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 ...
LOL. Half the Liberals in America, along with a good chunk of the media, suggested that the cartoonists had it coming for “provoking” the Islamists and yet the Washington Post finds a way to spin it into an attack on Catholics. I read what Bill Donohue wrote. It was ill timed and not the right response to what happened, but it is not nearly as bad as the statements of some others in the media who reflexively blamed the satirists.
Bill Donohue doesn’t speak for Catholics. Bill Donohue speaks for Bill Donohue.
Hey, Bill. Our immemorial religion considers the teachings of Mohammed to be a false religion, regardless of anything that may be contained in the Vatican II documents. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI have called it a “darkness”.
Why don’t you stop commenting on things you clearly know nothing about.
But his screeds are frequently posted here at FR, and usually garner approving comments.
So Jesus provoked His crucifixion?
Bill Donohue, following the lead of Il Papa.
“Ya see what ya made me do?”
Blame the victims.
It’s a wonder he didn’t blame the guns.................
“They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.”
They did the same with nuns and the Pope, but I didn’t see any Catholics showing up with AK-47s to shoot up the place.
So, the causal factor is NOT what was published.
Maybe he hopes to have the same level of “special treatment” for his origination as in any one that disagrees with him/it is put down by the heavy hand of the law
“- Hey, Torquemada, whaddaya say?
I just got back from the auto-da-fé
Auto-da-fé, what’s an auto-da-fé?
It’s what you oughtn’t to do but you do anyway”
I frequently agree with Mr. Donahue but he is dead wrong on this one.
I’m not sure it fits exactly, but I just read a quote from a missionary killed in Africa as he exercised his speech to spread the Christian gospel: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Elliot
The quote is from Jim Elliot, who died in Ecuador 59 years ago today, Jan. 8, 1956, trying to evangelize the native Indians.
He planted a seed which bore much fruit.
His wife was Elisabeth Elliot, a famous Christian writer, who wrote the best seller “Through Gates of Splendor”.
This Charlie Hebdo was the intellectual and moral equivalent of passing intestinal gas in elevators and giggling.
If anyone had reason to realize that Hebdo was not being personal towards them, it would be the imams. If they wanted to see Christians or Jews etc. getting raspberries for their faith, they would find it in the same magazine. Hebdo was an equal opportunity blasphemer. They would have found it very easy to pull together a pan-faith statement condemning what Hebdo is doing, if they had wanted to.
But reason isn’t ruling the day, hate is.
Kinda like that altar boy provoked that priest by wearing shorts.
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.