Freedom of Expression, but...

Freedom is a delicate subject. Regarding (i) the recent declaration from the Pope that it is wrong to mock, offend, criticize, or provoke the faith of religious people; (ii) the "freedom of expression but (...)" comments I have read throughout the Internet regarding the Charlie Hebdo massacre - I have this to say:

If I were to be mocked by a creationist because I believe in evolution, should I punch him and compare my situation to the one described by the Pope, where we should expect a punch from someone whose mother we mocked? Of course not, that would be absurd - in principle, I would be able to defend my beliefs and my position with rational discourse, if I even cared to reply. Why, then, should I be offended, or respond violently, if I know that what I believe is logical and consistent, or why should I resort to violence when someone says x, y, z about my mother which I know to be false? And even if it was true, why should I be offended and angered by the truth, and use that as justification for my violence? However, according to the pope, if you mock someone who holds irrational beliefs, expect retaliation. First of all, I would expect violent retaliation from a child, not from a decent adult - if you are capable of hitting someone because they mocked someone who you love, you are already acting unethically - there's no excuse to it. Now take it to the next level - if you are capable of killing someone on behalf of insults made to someone who you love, while that entity has not even been proven to exist, simply because you hold faith, you are an immoral fiend and beyond hope - there's no way to circumvent this. There is little, or nothing, you can say to open the eyes of an individual capable of taking another one's life in behalf of his irrational beliefs, since basic empathy towards a fellow human was incapable of doing so. But getting back to the point: the main difference between the first situation I described (someone believing in evolution) to the latter (someone holding faith) is that faith cannot be discussed; faith cannot be rationalized; faith is simply too weak and fragile to allow for arguments. Faith is, by proper definition, irrational and unreasonable; by my own definition, unattainable and unwise. However, it has become much more than that. Faith has become a passport to being offended when others mock or criticize your unjustified beliefs; it has become a passport to act upon the fact that you are so sensible, so irrational and so deeply attached to your preconceptions, that you have no alternative way of defending your beliefs other than verbal or physical aggression. The more liable you are to being offended, the greater the constraint on the freedom of expression of others.

The absolute best that we could do right now would be to seriously think about this issue. Learn how to tolerate the opinions that we don't like - that's part of life; be honest enough to realize that faith has no special place among the world except in the personal realm, and will be given no special treatment by others; know that society has evolved due to constant disagreements and critics, which many times involves mockery of what we, as individuals or as society, think absurd or ridiculous - that is how we grew up not only socially, but ethically and morally. There is no human right to not be offended - how could we even attempt at freedom if that was the case? There is an unique meaning to freedom of expression, and "but" is not, and never was, included in the definition. If we are to share the same sky, we must learn how to deal with one another without diminishing the very freedom that enriches our human experience.

Bird's Eye View VII

There is little you can say to open the eyes of an individual capable of taking another one's life in behalf of his beliefs, since basic empathy towards a fellow human was incapable of doing so.

The Four Seasons of Life

Life strikes existence so silently,
and finds its path in the warmth of the sun,
until the fallen leaves hide it so quietly,
and darkness settles where there was none.

Ego and Self-improvement

In my limited experience, I find two important problems that disturb human relationships. The first one is ego; the second one is the distorted idea of self-improvement. 

Ego is related to the nourishment of a superior and prideful self - someone who is too inflated to be wrong cannot possibly have a mindset for positive change. To have the courage, humility and honesty to admit errors is crucial for anyone who cares more about healthy relationships than showing-off a pitiful, self-righteous image.

The distorted idea of self-improvement is connected to the idea that "I behave a certain way, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively, and anyone dealing with me should deal with me in both cases". This is only partially true - as I see it, a person has certain positive and negative attitudes, which arise as a mix of both internal and external circunstances. Internal circunstances are mainly dictated by genetic predispositions; external circunstances are deeply related with education and upbringing. Any person should attempt to discover what characteristics, both intrinsic and extrinsic, are harmful and negative, recognizing that these not only affect the self, but also relationships. If I am generally a jealous person, and I realize that this has caused me problems in past relationships, my attitude should not be "I will find someone who can deal with me this way", but rather "this is not good for me nor for others, and I will be a lot happier if I alleviate this condition - this will surely make my relationships more successful as a consequence". To analyze yourself critically and know what characteristics are worth improving for yourself and for others, instead of lazily waiting for someone to accept all the flaws you carry with you, shows true wisdom when it comes to personal and emotional development.

Being right for the wrong reasons

While religion is inherently dogmatic, it is not a requirement for dogmatism. Some very anti-religious people possess a dogmatic nature which is at least as dangerous as holding a religious view. They feel contempt towards religion without really knowing why; they insult religious people with no true knowledge or reason of their own position and they automatically label such people as intellectually inferior. I fail to notice how this is any less dangerous, or different, than the religious people they often criticize -both types of people share a lack of mental elasticity characteristic of dogmatism, which might compromise positive changes. I might hold a similar position as any atheist regarding religion, but if I am going to live in a world where people are right because they know that they are right, then I will debate a dogmatic atheist with as much vehemence as I do any theist. What I try to promote is free thought and skepticism, not dogmatic views of any kind.