Posted on 01/08/2015 5:01:11 PM PST by Colofornian
Bill Donohue comments on reactions to his news release from yesterday [click here] on the murder of 12 people in Paris:
Being misrepresented is commonplace for public figures. Sometimes it reflects an honest misreading; other times it is a willful distortion. I don’t have the time now to address all of these instances, but I am hardly going to run from my position.
My position is this: the murderers are fully responsible for what they did and should be treated with the full force of the law. Nothing justifies the killing of these people. But this is not the whole of this issue.
The cartoonists, and all those associated with Charlie Hebdo, are no champions of freedom. Quite the opposite: their obscene portrayal of religious figures—so shocking that not a single TV station or mainstream newspaper would show them—represents an abuse of freedom.
Freedom of speech is not an end—it is a means to an end. For Americans, the end is nicely spelled out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the goal is to “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
No fair-minded reading of the Preamble suggests that it was written to facilitate the right to intentionally and persistently insult people of faith with scatological commentary. Moreover, the purpose of free speech is political discourse: it exists to protect the right of men and women to agree and disagree about the makings of the good society.
Let’s forget about legalities. As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so. Can we please have this conversation, along with what to do about Muslim barbarians who kill because they are offended?
Normally, I like Donohue, but he’s wrong on this.
I can understand why some Muslims might be offended by the Charlie Hedbo cartoon. But here is the big difference:
Offend Christians or Jews or blacks or gays and they’ll demonstrate against you. They’ll picket and march and shout slogans. Perhaps a few will even riot. However, they won’t take that as an excuse to kill people.
If some Muslims wanted to protest outside the paper’s offices, I would have no problem with them. Instead, they chose to engage in acts of terrorism in the name of their religion.
And Charlie Hedbo has a right to take on whomever they please, as long as they don’t advocate violence, terrorism, treason, or a few other things.
Okay, I certainly don't want to wind up defending Donohue on this thread...when I posted this thread to critique him.
But yet it sounds like you didn't address Donohue's comments written toward the end of his latest press release:
"...the purpose of free speech is political discourse: it exists to protect the right of men and women to agree and disagree about the makings of the good society. Let’s forget about legalities. As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others)..."
You see, Donohue is claiming to say that both him -- and his critics -- in this case, you, too...would agree that Hedbo has a legal "right" to do what they've done.
Donohue is claiming those who critique him on this particular ground are raising a straw man, because he doesn't portend to curtail their "legal" right to do so.
(He does add, then, that he doesn't see them as having a "moral right" to do so).
So -- if, as you say...that Donohue is "wrong on this"...
...AND, if Donohue's press release openly affirmed "Charlie Hedbo...s...right to take on whomever they please"...
...thereby seemingly placing you and him on the same page, so to speak...
...tell us exactly where Donohue is "wrong"...???
Natural rights are not moral rights either since they precede and are outside any moral doctrine.
You have a natural right to reject Jesus Christ as your savior. You have no Christian moral right to do so because that is a strictly immoral act. But of course in Muslim morality, you are commanded to reject Christ as God or you are guilty of SHIRK.
Neither government nor religious body nor any individual has the right to infringe on anyone’s natural rights except by permission, that is, your acknowledgement of a moral code.
There is one set of natural rights and it ends at my nose. You may not equate them to any particular moral code.
Bill Donohue has become an embaressment, even for other Catholic Christians.
What you say is true, but I do not have a full time job of advocating for Catholics (Christians). And if that was my job the last thing I would do would be offering an apologia for those who are committed to their murder.
Sorry, one more thing. Donahue needs to bear in mind that if the jihadis get their way Islam will be respected; other religions will be driven from the earth.
I would think he was smart enough to realize that, but evidently he’s not.
Donohue. The Vatican’s American agent who pitches today’s views by the promulgators of the new religion.
(Comments by Donohue approved by Francis the talking mule.)
I just read their circulation rates are on the 30,000 range. Hardly a main stream publication. Muslims are rampaging all over the world. Donahue is wrong.
This post is going to get me in trouble, but I've had about all I can take.
For years I have scratched my head at Jewish liberals who reflexively and almost religiously fight for the most abominable, sick, and filthy causes they can find, all in the name of defending the world from chrstianity. NOW conservative chrstians attack moslems for "homophobia" and "theocracy" and sound just like Jewish liberals, all in the name of defending the world from islam!
Let's get this straight: the only place a "Judaeo-chrstian civilization" exists is in the imaginations of some chrstians who insist on seeing Judaism as a mere historical stage toward the development of chrstianity (you know, like capitalism and socialism set the stage for "pure communism") and whose only use for it is predicated on that mistaken theory. Judaism was authorized by the very Mouth of G-d. It doesn't have to "prepare" for anything "greater." And contrary to what naive chrstians believe, it is a very, very, VERY different religion from chrstianity.
Unlike chrstianity (and like islam, ironically enough), Judaism in its original Biblical form (which is still normative though not possible in the Exile) is a Theocratic religion. Furthermore, unlike chrstianity (at least low church Protestantism) with its "offer of salvation," Judaism is a statutory religion. It is a legal system. And there is nothing that Judaeophilic Protestants hate more than religious laws. (Catholics and Orthodox are more understanding on this point but detest Judaism because it's the "wrong" legal system.)
FReepers like to point out that our rights come from G-d. This means that any "right" not granted by G-d does not exist. Not only is there no "right" to blaspheme (G-d forbid!), but it is actually a capital offense under universal Noachide Law (though not at this time enforceable). This does not mean that these particular moslems were justified in what they did (which was to commit murder, which is a universal capital offense at all times and under all conditions) or that people are allowed to go around killing people (there's a very complex legal system for determining and executing punishments, and the death penalty is actually in practice extremely rare and difficult to enforce). But there is no "right to blaspheme," and even "western civilization" or the Bill of Rights can't create one.
As for the charge that islam is a totalitarian political system "masquerading" as a religion . . . that's what all religions were until the "enlightenment!" This notion that "religion" is separate from life and consists of going to a house of worship one hour a week is a secular, "enlightenment" notion that has helped to create the nihilistic world in which we live today.
Judaism is quite totalitarian. And G-d meant it to be that way. Every aspect of life is regulated by Divine Law. Every layman must recite three prayer services a day every day, whether in a synagogue or elsewhere. Chrstians who "love Judaism" have not the slightest conception what Judaism is about--else why would they make all those jokes about moslems and pigs and expect Jews not to notice or take offense?
And finally, as to the charge of warring against "non-believers" and killing people, have any of you ever read any part of the "old testament" (chas vechalilah!) outside of Isaiah (which you automatically interpret the way the "new testament" tells you to)? Are you aware that G-d A-mighty ordered the extermination of seven separate nations, one of which has yet to be exterminated? Are you aware that when Biblical Israel wished to expand its borders it was required to first demand that the target population accept the Noachide Laws and pay tribute? And do you have the slightest idea what the G-d ordained penalty was for refusing this offer? The target population was to have all its males killed and its females and children seized in perpetual slavery. It's right there in "your" Bible, you so-called "conservatives!!!" My my. I guess the Biblical G-d was just a big meanie. It's certainly a good thing that this was all just temporary and the whole idea was the prepare the world for chrstianity! [/MEGA sarcasm!]
You people don't worship G-d. You worship "western civilization," you worship America, but you don't worship the Biblical G-d!
If this turns out to be my last post on FR, I will miss you all terribly, even if you drive me crazy.
Phinneous, keep the light on.
KC . . . ponis!
You’re obviously not an atheist since you reverence the Almighty with the title “G-d”.
Why should there be enmity between Judaism & Christianity?
Hate to break it to you but Torquemada is dead, Wagner is dead, Hitler is dead, and I don’t feel so good myself.
Guess you don’t care for most Christians in America being pro-Israel. And they’re not all Rapture & Revelation types hoping to see “Left Behind” on the really really REALLY big screen.
My priest once told me that any believing Christian should regard him or herself as part Jewish. The Christian Bible is 77 percent made up of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Jews have to be able to spot their enemies. Wish some could recognize that they have Gentile friends, as well. JS.
“Muslims are rampaging all over the world. “
That doesn’t take much!
“Donahue is wrong.”
He sure is!
I often agree with Donahue, and generally appreciate his passion, but he is so off-base here, it borders on insane.
Anyone saying such things should have the crap kicked out of him.
What a disgusting piece of garbage Me Donohue is; a vile parody of an American. RIH MF’er.
“Natural rights are not moral rights either since they precede and are outside any moral doctrine.”
No. Natural rights are grounded in the Natural Law - that is the first set of morals.
I thought about this all day before replying.
If he has spoken out on this before, he missed another opportunity to do so again.
Anyone who attempts to distinguish, in any way whatsoever, what happened in Paris from what happened in NYC or London or Madrid or is happening every day in the Middle East is possibly fooling themselves, but they are not fooling me and they are certainly not fooling the jihadis.
I think that’s a fair point to make. I too thought he seemed to be a bit opportunistic in this whole thing. After all as you point out, was he speaking so harshly about them before?
It’s at least the wrong time to be bringing up this “discussion”. Maybe a few months or a year later. But not while the bodies are still warm, so to speak.
Fair enough.
Nah, you’ll have to work harder to get kicked out...
The funny thing is, for me particularly (liberal reform assimilated American Jew cum-USNA grad, wartime political convert, seminary student, ultra-right-wing political-relogioso, father of 4 (ka’h) )... The FUNNY thing is that ultimately, as ZC pointed out, we will be a socialist society. Tough to swallow but I’ve accepted that when G-d is perceptible to all who remain, the commies will have ‘won’ in theory... To bad the atheists among them won’t be here... Hehe... Joke’s on them.
In short, the only socialism (and you could say Totalitarianism) I support, is Moshiach socialism.
Ironically, it’s America’s freedoms that finally let the religious Jew and gentile build all the soap boxes we want.
Perhaps, ZC, we have little teeny tiny soap boxes on FR ...
But check out the Web stats for Chabad.org ... :)
I am aware of Chabad.org and have visited that site, along with many other kosher sites, and they all have good information. But--there is one point that no kosher site is making, and that is that the current situation, with Judaism as a mere religious denomination among many others, is not normative. Normative Torah Judaism is a fully Torah/Halakhic state in 'Eretz Yisra'el, and none of the "religious freedom" arguments Jews have been using for two hundred years to justify being allowed to observe Torah apply to this normative Torah Theocratic Judaism. Furthermore, this Judaism teaches that all non-Jews are required to observe the Noachide Laws--and all the other religions are forbidden.
No Orthodox Jewish web site or spokesman, no matter how "black hat" or reactionary, is going to come out and say this because they're afraid that it will lead to a backlash. What they fail to understand is that the association of Judaism with "enlightenment" liberalism has created a backlash of its own and that many non-Jews resent the "special treatment" Judaism allegedly receives as a symbol of religious pluralism and multiculturalism (and religious subjectivism).
Down here in the Bible Belt, everyone thinks he's right and the other fellow is wrong. Yet everyone gets along just fine. Yes, there would be some grumbling if Orthodox Jews invoked Koh 'amar HaShem instead of the First Amendment as justification for Torah observance, but more people would understand the position than most think. You must remember that most people down here get their "Jewish stereotype" from the Bible, and no one in the Bible invokes the "First Amendment" or "freedom of speech."
Perhaps I stress these things because I am a non-Jew attracted to Objective Biblical Truth and who sees it in Torah. I simply don't understand the reduction of Torah Judaism to a First Amendment test case.
Furthermore, the radical libertarianism (and hypocritically inconsistent morality) of most American conservatives simply infuriates me. For years I have had to hear of liberal "Jewish leaders" defending aboriton, homosexuality, obscenity, and moral nihilism in the name of (lehavdil!) "Judaism." Now chrstian conservatives attack moslems for being "homophobic?" That's just crazy! These conservatives aren't Monotheists; they're civilizationists! G-d to them is merely a symbol of "western civilization," and if homosexuality eats away and destroys someone else's "civilization," well, that's just peachy! This sounds an awful lot like liberal Jews trying to protect homosexuals from chrstianity to me.
And finally, American conservatives are creatures of the eighteenth century European "enlightenment." They simply don't know how to think any other way. Yet the world was here for millennia before the "enlightenment," and so was G-d. In fact, the "enlightenment" has totally distorted people's notions of G-d, religion, and freedom. Judaism is an ancient, pre-enlightenment religion. And in the diatribes against "theocracy" and claims that no one has the right to enforce any moral laws whatsoever--that there is nowhere any duly authorized religious authority--I hear radical subjectivism and also a hint that these same people would oppose Theocratic Torah Judaism as well as islam.
Bottom line--the fact that islam "isn't a religion" is actually a mark in its favor. Torah Judaism is also an all-embracing way of life that governs and regulates every aspect of daily life--not just the "religious" part. And if these "conservatives" object to islam because it is an all-embracing system, they obviously only tolerate Judaism because they don't understand it. And that is not good.
Jewish theocracy applies only in the Land Of Israel. Non-Jews are expected to set up their own systems (which may differ from each other) to enforce the Seven Laws of the Children of Noah.
Jews used to negotiate as a community with the rulers of the land for permission to practice Judaism. “Freedom of religion” has only been an argument since it was popularized in the Enlightenment. No reason Jews couldn’t go back to negotiating as a community.
You’re right about the term “conservative.” It’s used in a pretty elastic way these days.
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.