Vatican calls Muhammad cartoon "blasphemous"

[Reuben_J]

What is the objective of getting the public to be involved in making cartoon of a religious figure knowing that it will provoke its adherents? That question needs to be seriously asked. If one disagrees with them or their action, is not a more convincing argument could be make instead of going childish which would not benefit anyone?

The Pope’s advice is right and surprisingly there are no Christian leaders of other denominations that come strongly in condemning such action that make fun of another religion. And we ask why Muslim leaders did not speak up when their fellow members commit atrocities? When we keep silent we are not different in condoning wrong act, whether it is killing or simply blasphemous to the religion concerned.

 

[Peter_J]

DALLAS, 4. Garland, near Dallas, is not Paris and the appointment
held yesterday in the Texas town - an exhibition of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed which had expected the participation of some European politicians ultraconservative - reminds remotely initiatives “Charlie Ebdo.” To the French weekly “shows” Texas can however turn to the provocative intent, almost want to throw gasoline on the fire, and always respect the attitude necessary to get closer to the religious experience of the other. But in Dallas, as in Paris, so it is not
state. Even in the US there has been a mad and bloody reaction
armed men however had a different ending from
the French attack.
According to preliminary reports, two men in a car reached the headquarters esp osition and parking in front of the building opened fire injuring a security guard. The police responded, killing
the two bombers. A bomb squad was also called
to inspect the car for fear that there could be explosive.
It remains to verify the reliability of a claim spread by self-styled Islamic State through Twitter.

 

[Peter_J]

DALLAS, 4. Garland, near Dallas, is not Paris and the meeting held yesterday in the Texas town - an exhibition of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed which had expected the participation of some European politicians ultraconservative - reminds remotely initiatives “Charlie Ebdo.” To the French weekly “shows” Texas can however turn to the provocative intent, almost want to throw gasoline on the fire, and always respect the attitude necessary to get closer to the religious experience of the other. But in Dallas, as in Paris, so it was not. Even in the US there has been a mad and bloody reaction of armed men however had a different ending than the French attack.
According to preliminary reports, two men in a car reached the headquarters esp osition and parking in front of the building opened fire injuring a security guard. The police responded, killing the two bombers. A bomb squad was also called to inspect the car for fear that there could be explosive.
It remains to verify the reliability of a claim spread by self-styled Islamic State through Twitter.

 

[Tomdstone]

I understand that the Vatican wants us to act more ‘lovingly’ towards Islam, but why call a cartoon of a false prophet “Blasphemous”?

It’s not blasphemous; it’s Islam.

For hundreds of years Muhammad has been depicted in a not exactly pleasant light, many paintings referring to Dante’s inferno showing Muhammad in Hell.

Also, in the past Popes and Theologians have criticized Muhammad and Islam as evil, without hesitation. What has changed that the Vatican sees Muhammad depictions as blasphemous?

religionnews.com/2015/05/06/vatican-blasts-muhammad-cartoons-pouring-gasoline-fire/

When you have conference on drawing cartoons of Mohammed and you know that Islam forbids such, you are simply trying to be uncharitable and disrespectful to Islam. There are respectful ways of discussing your differences with the teachings of Islam. But drawing a cartoon of their prophet is blasphemous in their religion, and would be analogous to someone holding a conference on how many ways are there to ridicule Catholic beliefs. .
This conference is another method that Americans and others have used to ridicule religious beliefs with which they disagree.

 

[spedteacherita]

I understand that the Vatican wants us to act more ‘lovingly’ towards Islam, but why call a cartoon of a false prophet “Blasphemous”?

It’s not blasphemous; it’s Islam.

For hundreds of years Muhammad has been depicted in a not exactly pleasant light, many paintings referring to Dante’s inferno showing Muhammad in Hell.

Also, in the past Popes and Theologians have criticized Muhammad and Islam as evil, without hesitation. What has changed that the Vatican sees Muhammad depictions as blasphemous?

religionnews.com/2015/05/06/vatican-blasts-muhammad-cartoons-pouring-gasoline-fire/

I guess my perspective is why provoke the extremists? And, why purposely hurt another person by doing something - blatantly - that we, as Christians, would and should, empathize with.

 

[arthra]

Rude as it may be, I don’t think making fun of a prophet is blasphemy - Prophets are not God. If someone made fun of Elijah or Isaiah, is that blasphemous? I don’t think so, although technically I may be wrong…

You may read what happened when some children called Elisha " Bald Head"!

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
(King James Bible, 4 Kings)

 

[SAVINGRACE]

You may read what happened when some children called Elisha " Bald Head"!

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

(King James Bible, 4 Kings)

So these muslims killing those cartoonists/artists drawing pictures of Mohammed are guided by God?

 

[freeRadical]

Regardless of whether something is blasphemous or not, whether it be toward Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, the question we should ask is should blasphemy be illegal or criminalized in a free society?

 

[Estevao]

The Civiltà Cattolica used to publish antisemitic and anti-evolution positions, I see no need to get upset at some dumb article published by some paper.

What I like about this whole issue, however, is that you have liberals advocating for stifling free speech so as to not offend religious sensibilities. These same liberals are the ones who claim allegiance to the thought of the Enlightenment philosophes like Voltaire, who would be utterly ashamed to be associated with the new totalitarian PC-police left who claim him.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I hope responses which point to perceived flaws of both the Vatican and Islam, will also consider the fallen nature of the human race (including us Catholics).

Its not a matter of the precise definition of blasphemy, or the question of the truth of Islam.

On this very day, where the Gospel reading tells of Christ’s command that we love each other as he has loved us, we should be able to discern that the cartoon, or claims that Islam is “bad”, does nothing to show our obedience to Christ’s commandment.

Peace and all good!

Sure it is, but to do so without charity towards them, and our own humility, we have denied the teachings of Christ.

Peace and all good!

:clapping::yup:

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Regardless of whether something is blasphemous or not, whether it be toward Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, the question we should ask is should blasphemy be illegal or criminalized in a free society?

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Reuben_J]

Regardless of whether something is blasphemous or not, whether it be toward Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, the question we should ask is should blasphemy be illegal or criminalized in a free society?

I don’t think it should be criminalized. But these are two different issues altogether. While free speech is allowed, we, on the other hand should be accounted responsible for what we do. This does not mean that people have the right to kill us just because we disagree with them. That being said, common sense and good attitude should prevail, more so for us being Christians.

We know Muslims do not like their god or prophet to be made fun of, and they are passionate and willing to kill for that. That does not make them right, of course. But offend them on the thing that they are passionately and religiously do not like, then be prepared for the consequence, The question then, for what purpose would we do something that purposely offend others just to make a point? Would other more reasonable alternatives, like reasonable argument, serve better purpose? We would kill for an insult on our mothers not too long ago. Why would we then insult other people on something that they hold dear?

 

[Servant19]

.

…there are some truly Christian posts in this thread. I applaud some of the sentiments.

Free speech does no entertain “unabounded freedom”…as Reuben has rightly stated above, where does free speech cross the line? Insulting our mothers? Insulting our children? having a laugh at paedophilia? Encouraging sodomy?

All things have a responsibility when it comes to speech. This right has been distorted to the point of it being made almost redundant.

.

 

[arthra]

So these muslims killing those cartoonists/artists drawing pictures of Mohammed are guided by God?

Thanks for your response Saving Grace!

Read Captain Rick’s post above…that’s what I was responding to…somewhat in jest! I do believe though that many of the “cartoons” I’ve seen are in poor taste and hardly worth the effort. In my faith we don’t use images of Muhammad or Jesus or Mary in worship. We also respect works of art and don’t destroy them…

• Art

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Thanks for your response Saving Grace!

Read Captain Rick’s post above…that’s what I was responding to…somewhat in jest! I do believe though that many of the “cartoons” I’ve seen are in poor taste and hardly worth the effort. In my faith we don’t use images of Muhammad or Jesus or Mary in worship. We also respect works of art and don’t destroy them…

• Art

oops sorry for coming in left of centre. That Elisha story is very interesting though. Some believe it is literal and some believe it is figuratively speaking to illustrate the importance that God places on his chosen Prophets.

 

[Peter_J]

32 posts, but I don’t believe anyone has yet posted the actual L’Osservatore Romano article in question:

**Sparatoria in Texas a una mostra di vignette blasfeme
Benzina sul fuoco
**DALLAS, 4. Garland, nei pressi di Dallas, non è certo Parigi e l’appuntamento svoltosi ieri nella cittadina texana — un’esposizione di vignette raffiguranti il profeta Maometto alla quale era prevista la partecipazione anche di alcuni politici europei ultraconservatori — ricorda solo lontanamente le iniziative di «Charlie Ebdo». Al settimanale francese la “mostra” texana può essere però accostata per l’intento provocatorio, quasi un volere gettare benzina sul fuoco, mentre è sempre il rispetto l’atteggiamento necessario per avvicinarsi all’esperienza religiosa dell’altro. Ma a Garland, come a Parigi, così non è stato. Anche negli Stati Uniti si è registrata la folle e sanguinaria reazione di uomini armati che tuttavia ha avuto un epilogo diverso da quello dell’attentato francese. Secondo le prime ricostruzioni, due uomini a bordo di un’auto hanno raggiunto la sede dell’esposizione e dal parcheggio antistante l’edificio hanno aperto il fuoco ferendo un addetto alla sicurezza. I poliziotti hanno risposto, uccidendo i due attentatori. Una squadra di artificieri è stata inoltre chiamata per ispezionare l’auto nel timore che vi potessero essere esplosivi. Resta da verificare l’attendibilità di una rivendicazione diffusa dal sedicente Stato islamico attraverso Twitter.

(I don’t speak Italian, but thanks to Google Translate and general linguistic knowledge I was able to figure out most of it.)

 

[SyroMalankara]

.

…there are some truly Christian posts in this thread. I applaud some of the sentiments.

Free speech does no entertain “unabounded freedom”…as Reuben has rightly stated above, where does free speech cross the line? Insulting our mothers? Insulting our children? having a laugh at paedophilia? Encouraging sodomy?

All things have a responsibility when it comes to speech. This right has been distorted to the point of it being made almost redundant.

.

None of those are illegal nor restricted, none should be responded to with assassination or murder.

I can laugh at an inappropriate joke about Catholicism or my faith, even if certain people cannot, retaliation in proportion means writing or joking in response, not escalating to a physical altercation.

 

[hasantas]

…
I wouldn’t call it blasphemous. It is considered blasphemy for Muslims but not for non-muslims.

For Catholics blasphemy is speaking against God in a contemptuous, scornful, or abusive manner or committed by thought, word, or action.

Mohammed is not God, therefore it is not blasphemous for a Catholic to be contemptuous or scornful of Mohammed. It may be ill-advised and a venial sin but it is not blasphemy.

Muhammed is the way to Allah. Ofcourse Muhammed was a human but also He was the greatest prophet of God. To reject or scorn Muhammed mean to scorn God. Muhammed is recognised as divine because of His position. So it must be blasphemy for Christians too if they believe in one God. Do you ever hear a Muslim scorn Jesus?

Painting imply and suggest a kind of idolatry and idols. Islam restrict and put limits for painting. Depicting Muhammed is not allowed yet some scorn Muhammed with painting and that make Muslims very angry. Ofcourse killing is not right for that but when people think that their the most holy values are being insulted then they do not act in right way. So others must respect Muslims for their sacreds. Rejecting is not insult but scorning with painting really is not useful.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Muhammed is the way to Allah. Ofcourse Muhammed was a human but also He was the greatest prophet of God.

According to you. The majority of the world disagrees with you. So, lighten up.

To reject or scorn Muhammed mean to scorn God.

No it doesn’t.

Muhammed is recognised as divine because of His position. So it must be blasphemy for Christians too if they believe in one God.

No because Christians don’t believe your prophet is really a prophet.

Do you ever hear a Muslim scorn Jesus?

Every act of violence is scorning Jesus. Every attack on Christians is scorning Jesus. Calling your prophet divine is scorning Jesus. Still, you won’t be physically attacked because Christians can take disagreement.

Painting imply and suggest a kind of idolatry and idols.

That’s only one potential kind of idolatry. Painting doesn’t imply idolatry unless the image is considered equal to the Divine. You stated your prophet is ‘recognized as divine’ by you, that is idolatry whether or not you depict him. Violent reaction is another kind of idolatry.

Islam restrict and put limits for painting. Depicting Muhammed is not allowed yet some scorn Muhammed with painting and that make Muslims very angry.

Some Muslims. Many don’t mind. Others don’t care.

Ofcourse killing is not right for that but when people think that their the most holy values are being insulted then they do not act in right way. So others must respect Muslims for their sacreds. Rejecting is not insult but scorning with painting really is not useful.

Muhammad has been depicted - by Muslims and others - in the past, this idea against depiction is recent and from a few fundamentalist schools. The idea of retaliation against depiction is ridiculous.
Anyone who feels the need to kill because they feel insulted is spiritually and mentally handicapped. They are scorning their own religion and insulting all the prophets. They should consider violence on themselves before even considering touching the hair on anyone else.

 

[Rohzek]

I honestly don’t care if it is blasphemy. Free speech is free speech. Lots of people worry about being “responsible” with it. Well, that’s in the eye of the beholder really. This isn’t to say that we can’t judge speech as responsible/irresponsible. Nevertheless, whatever status the speech might fall into, it is really besides the point. It only means listener has missed the meaning of the message.

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” - Salman Rushdie

Maybe the Vatican is encouraging us to follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The cartoons are blasphemous to Muslims, not to us as Catholics, but we should respect their beliefs, even though some of them do not respect ours. Antagonizing followers of Islam serves no good purpose, and it does not in any way seem Christ-like to me.

I actually welcome people to mock my faith. If they believe my faith is a joke, and have a witty way of trying to point that out to me, then I really wish they would try to inform me. The result can be two things: 1.) They prove me wrong, and so I thank them for showing me the truth. Or 2.) They fail miserably, and my faith is strengthened through critical thinking.