Thought Police

[RonWI]

“The right to freedom of thought and expression … cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers,” the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy."

apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FIK3M81.html

You have GOT to be kidding. I don’t have the “right” to offend Muslims. In fact, I apparently don’t have the “right” to think about offending Muslims.

Someone please tell the Vatican to stick to proclaiming the Gospel, and leave civil rights to Caesar.

 

[Brain]

christ loved all and hated no one.
none of us are even close to doing that, but as decipes of christ, we should try. in the confiedetor prayer we confess sins “in my thoughs and in my words.”

you have no right to intentionally cause anger. if the muslums misread you and get mad, that is their issue. but ifd you want to anger them then it is your issue

 

[5-Decades-a-Day]

Brain:

christ loved all and hated no one.
none of us are even close to doing that, but as decipes of christ, we should try. in the confiedetor prayer we confess sins “in my thoughs and in my words.”

you have no right to intentionally cause anger. if the muslums misread you and get mad, that is their issue. but ifd you want to anger them then it is your issue

Please learn to spell and punctuate properly.

 

[5-Decades-a-Day]

With all due respect to the Pope, offense against the Muslim religion cannot under any circumstances justify the violence.

But, are you surprised? Muslims get offended at how their religion is portrayed, and they go nuts. Makes you think that maybe something is amiss with their worldview.

If someone else wants to make obnoxious comments, for example, about the Blessed Virgin Mary, I figure that he’s got a bigger problem than I do.

 

[RonWI]

Please note: the issue is not whether it is a SIN to draw a picture of Mohammed. (Mohammed is a false prophet – a baal. Proclaiming the true Gospel always will offend false teachers. It is not a sin to proclaim him as such. To the contrary, it is our obligation out of Christian love to do so.) But I digress.

The issue is whether I have a RIGHT to do it. According to the Vatican, I do not have the “right” to even THINK about doing it.

 

[Pax]

This is an interesting point for discussion. I’m not so sure that it is clear cut and easy to criticize the Vatican on this.

We often forget that our right to free speech is not absolute even though our country enjoys the greatest freedoms in the world. Secular authority generally looks at matters in a secular way. Spiritual authority generally looks at matters in a spiritual way. Sometimes these areas do overlap.

In the secular arena we “generally” think we have a right to say whatever we want. We would all agree, however, that the old example of yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater would go beyond the limits of freedom of speech. For secular authority, public safety is a huge issue and it will sometimes out weigh free speech.

Likewise, in spiritual matters spiritual authorities will condemn and similarly make prohibitions against blasphemy. Obviously, if there is a God, then blasphemy is perhaps a sufficiently serious offense to warrant prohibition. Interestingly enough, it would appear that mocking Islam falls into the category of overlap between the spiritual and the secular.

It is becoming more and more clear that mocking Islam is not that different from yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, and it is clear that mocking Islam does mock God. Legitimate criticism and efforts to convert Islamic believers is right, just, and proper. Mocking Islam is not. Mocking Islam is dangerous, and may even contain elements of blasphemy.

It is probably inappropriate to judge the Vatican’s statements by our US Constitutional standards of free speech. Rather, we should judge what the Vatican is saying in terms of what Jesus tells us about loving our fellow man. Jesus even goes so far as to say, “What you have done to one of these the least of my brethren, you have done unto me.”

Just food for thought.

 

[Church_Militant]

"The right to freedom of thought

and expression … cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy."

apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FIK3M81.html

You have GOT to be kidding. I don’t have the “right” to offend Muslims. In fact, I apparently don’t have the “right” to think about offending Muslims.

Someone please tell the Vatican to stick to proclaiming the Gospel, and leave civil rights to Caesar.Hold it…Let’s look at the Vatican’s remarks in their context.

The Vatican deplored the violence but said certain provocative forms of criticism were unacceptable.

“The right to freedom of thought and expression … cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers,” the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy.

1. The violence IS deplorable, is it not?
2. “certain forms of criticism” ARE unacceptable, are they not? Or do you feel that similar cartoons etc of Our Lord, or some of the South Park episodes were ok? I didn’t.
3. “The right to freedom of thought and expression …” We all have the right to those things and the Vatican didn’t say otherwise, however…
4. “cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers,” We’re back to point # 2. If certain forms are unacceptable, then it follows logically that the right to think and express what we please needs tempering with the charity of Christ himself, (since we are Christians). I may think some things that are unflattering to certain non-Catholic groups, but that does not give me the right to vocalize or characterize them in a way that would offend them.

It’s really very simple: And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner. (Luke 6:31)

1. I think the Vatican statement is right on the money and that all Christians would do well to read it and take it to heart in the context and spirit that it was meant.

Someone please tell the Vatican to stick to proclaiming the Gospel, and leave civil rights to Caesar.

They did proclaim the gospel and nothing that they said pertains to your civil rights or anyone else’s. You have read too much into it.

The situation and the violence stinks. Neither side is justified in it’s cause, as the Gospel plainly shows.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[RonWI]

I have the right to think “FIRE!!!” in a theatre. And the limitation on my civil right not to speak it has nothing to do with what the Vatican says.

If I stand in front of a mosque in an American City, I:

1. do have the right to say things that will offend Muslims (e.g., Mohammed is a false prophet, and you don’t get 40 virgins in heaven for blowing yourself up in a market).
2. do have an obligation to proclaim the Gospel (the only way to salvation is through Jesus).

Ahhhhhh, for the days when the Athanasian Creed was not something for Catholics to hide out of fear of offense.

 

[Pax]

Just another point to make here. The quote from the Vatican provided in the link is as follows:

*“The Vatican deplored the violence but said certain provocative forms of criticism were unacceptable.”

“The right to freedom of thought and expression … cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers,” the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy."*

Please note that the second statement is truncated(i.e., …). My guess is that there are other things included in the Vatican press release not included in this article. Moreover, none of the quoted statements seem unreasonable. Afterall, no one has a “right” to do sinful and immoral things. This is a truth that cannot be over turned even if a government gives people an illegitimate right to do so. In this country it is illegal to steal. It used to be illegal to commit abortion until it was declared to be a “woman’s right.”

The whole issue of “rights” gets fuzzy in a hurry. As a spiritual people we need to take the Vatican’s statements spiritually first. If something is morally wrong then we have no “real” right to it.

 

[RonWI]

1. “certain forms of criticism” ARE unacceptable, are they not? Or do you feel that similar cartoons etc of Our Lord, or some of the South Park episodes were ok? I didn’t.

South Park is offensive. I do not hear anyone saying that the creators do not have a right to do so.

1. “The right to freedom of thought and expression …” We all have the right to those things and the Vatican didn’t say otherwise, however…

The Vatican said “The right to freedom of thought and expression … cannot entail the right to offend …” What exactly does “cannot entail” mean?

1. “cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers,” We’re back to point # 2. If certain forms are unacceptable, then it follows logically that the right to think and express what we please needs tempering with the charity of Christ himself, (since we are Christians). I may think some things that are unflattering to certain non-Catholic groups, but that does not give me the right to vocalize or characterize them in a way that would offend them.

Fundamentalist Christians are offended by Catholics saying that only in the Church is the “fullness of grace” found, and that only the Catholic Church is the “real church founded by Christ”. They go apoplectic when they hear such things. Out of charity, are you going to cut out that kind of talk?

1. I think the Vatican statement is right on the money and that all Christians would do well to read it and take it to heart in the context and spirit that it was meant… They did proclaim the gospel and nothing that they said pertains to your civil rights or anyone else’s. You have read too much into it.

The Vatican said “The right to freedom of thought and expression … cannot entail the right to offend …” I am not reading anything into it. I was not the one who used the words “right to freedom of thought”.

 

[Pax]

RonWI:

I have the right to think “FIRE!!!” in a theatre. And the limitation on my civil right not to speak it has nothing to do with what the Vatican says.

If I stand in front of a mosque in an American City, I:

1. do have the right to say things that will offend Muslims (e.g., Mohammed is a false prophet, and you don’t get 40 virgins in heaven for blowing yourself up in a market).
2. do have an obligation to proclaim the Gospel (the only way to salvation is through Jesus).

Ahhhhhh, for the days when the Athanasian Creed was not something for Catholics to hide out of fear of offense.

You are misunderstanding the quote from the Vatican. It did not say that you have no right to think something. It said that “The right to freedom of thought and expression … cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers,” This means that what you are thinking cannot justify going out and offending believers in Islam. It does not say that your freedom of “thought” is curtailed.

 

[RonWI]

So if I go to Mecca and proclaim “Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through him”, I have no right to do that. I must remain silent so as not to offend the Muslims present?

Good thing no one was offended when Jesus overturned the tables.

 

[RonWI]

Matthew 15:

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ "

12Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.e] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

The text is not clear if it was Peter doing the talking.

 

[RonWI]

John 6:

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirite] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Apparently Jesus had not received word about having no right to be offensive.

 

[Church_Militant]

RonWI:

Fundamentalist Christians are offended by Catholics saying that only in the Church is the “fullness of grace” found, and that only the Catholic Church is the “real church founded by Christ”. They go apoplectic when they hear such things. Out of charity, are you going to cut out that kind of talk?

The Vatican said "The right to freedom of thought

and expression … cannot entail the right to offend …" I am not reading anything into it. I was not the one who used the words “right to freedom of thought”.I think you read it with your own agenda.

Christians do not have the right to portray others offensively.

There is a substantial difference between a discussion of doctrine which someone might find contrary to what they believe and knowingly doing something that Moslems will . (I don’t care what the Moslems believe. If they wish to talk to me and we can do so without arguing, then I’m happy. If not, my feelings are not hurt in the least but I don’t have to talk to them. Still I will not go out and camp in front of a mosque and talk smack about Mohammed, nor creat art that I know will offend them. That’s not Christ-like.)

You have misinterpreted the statement. You’re yelling “fire” in a theatre where there is no fire.

“The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion,” the Vatican said.

“Any form of excessive criticism or derision of others denotes a lack of human sensitivity and can in some cases constitute an unacceptable provocation,” it said in a statement issued in response to media demands for the Church’s opinion.

The Malaysia Star

In his first official comments, Pope Benedict is condemning the violent protests against the caricatures of Muhammad. But he seems to agree that certain forms of criticism can represent an "unacceptable provocation.’’

The Vatican statement adds that "the right to freedom of thought and expression’’ can’t include "the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.’’

From Minneapolis

Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, a leader for many years in the Vatican’s diplomatic service, said the cartoons demonstrated a growing trend to make fun of religious symbols in general.

“Freedom of satire that offends the sentiments of others becomes an abuse – and in this case it has affected the sentiments of entire populations in their highest symbols,” the cardinal told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera Feb. 3.

The cardinal said Christianity has similar sensitivities.

“One can understand satire about a priest but not about God. With reference to Islam, we could understand satire on the uses and customs and behavior, but not about the Quran, Allah and the Prophet,” he said.

The cardinal said secular societies should not assume a right to offend religious sentiments. He noted that many countries consider it illegal to offend their national flag and asked, “Shouldn’t we consider religious symbols on an equal level with the symbols of secular institutions?”

Catholic Online

Other people understand it. Why don’t you?
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

**Cardinal raps newspapers over cartoons of Mohammad **

(ANSA) - Vatican City, February 3 - The Vatican has criticised the Western media over its publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad which have inflamed spirits in the Islamic world. Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, the head of the Vatican’s department for Eastern Churches, called in an interview published on Friday for more respect to be shown towards the Islamic world .

“Western culture must find a limit to its goal of making freedom an absolute (value). We too, here in Europe, should rebel against the idea of mocking religious symbols,” he told Corriere della Sera, the country’s best-selling daily .

“Freedom to satirise which offends other people’s feelings becomes prevarication,” the cardinal added .From Italy

Oh No! Not our own goverment!

US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute

Feb 3, 2006 — By Saul Hudson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States backed Muslims on Friday against European newspapers that printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could help America’s battered image in the Islamic world.

Inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States sided with Muslims outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

“These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims,” State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.

“We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.” From ABC News

"Human co-existence demands a climate of mutual respect, to favour peace between men and nations.

News24 from South Africa

Pax vobiscum,

 

[CatholicCid]

Just out of curiosity, could anyone link to the direct Vatican quote? The best I could find was that no Official comment was given yet… I didn’t see anything off the Vatican News Page either.

Though, I don’t see what is wrong with it… Why think about it unless you intend to express it… I doubt they mean a quick thought or two (like hitting our bosses ) that we are all tempted to as it said ‘thought’ which seems to mean a dwelling on it.

 

[mlchance]

“The right to freedom of thought and expression … cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers,” the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy."

apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FIK3M81.html

You have GOT to be kidding. I don’t have the “right” to offend Muslims. In fact, I apparently don’t have the “right” to think about offending Muslims.

Exactly correct. You have no right to be malicious toward anyone, even Muslims. Both thoughts and actions can be sinful, which is why we Catholics ask God to forgive us for our wrongful thoughts and deeds, for what we have done, and what we’ve failed to do.

So, rather than order the Church to “leave civil rights to Caesar,” why don’t you conform your conscience to the Church?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[st.jerome]

RonWI:

1. do have the right to say things that will offend Muslims (e.g., Mohammed is a false prophet, and you don’t get 40 virgins in heaven for blowing yourself up in a market).
2. do have an obligation to proclaim the Gospel (the only way to salvation is through Jesus).

Ahhhhhh, for the days when the Athanasian Creed was not something for Catholics to hide out of fear of offense.

It should be noted that while the Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth concerning Salvation, the Church also teaches that the other world religions are valid “pathways to God.”

Father Benedict Groeschel has affirmed this on EWTN.

It is therefore problematic to say offensive things to a nonCatholic because you may denigrate what God has given them to understand and thereby insult what is holy.

 

[Pax]

RonWI:

So if I go to Mecca and proclaim “Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through him”, I have no right to do that. I must remain silent so as not to offend the Muslims present?

Good thing no one was offended when Jesus overturned the tables.

How is the content of your rhetorical question the same as the actions of the media cartoonists that mocked Islam? Proper evangelization is in no way synonymous with mocking the faith of another.