Thought Police

[RonWI]

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.”

Has anyone here read the Athanasian Creed? It says “This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

I am not sure what a “pathway to God” is. But I am sure that Muslims, who expressly reject that Jesus is the Son of God, cannot and will not be “saved”. That is what the Athanasian Creed says.

As for my “rights”, I am concerned about the Vatican’s statements for two reasons. First, I am not Catholic. Under the United States Constitution, I am given certain “rights” that I value. The fact that Rome says I, in fact, do not have those rights, is very troubling. It is not Rome who defines the civil rights of an American Lutheran. It should not talk like it does.

The second problem with the Vatican’s statement is that my rights are defined, not by an objective standard to which I can be certain, but by the feelings of others. If you bring an Arabic language Bible into Saudia Arabia, you will be arrested. If you stand on a corner in Teheran and pray the Rosary, you will be arrested. The fact is that Muslims will be offended when Christians speak of no one knowing the Father but through Jesus. Will the Vatican say that, because Muslims will be offended by such speach, I have not right to speak it?

 

[RonWI]

farsinet.com/dibaj/iranian_christians_arrested_sept2004.html
“Under Islamic law enforced in Iran, a Muslim who converts to Christianity faces the death penalty.” I guess we better not try to convert anyone in Iran. We do not have the “right” to do so.

christiantoday.com/news/middle-east/40.pakistan.christians.arrested.in.saudi.arabia.during.house.gathering/289.htm
“A local newspaper has reported that Saudi Arabia has detained 40 Pakistani Christians for a religious gathering on Saturday in the capital Riyadh, according to Reuters.” That’s right. Saudia Arbians are offfended by Christians gathering. Ergo, we have no “right” to gather.

cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200310/FOR20031029e.html
“At least 22 Egyptian Christians have been arrested over the last week, many of them converts from Islam to Christianity, in a crackdown on apostates and those who support them, a British watchdog group has said.” Turns our Egyptians are easily offended, too. No “right” to offend Musilims there.

If my rights were defined by what offends Muslims, then I would not have the “right” to practice my faith. Fortunately, my rights are defined by the U.S. Constitution, not the Vatican genuflecting to the demands of Mecca.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Does anyone think that by drawing insulting pictures of the prophet Mohammed we’re going to convert Muslims to Chistianity?

It is clearly unChristian to insult anyone’s religion. If we were to transpose that cartoon into a racial, rather than a religious theme, we’d all instantly recoginze it was wrong.

It is sinful therefore to insult other people’s religions. And yes, the Church does teach that you can sin in your heart. Did not Jesus himself say that a man who looks on a woman with lust has committed adultry in his heart?

Now, we may have the right under our secular goverments to print such a cartoon – but as Catholics we should refrain. We should refrain from printing it and from approving of it, even in our hearts.

 

[tom.wineman]

Remember the claims of freedom of expression by the " artists " of a few years back when they painted the Virgin Mary with dung on it or the one with a crucifix in a beaker of urine ? Hardly cause a ripple

 

[RonWI]

Now, we may have the right under our secular goverments to print such a cartoon – but as Catholics we should refrain.

I agree 100%. And that is the only point I am making: that there is a distinction between what we should do as Christians and what secular rights we have. I have no problem with the Vatican saying “It is sinful to unnecessarily provoke non-Christians.” But that is not what it said. When the Vatican enters the arena of secular rights, it opens itself up to a whole new debate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

RonWI:

I agree 100%. And that is the only point I am making: that there is a distinction between what we should do as Christians and what secular rights we have. I have no problem with the Vatican saying “It is sinful to unnecessarily provoke non-Christians.” But that is not what it said. When the Vatican enters the arena of secular rights, it opens itself up to a whole new debate.

I don’t think the Vatican used the word “right” in the sense of “Constitutional rights.”

We have thrown the word 'right" around so much that it has lost some of it’s precise meaning.

 

[redactorab]

RonWI:

First, I am not Catholic. Under the United States Constitution, I am given certain “rights” that I value. The fact that Rome says I, in fact, do not have those rights, is very troubling. It is not Rome who defines the civil rights of an American Lutheran. It should not talk like it does.

The US Constitution has been interpreted to give women the right to abort their babies, too. Rome says women don’t really have that right. If you understand the difference between secular law and moral law, these discrepancies shouldn’t be “very troubling.” They’re perfectly natural.

And you’re right, Rome doesn’t define the civil rights of Americans–whether Lutherans or any other kind of person. Rome’s in the business of dispensing moral guidance, not crafting secular law. They can’t force you to follow their precepts, so it really needn’t trouble you as much as you say it is.

There: You’re off the hook!

 

[RonWI]

I may be off the hook, but what about the Christians who were arrested in Iran and Egypt because their gatherings offended Muslims. Did those Christians violate the Vatican’s moral law by offending Muslims when they gathered to worship?

 

[Aquarius]

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.

You have no right to go to Mecca. Only Muslims are allowed.

 

[RonWI]

Aquarius:

You have no right to go to Mecca. Only Muslims are allowed.

I assume that was sarcasm (which I appreciate), but if not, see my post #27.

Furthermore, I disagree that there is any absolute moral law against offending people. See my posts #12 and #13. While I certainly agree that we should not unnecessarily provoke anyone, the “cartoons” in question did not do that. They were “editorial cartoons”, which, as we all know, are nothing more than a visual way to make a political statement. The statements made were political in nature and very relevant to current affairs in the world. To claim that there is a moral prohibition to saying “Islamicists are terrorists” (which was the point of the cartoons) is to say that all people are prohibited from engaging in political speech about, among other things, 9/11.

 

[redactorab]

RonWI:

I may be off the hook, but what about the Christians who were arrested in Iran and Egypt because their gatherings offended Muslims. Did those Christians violate the Vatican’s moral law by offending Muslims when they gathered to worship?

I don’t know about that. I was responding specifically to your post about the Vatican trying to shape American civil law, which it doesn’t and can’t.

 

[Aquarius]

RonWI:

I may be off the hook, but what about the Christians who were arrested in Iran and Egypt because their gatherings offended Muslims. Did those Christians violate the Vatican’s moral law by offending Muslims when they gathered to worship?

The problem with offensive actions is the offended is given control of the situation. There is no way to determine if an action is offensive until it is complete.

Some are offended by Mother Angelica. Some are offended by Sponge Bob. Others are offended by the Islamic call to prayer.

I’d really like to see the Vatican say, “OK, everybody. Suck it up and quite whining. We can take it. Why can’t the rest of you weenies?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

RonWI:

I may be off the hook, but what about the Christians who were arrested in Iran and Egypt because their gatherings offended Muslims. Did those Christians violate the Vatican’s moral law by offending Muslims when they gathered to worship?

No. There is a reason for Christians to attend worship services.

The sin is in going out of our way to offend, doing that which we are not obliged to do, and which has no purpose other than to offend.

 

[Pax]

RonWI:

…
…
…

The second problem with the Vatican’s statement is that my rights are defined, not by an objective standard to which I can be certain, but by the feelings of others.
…

This kind of statement helps to explain some of your confusion. Your rights are not defined by any objective standard in the secular world. Your rights are determined by the sensitivities of the body politic. This happens to fall in the category of the “feelings of others.”

Religious authorities at least have the justification of appealing to God for the standards they champion. As a religious people we must show deference to the moral law of God as opposed to secular standards.

 

[gelsbern]

I wonder what they mean by the word believers?

Are we talking about believers in Christianity, and in further granularity catholicism?

Or do they mean believers in anything, i.e. islam, judaism, mormonism etc…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pax:

This kind of statement helps to explain some of your confusion. Your rights are not defined by any objective standard in the secular world. Your rights are determined by the sensitivities of the body politic. This happens to fall in the category of the “feelings of others.”

Religious authorities at least have the justification of appealing to God for the standards they champion. As a religious people we must show deference to the moral law of God as opposed to secular standards.

Which is to say, not everything that is legal is moral.

 

[gelsbern]

On a side note, restrictions on our thoughts has scriptural backings. Yes even thinking things can be a sin.

Matthew 5:27-28

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This includes other sins as well, murder, coveteousness, and yes now, it includes offending the religious sentiment of believers.

If you think about killing somone, you have committed the sin of murder in your heart. If you dishonor your mother and father, or authority over your in your thoughts you have committed the sin against the 4th commandment as well.

The church has declared that it is a sin to think about offedining the religious sentiment of believers and is well within the church’s rights to do so.

 

[Church_Militant]

RonWI:

I may be off the hook, but what about the Christians who were arrested in Iran and Egypt because their gatherings offended Muslims. Did those Christians violate the Vatican’s moral law by offending Muslims when they gathered to worship?

BIG difference! For believers to worship together in a certain place is NOT the same as cartoons intended to deride or mock and ultimately to offend.