Vatican calls Muhammad cartoon "blasphemous"

[omgriley]

As an American/Canadian I highly disagree with this way of thinking. If anything, the fact that this specific topic will have people trying to end what is free speech shows that more of this should be done in order to not submit to those who would harm us for such events.

If Muslims believe they can silence satire/mockery/free speech, then it is our duty to satire/mock/speek freely until they accept that. We can never back down; no one is exempt from free speech, not Christians, not Muslims, no one.

However as a Christian I agree it’s bad taste and not done in love. The winning picture however I don’t think was hateful; it was quite clever and deserved first prize, and speaks to my first point.

Thank you for your excellent point. As an American Catholic, I am of the opinion that while drawing cartoons of Muhammad is hurtful and offensive imagery to some of our friends in the Islamic faith, it is also necessary and should be encouraged. Not for the sake of being inflammatory, but to make the point that we will never compromise our free speech rights or be intimidated by radical Islamic terrorists.

If we yield on such a minuscule topic like cartoons, then what next? These same radicals are also offended by gay marriage. Should proponents of “gay marriage” give up on their cause just so they’ll stop killing homosexuals?

What about the many basic rights that woman have? Voting, driving, even merely walking in public without a man. Should we force women into subservience in hopes that they’ll stop killing women?

Offensive speech is the only type of speech that requires protections.

For these reasons, we must not yield. This must be encouraged until it is known that you cannot silence opposition through violence.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

As an American Catholic, I am of the opinion that while drawing cartoons of Muhammad is hurtful and offensive imagery to some of our friends in the Islamic faith,

Agreed.

it is also necessary and should be encouraged. Not for the sake of being inflammatory, but to make the point that we will never compromise our free speech rights or be intimidated by radical Islamic terrorists.

I can’t imagine any reason why we should demand the right to be inflammatory.

If we yield on such a minuscule topic like cartoons, then what next?

Showing them some respect would help.

Offensive speech is the only type of speech that requires protections.

Where does it say this in the Bible?

 

[dronald]

I can’t imagine any reason why we should demand the right to be inflammatory.

Freedom.

 

[omgriley]

I can’t imagine any reason why we should demand the right to be inflammatory.

Well, I just stated a perfectly good reason, while specifying that being inflammatory is not the particular goal. In order to be able to say what I want to say without fear of being slaughtered would be a good starter.

If I told you that you cannot wear a blue t-shirt because it is offensive and I will kill you
if you wear it, 99.9% of the population would say that I’m ridiculous and crazy and that you should wear that blue shirt proudly.

Showing them some respect would help.

Based off their history of throwing gays off of buildings and cutting the heads off of children, I’d say the ball is in their court. But again, they don’t hate the civilized world because of an abstract lack of respect. They’re religious zealots driven by a warped ideology commanding them to kill for the sake of killing.

Quite honestly, if merely drawing an image of Muhammad can drive someone to kill, then they either have major insecurity issues, or they’re truly the definition of evil, in which case respect is the last thing they deserve.

Where does it say this in the Bible?

Free speech is critical part of Christianity. God blessed every man with the gift of free will, and He gave it to us so that we may use it, well, freely. When you stifle that freedom with threats of violence, it must be met with more freedom.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Do the two quoted statements say the same thing or are they saying something different. The first seems extremely harsh, whereas the second seems to be rather lenient.

My question is why you think you get to interpret what the this means and not the church which wrote it. If you study this question of no salvation outside of the church you will see that the Church has never taught that only Catholics can go to heaven. Look a little deeper than the one paragraph that you take out of context.

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[Tomdstone]

My question is why you think you get to interpret what the this means and not the church which wrote it.

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I asked a question about the statement.
How do you explain the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[Louie1983]

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I asked a question about the statement.
How do you explain the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

It was explained to you in adrifts post.

 

[benjohnson]

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I asked a question about the statement.
How do you explain the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

(my opinion)

I’m one of those people that think that Pope Eugene IV meant what he said in the strongest most possible way - the language is not ambiguous.

But so what!

Popes have said silly things - and no amount of silly thing that Popes can say will diminish the fact that in the Catholic church the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments are administered.

 

[Louie1983]

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I asked a question about the statement.
How do you explain the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Also Pope Francis might b help you in answering that question also: (I’ve borrowed these quote from another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=936097)

He is Strong on No Salvation Outside the Church

“[Do not] fall into the temptation of thinking…that we can get along without the Church, that we can save ourselves on our own… On the contrary…you cannot love God outside of the Church; you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church.” source

“It is not possible to love Christ but without the Church, to listen to Christ but not the Church, to belong to Christ but outside the Church.” source

“Consequently, one cannot understand a Christian apart from the People of God. For a Christian is not a monad, off somewhere alone. No, he belongs to a people, to the Church, so much so…that a Christian without the Church is a pure ideal, not a reality!” source

“It is an absurd dichotomy to think of living with Christ without the Church, of following Jesus outside his Church, of loving Jesus without loving the Church.” source

 

[Reuben_J]

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I asked a question about the statement.
How do you explain the declaration of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Just from the top of my head - the CCC teaching would be considered stronger than a Pope’s declaration. You should read it therefore together with the CCC which would come together with qualification, then you would get a clearer picture of the Church’s stand on this issue.

 

[chevalier]

As an American/Canadian I highly disagree with this way of thinking. If anything, the fact that this specific topic will have people trying to end what is free speech shows that more of this should be done in order to not submit to those who would harm us for such events.

If Muslims believe they can silence satire/mockery/free speech, then it is our duty to satire/mock/speek freely until they accept that. We can never back down; no one is exempt from free speech, not Christians, not Muslims, no one.

However as a Christian I agree it’s bad taste and not done in love. The winning picture however I don’t think was hateful; it was quite clever and deserved first prize, and speaks to my first point.

Well, love is more important than free speech.

 

[eddie_too]

I see these cartoons as political statements designed to point out the intolerance of some muslims. I do not see any intention to make a religious comment coming from these cartoons.

would images of karl marx merit the same comment because they might offend communists?