  It is particularly disappointing insofar as it is basically a nicer version of the position taken by the vile Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who will no doubt be emboldened by the Pope's comments.

It's disappointing, and it is wrong.  It's wrong because it fails to recognize something that Western democracies have learned, but that religious institutions by and large have not.  The truth is you can only have two of the following three principles in your society: (a) people are able to live without constantly killing each other; and (b) people are able to express themselves, and (c) people protected from being offended by the things others say.  One of those has to go, and the one that liberal Western democracies have chosen is letter c.  Said another way, if you think people should not have to deal with people saying or writing things that offend them, even if it an offense to their religious sensibilities, then you must either tacitly accept that there will be violent retribution (which is what the Pope seems to be saying), or tacitly accept censorship of things that are, or might be, offensive to others (with all of the problems that creates).  You cannot square (or I guess triangulate) that circle.

Nope, Ross Douthat is entirely right.  You don't have to like the content of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, or think they are particularly useful or "constructive."  But we must defend them, particularly when they are challenged either by violence or censorship.  The right to be protected from violence and the right to express yourself freely are more important than your right not to be offended, and we should not shrink from saying so.  If you are a Muslim and you find the cartoons offensive, that's tough.  If you are a Christian and you find the "Piss Christ" offensive, that's tough.  You don't get to dictate what other people say, and you don't get to stop them from speaking through violence.

Very disappointing from Pope Francis.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

Holy Sex!--Part 3.3 Getting Down to Business, Part II

Chapter 12 is about foreplay.  Most everyone acknowledges that foreplay is good, and this chapter is no exception.  Popcak makes the interesting but seemingly effective choice to break foreplay down into the various senses.  So, for example, under seeing he discusses things like wearing lingerie, under smell he suggests to use scented candles, etc.  There is nothing revolutionary or earthshaking here, but the suggestions are solid and reasonable. He also provides an unambiguous defense of oral sex.  Some might be puzzled as to why oral sex needs defending, but the traditional position of the Church opposed oral sex--hence the reason it was traditionally grouped with anal sex under the heading of "sodomy."  So, Popcak is stepping out a bit on a limb here, and he deserves his kudos for that.  He also makes clear that oral sex goes both ways, subject only to the One Rule.  Good on him for recognizing the needs of the ladies in this realm. I could see how his constant use of
Read more