Posted on 01/08/2015 7:43:14 AM PST by Kevin C
In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech. But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads. "Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day. "Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," says Donohue. "But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction." The statement says Charlie Hebdo has "a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning" of religious figures. "They have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms," Donohue says. "They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses." Among the covers is a too-racy-for-WorldViews depiction of the Christian Holy Trinity locked in a three-way homosexual orgy (as part of a critique of French religious leaders' opposition to gay marriage) and a whole array of images mocking pedophilia by priests. Charlie Hebdo doesn't pull its punches. But some critics say it goes too far, specifically with Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What excuse did the Muslims have for 9/11?
It’s as ridiculous as blaming a YouTube video for terrorism.
Muslims are terrorists, period, it’s what they do, it’s what their book tells them to do.
There is something wrong with that when he claims to speak not for Bill Donohue but for Catholics (never mind that his organization is fairly small, he’d like everyone to think he’s a mouthpiece of the Church).
If he were just Bill Donohue, pundit, I would agree with you. But when he claims to speak for a larger group, his egocentrism is absolutely wrong.
As an analogy: I freely admit being intolerant of abortion; but I don't advocate killing abortionists.
Words that more strongly imply "forcible" intolerance, would be "legal suppression," "legal restriction," --- I'm for illegalizing abortion, so I am "forcibly intolerant" of abortion. I am "anti-choice" on abortion. I would suppress the practice by law.
Other sorts of "forcible" intolerance would be "violent retaliation," "murder." I don't do that. Neither did Charlie Hebdo.
So yes, Charlie Hebdo expressed intolerance of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Israel, political conservatism, free enterprise, public decency and many other things. They were a left-wing political satirical review, which is lawful. Thy were culturally and intellectually intolerant, which is lawful. They deserved to be criticized for many things, which is lawful.
They did not deserve to be murdered, which is criminal, and a damned shame.
I hope the murderers will have to face penalties in France which are swift, severe, and certain.
Sorry - nothing justifies the private 'solution' of self-appointed thugs murdering these people.
I love Our Lord for that.
A falsehood. This is still against a Commandment. One of the big ones, as I understand it.
I entirely agree with you on that.
What is “sedevacantism” ?
Respectfully, I consider your attitude as equating to appeasement. I disagree. Check with the common German citizen of the late 20s early 30s to see how that works (Neville Chamberlain too).
And I'm glad I don't live where any Muslims live (I used to) because my impulse would be to "provoke" a confrontation.
My reading of Donohue here is that he is saying that the religious, the faithful, are regarded by the Left as fair game in an open season---for Christians that certainly has been true for years.
Donohue argues that we are marginalized by such treatment, and we deserve to be angry, and to make our case boldly.
His ONLY usage of "provoke" is to say ""But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction."
So the Washington Post finds a way to make this a smear and an attack against Christianity.
That’s next week.
A belief among some Catholics that the throne of Peter in the Vatican has been empty since Pope Pius XII died in 1958, his successors having been deemed Modernistic & heretical.
Sede vacante - “the chair being empty”
I thought it was a silly notion until our current Pontiff. Now I’m starting to wonder.
It makes a difference when a soul is willing to accept Him as (very gracious) Lord. I know it did to me. I am still a sinner, but now by a power beyond my imagination but who bestows much evidence in support, a saved sinner. What love. The Lord is waiting to send final judgment on the world even at the cost of being widely misunderstood.
I try to view current events through such eyes. People like Hebdo aren’t even whom the Lord is angriest at. They are relatively easy to pardon. The Lord is angriest at stiff pharisees who proudly preach a hateful God, and these terrorist imams seem to be vying for top honors there.
For the past 20+ years, Donohue has invariably identified himself in his public appearances and his writings as “William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.” If you’ve seen anyplace where he’s claimed to speak for the Catholic Church itself, or for “all catholics,” I’d like to see the link.
You are a kind person with a big heart and all the best impulses, but Bill Donahue should staple his mouth shut.
Even if I were to admit that anything he said had an iota of truth to it, sometimes, the timing and context of comments can be so egregiously evil as to make even objective truth entirely obscured.
That being said, there is nothing true about what the ass Donahue said.
It is a good general rule not to be gratuitously insulting. However, this rule generally only applies when one is dealing with other individuals who deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are people acting in good faith to participate civilly in a civil society.
It's kind of like the rules of war (although one hopes with a little less bomb-throwing, at least, not literally). We all reciprocate with each other on certain basic concepts, like the inviolability of prisoners of war, the role of non-combatants, the requirement for military personnel to be uniformed in order to reduce civilian casualties, etc.
Thus it is with other civilized people in the discussion of religion and other sensitive topics. I'll try not to abuse your sacred cows if you don't abuse mine.
If we were dealing with civilized people, the ass Donahue would have a point.
But as it stands, Mohametans have no right to be angry. At all. They are by and large savage barbarians, entirely lacking in civilization, and deserve not consideration for their tender sensibilities but rather death in extremely large numbers. However, instead of the mass death they so richly deserve, they receive only mild ridicule. It is ridicule entirely deserved, and no one owes these filthy creatures a damned thing, certainly not an apology.
These verminous human filth believe their god instructs them to murder non-believers, rape their women, and enslave their children (as well as bugger the innocent cattle). They are outside the laws of civilization, and should be treated for the dirty barbarians that they are.
If and when some significant percentage of these savages decide to join humanity, we can reconsider what they deserve, and whether or not we should mock their god, their religion, their beliefs, and their perversions.
Until such time, the ass Donahue should stuff it.
sitetest
AFAIK, nobody here disagreed with your above statement. Not even Donohue would disagree with it.
Yup. What you said.
I might suggest that folks crank down the victim knob in this one.
It really trashes the hyperniken (more than conquerors) promise of Christ.
Can Christians meet crass (e.g. Hebdo) with class (i.e. gospel)? At the very least they can logically point out that they too, deserve to be granted latitude of speech — they’re not asking for anybody to be killed.
Give him your lunch money; we don’t want any trouble.
Don’t go after bin Laden or he might shoot planes into our buildings.
Don’t make fun of mean people or you could get hurt.
Sit. Simper. Shake. And everything should be fine. Once they attack, attack back. - foreign policy of the current Secretary of State. Who speaks French. Also appeared in Viet Nam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.