As you say, it is a thin line when the reason apparently for acting in these ways is ideologically tied to the faith
.
We can all now agree that burning witches is not something that we can support. We can also note that there is Biblical justification for this. Criticism of the faith is a necessary component of getting from the auto-de-fe of an earlier time to where Wiccans will now be tolerated, no matter how weird.
Following the example of Mohammed, the ayatollahs found justification for child brides. Whether it is hateful or not to point this out is beside the point. Criticism is a necessary component of changing a practice that has no place in the modern world.
Let’s say Same-Sex Marriage advocates dislike Christians using the Bible or other beliefs to be against Same-Sex Marriage. A cartoon protesting this ideology does not seem improper to me.
Mockery has been a very effective weapon against Christian values. Nobody likes to be the brunt of a joke, and that is how people have been driven away from Christian values.
Why the kid gloves then, when it comes to making a mockery of actual heinous practices to shame people away from identifying with these values at all?
Portraying Christianity in other ways just to blaspheme it, I would take offense too but of course, in a limited way, the thing would be to organize a boycott or something against whom would do such.
I think Christians might even want to settle for restraining government funding of anti-Christian blasphemy. It is government funded art exhibits that has put the blasphemy on display.
The cartoons seem to strike a nerve. We don’t out of respect for this forum, put up the graphics but again, the original Danish cartoons years ago seem to be valid political commentary to me.
Not just gratuitously, mocking the faith.
Hebdo is gratuitous. Pamela Geller and David Spencer are for all intents and purposes serious actors in this field of debate.
911 changed Geller a lot.
Like Judge Jeannine Pirro’s views when she ran for office, I would not be firm in my belief that Geller share’s say, pro-life views per her background. So I may not agree with all of her stances, it is mainly in this area, I contemplate what she has done.
Likely the same can be said about Hirsi Ali, who is very much a liberal, and who has likewise come under death threats for speaking out against the religiously held practices that led to her genital mutilation, among other things.
Ought Catholics withhold support of her cause, because she is an atheist?
I certainly don’t back gratuitous blasphemy of a religion, on the other hand, there was once the Aztec religion and human sacrifice. Just because it is a religion does not seem to mark it as beyond criticism.
Even Christianity and Catholicism cannot be held beyond criticism. Pope Benedict’s theology that the blood of Christ could never be a curse on anyone’s head is a wonderful theology, but it likely would never have come about if critics had not pointed out the anti-semitism in the New Testament.
Reform and growth is an essential part of Christianity, and any valid religion. Jesus compared himself to a single seed and us to the entire field that grows from that seed. It is the growth of the field that makes that sacrifice worthwhile, they becoming something even more significant.
There is a lot of pruning and weeding involved in horticulture.
