Teacher in Hiding After Attack on Islam Stirs Threats

[cestusdei]

pro, I can go to Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom. There is NO such document in Islam. So again I ask you to show me where Islam today supports freedom of speech. Hard to do after their riots over cartoons and the pope’s speech. In fact impossible because they don’t believe in freedom of speech, press, or religion.

 

[MrS]

pro, I can go to Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom. There is NO such document in Islam. So again I ask you to show me where Islam today supports freedom of speech. Hard to do after their riots over cartoons and the pope’s speech. In fact impossible because they don’t believe in freedom of speech, press, or religion.

Reminds me of one of the final scenes in Braveheart.

Gibson yells out “Freedom!”… and gets his head smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_4_126.gifby a

.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Interesting. If this interpretation of the verse is correct, how come no member of the Church noticed for two thousand years?

When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy?

Looks to me like either you have got this verse wrong, or the Church was in error for all that time (if it’s even given up the teachings on banning heresy).

Well hello pro-u!

I just joined this forum today and look what I find! Here you are trying to turn a critical discussion of some muslims abhorrent threatening behavior (well maybe the french teacher was a bit extreme in his comments) into a “show me that christians are any better” argument.

And you use that question "When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy? " to somehow try to put doubt into our hearts. Don’t you remember the discussion we had on WhyIslam here?:

whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11214&KW=heresy&PN=20

Do I need to cut and paste the whole thing for you again?

But that was 3 months ago when it appeared you were trying to prove your ultraorthodoxy regarding the concept of infallibility, accusing me of being catholic-lite.

 

[exoflare]

But that was 3 months ago when it appeared you were trying to prove your ultraorthodoxy regarding the concept of infallibility, accusing me of being catholic-lite.

That’s pretty funny, because even now he appears to not know very much about the subject at all…

 

[cthemfly25]

Back to the original post—that teacher needs to be very concerned. Lest we forget, it was about a year ago when the French Mohammedans rioted that a group of these terrorist thugs kidnapped a young Jewish man. Over a period of a couple of weeks the proceeded to torture him. While doing so these thugs used his cellphone to call the young man’s parents so that they could be active recipients of their brutality. They finally killed him. Any discussion re the redemptive values of this putrid, sinister and satanic belief system is beyond me. So I’ll let the pro-u, et al, crowd chatter to themselves. And lest the rest of the rational world forgets, in the meantime, this terror is very real, very much tolerated throughout the muslim world and very much aiming for supremacy.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

On June 15, 2004 Pope John Paul II apologized for and asked forgiveness for the mistreatment of heretics, amongst other sins committed by the Church and its members.

 

[pro_universal]

Well hello pro-u!

I just joined this forum today and look what I find! Here you are trying to turn a critical discussion of some muslims abhorrent threatening behavior (well maybe the french teacher was a bit extreme in his comments) into a “show me that christians are any better” argument.

And you use that question "When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy? " to somehow try to put doubt into our hearts. Don’t you remember the discussion we had on WhyIslam here?:

whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11214&KW=heresy&PN=20

Do I need to cut and paste the whole thing for you again?

But that was 3 months ago when it appeared you were trying to prove your ultraorthodoxy regarding the concept of infallibility, accusing me of being catholic-lite.

Okay, what exactly does that have to do with freedom of speech?

Religious freedom is not freedom of speech, and even then, it is a twentieth century teaching. I’d like to see the document that enshrines the principle of free speech.

Papal infallibility is another matter, and certainly, that should put some doubt into your heart. Open a thread and I’ll discuss it just like I did before.

Pointing out that all religions share these problems is not “derailing a discussion”, it’s trying to get people to think before they start bashing Muslims.

 

[Giovanni]

Okay, what exactly does that have to do with freedom of speech?

Religious freedom is not freedom of speech, and even then, it is a twentieth century teaching. I’d like to see the document that enshrines the principle of free speech.

Papal infallibility is another matter, and certainly, that should put some doubt into your heart. Open a thread and I’ll discuss it just like I did before.

Pointing out that all religions share these problems is not “derailing a discussion”, it’s trying to get people to think before they start bashing Muslims.

We didn’t kill you when you decided to reject the true God who gave His life for you.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Okay, what exactly does that have to do with freedom of speech?

Religious freedom is not freedom of speech, and even then, it is a twentieth century teaching. I’d like to see the document that enshrines the principle of free speech.

Papal infallibility is another matter, and certainly, that should put some doubt into your heart. Open a thread and I’ll discuss it just like I did before.

Pointing out that all religions share these problems is not “derailing a discussion”, it’s trying to get people to think before they start bashing Muslims.

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as religious freedom… necessarily. But you are more likely to find the 2nd where you find the 1st.

What you call “bashing muslims” is frequently honest and justifiable criticism. But as a muslim apologist you prefer to see it as Islamaphobic muslim bashing.

You are the one who asked “When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy?” I was merely reminding you of a discussion on another internet forum where that question was answered in great detail, and repeatedly.

 

[pro_universal]

Sidestepping as usual.

You are the one who asked “When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy?” I was merely reminding you of a discussion on another internet forum where that question was answered in great detail, and repeatedly.

Well, it certainly wasn’t answered there, and the issue of infallibility was the center of that discussion.

Why don’t you try cutting and pasting the “clear answer” into this thread if you think there was one?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, it looks as if the Islamists are living up to Mr. Redeker’s expectations. This is certainly something we need to keep in mind as immigration is being debated in this country.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Well, it certainly wasn’t answered there, and the issue of infallibility was the center of that discussion.

Why don’t you try cutting and pasting the “clear answer” into this thread if you think there was one?

We’re not talking about infallibility here. It’s about muslims threatening the french teacher for saying uncomplimentary things about Islam and Muhammad, and your turning the question back on catholics in asking about freedom of speech.

Again… YOU are the one who asked: “When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy?” to which I responded with a link to WI where THAT was discussed extensively. If you remember, I pointed out that it was never the teaching of the whole church for it’s first 1000 years. You asked for even one person who taught that and I gave you numerous examples. It’s there on WI for anybody to read and draw their own conclusions. I guarantee you I will not go round that mulberry bush with you again here.

 

[pro_universal]

We’re not talking about infallibility here. It’s about muslims threatening the french teacher for saying uncomplimentary things about Islam and Muhammad, and your turning the question back on catholics in asking about freedom of speech.

That was my point. The other thread was about infallibility, and it didn’t even settle that question. Now you’re talking about free speech, and I asked you to quote from the thread where that issue had an answer at all.

Again… YOU are the one who asked: “When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy?” to which I responded with a link to WI where THAT was discussed extensively. If you remember, I pointed out that it was never the teaching of the whole church for it’s first 1000 years. You asked for even one person who taught that and I gave you numerous examples. It’s there on WI for anybody to read and draw their own conclusions. I guarantee you I will not go round that mulberry bush with you again here.

Again, no such condemnation materialized in that thread, nor will it materialize in this one, because it doesn’t exist. Claiming that punishing heresy in this fashion “was never the teaching of the whole church” is just plain ridiculous. If it wasn’t, then there is no such thing as a “teaching of the whole Church.”

If it had, it would’ve been a very simple matter for you to quote the language. You can’t, because it’s not there.

 

[amoxoxoma]

That was my point. The other thread was about infallibility, and it didn’t even settle that question. Now you’re talking about free speech, and I asked you to quote from the thread where that issue had an answer at all.

You don’t seem to have a point.
The other thread was about a lot of things, infallibility being one of them, but the main argument we had was about whether or not the church taught putting heretics to death. As I said in that thread, and as I’ve said here twice now, which is what I was referring to when I referenced that other thread, is that for it’s first 1000 years, really until Lateran IV, there were many voices opposed to anything other than excommunication for heretics. And even Lateran IV called for “expelling” heretics by the civil authorities and didn’t explicitly demand their death.

Again, no such condemnation materialized in that thread, nor will it materialize in this one, because it doesn’t exist.

You are either blind or have a terrible memory. Reread that thread, especially the last page, and you will see it is there.

Claiming that punishing heresy in this fashion “was never the teaching of the whole church” is just plain ridiculous. If it wasn’t, then there is no such thing as a “teaching of the whole Church.”

If it had, it would’ve been a very simple matter for you to quote the language. You can’t, because it’s not there.

Your claim was that it was always and everywhere the teaching of the church because you wanted to say that the church had no moral high ground to stand on when catholics condemn the Islamic death penalty for apostates. That is just not the case. As a muslim-to-be I can see why you want to think that.

Regarding the subject of this thread, show us where in the world, NOW, TODAY, that christians are behaving as abysmally as some muslims do in response to criticism, whether directly as the french professor or the dutch cartoonists did, or indirectly as the pope may have done.

 

[cestusdei]

Let’s say pro is right. There is no freedom of speech, it’s just wrong. So let’s silence all the Muslims, burn their literature, prohibit their preaching, and punish them if they dare say something we don’t like. It will be just like in the middle east. They will feel at home.

 

[pro_universal]

You don’t seem to have a point.

You don’t seem to be reading my posts.

Despite your best efforts, this thread will not magically become one where you can rehash your failed arguments on papal infallibility. And no matter how frustrated you get, your increasingly shrill rhetoric will not prove your points.

You are either blind or have a terrible memory. Reread that thread, especially the last page, and you will see it is there.

No, it’s not. The sources of authority listed are smaller in number and generally lower in stature than the sources of authority in support of punishing heretics. There is a much, much stronger theological basis for the 1900 year long position of punishing heresy than there is for the opposite.

Regarding the subject of this thread, show us where in the world, NOW, TODAY, that christians are behaving as abysmally as some muslims do in response to criticism

Sure:

cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/22/indonesia-executions.html

Christian mobs torched cars, blockaded roads and looted Muslim-owned shops in Indonesia in violence touched off by Friday’s executions of three Roman Catholics convicted of instigating attacks on Muslims.

 

[cestusdei]

I am amazed. Pro can justify human rights violations, support terrorist groups that kill children, slavery, torture, and will even sacrifice freedom of speech. Is there anything pro, anything, that the Muslims can do that will finally convince you that they have a problem with violence? Anything? How many millions do they need to kill? How many children need to be enslaved and nailed up? We aren’t just talking a few, this is happening all the time. Just visit voice of the martyrs, persecution.org, or the barnabas fund. When this teacher is hunted down and killed what will your response be? Let me guess, a shrug of the shoulders.

 

[pro_universal]

I am amazed. Pro can justify human rights violations, support terrorist groups that kill children, slavery, torture, and will even sacrifice freedom of speech. Is there anything pro, anything, that the Muslims can do that will finally convince you that they have a problem with violence? Anything? How many millions do they need to kill? How many children need to be enslaved and nailed up? We aren’t just talking a few, this is happening all the time. Just visit voice of the martyrs, persecution.org, or the barnabas fund. When this teacher is hunted down and killed what will your response be? Let me guess, a shrug of the shoulders.

1. I have not supported any killing whatsoever. That is a lie on your part. I would say mistake, except that you’ve done it so many times you’re making it clear that you wish to lie about what I’m writing.
2. Do you not see the hypocrisy in shrugging your shoulders at the rape and murder of Bosnian Muslims, but then turning around and saying “oh, you support terror pro!”?

 

[Ella]

Well hello pro-u!

I just joined this forum today and look what I find! Here you are trying to turn a critical discussion of some muslims abhorrent threatening behavior (well maybe the french teacher was a bit extreme in his comments) into a “show me that christians are any better” argument.

And you use that question "When did the Church ever condemn instituting the death penalty for heresy? " to somehow try to put doubt into our hearts. Don’t you remember the discussion we had on WhyIslam here?:

whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11214&KW=heresy&PN=20

Do I need to cut and paste the whole thing for you again?

But that was 3 months ago when it appeared you were trying to prove your ultraorthodoxy regarding the concept of infallibility, accusing me of being catholic-lite.

Hey Amox - good to see you here!

 

[amoxoxoma]

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.

You wanted statments of all those people identified in the NewAdvent article, who opposed the death penalty for heretics. You asked for merely one, I gave you many.

St. Paul - "St. Paul did not, in the case of the heretics Alexander and Hymeneus, go back to the Old Covenant penalties of death or scourging (Deuteronomy 13:6 sqq.; 17:1 sqq.), but deemed exclusion from the communion of the Church sufficient (1 Tim., i, 20; Tit., iii, 10). In fact to the Christians of the first three centuries it could scarcely have occurred to assume any other attitude towards those who erred in matters of faith

Tertullian “tells us that the natural law authorized man to follow only the voice of individual conscience in the practice of religion, since the acceptance of religion was a matter of free will, not of compulsion.”

Origen: "Replying to the accusation of Celsus, based on the Old Testament, that the Christians persecuted dissidents with death, burning, and torture, Origen (C. Cels., VII, 26) is satisfied with explaining that one must distinguish between the law which the Jews received from Moses and that given to the Christians by Jesus; the former was binding on the Jews, the latter on the Christians. Jewish Christians, if sincere, could no longer conform to all of the Mosaic law; hence they were no longer at liberty to kill their enemies or to burn and stone violators of the Christian Law.

St. Syprian of Carthage " religion being now spiritual, its sanctions take on the same character, and excommunication replaces the death of the body."

Lactantius: Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows [verbis melius quam verberibus res agenda est]. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost [summâ vi] . . . It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion. (Divine Institutes V:20)

St. Hilary of Poltiers (Liber contra Auxentium, c. iv), protested vigorously against any use of force in the province of religion, whether for the spread of Christianity or for preservation of the Faith.

It was the “christian” emporers who first passed civil laws of the “christinized state” against heretics. …only St. Optatus of Mileve defended the civil authority

Priscillian, Bishop of Avilia in Spain, was accused of heresy and sorcery and eventually put to death. St. Martin of Tours fought against such a penalty and St. Ambrose called it a crime.

St. Augustine (Ep. c, n. 1), almost in the name of the western Church, says: “Corrigi eos volumus, non necari, nec disciplinam circa eos negligi volumus, nec suppliciis quibus digni sunt exerceri” – we wish them corrected, not put to death; we desire the triumph of (ecclesiastical) discipline, not the death penalties that they deserve.

St. John Chrysostom says substantially the same in the name of the Eastern Church (Hom., XLVI, c. i): “To consign a heretic to death is to commit an offence beyond atonement”; and in the next chapter he says that God forbids their execution, even as He forbids us to uproot cockle, but He does not forbid us to repel them, to deprive them of free speech, or to prohibit their assemblies.

Bishop Wazo of Liege said " that this was contrary to the spirit of the Church and the words of its Founder, Who ordained that the tares should be allowed to grow with the wheat until the day of the harvest, lest the wheat be uprooted with the tares; those who today were tares might to-morrow be converted, and turn into wheat; let them therefore live, and let mere excommunication suffice. St. Chrysostom, as we have seen, had taught similar doctrine."