Defining Religion Ridicule

[Flanders]

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP) — Pope Francis said Thursday there are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith.

XXXXX​

But he said there were limits.​

I smelled a pious rat when Pope Frankie put a limit on freedom of speech. Exactly what constitutes ridicule? Is gentle humor ridicule? Here is a gentle example to paraphrase H. L. Mencken:

Religion is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.​

Is satire ridicule? And how about a cartoon? Frankie does not elaborate; so I have to conclude that he would prohibit it all so the field is left wide open for praising priests with generous donations.

Parenthetically, throughout history how come religion’s true believers —— including Roman Catholics —— did slightly more than ridicule atheists? Nowadays Muslim of faith are still slaughtering the non-believers, yet the pope’s close spiritual relationship with Islam is based on mutual dependence. He will never be closer to atheists —— who, incidentally, do not run around slaughtering non-atheists.

The next one implies that free speech demands speech —— generally defined by sharpshooters who get rich defining the common good for everybody else:

Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good.​

How do Muslims define the common good? Since common good is doublespeak for the word moral why not my morals rather than the morals of an ayatollah, a pope, or one of Boo’s guy the Dali Lama?

Note that either the pope got cute, or he missed Muslims doing their killing in the Prophet Mohammad’s name not in God’s name.

. . . Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.

Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression
Associated Press
By NICOLE WINFIELD
1 hour ago

Vatican Pope s Charlie Hebdo comments do not justify attack - Yahoo News​

Everything I’ve heard the pope say tells me that he takes America’s Founding Fathers for fools:

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thomas Jefferson -- Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813​

Frankie is clever fellow who deliberately confuses God with religion and priests. Fortunately, most Americans know the difference between religion and priests; so the pope should spend some time taking instructions on our First Amendment before he pokes his nose in our freedoms:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

I doubt if Frankie will ever accept America’s meaning of religion, while he should not have trouble understanding absolute freedom of speech among a free people:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”—Thomas Jefferson
​

Finally, priests have been at religion for thousands of years. My point is that priests have been acquiring political power using the same techniques for millenniums. That is why I repeatedly cite the Constitution and America’s Founders. So please give me a little leeway because I am bound by proof that is slightly more than two centuries old. It is a tough fight pitting America’s greatness against thousands of years of priesthoods who did more harm than good.

On the bright side a required civics test needs a lot of work showing the importance between severely limited civil government and priesthoods of every stripe who oppose liberty. It is an important beginning for anyone who is paying attention:

Ducey called on the Legislature to make the civics test the first bill to hit his desk as governor. He said studies show that students don’t know enough about basic government to grow into effective citizens.​

“These are our children, and not long from now, it will be for them to vote on who sits in your chairs and who stands at this podium,” Ducey said in his State of the state address Monday. “How can we expect them to protect the principles on which this country was founded, if we are not preparing them for that task right now?”

XXXXX​

“Requiring that students pass this test is not by any means a silver bullet, but I think is a step, a small step forward,” he said. “And I think we need to encourage the people of America to become more aware of the values of America.”

Arizona passes law requiring students to pass civics test
by Breitbart News15 Jan 2015584

Arizona passes law requiring students to pass civics test - Breitbart​

p.s. If you read the entire article you will see that one Democrat objected to American youngsters becoming good citizens in a limited government. I assume he meant they can only become good little collectivist Socialists.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's really a pretty good trick if you can pull it off -- "I chose to believe in an ideology, but since I call that ideology "religion" , the fact I chose it means I am inviolate.

Would anybody go for that with communism, humanism, anarcho-syndicalism, Fascism, Raeleanism or any other set of beliefs?

The mere fact that we distinguish one type of ideology in terms of the supernatural shouldn't make that set of beliefs off limits. Heck, the most destructive ideology on the planet is killing people in huge numbers towards exactly those ends.

Do we really need to be just like them?

.

 

[Flanders]

It's really a pretty good trick if you can pull it off -- "I chose to believe in an ideology, but since I call that ideology "religion" , the fact I chose it means I am inviolate.

Would anybody go for that with communism, humanism, anarcho-syndicalism, Fascism, Raeleanism or any other set of beliefs?

The mere fact that we distinguish one type of ideology in terms of the supernatural shouldn't make that set of beliefs off limits. Heck, the most destructive ideology on the planet is killing people in huge numbers towards exactly those ends.

Do we really need to be just like them?

.

To Dogmaphope: I am not certain if you agree with me, or disagree with me, or simply express your view which is fair enough. In any event you might want to elaborate on this excerpt from this thread:

The Man With The Gun US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​

Since the day organized religion was invented every priesthood worked to make their religion the one true religion. That never-ending “competition” put the human race on a fast track to hell the day the one God notion ejaculated organized religion as it is practiced today. From the beginning the elimination of every other religion took priority over forcing everybody to believe in God. Basically, religious fanatics hate alien religious fanatics more than they hate atheists. In today’s world Muslims and Communists are the only priesthoods who proselytize with guns.

Incidentally, people who believe in God, but not religion, do not give a rat’s ass what others believe. Did you ever hear of an individual who believed in God beating up someone because they adhered to a religion? How many times has the world seen fanatical believers in one religion trying to wipe out, or convert by force, believers in another religion.

Today’s Muslims reaffirm my long-held view. Individuals were spiritually better-off when there were a bunch of gods; each one specializing in a different realm of piety —— the same as specialists in medicine and law. There are more benefits to be realized from tolerating a plethora of gods as opposed to putting all of our nuts in one squirrel cage.

Assuming the tools for self-defense, rapid communications, etc., would be in the same place today had the one God idea been completed rejected down through the ages, I wonder what the world would be like in the 21st century?

One thing cannot be denied. Societal insistence on a belief in one God rewarded ambition and ambitious government since its inception. In the modern world ambition replaced achievement. More importantly, a one government world is the evolutionary consequence of a one God universe.

The major problem with a one government world is that it will probably be a Socialist/Communist totalitarian government, or an equally totalitarian Supreme Deity theocracy. Until then, freedom-loving people still have the option of calling upon the much praised, always ignored, wisdom of the ancients who had a top God right along with a bunch of lesser gods. That’s probably the model for our own president and members of Congress.

NOTE: Hinduism teaches a belief in a Supreme Being of many forms and natures, but it falls short of endorsing the ancient belief in numerous gods who spent all of their time aggravating the boss if I remember Roman and Greek mythology accurately.

Alas, the one God crowd controlling governments won’t hear of multiple gods. It’s all or nothing for them, and what is worse from their point of view is that the multiple-god system of religion would most certainly unleash the forces of cynicism. God forbid a cynical distrust of priests and politicians be encouraged.

Let’s say there really are supernatural forces concerned with the individual’s spiritual well-being in the next world. A quick look at the past two thousand years should tell everyone the workload is just too much for one God. I know this is so because even the Pope has trouble getting through to the boss. For as long as I can remember, every time it was reported “Pope Prays For Peace” I knew a lot of people were about to die somewhere in the world.

On the other hand, Muslim extremists bent on killing infidels appear to have a direct line to their guy —— they thank Allah for answering their prayers after every successful act of terrorism. (I have to admit God is Good —— to terrorists.)

Roman Catholicism does have saints on the payroll to handle minor requests, but if it’s a serious matter you have to get in touch with God. At least with an army of equal gods on call there is a good chance your special favorite will be available to hear your request in times of personal distress.

As it stands now, if you want your prayers to be heard where it counts you are expected to go through a middleman to reach God’s ear before your petition is considered. God’s earthly gatekeepers will never admit it at a prayer meeting, but they frown upon direct personal contact with the CEO whenever that contact is too far removed from the collection plate.

Of course, the salespeople merchandising assorted gods would still expect a small donation. Nevertheless, a bit of healthy competition in the hereafter marketplace should keep donations, and political power, at reasonably low levels; benefits not to be taken lightly.

The ideal is for every god to stay out of government altogether; however, being part realist and part cynic the best I can expect is severely restricted religious participation in the mundane affairs of severely limited government. A thousand or so full-fledged gods cutting up the take doesn’t leave much room for mischief caused by the one God sharpshooters splitting the pot, and the soul pool, among themselves.

Even though I have a hankering for more gods, I’m convinced that all of those one God religions is a negative thing. The followers of every supreme God always end up trying to assert their own guy’s Right to occupy the apex unchallenged. And now we have to contend with the Socialist priesthood pushing their God of economic morality in addition to the zealots of every other one and only True God strangling mankind. God! —— Will humanity never see an end to religious meddling?

Having said the above, I have to admit it is possible for every person in the world to belong to one of the traditional organized religions. Every religion except socialism would gladly embrace everyone. However, socialism’s true believers must feed on the labors of others without giving anything of value in return; so there must always be a large percentage of the population excluded from joining the congregation.

Throughout history, the hierarchies of organized religion took all the best of it because they, too, lived on the labors of their flocks. In return for a church’s riches priesthoods offered the laity God, and a better life in the hereafter. As socialism gains political influence through taxation its liberal priests must finally be exposed as the frauds they are because they cannot offer eternal life to the people who do the work. Indeed, Socialists dare not bestow church membership on the working class because it is absolutely impossible for everyone to live well on tax dollars. Somebody has to do the work and that somebody is NOT going to be a Socialist priest.

Of course, socialism’s advocates try to cover all bases by claiming:

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

Or so the Socialist B.S. goes. The precise translation of that little gem means if you are a tax dollar rich Socialist you are entitled to all you can get, but if you work your ass off struggling to remain one jump ahead of abject poverty and the man with the gun that’s all you need.

In truth, one God religions sell eternal salvation to the workers while socialism promotes tax slavery without offering any spiritual reward; leading to the obvious conclusion —— socialism is one sorry-ass religion when you get right down to it.

 

[Flanders]

For as long as I can remember, every time it was reported “Pope Prays For Peace” I knew a lot of people were about to die somewhere in the world.

It sounds like he is putting his faith in the United Nations!

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Francis issued a Christmas Day prayer that recent U.N.-backed peace processes for Syria and Libya will quickly end the suffering of their people.​

Dec 25, 9:27 AM EST
Pope urges Christmas prayers for Syria, Libya peace
By NICOLE WINFIELD

News from The Associated Press​