Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn’t say cannot when one can only say should not

Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn’t say cannot when one can only say should not

Last updated on: January 19, 2015 at 3:00 pm by Fred Clark

Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn’t say cannot when one can only say should not 2015-01-19T15:00:28-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pope Francis is, once again, making waves with his off-the-cuff remarks on airplanes. During a press conference on a flight from Sri Lanka to the Philippines, Francis spoke about the right to free speech and free expression.

First, let’s look at the part that didn’t create controversy. French reporter Sebastian Maillard asked this question: “Yesterday at mass you spoke about religious freedom as a fundamental human right. But in the respect for the different religions, up to what point can one go in freedom of expression? That too is a fundamental human right.”

Here’s the beginning of Francis’ reply:

I believe that both are fundamental human rights, religious liberty and liberty of expression. One cannot — but let’s think — you are French? Let’s go to Paris, let’s speak clearly. One cannot hide a truth: everyone has the right to practice one’s religion, one’s own religion without giving offense. Freely. That’s how we do it, we want everyone to do that. Second: One cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion, that is, in the name of God. To us, that which happens now, it stuns us. But let’s think about our own history: how many wars of religion have we had? You may think of the night of St. Bartholomew; how can this be understood? We too were sinners in this. But one cannot kill in the name of God. This is an aberration. To kill in the name of God is an aberration. I believe that this is the principal point in terms of religious liberty. One has freedom in this, but without imposing or killing in the name of religion.

As for freedom of expression: each one not only has the freedom, the right but also the obligation to say what one thinks to help the common good. The obligation! Let’s think, if a member of parliament or a senator doesn’t say what he thinks is the right path then he does not collaborate for the common good. Not only these, but many others too. We have the obligation to say openly, to have this liberty, but without giving offense, because it is true, one cannot react violently.

The context of the pope’s trip informs his answer here. He’s just spent several days in Sri Lanka — a nation torn by civil war and inter-religious violence. He addressed that conflict and the desperate need for interfaith tolerance and respect earlier in the press conference, and that discussion seems to have shaped Maillard’s question here, too.

I think that context also shapes the next bit of Francis’ reply, which is the bit that has drawn criticism:

We have the obligation to say openly, to have this liberty, but without giving offense, because it is true, one cannot react violently. But if Dr. Gasbarri [the papal trip organizer who was standing beside him], a great friend, says a bad word against my mother, then a punch awaits him. But it’s normal, it’s normal. One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith. … And so many people who speak badly about other religions, or religions [in general], they make fun of, let’s say toy with [make into toys] other people’s religions, these people provoke and there can occur what would happen to Dr. Gasbarri if he said something against my mother. That is, there is a limit. Every religion has dignity; every religion that respects life, human life, the human person. And I cannot make fun of it. This is a limit and I have taken this sense of limit to say that in freedom of expression there are limits, like that in regard to my mom.

Gerard O’Connell, writing for America, summarizes this by saying: “The pope affirmed the right to freedom of expression” but “made it very clear that freedom of expression had certain limits, and a person is not entitled to offend, ridicule, mock, or treat the religion — any religion — as a toy that can be played with.”

If that’s what Francis intended to say, then I agree with the critics who are now condemning him for suggesting “certain limits” on the freedom of expression. But I’m not certain that is quite what he was trying to say.

I don’t speak Italian, and so it’s difficult to be parsing these comments second-hand, in their English translation, but let’s focus on the main troubling bit here: “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.”

That’s an odd use of the word “cannot.” The pope’s response would have been far less troubling if he had said, instead, “should not” — “One should not provoke, one should not insult other people’s faith, one should not make fun of faith.”

Think, for example, of Rule No. 1. That’s an important rule — that’s why it comes first. But what kind of rule is it?

It’s certainly not a legal rule. “Don’t be a dick” doesn’t mean that dickishness is or ought to be against the law. So I wouldn’t want to rephrase Rule No. 1 as “One cannot be a dick,” but rather as something more like “One should not be a dick.”

Rule No. 1 doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to be dicks to one another. What it means is that we’d all be better off if we used our freedom and our rights to, you know, not be total dicks.

Rule No. 1, in other words, isn’t the same kind of rule as Amendment No. 1. But just as the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech mustn’t be limited or qualified by the obligation not to be a dick, neither should the guaranteed, unqualified right to freedom of speech be treated as an exemption from Rule No. 1.

Mark Silk thinks that’s what Pope Francis was trying to say. Given the context of the pope’s other remarks about the religious conflicts in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, I suspect he’s right.

I think we can see that, too, in the other places in his remarks where Francis uses that term “cannot.” Just before he said “one cannot insult other people’s faith,” he said, “One cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion, that is, in the name of God.” He said that while acknowledging — and confessing — the reality that killing in the name of God is something that happens. There, it seems, his use of “cannot” seems to mean something closer to should not.

I suspect the same is true in his supposed endorsement of limits on freedom of expression as well. He says “one cannot react violently” to religious offense, but then immediately after says that such a violent response is likely and expected. So I suspect, throughout, we might better understand Francis’ comments by substituting the translation of “cannot” with the phrase “should not.”

But that’s just a guess. And, in any case, I do not speak for the pope and the pope does not speak for me.

So let me just speak for me: Religion is not off-limits when it comes to the freedom of expression. We have the right to offend, to disrespect, to question, to mock, to insult, to be irreverent, and to blaspheme.

But that doesn’t mean we should. Having the right to offend, to disrespect or to insult others does not mean that we are obliged to do so. It does not mean that it is always wise or truthful or constructive or loving or just to do so. (Sometimes, I think it is. In the context of laws forbidding blasphemy, for example, I think blasphemy may sometimes become a kind of moral duty.)

But an unwavering, unqualified commitment to freedom of expression doesn’t mean we can claim to be exempt from Rule No. 1. Having the right to act like a dick doesn’t miraculously make it possible to act like a dick without thereby becoming a dick.

Or, as Voltaire didn’t say either, “I disapprove of your dickishness, but I will defend to the death your right to be a dick.”

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 19, 2015

Does this patriarchal construct of modesty make me look fat?

Next Post

January 20, 2015 This is the sound of the four walls falling in

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams in Egypt?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Aaron Joseph Moses Daniel