Good Morning Francis,
Yes, each item I mentioned is an actual case, and if you want, I can link to articles for each one.
Please do!
Sorry, the same folks who say that had no problem with “P*ss Christ,” or the “Holy Virgin Mary” surrounded by elephant dung and pornography. The former win an award and was partially funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, and the latter was exhibited in three European cities, won the Turner award, and sold for $4.5 Million. Pictures of each are all over the Internet.
Well, it speaks well of Christians that they are forgiving of those who wish to disrespect Christian images, but in Islam the forbidden use of images is much more central to their faith, so it’s not exactly a comparable violation.
It is a sign of respect when a private individual omits information; it is censorship when the government does it. We are taking so much care of the Moslems that we are losing our own free speech, and falling into lying.
I don’t think censoring hateful speech meant to recruit kids or indoctrinate lies is “respectful” to the writers, though. It is respectful of public safety and the wish to save these kids from lying propaganda. Perhaps you could link me an article?
I did not say that, either. I said, let it *slide *with just a hashtag.
That still sounds like pacifism, inaction, right?
It still bothers me that you assume that any thought that something ought to be done stems from an unforgiving and resentful desire for vengeance. There is such a thing as righteous anger: a desire for justice (giving to each his due); and there is still such a thing as “unreasonable patience,” as St Thomas Aquinas puts it.
If righteous anger involves acts for justice deliberately carried out without mercy in mind, and forgiveness (if applicable), then it is not righteous, right? Sure, we can look back on some acts with justice intended and say “Well, that turned out okay”, but if the act was not coming from a loving heart in the first place, the results could go either way. When it goes the wrong way, we don’t say “his anger was righteous”, we say “he acted out of blind anger”.
While there is no change in the call for mercy or forgiveness, there is an effect in other areas, but overall, I agree, we disagree on this!
Yes, we can rely on the Spirit to guide the Church, and God’s will be done.
Perhaps it is important for them to consider what I have been saying as well. if they do not deal with those parts of the theology overtly, they will remain available to evil doers to lure their children into terror.
Well, they are not going to delete any words of the Quran any more than people will delete words of the Bible. My Bible has plenty of footnotes in sections where people could take things the wrong way. Hopefully the Quran has the same?
Only some Moslems teach that abc should not be used from fear of financial problems. Mohamed himself seems to have said nothing about it.
Of course Mohamed said nothing about it, they had no means of such. But can you see? All religions evolve, and those of “IS” who claim to be the true fundamental Islam are making it up as they go. Their interpretations are extremist, not fundamental. The fundamentals boil down to God’s mercy:
O My servants who have transgressed against their own souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah az-Zumar 39:53)
You see, it is a matter of starting in the right place.
Thanks, and send me those links!
