Teacher in Hiding After Attack on Islam Stirs Threats

[pro_universal]

pro_u, you are really grasping at straws.

1. It was you who had a failed argument about infallibility.
2. It was you who insisted that the punishment for heretics was death throughout the history of the church, which I easily refuted.
3. The sources included St. Paul, Origen, St. Augustine to name a few.

Anyone who actually reads the thread will see otherwise, and anyone who knows a little about Church practice between 325 AD and 1800 AD knows that your claim that there was no such penalty is absurd.

Every single level of Church authority condoned the practice, and did so over a period of centuries. The reason it’s not considered an “infallible teaching” is that “infallible” just means “whatever we want to take responsibility for, we will, and whatever we won’t, isn’t infallible.”

But on top of all that…it’s off the subject. Free speech is the topic here. I understand you’re upset that I (and the facts) don’t agree with you about heresy, but you should really open up your own thread if you want to discuss that.

To get you started:

St Paul, Origen, and St. Augustine, whatever their stances on death, were certainly not supporters of the right to say heretical things in public.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Anyone who actually reads the thread will see otherwise, and anyone who knows a little about Church practice between 325 AD and 1800 AD knows that your claim that there was no such penalty is absurd.

In your humble opinion. Of course all the catholics and other christians on WI seemed to be agreeing with me, and even a muslim. Of course more muslims loved seeing you bash christianity and gave you props for doing so. Oh, but wait, you were a self-described ultra-orthodox christian who accused Ella and I of being catholic-lite then weren’t you?

Every single level of Church authority condoned the practice, and did so over a period of centuries.

I provided a number of church voices that said otherwise. All you ever provided was your own authoritative opinion.

The reason it’s not considered an “infallible teaching” is that “infallible” just means “whatever we want to take responsibility for, we will, and whatever we won’t, isn’t infallible.”

Another opinion of yours.

But on top of all that…it’s off the subject. Free speech is the topic here. I understand you’re upset that I (and the facts) don’t agree with you about heresy, but you should really open up your own thread if you want to discuss that.

You may have some facts somewhere, but opinion is what you have presented here.

I never meant to get off topic I merely mentioned that thread on WI as a reference because…
"Again… YOU are the one who asked: “When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy?” " when you well knew the answer was given to you repeatedly.

St Paul, Origen, and St. Augustine, whatever their stances on death, were certainly not supporters of the right to say heretical things in public.

Please show your work pro-u. You are full of opinion. Excommunication from the Church for heresy is one thing they undoubtedly agreed on. Taking away someone’s legal right to contradict church teaching is not something you will find St. Paul saying anywhere in the NT. Maybe Origen or St. Augustine did. But since you claim so, please give a specific reference. Freedom of speech is of course considered by the church to have limits. but just as muslims use their freedom of speech in western democracies to criticize Christianity, so a french professor was exercising his free speech to criticize Islam.

And your example of some rioting Indonesians is not really apropo now is it? I don’t justify rioting for anything, but in that case there is a historyof violence between the christians and muslims that is longstanding. Even the article you linked to said:

“Human-rights workers say the men’s 2001 trial was a sham, and that while it was possible the men took part in some of the violence, they almost certainly were not the leaders.”
…
Human rights activists said Muslim hardliners gathered at the court during the hearings, likely intimidating judges, prosecutors, defence attorneys and witnesses.

“The men’s lawyers received death threats, including a bomb planted at one lawyer’s house and demonstrators armed with stones outside the courthouse demanded that the three be sentenced to death,” said Isabelle Cartron of London-based Amnesty International."

That is a bit different than “suffering” some verbal or comic criticism and then violently demonstrating, burning effigies of the pope, burning danish flags (with big red crosses), burning embassies, threatening death and destruction to the west, shooting nuns, now isn’t it?

(BTW, thanks for the referring me to the book The Holy Mountain. I’m really enjoying the read, but there have been a number of examples of mistreatment of christians by muslims in the parts I’ve read so far - his trip through Turkey where the history of Armenian christians is being destroyed by the Turkish government, and into Syria where there remain only a handful of christians.)

 

[pro_universal]

I provided a number of church voices that said otherwise. All you ever provided was your own authoritative opinion.

A Church council and Papal Bulls constitute more than my opinion.

. But since you claim so, please give a specific reference. Freedom of speech is of course considered by the church to have limits. but just as muslims use their freedom of speech in western democracies to criticize Christianity, so a french professor was exercising his free speech to criticize Islam.

There’s no point in spending the time to find specifics when any specifics I find will be written off as “not the official teaching of the Church.” That was the point with the infallibility thread.

You’ll note that I started here with a question: Can someone provide some evidence that the Catholic Church has always embraced freedom of speech?

Note that there are no answers yet. You can take from that what you will.

That is a bit different than “suffering” some verbal or comic criticism and then violently demonstrating, burning effigies of the pope, burning danish flags (with big red crosses), burning embassies, threatening death and destruction to the west, shooting nuns, now isn’t it?

Okay, so because the government punishes three terrorists, rioting and burning Muslims homes in response is rational? And somehow different to what the radicals are doing in response to this french teacher?

You must be living by a curiously one-sided moral code if you believe that.

(BTW, thanks for the referring me to the book The Holy Mountain. I’m really enjoying the read, but there have been a number of examples of mistreatment of christians by muslims in the parts I’ve read so far - his trip through Turkey where the history of Armenian christians is being destroyed by the Turkish government, and into Syria where there remain only a handful of christians.)

Well, if you read those sections, you do know:

-The turks who committed the genocide were not doing it for Islam. They were doing it as part of a campaign to reject Islam in Turkish society.

-The Arabs in Syria gave save haven to the Armenians who fled Turkey, even though the Arabs were Muslims and the Armenians were Christians

-Asad continues to protect religious minorities from any type of backlash in Syria

-Dalrymple’s opinion is that US and Israel policy will lead to the demise of Christians in the middle east, not Muslims.

Those points are all pretty explicit. Your presentation of his book is not only one-sided, it’s not true to his point.

 

[cestusdei]

pro, again you deflect the issue. The Serbs were communists under Slobo. He went on trial. Others are on trial or on the run. The US, Christians mind you, fought against the Serbs to help the ingrate Muslims. The Serbs themselves dislike Muslims. Why? Maybe several centuries as dhimmi would explain it don’t you think? Perhaps being ruled by Muslims isn’t much fun. Let’s ask the Christians in Saudi Arabia or Sudan about it.

Speaking of Sudan were any Muslims arrested for slavery or crucifying the boy? Aren’t those things violations of human rights? Where are the Muslims expressing shock and outrage? They act like you, basically saying “so what, he is a black kaffir.” Then trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Just like when confronted with Hezbullah’s blatant terrorism, that YOU SUPPORT by your own admission.

 

[amoxoxoma]

A Church council and Papal Bulls constitute more than my opinion.

You claim it was the teaching (or practice) of the whole church starting in 325. All I’m asking is which Council and Papal Bull before Lateran IV declared that Death for Heretics was appropriate?

There’s no point in spending the time to find specifics when any specifics I find will be written off as “not the official teaching of the Church.” That was the point with the infallibility thread.

Don’t feel so defeated! But, if you can’t, or won’t, provide specifics then all I have to go on is your opinion. Obviously two people can look at the same event(s) in the world and assess it differently. If you don’t want to defend a point of view then don’t advance it.

You’ll note that I started here with a question: Can someone provide some evidence that the Catholic Church has always embraced freedom of speech?

Note that there are no answers yet. You can take from that what you will.

Duly noted, because, basically, I agree with you. Free speech is a phenomenom of liberal secular democracy.

Okay, so because the government punishes three terrorists, rioting and burning Muslims homes in response is rational?

Absolutely not.
The context is that there is inhumanity on both sides of the equation in Indonesia, and the Muslims are in the majority. No muslims were put to death for their equally abysmal behavior. The most they got was 15 years in prison.

And somehow different to what the radicals are doing in response to this french teacher?

Yes, it is. Quite different. The french teacher gave voice to a critical opinion, just as you do here. I sincerely hope no one is threatening you with death.

You must be living by a curiously one-sided moral code if you believe that.

I don’t, so you can drop the hyperbole.

Well, if you read those sections, you do know:

-The turks who committed the genocide were not doing it for Islam. They were doing it as part of a campaign to reject Islam in Turkish society.

-The Arabs in Syria gave save haven to the Armenians who fled Turkey, even though the Arabs were Muslims and the Armenians were Christians

-Asad continues to protect religious minorities from any type of backlash in Syria

-Dalrymple’s opinion is that US and Israel policy will lead to the demise of Christians in the middle east, not Muslims.

Those points are all pretty explicit. Your presentation of his book is not only one-sided, it’s not true to his point.

Thanks, I’ll look for your points in the book. I’m only on page 125. Sorry, I fall asleep quickly when reading it in bed, and though I should be reading the book now, I’m responding to your post instead.