I know this new Pope is cool and all but he seems to be swayed by Bill Donahue and the Catholic league in regards to Charlie Hebdo. This week he has suggested that freedom of expression should be limited when it is directed at religion. He stopped short of blaming the victim, as Donahue did, so full credit for avoiding that rhetorical pitfall.
Now I understand there need to be certain limits to freedom of expression. If your idea of freedom of expression is to get pictures of yourself peeing on local sports players in the middle of a game, that shouldn’t be allowed.
If, however, you want to make a cartoon criticizing religion or, as I do, regularly criticize religion in a blog, that freedom should absolutely be allowed and welcomed.
Religion is an institution. Like politics. Nobody argues that we should stop making fun of politicians because we might offend someone who voted for them, do they?
Yet a religion should be afforded a special right? We should limit those who would make fun of religion because…why? God can’t take it? Mohammed can’t take it?
Sorry, Francis. Charlie Hebdo’s satire may not be your cup of tea but freedom of expression means they have as much right to do what they do as you have to criticize it.
Thing is, I didn’t think that there was a chance in hell that Zimmerman was going to be found guilty and honestly, I don’t think he should have spent the rest of his life in prison. I think he should have gone to prison but not for the rest of his life. Splitting hairs, maybe, but there you go.
While it seems probable that Trayvon Martin did attack Zimmerman, it also seems clear that Zimmerman would not have been in a position to be attacked if he’d followed directions and stayed in his car. He didn’t and a teenaged boy is dead.
In the end, nobody learned anything. Zimmerman feels like his actions have been vindicated. In fact, he feels like killing Martin was part of God’s plan. A belief that won’t be shaken given the verdict. Trayvon Martin can learn nothing ever again because he’s still dead.
Is Zimmerman guilty of murder? Apparently not. I still believe that what he did was wrong. And it exposed something ugly about our country that a lot of us would rather ignore. Like the fact Zimmerman can go free while a black woman can spend 20 years in jail for firing two warning shots so her abusive husband would stay away from her.
Sadly enough, after the uproar about this verdict dies down, we’ll just go back to ignoring it.
OK, those National Park Rangers just don’t want to let tourists have any fun! I mean, why are we going to Death Valley National Park if not to engage in science experiments that…don’t work?
Turns out that you can’t just fry an egg on the pavement. It isn’t quite that hot. You could do it if you have a frying pan and the video that is inspiring all of this failed egg frying even mentions that it doesn’t work without one but facts are unimportant when you are trying to do science!
Cleaning up after yourself is also, apparently, unimportant. Better to just leave eggshells and unfried eggs all over the place because you were too stupid to follow directions.
The message here is clear: don’t tell people how to do cool science experiments because they will probably just fuck it up.
Yesterday, I posted a satirical post about the Pope. I was happy with it. I thought it was pretty silly. I was especially pleased when I called him “Benedict the Cumberbatch.” Comedy genius, I tell ya!
I knew that it might upset a few Catholics if they read it and that was totally OK. That’s what happens when you write a blog post that is critical of the Papacy – even if it is primarily written as a joke. If someone doesn’t like the joke, the intent is not relevant.
Well, a friend of mine shared the post and then a friend of hers got pretty upset about it and we had a conversation. He kept saying he didn’t want to have a conversation but he actions suggested otherwise. I guess he was obsessed with someone being wrong on the internet. I get that. I’ve been there.
After the Catholic church’s spectacular failure to stem the tide of tolerance, The Pope has decided to make opposition to gay marriage the major thrust of Catholic activism in the coming year. In fact, he said that it is (I shit you now) a “threat to world peace.”
I really want to understand what kind of thinking would suggest that allowing two people who love each other the right to marry would ever threaten world peace. I would think that stable, loving homes would be a benefit to world peace. I don’t have any data to prove this but goodness knows that the pope has no data to prove his point either.
He doesn’t need data, though. Because he’s infallible.
And, as usual, he is wasting the vast resources of his church on Gay Marriage. At what point is he going to start focusing on issues that are actually important to his church?
Like the fact so many people think the guy leading his church is a dick?