Controversial Virgin Mary billboard destroyed by protester

[Farsight001]

You know, there are circumstances where vandalism is unaaceptable and destroying a billboard blaspheming the Blessed Virgin is not one of them. As another poster said, this piece of rubbish of a poor excuse ‘honoring’ Mary deserved to be destroyed. I’m glad there are brave people today who love and honor the Blessed Mother.

They may love and honor the Blessed Mother, but they must also hate Christ for refusing to follow his command to abide by the law.

 

[sw85]

According to how you see things. To the person who finds the image of the cross a pagan symbol, it is just as blasphemous.

Is this a fancy version of “well, that’s your opinion”?

It’s not my opinion. It is a FACT. Please do your homework on the matter. Begin with Edward Feser’s Aquinas, proceed to the historical works of N. T. Wright, and conclude with the writings of the French Counterrevolutionaries on the importance of authority in structuring man’s social and ethical life. Those three sources will answer three respective questions: why theism is true, why Christian theism is true, and why Catholicism true.

True as a matter of objective fact.

Which makes all explicitly contrary beliefs objectively false, and all not explicitly contrary beliefs true only to the extent they do not conflict with Catholicism.

And it is IMPOSSIBLE to blaspheme that which is false, “feelings” notwithstanding.

Faith is not some personal property entitled to universal respect. It is entitled to respect ONLY to the extent that it accords with the truth.

Who gets to determine for everyone what is true and what is false?

Truth is not proprietary.

The image didnt deny the Annunciation.

Staring in horror at a pregnancy test! What else could the implication be? The sponsoring church was quite open in its intention to reduce Mary to the level of just another teenaged slut.

Ah… so a certain select few get to decide for everyone do they… and to heck with what other people feel or think.

No one “decides” anything. It simply is. The sky is blue. Evolution is true. You can’t spend more money than you have, forever, without consequences. These are just facts of life. If it doesn’t matter if people disagree with them, even if they do so earnestly or with intense feeling. Those people are wrong. Their earnestness compounds their ignorance, it doesn’t excuse it.

There are plenty of people who earnestly feel that evolution is false. To what does their false belief entitle them, hmm? Nothing. It is false. That they believe something false is ALL THE MORE evidence that those who believe what is true must insist on its being taught.

There is actually never a right not to be offended.

You don’t understand *anything *about us, do you? I am marveled at how, even now, atheists regard religion as if religious people regarded everything the way they do – as if it were utterly solipsistic.

This is not about personal offense. Those men didn’t destroy the billboard because they were offended. No doubt they were offended, but that’s secondary here. They destroyed the billboard because they were defending the honor of a slandered woman, the mother of God, their rightful queen.

I dont think they do… isnt there something in the Bible about giving to Caesar what is Caesars?

Yep. There’s also something about giving to God what is God’s. Which is nothing less than utter, grovelling submission.

Christ went around committing what was officially (but wrongly) considered “blasphemy” against the official Roman cult and the Jewish temple. Technically illegal. So illegal, in fact, that He was executed for it. But he did it anyway – because there are limits to the extent to which civil law can command us. It cannot command us to profess falsehoods, or to act in accordance with them. If the law required you to sign a statement professing the falsehood of evolution, I would hope you would refuse to sign it, even if the penalty were death.

So if a faith group, lets call them Sarahites, devout and fervent in their conviction of their fullness of truth and being filled with the Holy Spirit, as they see it, decide to with-hold taxes, burn down hospitals as they believe only prayer can heal, and kill those who are homosexual and have had abortions or support abortions, you think they’re right and you have no problem with that as their obligation is first to God?

Again, I marvel at how little you understand us about us.

It is not at all about one’s CONVICTION of the truth. (I am not a Protestant; “conscience” excuses nothing in my book). It is about ACTUAL TRUTH. Hence actions are commendable to the extent they adhere to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and condemnable to the extent they conflict with it.

Blasphemy is not about desecrating religious imagery and symbols. It is about desecrating Catholic imagery and symbols. Because Catholicism is true and all other religions are false (or false to the extent they diverge from Catholicism).

You think this is hypocritical because you think ALL religions are equally false and they should all be expected to know this. Well, this is simply wrong. Again, I encourage you to read the three sources identified above.

Here’s another example. Are you aware there are frescos on the doors of the cathedrals in Italy depicting Mohammad in Hell? No doubt the Muslims are terribly offended by this, but I’m reasonably sure it’s accurate given the circumstances of his life. No doubt they feel it’s “blasphemy.” Well, they can *feel *it all the like, but given that their religion is false and it is impossible to blaspheme falsehood, they had better keep the feeling to themselves. If they decide to enact retribution – rioting, burning churches, killing priests, etc. – I’d have no problem with sending the vile heathens to Hell along with their false prophet.

I don’t care if they feel *my *religion is false. They’re wrong. And wrongness entitles one to nothing.

 

[sw85]

(Continued from above. I’m a ranter, I know.)

No youre not.

That is an assertion, not an argument. Since you’ve misunderstood everything I’ve said so far, I doubt you and I are even using “rights” in the same sense.

A right is the inverse of a duty. It is the permission to do what one is obligated to do – the “can” to duty’s “ought” (hence civil “rights” as such are non sequiturs. The state does not grant “rights.” It makes concessions). There is a duty to seek truth and avoid falsehood. Since Catholicism is true, one has a duty to practice Catholicism and not to practice false religion.

That’s all. We tolerate false religions only to the extent that it accords with God’s will, namely that He be chosen freely. But we tolerate false religious practice ONLY to the extent that it is theologically inoffensive and accords with the natural law – i.e., no child sacrifice, for instance.

The moment false religious practice veers into the theologically offensive or the unnatural, it becomes perfectly *morally *licit to stamp it out of existence, or at least to compel it by force to adhere to the natural law – i.e., to send cops to prevent child sacrifice. This is true whether or not the state recognizes such a right/duty.

Now if the cops don’t do their jobs, are you going to say it’s wrong for a mob of people to grab their guns and go down to the temple to prevent children from being sacrificed? Even if the state says you must not?

It wouldnt as that would be vandalism and criminal damage, a crime.

How can a thing be a crime if the law commands it! You border on incoherence.

I’m with the civil and legal authorities that prosecute vandals and those that commit criminal damage, in whatever shape or form it takes, regardless of who commits it, all the way.

Atheists defending blasphemy?! You’ve blown my mind. My mind is blown.

 

[Bearontherun]

Staring in horror at a pregnancy test! What else could the implication be?

Horror? In all fairness, I think we see what we want to see. She has her hand up to her mouth. I interepreted it to be wonder and amazement. And this astonishment is supportive of the fact that she became pregnant while still a virgin. Even with the news announced from Gabriel, she is still free to be amazed at what is happening without anything being blasphemous. Look at her eyes…I see no horror in those eyes.

For what it’s worth, I do find the pregnancy test in the picture to be tacky and the whole thing to be somewhat offensive. IMHO though it pales in comparison to many of the hateful images and articles directed at Christianity in the media, etc. these days.

The sponsoring church was quite open in its intention to reduce Mary to the level of just another teenaged slut.

That is pretty presumptuous IMHO.

If we are to destroy anything that we believe offensive, then we would have to justify storming into a bookstore and defacing books that deny the existence of God, the virgin birth, etc. We would have to go into theatres and halt presentations of shows that are demeaning to our religion.

 

[sw85]

Horror? In all fairness, I think we see what we want to see. She has her hand up to her mouth. I interepreted it to be wonder and amazement. And this astonishment is supportive of the fact that she became pregnant while still a virgin. Even with the news announced from Gabriel, she is still free to be amazed at what is happening without anything being blasphemous. Look at her eyes…I see no horror in those eyes.

For what it’s worth, I do find the pregnancy test in the picture to be tacky and the whole thing to be somewhat offensive. IMHO though it pales in comparison to many of the hateful images and articles directed at Christianity in the media, etc. these days.

That is pretty presumptuous IMHO.

If we are to destroy anything that we believe offensive, then we would have to justify storming into a bookstore and defacing books that deny the existence of God, the virgin birth, etc. We would have to go into theatres and halt presentations of shows that are demeaning to our religion.

The church was quite open about their intentions. They even released a press statement to the effect: 'This pregnancy would shape her future. She was certainly not the first woman in this situation or the last."

Except she WAS the first and last person in that situation – the situation of being the mother of God, a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

The significance of the billboard is that it endeavors to make Mary NOT unique, to make her situation NOT all that special but merely the same as that of any other woman with a surprise pregnancy. Such is the effect, too, of the other insane and evil bit of blasphemy they propagated before this one.

Of course, destroying a highly extreme, public, and scandalous example of blasphemy does not entail going out and destroying all lesser forms of it, any more than executing murderers means we must logically go out and execute jaywalkers as well. The principle may be valid, but the application of it must be proportionate to the offense.

Although I think those who know me would not be surprised to find that I would endorse the state forbidding the publication of blasphemous books or plays, either.

 

[Bearontherun]

The church was quite open about their intentions. They even released a press statement to the effect: 'This pregnancy would shape her future. She was certainly not the first woman in this situation or the last."

Except she WAS the first and last person in that situation – the situation of being the mother of God, a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

The significance of the billboard is that it endeavors to make Mary NOT unique, to make her situation NOT all that special but merely the same as that of any other woman with a surprise pregnancy. Such is the effect, too, of the other insane and evil bit of blasphemy they propagated before this one.

Of course, destroying a highly extreme, public, and scandalous example of blasphemy does not entail going out and destroying all lesser forms of it, any more than executing murderers means we must logically go out and execute jaywalkers as well. The principle may be valid, but the application of it must be proportionate to the offense.

Although I think those who know me would not be surprised to find that I would endorse the state forbidding the publication of blasphemous books or plays, either.

Wow. I was unaware of the caption. That makes the whole thing much more offensive. I will have to agree with you that it does seem that they were looking for trouble. It is shocking that a Christian church would display and promote such a sign and message.

 

[atheistgirl]

Blasphemy is not about desecrating religious imagery and symbols. It is about desecrating Catholic imagery and symbols.

Lol. Now it’s my turn to marvel at how little you understand lol.

I don’t care if they feel *my *religion is false. They’re wrong. And wrongness entitles one to nothing.

Lol again. Look up the definition of blasphemy. Hot tip … it doesnt revolve around Catholicism

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

That’s all. We tolerate false religions only to the extent that it accords with God’s will, namely that He be chosen freely.

Who is this ‘we’? You and all your friends? Catholics all over the world? Every Catholic in the world? Who?

The moment false religious practice veers into the theologically offensive or the unnatural, it becomes perfectly *morally *licit to stamp it out of existence, or at least to compel it by force to adhere to the natural law – i.e., to send cops …

Including arresting, charging and fining or imprisoning vandals and those committing acts of violence and criminal damage

You’ve blown my mind. My mind is blown.

Having read your ‘‘rant’’ as you called it, and the quite obnoxious totalitarian views it contains (eg Catholics alone have the right and the duty to destroy other peoples property if it offends their faith, Catholics are right and everyone else is wrong etc) I can’t claim much credit for blowing your mind. It wasn’t exactly hard

I am defending the rule of law, not blasphemy, and I am deploring anyone and any group who think they have an absolute right not to be offended.

Sarah x

 

[Publisher]

Who is this ‘we’? You and all your friends? Catholics all over the world? Every Catholic in the world? Who?

Including arresting, charging and fining or imprisoning vandals and those committing acts of violence and criminal damage

Having read your ‘‘rant’’ as you called it, and the quite obnoxious totalitarian views it contains (eg Catholics alone have the right and the duty to destroy other peoples property if it offends their faith, Catholics are right and everyone else is wrong etc) I can’t claim much credit for blowing your mind. It wasn’t exactly hard

I am defending the rule of law, not blasphemy, and I am deploring anyone and any group who think they have an absolute right not to be offended.

Sarah x

Friend you speak my mind…NO ONE has the RIGHT to vandalize another persons property…the vandal 'stole" the money it cost the church to produce it’s tasteful…IMO…billboard…it was wrong to engage in violent vandalism to promote one’s religious vbiews.

 

[Warrenton]

As I said, although I dont deny there are many things many people may find offensive, this is what happens when people think they have a right NOT to be offended!

You’re coming at it from the wrong way, in Catholic terms.

There is no “right” to blaspheme that Catholics recognize as such. Naturally, many Catholics bear the stamp of the age and places where they live, which place a high premium on self expression. Catholicism is perceived in their mind as a kind of expression, thus similar to the expression of blasphemy.

But they are wrong, in Catholic terms.

It is always wrong to blaspheme, and blasphemy always violates the right of the faithful to be free from having the faith mocked, or riduculed, or held up to the scorn of the wicked and profane. Blasphemy unchecked is injustice because it puts the good in the hands of the wicked. Suppressing blasphemy is good because it restores the proper balance in society.

It is hard to find a good analogy for you, because the gulf between your understanding of rights and mine is apt to be very wide indeed. No doubt, you consider my denial of non Catholic rights monstrous. And so, from your perpective, it is. But from my perspective, your denial of Christ’s divinity, and by extension, his Church, is tantamount to someone who refuses to learn arithmetic insisting that I accept 50 cents as change for a twenty dollar bill on a $19 purchase.

We’re just poles apart. If you are an environmentalist, perhaps we could analogize the vandal’s acts to those of Greenpeace in thwarting the lawful hunting of whales. Greenpeace perceives that the ability to hunt must be subordinated to the right of non-hunters to biodiversity. Thus, they deny the “right” of whalers to hunt, and govern their actions accordingly.

 

[atheistgirl]

You’re coming at it from the wrong way, in Catholic terms.

There is no “right” to blaspheme that Catholics recognize as such.

There is a right to freedom of thought and expression though, which is why I say no one, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, ANYONE… has a ‘‘right’’ not to be offended.

reference.com/browse/blasphemy

The link above is quite scarey to read. People have been executed after being accused of blasphemy. Think about that for a moment. The willful, deliberate, and often torturous taking of another human beings life, for some perceived insult to the deity of the executioners!

So it’s particularly alarming to read the totalitarian content of some posters who feel they are above the law and any slight to their faith can and should be retaliated against - including violence!

It should be patently obvious that any group who think they have some kind of divine right to act how they like in defence of their faith, when confronted with another group who think likewise, the outcome is going to be death and destruction!

For clarity, I am opposed to ALL forms of deliberate provocation, solely designed to elicit a violent or potentially violent response from anyone. But I AM in favor of freedom of thought and freedom of speech (in so far as we enjoy it). Which is very definately not the same thing as being equated with some kind of perceived right not to ever be expoised to something that could potentially cause offence. Without it, no dialogue between opposing ideas would even be possible.

Sarah x

 

[Publisher]

There is a right to freedom of thought and expression though, which is why I say no one, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, ANYONE… has a ‘‘right’’ not to be offended.

reference.com/browse/blasphemy

The link above is quite scarey to read. People have been executed after being accused of blasphemy. Think about that for a moment. The willful, deliberate, and often torturous taking of another human beings life, for some perceived insult to the deity of the executioners!

So it’s particularly alarming to read the totalitarian content of some posters who feel they are above the law and any slight to their faith can and should be retaliated against - including violence!

It should be patently obvious that any group who think they have some kind of divine right to act how they like in defence of their faith, when confronted with another group who think likewise, the outcome is going to be death and destruction!

For clarity, I am opposed to ALL forms of deliberate provocation, solely designed to elicit a violent or potentially violent response from anyone. But I AM in favor of freedom of thought and freedom of speech (in so far as we enjoy it). Which is very definately not the same thing as being equated with some kind of perceived right not to ever be expoised to something that could potentially cause offence. Without it, no dialogue between opposing ideas would even be possible.

Sarah x

Again friend,you speak my mind.

 

[Warrenton]

There is a right to freedom of thought and expression though, which is why I say no one, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, ANYONE… has a ‘‘right’’ not to be offended.

I understand your viewpoint perfectly. But I reject it. You are coming from a secular viewpoint, which places all forms of expression (except anti-state expression) on the same plane. The Catholic places Christian belief on the highest plane, and subordinates all other expression below that, by degrees according to whether the expression supports or discourages the rule of Christ.

The link above is quite scarey to read. People have been executed after being accused of blasphemy. Think about that for a moment. The willful, deliberate, and often torturous taking of another human beings life, for some perceived insult to the deity of the executioners!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Horror? In all fairness, I think we see what we want to see. She has her hand up to her mouth. I interepreted it to be wonder and amazement. And this astonishment is supportive of the fact that she became pregnant while still a virgin. Even with the news announced from Gabriel, she is still free to be amazed at what is happening without anything being blasphemous. Look at her eyes…I see no horror in those eyes.

For what it’s worth, I do find the pregnancy test in the picture to be tacky and the whole thing to be somewhat offensive. IMHO though it pales in comparison to many of the hateful images and articles directed at Christianity in the media, etc. these days.

That is pretty presumptuous IMHO.

If we are to destroy anything that we believe offensive, then we would have to justify storming into a bookstore and defacing books that deny the existence of God, the virgin birth, etc. We would have to go into theatres and halt presentations of shows that are demeaning to our religion.

 

[theistgal]

I understand your viewpoint perfectly. But I reject it. You are coming from a secular viewpoint, which places all forms of expression (except anti-state expression) on the same plane. The Catholic places Christian belief on the highest plane, and subordinates all other expression below that, by degrees according to whether the expression supports or discourages the rule of Christ.

 

[freddo]

Faith is not some personal property entitled to universal respect. It is entitled to respect ONLY to the extent that it accords with the truth.

Are you serious? What about tolerance? What would be the point of ecumenism if we are so hostile to a faith besides our own?

I wouldn’t hang the picture on my wall, but I’m just not seeing what is so offensive and/or blasphemous about it. She was pregnant!

 

[Liquid47]

Are you serious? What about tolerance? What would be the point of ecumenism if we are so hostile to a faith besides our own?

I wouldn’t hang the picture on my wall, but I’m just not seeing what is so offensive and/or blasphemous about it. She was pregnant!

As Catholics, we are not called to be tolerant of other faiths. We are called to be patient with them, in the same way Christ is not tolerant of our faults, but is only patient with our love for him.

I am a resident of Auckland, the city in which this billboard was erected. I know the history of St. Matthews in the City, the church which appointed the billboard. They have a history of undermining the tenets of the faith. Every year, they do something incredibly controversial. Their intentions, if they weren’t obvious before, are obvious now.

Offense isn’t just a personal feeling, it is also an objective serious misconduct. To paint an image of our Blessed Virgin with an irreverent action of holding a pregnancy test is a serious misconduct. Her holiness is to be venerated, and thus she must be revered accordingly. Remember, Our Mother is the single greatest thing apart from the Holy Trinity, even higher than all the angels, because of her participation in the plan for our salvation. If you make fun of her, you make fun of God, pure and simple.

While vandalism has negative connotations, a vandalized blasphemous image is better than leaving a blasphemous image intact.

 

[freddo]

As Catholics, we are not called to be tolerant of other faiths. We are called to be patient with them, in the same way Christ is not tolerant of our faults, but is only patient with our love for him.

That seems a bit condescending to me.

At any rate, I’ve seen some rather, uh, interesting discussions about the state of Mary’s hymen. I’m not sure that debating the physical proof of her virginity and manner of childbirth is any more reverent than a picture of her holding a pregnancy test.

 

[abucs]

We have struggled with freedom of speech verse common respect for quite a while now.

Do i have the right to say what a compete idiot you are? Or a certain group of people are? Or how wrong a certain group are? Do i have the right to have this publicly and continuously displayed on a billboard, in a movie, on the news, in adverts, during university lectures etc?

I would expect that most groups i would be criticising would just turn their back and want nothing to do with me.

I think a naive commitment to freedom of speech simply means large groups of people are turning their backs on eachother and causing social fragmentation and more rigid bad feelings between groups.

A naive commitment to free speech does not promote social interaction but in fact the reverse in my opinion. It is one of those psuedo arguments we hear that has had its genesis in Marxist universities which opens the way for one group (them) to attack another under the protection of a constructed ‘new morality’ which is supposedly good for society.

I think such universities and their invented moralities are very dangerous to a healthy, functioning free society.

Marxist atheistic professors are certainly one group i turn my back on. They are moronic and aggressive and i want nothing to do with them. Their invented morality is causing a fragmented rippling effect throughout society in my opinion. Mary pregnancy posters are just but a small example where ‘aggressive freedom of speech’ trumps common decency in such an invented morality.

 

[TrueLight]

Staring in horror at a pregnancy test! What else could the implication be? The sponsoring church was quite open in its intention to reduce Mary to the level of just another teenaged slut.

I’ll thank you to call a teenage girl a slut because she made the mistake of having sex.