Vatican Says Freedom Of Expression Does Not Mean Offending Religions

I'm very real. Learn to read in context and develop some reading comprehension and deduction skills.

You've entirely missed the point and reading out of context. He gave Allah credibility whether he wanted to or not. If someone ridiculed a picture of the Easter Bunny, leprechaun or the Tooth Fairy, would it be this serious.

Allah is a mental machination of a pedophile, terrorist, and if you ask me, a demonically possessed man. Why a Cardinal (Pope, Bishop, priest, etc.) even discusses Allah within a context of him being real raises serious issues about that person's own faith in a God that seriously warns of even acknowledging other gods!

That, is pretty much one of the major warnings/crux of Christianity. For those that claim to be Christian, validating the gods of others, either directly or indirectly, is a sin.

Since apparently you have little knowledge of the Bible perhaps you shouldn't know this. But someone that is supposed to be a figurehead and leader in a "christian" church should know this.

There's no difference between Hitler and Mohammed except that one's influence has sorely outlived him on a global scale. Since Allah is a contrivance of Mohammed, what you're saying, or at least defending, would be tantamount to the world saying, "We should all respect Hitler's god (whomever that would be) and not mock it, thereby respectign it/him" when frankly, it deserves full-fledged addressing as entirely false if not outright mocked and even eradication.

Someone says "cannot" to you and you say they are using force?

They expressly advocated the use of force:

The Vatican suggested, however, that where free speech crosses the line and becomes offensive to a religion, national authorities "can and should" intervene.

Morally, I recognize no distinction between some guy in a mitre saying "if you offend my religion, national authorities can and should intervene" and some guy in a turban saying "if you offend my religion, the faithful will rise up and punish you". Both imply that, if push comes to shove, whatever means it takes, up to an including killing you, will be employed to stop you.

I see no reason why religious ideas should be treated differently than other social or political ideas. Or scientific ideas or philosophical ideas. The meaning of "free expression of ideas" (free speech) does not put religious ideas in a separate category, where different rules apply. After all, one man's religion is another man's cult or disbelief.

The alternative is that we go back to defining "blasphemy" and "heresy". This thrusts government squarely into the midst of religious issues--one man's heresy is another man's truth. Government authority-- judges, prosecutors, police--thus get dragged into deciding doctrinal matters. There is no place for this in a secular democracy. [Secular means "not based on faith", neutral as regards faith; it is not a synonym for atheist or non-believer.]

The word "infidel" is used to divide people into two classes--the "believers who believe more or less the same as me" and deserve good treatment, and the "infidel" who is to be despised because he does not believe the same.

In the world of ideas, there can be satire, ridicule, sarcasm--all as means of expression. Good writers from all faiths have used these forms to poke at their opponents.

I disagree with efforts to suppress critiques of Islam; I equally disagree with those "outraged" by unfavorable depictions of the Pope or Christian or Jewish icons; or Hindu or Buddhist icons. Art, cartoons, whatever are intended to stir up feelings and raise questions--all in the realm of free ideas. Religious ideas have to stand up to critiques, just the same as other ideas. Good ideas will survive in the free marketplace. Religious symbols should not have any special protection. In 2006, the notions of blasphemy, heresy, and infidel are out-dated. Religious ideas are not allowed to be "off limits".

It becomes a slippery slope: who decides what ideas are "religious". This would make religious leaders the deciders. This is not consistent with our Constitution. Secular laws insulate us from televangelists and mullahs who would cut out tongues.

"freedom of expression does not include the right to offend religious sentiments":

1. We run into a major problem here--who defines "religious sentiments"? Is it priests or imans? Or is it elected representatives? Does the Constitution matter here?

2. What about "taking offense"? This a matter of personal management of emotions. As muir_redwoods wrote: "I can laugh at anything I find laughable. Others are free to take offense and insult right back at me. That's the healthy give-and-take of a free society. We have many rights but we don't have the right to never be offended." Right on.

3. The Pope is simply wrong here. We are free to say anything we want--except inciting to violence--to oppose and offend any and all ideas, whether they are defined as "religious" or other. Religious leaders never step forward to oppose offending scientologists, Ayn Rand, self-described "psychics" and "faith-healers", and numerous philosophers, like Bertrand Russell, Hume, Kant, Adam Smith, etc. They seem very selective in whom they want not to be "offended"--namely themselves.

Offend everyone you want--but not us. Every church (that is, religious-idea-community) wants special treatment for themselves.

All ideas are not equal. All religious sentiments are not equal. Religious "sentiments" have been used for both good and evil in the course of history. It is interesting that the word used is "sentiments". Seems to mean emotions--all is emotional response. But religions try to evoke emotional responses--to win in their favor. None are geared toward evoking rational or skeptical responses!

Thus religious sentiments are ideas, and they can be freely criticized, ridiculed, made objects of satire and parody and cartoons, and all other forms of expression.

"This thrusts government squarely into the midst of religious issues--one man's heresy is another man's truth. . . . who defines "religious sentiments"? Is it priests or imans? Or is it elected representatives? "

Good point.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know you hate the Catholic Church. Same stuff, different day.

As soon as Catholics start burning down the embassies of countries where anti-Catholic art has been shown (that would be all of them, practically), let me know, ok?

he Pope is simply wrong here.

In fairness, it should be noted that this foolishness is coming from bureaucratic apparatchiks. One hopes that His Holiness knows better, and will correct them.

your "deduction skills" are lessons in paranoia and reading too much into things -- the Cardinal did NOT mention Allah at all in his speech, he never equated Allah to God and gave no indication at all to the (il)legitimacy ofIslam. All he said was "We shouldn't diminish the love and respect Muslims have for their prophet Mohammed. This is very important for them and therefore cannot be the object of derision or ridicule," Similarly you can say: "We shouldn't diminish the love and respect ~~Muslims~~ WWE fans have for their ~~prophet Mohammed~~ wrestler Stone-Cold (ok, I haven't watched it in some time). This is very important for them and therefore cannot be the object of derision or ridicule,"

If someone ridiculed a picture of the Easter Bunny, leprechaun or the Tooth Fairy, would it be this serious.

no, but if someone told your 5 year old that there was no Santa, would you like it?

That, is pretty much one of the major warnings/crux of Christianity. For those that claim to be Christian, validating the gods of others, either directly or indirectly, is a sin.

Again -- there's no validation of gods or goddesses, all he said was to respect the "sentiments" of others -- like not calling someone a redneck or a n**** or a hon** or something.

Since apparently you have little knowledge of the Bible perhaps you shouldn't know this.

I think you probably pick on phrases, so here's one for you -- they read but do not understand

But someone that is supposed to be a figurehead and leader in a "christian" church should know this.

True -- a "Christian" Church is one of the Apostolic Churches -- either belonging to the Assyrian Church or the Oriental Churches (Armenian, Coptic) or the Orthodox or the Catholic (Latin, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, Syro-Malabar etc.). You may put some protesters there as part of the Church (some Anglican peoples -- not ECUSA after Gene Robinson, Baptist peoples, Lutherans etc.), but many don't belong to the Church -- the little sing-along groups are little more than self-help groups with some stage act shouting out slogans loudly and gesticulating widely in front of "mega"-groups (can't call them churches)

Since Allah is a contrivance of Mohammed, what you're saying, or at least defending, would be tantamount to the world saying, "We should all respect Hitler's god (whomever that would be) and not mock it, thereby respectign it/him"

Have you even READ about the cartoon controversy? It's cartoons of Mad Mo, NOT of allah. Furthermore, is it reading or just fabricating wild ideas -- no one said anything about RESPECTING MO or allah, all the Cardinal said was to respect people's sentiments. If my neighbour cares about pot-bellied pigs, I won't go to his house and make fun of pot-bellied pig owners in a way that would offend him.

Now you're taking what I said out of context as well, both initially and in my original response. I made some references as to what the Cardinal (and/or Vatican perhaps) said about the muslim faith in one regard or another. Those are in fact in the original piece cited.

You argue like an attorney that is using a "red herring" defense I will say. As well, my original comments were fairly general. You seem to be more prone to arguing for argument's sake here, which is not my intent nor my desire.

I will say this, this is the root of the problem driving, or should I perhaps say "paving" the road for Islam infesting our culture as well as other western cultures, and that is that we have utterly failed to recognize exactly what Islam is, or even what it is not. As long as the majority of people in the world continue to force themselves to believe that the Koran does not condone violence or worldwide takeover/control by muslims, then we may as well try to convince ourselves that as human beings we can fly apart from having an airplane or some sort of engine. The Cardinal did this indirectly argue as you may.

In doing so, whether intentionally or inadvertantly whether ignorantly and naively or not, we put ourselves, necessarily, into the position of not being able to come up with resolutions or solutions to the greater issue or problem of militant Islam. Notice that I didn't say "radical" Islam, because radical Islam isn't the variety that is causing worldwide chaos and terror. "Koranic" Islam is the militant variety.

Anyway, I have no interest in arguing whether or not statements, whether indirect or not, paint an accurate picture of Islam, and you seem to be willing to just argue for whatever your reasons are, also of which I am not interested.

Now you're taking what I said out of context as well, both initially and in my original response.

aha -- isn't THAT what you're doing to the Cardinal??

read the article -- the Cardinal makes a point of separating God from Allah, like Allah is the Bizzaro-world's idea of God.

As well, my original comments were fairly general

Really? No, they were flamingly anti-Catholic spew without bothering to potray what was REALLY said, but just to make inferences on what you may think was supposedly meant in a round-about way.

Anyway, I have no interest in arguing whether or not statements, whether indirect or not, paint an accurate picture of Islam, and you seem to be willing to just argue for whatever your reasons are, also of which I am not interested.

Again, you aren't reading. No one's talking about painting any picture ofIslam -- accurate or not, all the Cardinal said was to respect "people's sentiments" -- If you care about pot-bellied pigs, I won't go to you house and make fun of pot-bellied pig owners in a way that would offend you. Get it now?

As long as the majority of people in the world continue to force themselves to believe that the Koran does not condone violence or worldwide takeover/control by muslims, then we may as well try to convince ourselves that as human beings we can fly apart from having an airplane or some sort of engine. The Cardinal did this indirectly argue as you may.

Again, you're jumping to conclusions more sprightly than Carl Lewis -- the Cardinal did NOT indirectly argue this and I didn't.

Again, inference takes on meaning. Apparently you think differently.

Let's end this. ; )

you're right -- we're going in circles. Peace to a fellow brother (or sister!) in Christ

; )

Just when you thought it was safe to swim the Tiber....they pull a bonehead stunt like this.

Can you rearrange these words into a well known phrase or saying?:

BALLS THE POPE TO

No-prize of e the first correct answer,

Kind regards