{"id":26450,"date":"2015-01-19T15:00:28","date_gmt":"2015-01-19T20:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/?p=26450"},"modified":"2015-01-19T15:00:28","modified_gmt":"2015-01-19T20:00:28","slug":"rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/","title":{"rendered":"Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn’t say cannot when one can only say should not"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

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<\/a>, Francis spoke about the right to free speech and free expression.<\/p>\n

First, let\u2019s look at the part that didn\u2019t create controversy. French reporter Sebastian Maillard asked this question: \u201cYesterday 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the beginning of Francis\u2019 reply:<\/p>\n

I believe that both are fundamental human rights, religious liberty and liberty of expression. One cannot \u2014 but let\u2019s think \u2014 you are French? Let\u2019s go to Paris, let\u2019s speak clearly. One cannot hide a truth: everyone has the right to practice one\u2019s religion, one\u2019s own religion without giving offense. Freely. That\u2019s how we do it, we want everyone to do that. Second: One cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one\u2019s own religion, that is, in the name of God. To us, that which happens now, it stuns us. But let\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s think, if a member of parliament or a senator doesn\u2019t 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The context of the pope\u2019s trip informs his answer here. He\u2019s just spent several days in Sri Lanka \u2014 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\u2019s question here, too.<\/p>\n

I think that context also shapes the next bit of Francis\u2019 reply, which is the bit that has drawn criticism:<\/p>\n

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\u2019s normal, it\u2019s normal. One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people\u2019s faith, one cannot make fun of faith. \u2026\u00a0And so many people who speak badly about other religions, or religions [in general], they make fun of, let\u2019s say toy with [make into toys] other people\u2019s 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Gerard O\u2019Connell, writing for America<\/em>, summarizes this by saying: \u201cThe pope affirmed the right to freedom of expression\u201d but \u201cmade it very clear that freedom of expression had certain limits, and a person is not entitled to offend, ridicule, mock, or treat the religion \u2014 any religion \u2014 as a toy that can be played with.\u201d<\/p>\n

If that\u2019s what Francis intended to say, then I agree with the critics who are now condemning him for suggesting \u201ccertain limits\u201d on the freedom of expression. But I\u2019m not certain that is quite what he was trying to say.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t speak Italian, and so it\u2019s difficult\u00a0to be parsing these comments second-hand, in their English translation, but let\u2019s focus on the main troubling bit here: \u201cOne cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people\u2019s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s an odd use of the word \u201ccannot.\u201d The pope\u2019s response would have been far less troubling if he had said, instead, \u201cshould not\u201d \u2014 \u201cOne should not<\/em>\u00a0provoke, one should not<\/em>\u00a0insult other people\u2019s faith, one should not<\/em>\u00a0make fun of faith.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"RuleNo1\"<\/a>Think, for example, of Rule No. 1. That\u2019s an important rule \u2014 that\u2019s why it comes first. But what kind<\/em> of rule is it?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s certainly not a legal<\/em> rule. \u201cDon\u2019t be a dick\u201d doesn\u2019t mean that dickishness is or ought to be against the law. So I wouldn\u2019t want to rephrase Rule No. 1 as \u201cOne cannot<\/em> be a dick,\u201d but rather as something more like \u201cOne should<\/em> not be a dick.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rule No. 1 doesn\u2019t mean that we don\u2019t have the right<\/em> to be dicks to one another. What it means is that we\u2019d all be better off if we used our freedom and our rights to, you know, not<\/em> be total dicks.<\/p>\n

Rule No. 1, in other words, isn\u2019t the same kind of rule as Amendment No. 1. But just as the First Amendment\u2019s right to freedom of speech mustn\u2019t be limited or qualified by the obligation not to be a dick, neither should the guaranteed, unqualified\u00a0right to freedom of speech be treated as an exemption from Rule No. 1.<\/p>\n

Mark Silk thinks that\u2019s what Pope Francis was trying to say<\/a>. Given the context of the pope\u2019s other remarks about the religious conflicts\u00a0in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, I\u00a0suspect\u00a0he\u2019s right.<\/p>\n

I think we can see that, too, in the other places in his remarks where Francis uses that term \u201ccannot.\u201d Just before he said \u201cone cannot insult other people\u2019s faith,\u201d he said, \u201cOne cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one\u2019s own religion, that is, in the name of God.\u201d He said that while acknowledging \u2014 and confessing \u2014\u00a0the reality that killing in the name of God is something that happens. There, it seems, his use of \u201ccannot\u201d seems to mean\u00a0something closer to should<\/em> not.<\/p>\n

I suspect the same is true in his supposed endorsement of limits on freedom of expression as well. He says \u201cone cannot<\/em> react violently\u201d to religious offense, but\u00a0then immediately after says that such a violent response is likely and expected. So I suspect, throughout, we might better understand Francis\u2019 comments by substituting the translation of \u201ccannot\u201d with the phrase \u201cshould not.\u201d<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s just a guess. And, in any case, I do not\u00a0speak for the pope and the pope does not speak for me.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

But that doesn\u2019t mean we should<\/em>. Having the right\u00a0to offend, to disrespect or to insult others does not mean that we are obliged to do so. It does not mean\u00a0that it is always wise or truthful or constructive or loving or just to do so. (Sometimes, I think it is. In the context\u00a0of laws forbidding blasphemy, for example, I think blasphemy may sometimes become a kind of moral duty.)<\/p>\n

But an unwavering, unqualified commitment to freedom of expression doesn\u2019t mean we can claim to be exempt from Rule No. 1. Having the right<\/em> to act like\u00a0a dick doesn\u2019t miraculously make it possible to act like a dick without thereby becoming a dick<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Or, as Voltaire didn\u2019t say either, \u201cI disapprove of your dickishness, but I will defend to the death your right to be a dick.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Rule No. 1 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":141,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nRule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn't say cannot when one can only say should not<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rule No. 1 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.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn't say cannot when one can only say should not\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rule No. 1 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.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"slacktivist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-01-19T20:00:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/wp.production.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/files\/2015\/01\/RuleNo1-257x300.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Fred Clark\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Fred Clark\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/\",\"name\":\"Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn't say cannot when one can only say should not\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-01-19T20:00:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-19T20:00:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#\/schema\/person\/32666545e535b697afb93d9848dcfc47\"},\"description\":\"Rule No. 1 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.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn’t say cannot when one can only say should not\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/\",\"name\":\"slacktivist\",\"description\":\""Test everything; hold fast to what is good."\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#\/schema\/person\/32666545e535b697afb93d9848dcfc47\",\"name\":\"Fred Clark\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7083ccd514d4fb8d5043041756d766a0?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7083ccd514d4fb8d5043041756d766a0?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"Fred Clark\"},\"description\":\"Fred Clark is a graduate of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary (now called Palmer Seminary), of Eastern College (now called Eastern University) and of the fundamentalist Timothy Christian High School (still fundamentalist and still called Timothy Christian High School, but not really thrilled to have a snarky, liberal, tree-hugging, pro-choice, pro-GLBT, peacenik, commie, evolutionist as such a vocal alumnus). A former managing editor of Prism magazine, Fred worked in the parachurch nonprofit world for a decade and then for a decade in the newspaper biz. He began blogging in 2002. In 2003 he began writing a review of the best-selling Left Behind series. Eight years later he still hasn\u2019t finished reviewing the second book of that series and the experience has left him a broken shell of a man. Fred knows the difference between the possessive \u201cits\u201d and the contraction \u201cit\u2019s,\u201d and he is acutely bothered when others mistakenly confuse the two, yet he himself just kind of instinctively types the apostrophe whether or not it belongs there. Some feel this is his greatest hypocrisy, but those who know him better know better. He\u2019s guilty of much greater hypocrisies. Jesus loves Fred far more than Fred loves Jesus, but he at least has the decency to recognize the unfairness of that lopsided relationship and he has long wished that he were better at maybe kind of sort of doing something more to correct that some day. A Baptist, an amateur, a Gen-Xer, a Gemini and a Mets fan, Fred lives in Southeastern Pennsylvania with his wife and two teenage daughters. You can reach him via email at slacktivist at hotmail dot com.\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/author\/fredclark1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn't say cannot when one can only say should not","description":"Rule No. 1 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.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn't say cannot when one can only say should not","og_description":"Rule No. 1 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.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/","og_site_name":"slacktivist","article_published_time":"2015-01-19T20:00:28+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/wp.production.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/files\/2015\/01\/RuleNo1-257x300.png"}],"author":"Fred Clark","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Fred Clark","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/","name":"Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn't say cannot when one can only say should not","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-01-19T20:00:28+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-19T20:00:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#\/schema\/person\/32666545e535b697afb93d9848dcfc47"},"description":"Rule No. 1 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.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/2015\/01\/19\/rule-no-1-and-amendment-no-1-one-shouldnt-say-cannot-when-one-can-only-say-should-not\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rule No. 1 and Amendment No. 1: One shouldn’t say cannot when one can only say should not"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/","name":"slacktivist","description":""Test everything; hold fast to what is good."","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#\/schema\/person\/32666545e535b697afb93d9848dcfc47","name":"Fred Clark","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7083ccd514d4fb8d5043041756d766a0?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7083ccd514d4fb8d5043041756d766a0?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","caption":"Fred Clark"},"description":"Fred Clark is a graduate of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary (now called Palmer Seminary), of Eastern College (now called Eastern University) and of the fundamentalist Timothy Christian High School (still fundamentalist and still called Timothy Christian High School, but not really thrilled to have a snarky, liberal, tree-hugging, pro-choice, pro-GLBT, peacenik, commie, evolutionist as such a vocal alumnus). A former managing editor of Prism magazine, Fred worked in the parachurch nonprofit world for a decade and then for a decade in the newspaper biz. He began blogging in 2002. In 2003 he began writing a review of the best-selling Left Behind series. Eight years later he still hasn\u2019t finished reviewing the second book of that series and the experience has left him a broken shell of a man. Fred knows the difference between the possessive \u201cits\u201d and the contraction \u201cit\u2019s,\u201d and he is acutely bothered when others mistakenly confuse the two, yet he himself just kind of instinctively types the apostrophe whether or not it belongs there. Some feel this is his greatest hypocrisy, but those who know him better know better. He\u2019s guilty of much greater hypocrisies. Jesus loves Fred far more than Fred loves Jesus, but he at least has the decency to recognize the unfairness of that lopsided relationship and he has long wished that he were better at maybe kind of sort of doing something more to correct that some day. A Baptist, an amateur, a Gen-Xer, a Gemini and a Mets fan, Fred lives in Southeastern Pennsylvania with his wife and two teenage daughters. You can reach him via email at slacktivist at hotmail dot com.","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/author\/fredclark1\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26450","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/141"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/slacktivist\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}