Friday, 27th November 2009
Hypocritical attitude over crucifix stance
I very rarely watch Xarabank - it has all the right ingredients for a top show but it invariably ends up with Peppi Azzopardi losing control and the panel end up talking and arguing in a cacophony of degrading behaviour.
I did, however, tune in to last Friday's Xarabank when the recent European Court of Human Rights decision on the crucifix in an Italian school was discussed. Apart from the atheist and the priest holding tightly to a crucifix, while at the same time insisting it should not be hung in public places, the majority of the panel and audience - and it seems from the letters pages in the media, the majority of Maltese - vehemently oppose the ECRH ruling, stating this is a Catholic island and the crucifix is an integral part of our life.
My immediate reaction to this? What hypocrites we all are! We call ourselves Catholics; we defend the hanging of the crucifix in public places...
...then you simply can't walk anywhere in public without hearing someone interspersing his speech with a string of profanities, denigrating God and the Blessed Virgin.
Legend says St Paul "washed" the venom from Maltese snakes...too bad he did not wash our tongues as well!
RSS
Comments
If, as you say, belonging to the majority does not mean anything, how much less meaningful is it to belong to a minority! Democracy, which in practice means rule by the majority with respect for the rights of minorities, is generally accepted as the least objectionable of all forms of government. Have you any better ideas?
I am used to be called intolerant whenever an opponent loses an argument and when he is reduced to personal insults e.g. hypocrite. It gives me great satisfaction.
And btw, being part of the majority means nothing. The majority don't want to pay taxes. And many majority issues in the past led to the extinction of entire civilizations and killing innocent people. I tell you: "A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows public opinion."
Your intolerance leads to hypocrisy, that simple! Because it contrast to what you actually believe in. You won't find this in the dictionary but I can try to draw it for you if you want.
A bare wall does not mean atheism. You can look for "neutral" in the dictionary!
Please read my comment carefully before venturing to reply. You would then realize that the “majority” to which I belong is the one that insists that we do NOT REMOVE the crucifix from our public life. This active removal of the crucifix, and its substitution by a blank wall, would be a conscious move away from the public profession of our official Catholic faith and culture in the direction of subservience to the demand of a noisy minority of atheists. It is only a figment of your imagination that I said that EVERY place without a displayed crucifix is a symbol of atheism. Some hope!
Don't invent new meanings for "hypocrisy" - stick to the dictionary definition. When I criticise it does NOT mean that I am intolerant and "hypocrisy" is NOT synonymous with "intolerance". Use words properly.
The removal of a crucifix that is already there, and insisting that a wall be kept bare of all religious symbols, as you are desiring, is nothing else but the imposition of atheistic belief and symbolism.
If you consider every place without a crucifix on display to be displaying the symbol of atheism, then you are definitely in the minority and not the majority, as you so much like to brag about (almost as if trying to convince yourself).
A bit of objectivity would be nice. A place devoid of any religious symbol is indeed that....no religion is being represented, which is the way it should be for non-religious public places.
If you need a crucifix on display to remind you of what religion you practice, then further comment would be unnecessary.
Because it's been there for a long time doesn't mean it's good. Then swear because swearing has become Maltese culture as well.
Hypocritical attitude simply because by your behaviour you're being intolerant, which contrasts to what you believe in (accept everybody). Oh no worries, I don't blame you. Not even your leader Ratzinger accepts everybody since he declared that only catholicism leads to salvation, and that gays are a treat to the human race as much as the destruction of rain forests to Earth
Please learn the meaning of “hypocritical attitude” and only then will you be able to comment logically. I am one of the majority of Maltese citizens that have expressed opposition to the REMOVAL of the crucifix from our public places. I have never said anything different and I have not said one thing and then acted differently. Therefore I am not one of those with a hypocritical attitude. Neither do I feel any need to ask you “Why does it bother you?” Removing the crucifix from where it has always been within living memory actually means removing the symbol of the official religion of Malta and replacing it by a nihilistic void, the symbol of that quaint “religion” called atheism.
As if anyone who has not commented on the crucifix issue or is a non cathloic cannot be a hypocrit or swear just even more. Live and let people discuss and air their views-without judging them on their creed or vices.
every Maltese in Malta reads and realizes that the Holy Cross (Crucifix) is not something we can redifine as that of same-sex marriage is not a civil right issue. Is not about 'abortion, it's about the crucifizion of Jesus Christ on the cross. It is about what is right and what is wrong. May God be with you Father Mark Montebello.
As i am one always willing to learn can you please quote Acts 31:18 as my bible only reaches to Acts 28.
Too bad their brains weren't washed either!
Where is Acts 31:18? Three new chapters....?
Secondly. Mr. Aquilina St, John's assertion of hypocrisy implies that who uphold the hanging of the Crucifix are the same people who blaspheme. The implication is gratuitous.
If you're one of those who agrees that it should be hung in public places then you're one of them, cause you want to make this country your (catholic) own. This country belongs to me as much as to you. Do what you want at home and in your private places, I'm not visiting there. But public is for everyone. And please don't ask "Why does it bother you?" It's better to have a plain wall than a symbol for every religion
We are living in bad times, when Church and State are hand in hand, colluding with each other in hypocrisy!
"What I object to is his last sentence ...... "too bad he did not wash OUR tongues as well!"".
You needn't object. He is being as generic as when we say something such as "The Maltese are a generous nation" when we know that some Maltese people are definitely not generous at all.
That he was being generic is evinced by the fact that he used the word "our", which if taken literally, would include him. Now, if he were one who utters profanities, he wouldn't be complaining about it, would he?
You would be wrong. I have at least five such people at my workplace. Of course, this is not to say that all the people who protested utter blasphemies and obscenities. But then again, Joe Aquilina-St John never said this, did he?
You cannot accuse those who protest that the crucufix should be retained on classroom walls to have a "hypocritical attitude" unless you have some proof that they are the same people who utter blasphemies and obscenities. Quite frankly I do not think that they are the same people at all.
No problem with his own opinion. What I object to is his last sentence ...... "too bad he did not wash OUR tongues as well!" Some people's tongues don't need washing.
He IS speaking for himself. He is giving his own opinion. Is there a problem with that?
"......too bad he did not wash OUR tongues as well!"
Speak for yourself please!
A wooden cross doesn't do a difference. The deference is in its carrier.