Humanists and gay rights activists deplore statements by religious leaders
The views on marriage and sexuality expressed by the Catholic and Muslim leaders in Malta during a conference yesterday suggested a ‘marriage of convenience’ between the country's two largest religious denominations to propagate inherently flawed beliefs, the Malta Humanist Association and the Malta Gay Rights Movement said in a joint statement.
The MHA and the MGRM said they were all in favour of inter-cultural dialogue, but from a humanist perspective, it was alarming that such influential institutions should use their combined strength to prevent couples of the same gender from marrying, simply because of an ancient myth about a man, a woman and a talking snake.
They said that quotes attributed to Arbishop Paul Cremona and Ammar Hreba, the head of the Islamic Centres and Propagation Bureau, suggested that the local Catholic and Muslim community leaders inclined towards a literal interpretation of the creation myth from their respective scriptures.
"The Malta Humanist Association - being an organisation rooted in the principles of science and rationality – cannot but reject interpretations which disregard all scientific knowledge on the subject of humanity’s origins: especially when such distortions are used for political ends, in order to influence legislation that affects the private lives of thousands of people," the statement said.
It said it was also regrettable that religious leaders (Mr Hreba in particular) would resort to such alarmist language with regard to same-sex unions.
The MHA and MGRM both strongly deplore such language which they said was an example of hate speech, and urged Mr Hreba to retract his statement on the family and same sex marriage and apologise for the hurt caused to thousands of Maltese citizens currently in same-sex relationships.
Mr Hreba said yesterday: "If we let the family collapse, thanks to the negative directions of the media, this will lead to catastrophes and destruction. Same-sex marriages, for instance, destroy the entity of how family began with Adam and Eve."
The Malta Gay Rights Movement further held that same-sex marriage was no more a threat to heterosexual couples and straight families than space exploration or deep sea diving.
"It is regrettable that the focus should be on same-sex marriage, rather than on the real threat to families of all shapes and sizes, that is: poverty, poor parenting, inadequate housing, low educational aspirations and attainment; poor mental health, child abuse, domestic violence and unemployment, among others," it said.
The Malta Humanist Association found it strange that the Church would cite only ‘divorce’ and ‘polygamy’ as examples of areas where it disagreed with Islam.
"One would have thought the Church founded by Christ would also object - as Christ did - to the death penalty for adultery (which Sharia law applies only in the case of women), as well as for atheism and apostasy - a state of fact which flies in the face of decency, and also blatantly breaches fundamental human rights."
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
108 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Andrew Farrugia
Jul 1st 2010, 10:46
@ XUEREB
Salvator and el gringo exist and how. And "with a little help from my friends" plus our own choice S/He will save us both and millions of others. Take my word. I know you won't , but what can i do? Dare i mention the word? Pr....
Joe Xuereb
Jun 30th 2010, 22:05
As I was saying, if you're at all concerned with how you feel, consult a specialist in the discipline.
2) Instead, they prefer to shift the goal-posts and any serious discussion just flounders and goes on forever getting nowhere. It is tedious. And does not say much for the circuitous commenter. As I said before, if you're at all concerned with how you feel, consult a consultant. Keeping in mind that, at the end of the day, you believe in tooth-fairies and I don't. We can only agree to disagree. And good luck to both of us. You first Vayo con dios indeed Farrugia. Y yo con el diablo. My 'companero' doesn't exist. Yours does, apparently. Oh well!! Don't forget now, never the twain shall meet. Each to his own. On his own. Terrible predicament I know. A real drag (nothing to do with cross-dressing,incidentally). But what choice have we got Andrew? What choice have we got?
Joe Xuereb
Jun 30th 2010, 21:44
1) @Farrugia. Charming? Me? Sometimes. But never a charmer? I don't manipulate and have an aversion to being wielded (unless it's between the sheets). YOU on the other hand, were charming when you gave me leeway to decide: '@XUEREB
Let me see if you agree with my mind-blowing discovery: ONE of us, either you or me, is STARK, STARING, RAVING, MAD: i will give you the benefit of having the first attempt at the lucky bag. Cheers'. First of all the word mad is a throwaway meaningless street word, nobody who takes mental health seriously would use it. Secondly, I am nor responsible with how you feel/see yourself. I don't deserve the honour, or the burden, to diagnose anybody by proxy, over such a delicate matter. Especially when 'never the twain shall meet' (which is meaningless out of context). I can say however, that you're an expert at doing 'out of context'. I've noticed it's a Maltese tactic never to respond to reasoned parts of a comment. Instead, they prefer to shift the goal-posts and any serious discussion just flounders and goes on forever getting nowhere. It is tedious. And does not say much for the circuitous commenter.
continued
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 30th 2010, 00:05
@XUEREB
You are ever so charming; but i am afraid i have to decline your generous offer. You know, that thingy you once said, if memory serves me well , "never the twain shall meet" (?). Adios.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 29th 2010, 21:26
@ Farrugia. You've been doing the rounds of agony-aunts have you? and you found them wanting. Are there any agony-aunts in Malta that don't use the bible as a text-book? No wonder you're still looking. You could consult one in London. I could recommend hundreds.
But be warned. They set the parameters pretty quickly. They'll ask and if you have any strong religious beliefs they'll suggest you put those to the side, otherwise there is no point in proceeding. Talking therapies are based on reason and quite a lot of science. And as you probably know, religion and science (and reason) are incompatible. Still interested Andrew?
Or you may prefer an agony-uncle? Some pious men are shy exposing themselves to a woman.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 28th 2010, 10:49
@LPeterson
Your questions are based on the deliberately created fallacy that it is the Church that legislates about “gay marriage” and associated pretended rights. You know that is not true. Our parliamentarians legislate according to their convictions and they are mature enough to form an intelligent opinion after listening to what the voters expect from them and what they had promised the electors. The anti-Church lobbies - in their various guises as abortionists, pro-divorce people, atheists, secularists, gays, humanists etc resent the Church’s right and duty to teach and the effect of this teaching on the electorate. If they had their way they would muzzle the Catholic Church and unashamedly discriminate against it by selectively depriving it of the general right to the freedom of expression.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 27th 2010, 22:36
@ XUEREB
And i suppose your "rambling incoherence is useful" (your words not mine)! Well, please yourself, but i have no time for third rate agony aunts.
L. Petersen
Jun 27th 2010, 22:16
I would like to repeat a question that none of those opposed to gay marriage has answered yet. Could anyone tell me exactly why people who disagree with your religion should not have the same rights as you? And do you feel it's fair that your religious dogmas should be the basis of laws influencing people's life in such a substantial way?
My original question was: Imagine a purely secular ceremony that has nothing to do with the church but gives homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples (particulars like child adoption can be discussed). How would this threaten the church or marriage as an institution? How could it bother any Catholics? It would have nothing to do with their church, and Catholics wouldn't have to change their ceremonies, beliefs, way of life or anything else.
The Catholic church has a right to refuse to marry gay/lesbian couples, but why would Catholics want to force their dogmas on a minority who disagrees with it, when what they want to do in no way interferes with their own rights?
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 27th 2010, 21:43
@JosephSchembri
A homosexual child born uncontrollably to a heterosexual couple is not the same as deliberately transplanting a child into the unnatural environment of a practicing homosexual couple.
What I do to my patients is none of your business. Speaking generally I would never advice a homosexual to cheat a prospective spouse by undertaking a heterosexual marriage. I do not accept your allegation that that is “one of the gravest sins of Christian Theology’. Such a marriage may not even be valid if deception or non-consummation are involved.
The gospels are not intended to be a complete, exhaustive biography of Christ. They record items selected by the authors from many others and chosen to meet the special needs of a particular audience of that time – that is why they differ in emphasis for example whether intended for a Jewish (Matthew) or a gentile (Luke) audience. In Christ’s Jewish audience homosexuality was universally abhorred and condemned. There would be no need for evangelists to record his utterances (if any). Do not misinterpret dishonestly this absence of any reference to homosexuality as any distorted proof of Christ’s approval of that practice.
charles caruana
Jun 27th 2010, 20:58
cont./
So you take Hitler at his word do you? And his Mein Kampf as Gospel truth no doubt? And maybe you even believe his claim of being inspired by the Almighty Creator? Now THAT is an unusual dumb argument.
You are so scientifically minded that you assume I’m a Creationist without proof. So they have unearthed another missing link, have they? Good, one less in the infinity that is missing. Perhaps the bone fragment of a reptile on his way to evolving into a talking snake.
If you noticed I put the word rational in inverted commas. You did not even grasp my reference to Scientific naturalism and materialism. I won’t spoon feed. Ignorance is bliss.
Atheist reading of such Biblical ‘fairytales’ as that of the talking snakes are as literal and fundamentalist as that of any Bible-belt preacher. You are mirror images of each other. Your ‘rational’ mind can’t even begin to fathom the deep truths contained in children’s fairytales, much less those of the Bible
Mr Abbot, I won’t waste more time arguing with someone who is as blind as a bat about the value of ‘fairytales’.
charles caruana
Jun 27th 2010, 20:53
@Mike F Abbot
Prolixity and verbosity cannot make up for evasive answers and weak arguments.
My first point was an answer to your atheist crony Mr Cardona and his blasphemous fairytales which, official or not, many atheists indulge in. For people who don’t believe in the existence of God, you spend an awful lot of time and energy trying to convince us of his non existence. In fact, you’re fairly obsessed with Him.
So ‘Atheism is not a belief’ – try telling that to your High Priests, Dawkins and company, who grow rich by spreading their atheist creed with a missionary fervour that puts to shame even a St Paul. You, their minor acolytes, simply parrot their ‘good news’ on these blogs.
So Stalin and Mao did not act in the Name of Atheism? That is your unfounded claim? You see, while you play at being atheist, theirs was for real. That is why I take them more seriously than I take you.
cont./
Joe Xuereb
Jun 27th 2010, 19:52
3) Do not allow inadequate heterosexuals project their insecurities onto you. Not ever!
Please note: Make allowance for any mistakes of any kind in the script. I am a man of convictions who inherits them from the earth he walks. I think, I type, I submit. This is not an essay in some exam. I am not here to prove my prowess in English (although I write a mean text, errors and all. Certainly, I do not try to impress with Latinisms - so 1950s. But then, Malta is static. Anybody who finds my writing 'a rambling incoherence' - unto you I say, why don't YOU ramble. But pl. make sure you have something useful to say. Something that would truly educate us.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 27th 2010, 19:45
2) I was saying. To homosexuals anywhere. You must never, EVER, say: 'I didn't ask to be homosexual'. In Malta that is said with an apologetic tone of voice (What Maltese lacks in vocababulary it makes up in gestures, anguished facial expressions, tone of voice, etc.). What little we have by way of vocab. we are killing off. The apologetic tone, however, still persists (shades of an inferiority complex generally?). So, you musn't, by any means, sound like you are apologising for your homosexuality, like some minor - or major - catastrophe has befallen you. If your 'attacker' pulls you down saying that, as a homosexual, you don't contribute children. Well, in that sense, most straight people seem to have them (the kids) by accident rather than design. In any case, if anybody is worried about a low-birth rate, they should go ahead and rectify the problem. It has nothing to do with you as a homosexual. You have been freed of that responsibility. Do not allow inadequate heterosexuals project their insecurities onto you. Not ever!
continue
Joe Xuereb
Jun 27th 2010, 19:37
1) C.Camilleri, are you there? I have a message for everyone. Particularly, to my homosexual brother and sisters (see that this week it's 'gay' is the whipping-boy week).
First it was divorce, than failing marriage, than its cause, gay marriage, then, ironically, a marriage not made in heaven - which caused some ripples but not as far as our dozing parliamentarians. Then came the outrage at Humanists (as in, how dare they see themselves as special, we're all human. Oh dear!). This last was lateral-thinking at its most subline, if banal. What I'm getting at is, the Maltese seem to have a deficient attention-span, they are fickle according to taste. Oops!
continue
Joseph Schembri
Jun 27th 2010, 19:34
Dr Francis Saliba: In your experience as a family doctor have you never met heterosexual parents who spoke to you about their homosexual child? I hope that you did not give them the advice (I am quoting you here) of "planting an innocent child into an abnormal homosexual environment.".
What did you do in such cases. Did you do as one doctor I know did? He told someone I know to suppress his homosexual tendencies find a nice girl and marry. People like him are what drive some homosexuals to committing suicide - which according to Christian Theology is one of the gravest sins.
And by the way you did not mention ONE instance where Jesus said anything about homosexuality because there is none. Insyead you Quote John wheer he said that Jesus said many things. Did he talk about the flying teapot orbiting the solar system too? (I am not being facetious this is an argument that Prof Richard Dawkins has used)
John Azzopardi
Jun 27th 2010, 18:14
Let people be whoever they want to be. If one is homosexual, you think he wanted to be taht way. Homosexuality is a way of life the same way heterosexuality if a way of life. At the end of the day, we are all God's children. Just a quick comment. I would have thought that the good old doctor Mr. Saliba will be more understanding.
Dr FRancis Saliba
Jun 27th 2010, 19:41
Be specific. I admit that I do not promote homosexuality but where did I show lack of understanding?
Joe Xuereb
Jun 27th 2010, 17:48
2) I digress (I do tend to ramble, I know. But I don't feel bad about that - at least my cards are on the table). I was saying, whatever the direction of your sexual compass, you are as much as saying that it has no primary role in you life. Fair enough. Some people collect milk-tops, or shoot birds dead. BUT, seeing that our all-important, all-embracing god-given drives are god-given, if they are going to the back burner, I think they could be replaced by something equally god-given. It's only fair to the god. And this from someone who agrees that sexual expression - as opposed to sexual drive - should not be primary in one's life. I have found a satisfying, life-enhancing, substitute. What anyone else does, having decided they cannot hack their g0d-given urges, that is their business. I have my own demons to fight.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 27th 2010, 17:45
1)To one Charles Caruana.
So atheists' fairytales are stale? These fairytales are unravelling every day, ever dewey-fresh. The millennial ones are ever fossilised. It is the nature of the beast.
Somewhere here Charles, you chastised a homosexual (I can't be bothered to look for it but my memory is pretty photographic) for allowing his homosexuality to take over his life. Some/many heterosexuals, practising Catholics/hypocrites, do just that too but that is no concern of mine. Any more than priests' sexual orientation is (but having said that, in my youth I had 5 or 6 homos in my clique who'd been through the seminary, couldn't hack it and left. And lived a life. I understand that x decades later, the priesthood is still seen as some kind of refuge by many - well, not so many. It's not a viable career. Not in 2010, post 9/11 and porno available at the touch of a button).
continued
Joseph Schembri
Jun 27th 2010, 17:36
Dr Francis Saliba: you comments verge on the deeply offensive. As a Christian you should watch your words. Not that it matters to me but can you quote ONE single instant where Jesus said anything about homosexuality? Please don't quote anyone else just Jesus Christ - seeing that you are a CHRISTian.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 27th 2010, 18:09
@JosephSchembri
Because you feel frustratingly unable to answer my comment that does not make my comment "verging on the deeply offensive". What is actually offensive is your suggestion that I am not a Christian because I do not share your enthusiasm for planting an innocent child into an abnormal homosexual environment.
A Christian is someone who follows the teaching of Christ as spread by the apostolic church He instituted with the specific intention to spread his gospel. The gospel according to John clearly states that Christ did many other things and that it was not possible for everything that he did or taught to recorded in the written gospels. That is why true Christians need to follow the teaching of the Church - not that of any homosexual lobby.
martina salerno
Jun 27th 2010, 16:42
@ Dr. Fancis Saliba
So how do you explain the fact that so many children who are brought up by heterosexual couples are gay?
If you'd rather have one more child living in misery rather than in a happy safe home with 2 dads who are in a stable relationship, I suppose you have no idea what it's like to grow up in a difficult environment. So maybe you should not jump to such quick conclusions.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 27th 2010, 17:27
This is not the place to discuss the relative importance of inheritance versus environment in the causation of homosexuality. It should be obvious that bringing up a normal child in a homosexual environment is asking for trouble unnecessarily.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 27th 2010, 15:29
@ Mike F Abbot
I do not know you sufficiently well to tell you what i do when i am bored; however, i am sure YOU will not approve of my methods.
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 18:00
no interest in your methods of keeping yourself occupied. merely suggesting you keep up your amusing commenting.
Steve Pace
Jun 27th 2010, 13:30
The next conference will be held soon.
The Catholic church will accept that Mohammed was a prohet sent from God.
In response and 'buona volonta' the muslim society will declare the pope to be the rightful leader of both religions and will accept that stoning people to death is no longer acceptable.
It will be up to the Jewish commmunity to hold one other meeting in co-ordination with the muslim and catholic church . During this meeting the Jews will apologise for crucifiying our Lord Jesus Christ and accept that the Son of God came 2000 earlier than they thought.
In return, the catholic church will accept that Jerusalem belongs to the jews and the muslims will accept that jews will be the governing the whole of Jerusalem and that Palestinians should find somewhere else to reside.
This meeting will be held close to the next Maltese Election when the Maltese catholic church will need all the support it can find to shoot down all proposals of divorce , cohabitation laws and any other legislation in favour of the gay community
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 27th 2010, 16:24
@Steve Pace.
Please make another prophecy.
When will all the religions of the world accept YOU as their latest prophet to end all prophets?
Steve Pace
Jun 28th 2010, 11:57
What ? steal the spotlight on main stage from you ? no . i would not dare .
Joseph Schembri
Jun 27th 2010, 12:54
Recently a gay friend put this argument forward for me. "I have been in a loving relationship with another man for 2 decades. We are financially well off and we would like to have children. Why can't we adopt a little girl or boy who came to Malta illegally but can't be sent back? We will raise her in a stable loving environment and provide her with the best education and health care in Europe."
I must admit that his arguments are hard to refute. The only other option for the child is to waste away in some refugee camp, be traficked, abused .. etc.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 27th 2010, 15:39
There is a real danger that a child who would have grown and developed as a heterosexual would be induced to become a homosexually oriented individual for the sole reason of having been brought up in that environment.
Joseph Schembri
Jun 27th 2010, 17:33
By your argument there should be no homosexuals on earth because all homosexuals are products of heterosexual unions. Meanwhile what is wrong in being homosexual? As a medical doctor I hope that you do not subscribe to the belief that children can be induced to become homosexual.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 27th 2010, 12:43
@RaphaelVassallo
If “tyranny can come from a misguided majority" a much worse tyranny would result if a minority, just as misguided, insists that its minority interest should prevail over the will of the majority. Is that your version of democracy as a safeguard against tyranny?
Steve Pace
Jun 27th 2010, 16:20
" that its minority interest should prevail over the will of the majority. "
In what way ? perhaps by forcing the majority to change from heterosexual to homosexual ?
Joseph Schembri
Jun 27th 2010, 12:23
Is this Ammar Hreba by any chance a Maltese Catholic who turned Moslem? I happen to know the man who usually accompanies the Imam. I remember him as 'Mario'. If he has changed his name and religion that is his concern and not mine. What is my concern is that in Islam the penalty for apostasy (leaving Islam for atheism, agnostisism or Chritianity ) is DEATH.
I am deeply concerned that the archbishop of Malta should be seen colluding with such people.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 27th 2010, 10:39
@ Andrew Farrugia
You remind me so much of Don Quixote!
@ Joe Zammit
Try and be a little less sex-obsessed and kinder to your fellow man (or woman).
@everyone else
Can you imagine a racist country like Malta adopting Muslim mores? The Archbishop has made the greatest mistake of his life by participating in this travesty of pseudo-ecumenism. The humanists will reject him. The moderates will reject him. The gays, within and without the church will reject him and then, ironiy of ironies, the Muslims will betray him.What a disappointment this archbishop is proving to be. The church has become full of people with whom, given the choice, I would not ever socialise with for one minute! If these are the kind of people I am supposed to share heaven with I really dont know why I'm bothering as I will definitely die of boredom as have probably God and the rest of the heavenly shebang of angels and saints who have, if they know what is right for them, emigrated to another stratosphere full of laughter and happiness and above all Love leaving us wallowing in the squalor and anguish of our man-made predjudices.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 26th 2010, 15:42
Drop it! Shut up! End of argument! If you persist i will crush you beneath my superior nous!
And we speak of rudeness! But we are at times surprised by the freshness of those who share our ideology. It does irk some people that specimens like myself will, God willing, still hang around by the flimsiest of threads of course.
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 26th 2010, 16:21
Oh, get a grip, will you? Honestly, I've haven't seen so much melodrama since being forced to sit through endless episodes of 'Quando Si Ama' at lunch with my late grandmother...
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 09:51
go on Andrew Farrugia, say something else. I'm bored.
L. Petersen
Jun 26th 2010, 15:09
First of all, it's great to see that Malta now has a Humanist association as a counterweight to the dominant Catholic majority.
Catholics have every right to follow their belief, but the explicit or implicit idea that since they constitute a majority, all others will have to follow laws based on their religious dogmas has to be challenged continuously.
With regards to gay/lesbian marriages: Imagine a purely secular ceremony that has nothing to do with the church but gives the couples the same rights as homosexual couples (particulars like child adoption can be discussed). How would this threaten the church or marriage as in institution? How could it bother any Catholics? It would have nothing to do with their church, and Catholics wouldn't have to change their ceremonies, beliefs, way of life or anything else.
The Catholic church has a right to refuse to marry gay/lesbian couples, but why would Catholics want to force their dogmas on a minority who disagrees with it, when what they want to do in no way interferes with their own rights? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 26th 2010, 15:27
How very well and elegantly put.
And what a refreshing change, to see that some people don't feel the need to begrudge others the space to live their lives as they deem fit.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 26th 2010, 14:46
So much for all the waffle about being "products of the same natural process of evolution". But then i suppose at some stage our paths diverged, you proceeded to become Homo super sapiens and poor me remained firmly fossilised in the Pithecanthropus stage. Not fair, I say.
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 26th 2010, 15:11
Don't flatter yourself, Mr Farrugia. You are not a separate species. You are just another variation of Homo sapiens sapiens, alongside around 7 billion others.
There is, in fact, nothing unique about you whatsoever... except the precise configuration of your own genetic code, which happens to be unique for everybody (except identical twins).
So whether you like or not, the differences that exist between individuals in terms of physical build, skin colour, intellectual ability, etc., are all necessary agents of the same evolutionary process that produced humanity to begin with (along, of course, with billions of other life forms).
I would invite you to consider the implications, but then again, if I spell them out bluntly enough I might be interpreted as being rude. So let's just drop it, shall we?
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 26th 2010, 14:16
And i suppose you are in a position to supply both the lecturing as well as the crash-course!
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 26th 2010, 14:29
No, thanks. The challenge would be altogether too daunting for little me...
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 26th 2010, 13:40
Great news! We have just discovered that DITCHKENS lives in Malta and is the appointed spokesperson of a new movement which would also like to lecture us country bumpkins about semantics and philosophy.
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 26th 2010, 13:58
To be honest, you could use some lecturing in both those subjects... not to mention a basic crash-course in manners.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 26th 2010, 13:26
They're out in force, claiming homosexuality - never mind gay marriages - threatens christian marriage. A marriage still on honeymoon, but already on the rocks of Malta, not one made in heaven exactly, see disagreement on nuptial (dis)agreements - this does not threaten christian marriage? But the ultra bright infantiles, their attention span is so deficient by indoctrination, nothing to do with toddlerhoodl. Already they see the threat of mixed marriage as something distant, a distant thunder, of yesteryear. They love the limelight and so they are back, bashing - wrongly as it happens - Humanist, Humane, Humans. Reducing humanist to just your ordinary Joe, just because he's human. Lateral-thing anybody?! And these are intelligent people. But they are indoctrinated to remain infantile, you see! I wonder what their word of choice will be tomorrow? Malta is a nation of contrasts, yells bells and smells, but like the honey-bee, the Maltese is fickle. He's only consistent with his blind belief. Outside that box, he is as lost as the sapphire that went down with the Titanic. Oh what a gay day! I think today is London Gay Pride weekend. Must check it out.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 26th 2010, 12:27
Slowly but surely, this is what's happening. This is what Cremona should be attending seminars about. Because the threat to marriage, in our case, the uniquely Christian one is indeed threatened by trends elsewhere. Andrew Debono, do you still that Malta spins on an axle all of its own? Unaffected by any other? I think men and women should get together, get married if that's their thing, and make babies. As you say whoa! Debono, nobody is stopping anybody. And make sure you yourself jump on the prolific bandwagon.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23848740-immigration-is-key-factor-in-britains-population-rise.do
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 26th 2010, 10:59
The same kinds of people, with the same kinds of ideology and the same kind of agenda, keep hijacking WORDS and altering their meaning, ACTIVIST, PACIFIST, CIVIL, STRAIGHT, GAY, - the latest one is HUMANIST. The implication is that only they have particular qualities to the complete exclusion of others. The Malta Humanist Association; as if other people organisations are not "human or humane". What utter bilge! Similar to calling a political party "Democratic Party"; as if they have exclusive rights to being democratic. But then we also happen to have the DPRK - Democratic People's Republic of Korea (ie North Korea) - which is probably the closest thing to hell on this planet. Such creativity and freedom with words!
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 26th 2010, 13:01
'Humanism' is not synonymous with either 'human' or 'numane' (two words which incidentally have very different meanings).
Humanism departs from the premise that the natural world is a self-contained phenomenon which exists independently of any notions of divine will, and therefore requires no supernatural explanation whatsoever.
What unites humans of all races and variations is their common heritage as products of the same natural process of evolution. Our view holds that concepts apparently unique to humans - for instance, right and wrong - are not bequeathed to us by divine agents, but are the natural consequences of evolutionary directions taken by Man in his physical and mental development over the aeons.
Humanism embraces a positive ethical outlook, and this becomes possible by eliminating prejudice based on (among others) the ideological conditioning of superstitious beliefs.
For more about humanism in general, visit www.maltahumanist,org, www.iheu,org, www.humanism.org.uk
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 26th 2010, 14:57
@RaphaelVassallo
Un/Paid Advertisement?
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 26th 2010, 16:40
Dr Saliba, I don't know what you're trying to insinuate with that comment, but for your information I happen to be the PRO of the Malta Humanist Association.... and no, it is not a paid position. If you bothered looking up the website you would have found this information in the 'who we are' section.
C.Busuttil
Jun 27th 2010, 00:26
@Raphael Vassallo
The band club of my locality has thirty/forty/fifty times the members of the Malta Humanist Association which could be compared actually to the Malta Communist Party, that is a non entity.
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 09:48
C.Busuttil
What has that got to do with anything? what a ridiculous statement to make. Your band club is 50 times bigger therefore what? Your band club is fifty times more right about something.. or maybe 50 times better? nicer? stupider? what exactly? grow up.
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 27th 2010, 11:09
C.Busutil, you have put your finger on the very crux of the matter. This is not about numbers. It's about rights. African Americans account for only 13.5% of the US population. So according to your argument they had no business campaigning for civil rights inthe 1960s. The same could be said for practically any minority concern.
People in this country have been raised on the mistaken assumption that democracy is only about majority rule. This is false. Democracy is a safeguard against tyranny - and tyranny can come from a misguided majority as much as from a demented dictator.
Joseph Cilia
Jun 26th 2010, 07:10
In response to Jesmond Micallef's statement, same sex marriage is obviously different from heterosexual marriage because to start off with one is with members of the same sex and the other is not, however, one should not pontificate about something he does not understand, and you can understand it only if you are affected personally by it.
Only one thing stands in these arguments, being different does not make one person lesser or higher than another, so legally we should be allowed to get married with whom we lked because we are Maltese Citizens just like straight people with nothing less or more.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 26th 2010, 06:21
What ridiculous politically "correct" (i.e. deliberately misleading) terminology.
"Humanists" who are no more/less human than anybody else.
"Gay" people who are no more/less gay than anybody else.
Obfuscate the terminology so as to obfuscate the thought process!
Joe Zammit
Jun 26th 2010, 03:23
Par. 2359 of the Catholic Church declares:
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
Homosexuals, leave your sinful and miserable life, convert and lead a chaste life which pleases God. Many homosexuals before you have taken this positive and beneficial step.
Joseph Cilia
Jun 26th 2010, 13:46
May I ask Mr. Zammit one question? What sense would it make to quote the Cathecism of the Catholic Church on such an argument? clearly he Church should not even have a say in this matter as it is Legal marriage gay people are after and not the silly idea of a Christian marriage. Add to this, personally I do not beileve in the Catholic Church so what difference would quoting it to me make?
Another point is that stating that homosexuals were made to live a life of chastity - i.e. to live a single life - is just the same as saying black people should be shot in the streets just because they are black or the same as forcing millions of jews to live in concentration camps. People why don't you get it? We have arigt to love who we like, so just mind your own business!!
J.Xuereb
Jun 27th 2010, 01:27
these words remind me of your medieval church!!! Just mind your business please!!!!
Joe Zammit
Jun 26th 2010, 03:13
The Catholic Church loves all people, including those who commit homosexual sins and she loves them to the extent of helping them to come out of their miserable life into a life of grace. Those who love homosexuals want them to convert from their sinful life. Those who hate them encourage them to continue in their miserable and sinful life.
Homosexuality is not a right. So gay rights movement is just smoke!
david camilleri
Jun 26th 2010, 12:09
@ Dr francis saliba and @ joe zammit...
would you say that a true statement is true in virtue of its meaning?
i.e. thou shall not kill...is this true in itself? or is it true because god said it is true?
please tell me why a person needs to worship god...if god exists, and if god said such great things; why does god need to be worshiped?
and god being a benevolent and perfect god. why would god need to command humans to worship their deity?
are you so immature that you cannot judge what is good for yourself? you need to think god is always judging you? doesnt it get tiring trying to win daddy's approval all the time?
is this why you need marys unconditional love?; to make you feel better for being a sinner in daddy's eyes?
humanism is the attempt to shake off this immaturity; it is to grow up as an individual and try be a good person through the loving and understanding of other humans... not through the fear of a supernatural authority figure.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 26th 2010, 21:00
@DavidCamilleri.
God does not need anything from anybody – He commands love of God and neighbour even before "humanism" became fashionable.
I am not immature. I am prudent and I am very conscious of any human being’s limitations. As a result, apart from my instinctive conscience I value the guidance of the gospel and the Church. I do not call that immaturity. It is an admission that I am not some presumptuous overconfident fool relying arrogantly on my own inexistent omniscience. I call that a justified rejection of an arrogant, prideful blind reliance on any non-existent infallibility.
I do not know what you could possibly mean by “marys unconditional love” or feeling “better for being a sinner …..”. Are you sure that you understand your own question?
I always try to be a “good person through loving and understanding of other humans’ - and also my God. I do that as a Christian observing Christ’s injunction without the need of any prop from your “humanism”.
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 12:43
Dr Francis Saliba
"without the need of any prop from your “humanism”. "
funny.. Humanists try to be nice to other humans without the 'prop' (and prop is an understatement) of religion. It's that human-made construct or prop as you call it that sits between humans that has served up more division and war than anything else.
Humanists can see that humans don't really need that prop to be nice to each other.
david camilleri
Jun 29th 2010, 11:36
i talk of 'religion' and 'god' as fulfilling the role of the 'magic helper' ... check it out doctor.
the enlightenment it seems, missed Malta completely...
jcamilleri
Jun 25th 2010, 22:44
How enlightened are these activists to interpret the story of the man, the woman and the talking snake!!! Who is ,well, "propagating inherently flawed beliefs", themselves or the millennia old religions???
And what do you want to imply please, Mr Stephen Borg Cardona? You seem to give the impression that you are some avantguardist. Are we right?
Stephen Borg Cardona
Jun 25th 2010, 21:23
James I of England may have been relying on a pre-existing tradition when he defended his (supposedly homosexual) relationship with the young Duke of Buckingham: "I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my George."[7]
charles caruana
Jun 26th 2010, 09:03
And then they accuse Christians of believing in fairy tales and talking snakes! The only difference is that some atheist's fairytales are stale, cheap and desperate, and their talking snakes are very real - themselves.
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 09:40
Charles,
interesting... which atheist fairy tales exactly are you refering to? I'd love to know.. can't really think of any since one of the core reasons people are atheist is the rejection of anything without a rational explaination.. like talking snakes for instance.
So go on... list the atheist fairytales.
charles caruana
Jun 27th 2010, 17:10
Mike,
For a start the blasphemous and offensive attempt to reduce Christ’s divine and universal love to a homosexual liaison.
Second, the village atheists claim’ (and there are a good number of these on this blog) that they can prove the non-existence of God.
Third, that a Godless world will be heaven on earth. Perhaps you can consult Robespierre, Stalin or Mao to give you a rational explanation or proof for that.
Fourth, that an evolutionary theory potholed with missing links and a total inability to explain scientifically the gap between dead matter and a living cell can be religiously and fanatically considered as a proven scientific fact.
Fifth, that the 'rational' thoughts you scribble here on this blog are the mere product of flashing neurons and mindless molecules in the brain of a humanist who is just matter.
And on, and on, and on…
Mr Abbot, if you want rational proof that talking snakes are real and no fairytale, and that they can spew real, pure, very 'rational' venom and hate, just read some of the posts of the Godless in these threads.
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 19:00
Charles,
"For a start the blasphemous and offensive attempt to reduce Christ’s divine and universal love to a homosexual liaison. "
So this is the official atheist line is it? Good start. Your invention, your fairy tale.
"Second, the village atheists claim’ (and there are a good number of these on this blog) that they can prove the non-existence of God."
Atheists simply don't believe in the existence of God. There is no collective effort to disprove something that hasn't got the slightest bit of evidence of existence outside of peoples minds. But, generally speaking, most would be interested in seeing at least a shred of proof of in the existence of God from those who keep insisting their God is real.
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 19:00
Keeping up? never mind.
"Third, that a Godless world will be heaven on earth. Perhaps you can consult Robespierre, Stalin or Mao to give you a rational explanation or proof for that."
The usual dumb argument. Atheism is NOT a belief. Why is this so hard to understand? These people did not do what they did in the NAME of atheism. On the other hand this is a quote from Hitler
'I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.' - right out of his own book.
He DID do what he did, it seems, in the name of God and what he did didn't really help with the idea of heaven on Earth - which, incidentally, is a theist fairy tale to begin with anyway. Atheists also tend not to believe in heaven. odd, i know.
"Fourth, that an evolutionary theory potholed with missing links and a total inability to explain scientifically the gap between dead matter and a living cell can be religiously and fanatically considered as a proven scientific fact."
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 19:01
You're really showing your colours now aren't you! The creationists favourite. Do you even read the news? Science has just turned up a new missing link. There is always missing information in History - what we don't do is make it up (talking snakes anyone?). Science works hard to discover, test, disprove and see what sticks. When science doesn't know, it admits, but what it doesn't do is grasp at fairy tales to provide an answer. Unlike your version of how the earth was created no doubt.
Fifth, that the 'rational' thoughts you scribble here on this blog are the mere product of flashing neurons and mindless molecules in the brain of a humanist who is just matter.
And on, and on, and on…
First, thank you for acknowledging my rationality. Second i fail to see how being rational constitutes a fairy tale? Is rational thought bad? Are fairy tales rational? I think not.
Mike F Abbot
Jun 27th 2010, 19:01
"Mr Abbot, if you want rational proof that talking snakes are real and no fairytale, and that they can spew real, pure, very 'rational' venom and hate, just read some of the posts of the Godless in these threads."
I had to read this a few times. You say, if I want proof that talking snakes are real , just read these comments? Oh i see, you're deflecting from the Bishops comment about snakes in the bible. No, it won't work. Comments on this thread don't prove the existence of said snake.
At least not to rational people. Clearly, you are not rational. Not one flashing neuron. No wonder fairy tales are so appealing to you Mr Caruana.
Stephen Borg Cardona
Jun 25th 2010, 21:17
The beloved disciple "He leaned on the breast of Jesus at supper on the night of the betrayal" (John 13:23-25)
Dr Francis Saliba
Jun 26th 2010, 06:27
Could the blasphemers please decide to be consistent and make up their mind as to whether Christ was a homosexual or clandestinely married to Mary Magdalen - if not both, depending on the occasion and the identity of the shameless blasphemer?
Ernest Vella
Jun 25th 2010, 17:08
Death Penalty has nothing to do with marriage...and no adultery is killed or stoned...while the Church agree that it is a sin, a mortal sin against the 6th Commandament...but what Sharia has to do with all this...Sharia is not practiced by muslims in Malta. They can deplore whatever they want but the truth is one...and if they want to quote Christ...the Bible says other things which for sure these people don't agree ex. Leviticus and Letter of St.Paul about homosexuality...but seems they only knows what the Bible says...)...the Church teach respect towards gays but seems gays don;t practice such respect...well for them...lets continue the walk now.
Maria Zammit
Jun 25th 2010, 15:53
Jesus Christ had a name for those who verbalized "the letter of the law", He called them "Pharisees" (Oqbra Imbajda). He was referring to all those who quote from Scripture to show how knowledgeable they are but failed to "live by the spirit of His law", His law "to love one another as I have loved you".
Pharisees live with us today. They might be taken to be the leaders of Churches as was the case in His time on Earth. Nothing new under the sun!!!
Joe Zammit
Jun 26th 2010, 03:18
Maria, the spirit of the law includes the law. Jesus was clear in his words: if you love me observe my commandments and his commandments are Ten, including the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. These two commandments condemn any sexual act outside marriage as grave sin. So homosexual acts are grave sins that separate the sinners from God and put them on the path to hell. Love is truth.
Jesmond Micallef
Jun 25th 2010, 14:57
On the notion of Same sex marriages and couples etc..
This concept of same sex marriage is completely false. A male/male or female/female relationship is not the same as male/female relationship. Marriage belongs to the later and not to any of the former two, otherwise the concept of marriage in society wouldn't even exist in the first place !!
Gay people need to get their social perspectives right. Lets face it, we are all off springs of the physically normal and natural female-male (or vice versa) intercourse.
Franco Farrugia
Jun 25th 2010, 16:44
This is not the issue. The issue is that we have a RC Archbishop who is making use of the Muslim local head in order to try and strike another blow at the gay issue. THAT, and only that, is the issue at hand.
If, then, we have to pass on to your notion of what is 'normal' and what is not, of what 'marriage' entails, that is another question. The word 'marriage' means union. The word is frequently used in contexts other than the male-female union, with a piece of paper and probably a lavish ceremony in church. The fact that there are people of the same sex who feel so attracted to each other and so much in love with each other that they want to protect each other if the one passes away leaving the other behind; and also becuase this couple want to express such feelings towards each other, should be praised, when we live in a world where there is constant strife and war, taking place. What's wrong with that? Do you find it a problem? Probably, you do. But THAT's the problem, you see. YOU are the problem; not they.
Jesmond Micallef
Jun 25th 2010, 18:12
Mr. Farrugia, I am no problem whatsoever, rest assured !!
J. Gauci
Jun 25th 2010, 14:57
"One would have thought the Church founded by Christ would also object - as Christ did - to the death penalty for adultery (which Sharia law applies only in the case of women), as well as for atheism and apostasy - a state of fact which flies in the face of decency, and also blatantly breaches fundamental human rights.".......erm...have our bishop told them that he accepts death penalty or any such things....i'm sorry for these so called activists but when they comment kif jejd il malti kultant ihalltu l hass mal gass....a point which always annoys me is that they talk about GAY rights....but are there any such rights? if they that their HUMAN rights are taken away from them they can fight as mcuh as they like until they get...but if not...i'm sry they're not fighting for rights but priviliges.
malcolm seychell
Jun 25th 2010, 14:40
"j j Borg.
Mela jalla nergaw nigu fi zmien l inkwizzjoni la trid tiddefendi, anka lil minn lest li jahraq u joqtol in nies f isem alla.
l maggorazna assoluta tal gays nies normalissimi, ihalsu taxxi, jahdmu u disgustati ukoll b minn jisraq l istat bit taparsi human rights.
Anthony Debono
Jun 25th 2010, 14:32
Whooa...hold your horses here, nobody is saying that homosexuals cannot marry -- go on, the world is free, marry! Marriage is a lovely "thing"! But marry a Woman if you are a Man and vice-versa. Simple, no?
Ramon Casha
Jun 25th 2010, 19:33
Why would a person marry someone he/she does not feel any attraction towards?
Pawlu Scicluna
Jun 25th 2010, 14:30
Nature itself dictated and dictates that marriage is for couples of different sex for the survival of the species. If gays and lesbians want to live together no one is preventing them, but they cannot expect that they be called married couples and be allowed to adopt children. That is unnatural.
c bartolo
Jun 25th 2010, 17:49
are you aware that in the natural world, homosexuality is commonly practised across the board by all species?... it is as natural in the natural world as heterosexuality...
Pawlu Scicluna
Jun 25th 2010, 23:23
c bartolo a sparrow does not make a spring. You only mention a few when compared with the rest of the species.
c bartolo
Jun 26th 2010, 17:48
one swallow does not a summer make... aristotle i believe, sone 300 years or so before Christ... if we are going to quote lets do it correctly!
furthermore read my commect properly and understand it... i said, ".... in all species.... " and "commonly practised across the board"does it then make it unnatural in the nartural world for natural species to practice homosexuality?. if you carry ouit some intelligent research about the topic you will soon find out how common homosexuality is..... in the nautral world.... and even more so in the human world if all had to come out of the closet...
Peter Dingli
Jun 25th 2010, 14:15
As was said and said 1000 times RELIGION POISON'S EVERYTHING
Mark Galea
Jun 25th 2010, 13:49
We live in a democratic country.
So the Malta Humanist Association and the Malta Gay Rights Movement have a right to speak, but also the Catholic and Muslim leaders have the same right to express their beliefs.
However, the MHA and MGRM must understand that it is not the Catholic church or the Muslims that are preventing couples of the same gender from marrying. If the Catholic and Muslim leaders speak in favour of same sex marriages, many people will leave these religions, and embrace other religions that have "stronger values" since people value the family highly.
Franco Farrugia
Jun 25th 2010, 14:45
We live in a democratic country, YOU say. And to strengthen this argument, you claim that everyone has a right to express oneself. But what you seem to ignore, at least, here, is that while the legislators think nothing about entities such as MHA and MGRM, sa(i)d legislators would think twice when the long arm of the ... Church! speaks out and holds them with their backs to the wall. My second point is about your claim that 'people will leave these religions, and embrace other religions that have "stronger values" since people value the family highly.' This is so laughable, and plainly ridiculous. It shows what a feeble and weak link there is between believers of these religions and said religions! It also highlights sheer hypocrisy, when you claim that people value the family highly. I think you are unrealistic: parents are away from home all the time and their children are in the hands of senior-aged nannies or educators! Marriages are crumbling, not because of homosexuals but because married people are tired of their spouses or are finding their spouses too boring and impossible to live with. But we continue to bury our heads in the sand.
Jesmond Micallef
Jun 25th 2010, 15:17
Good one. It takes the naturally physical male/female relationship for humans to propogate. Even that fact has alot behind it when it comes to "religions" of different forms.
Mike F Abbot
Jun 25th 2010, 16:17
I think you need to understand that the role of leadership is to lead... not say whatever goes down well with the masses.
If they speak in favour of same sex marriages and people leave 'the flock' it's because they didn't do a very good job of teaching or convincing them. Change has never been a strong point of either faiths. To much hassle.
The fact is, they don't agree in same sex marriages and they don't want you to either.
It IS therefore Catholic and Muslim leaders that are preventing same sex marriages along with critical thought, open mindedness, tolerance etc. the list goes on.
Ramon Casha
Jun 25th 2010, 19:30
Unfortunately, the Constitution gives the right to the catholic church to decree what is moral and immoral. Not very democratic considering that neither the local church nor the world body is elected. In fact, did you know that technically, the Vatican is the last remaining dictatorship in Europe?
Mark Galea
Jun 25th 2010, 22:23
@Franco Farrugia
I repeat again, but you seem not to understand - WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY, where there is freedom of worship and freedom of expression. The Catholic Church is free to express itself against gay marriage and others are free to criticise it for doing so. What they are NOT free to do is expect to silence the Catholic Church's opinions.
It is not the Catholic Church which prevents the introduction of divorce legislation and gay marriage. It is the people who have a vote and both the government and the opposition know it.
Caroline Said
Jun 25th 2010, 13:21
MHA need to get its fact straight before contesting the humane-ness of Muslim dogma...the punishment for adultery in Sharia applies to BOTH male & female and the sentence is virtually impossible to implement (do the research) so its basically only meant to be a deterent.
This continual attack on gays as posing a threat to the institution of marriage is laughable-like MGRM indicated, why doesnt the church tackle the REAL threats to marriage (for starters, sell off some of its hord of treasures to help the poor-after all didnt Christ say its harder for the rich to enter heaven than.. etc etc?)
Neither homosexuality nor prostitution (which has been around probably since Adam met Steve, or Eve's second cousin met Adam) have brought about the collapse of marriage and it would be interesting to know on what information/statistics does the church & the muslim leader base their argument that gays are endangering the institution of marriage in Malta...
Ramon Casha
Jun 25th 2010, 15:58
"Sharia applies to BOTH male & female"
1. How do you check whether a male is still a virgin? Many women are killed because they're found not to be virgins, prior to marriage.
2. How often are men raped, compared to women? Remember that to some, if a woman is raped she has still committed adultery.
"...and the sentence is virtually impossible to implement"
And yet it happens quite frequently. See the link below. Note that these do not include the frequent "honour killings" that take place without the approval of a formal Sharia court.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul1.htm
For instance: Nigeria, Oct 2001: A 30-year-old pregnant woman asked a Sharia court to force a man that she alleged had raped her, to pay for her daughter's naming ceremony. The court refused, charged her with engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage and sentenced her to be stoned to death. The sentence was eventually overturned.
charles caruana
Jun 25th 2010, 16:06
So if ‘punishment for adultery in Sharia applies to BOTH male & female,’ it makes public flogging, hand chopping, honor killing, and persecution and even death for apostasy right, no? At least they are shared equitably between genders, so matter less no? About these being mere deterrents, my only answer is, get real.
So you say that gay marriage is not a threat to institution of marriage and you have every right to say and believe so. So what is your beef with religions that say and believe otherwise? Do you want to shut them up? Is this the extent of your liberal tolerance? Back your stand with arguments, not hot air, as you wisely advised church and muslim leaders to do.
The church should sell its treasures for the poor, say you. That argument was made thousands of years ago by a certain Judas, and if I remember correctly, Christ was not amused. And Christ did like expensive perfumes, you know, as you probably do, no?
BDW, I don’t think you are the product of an Adam and Steve, no?
VICTOR RODENAS
Jun 25th 2010, 13:14
WELL SAID.....`A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE`.
malcolm seychell
Jun 25th 2010, 13:12
So finally these movements are realizing the fact, that Islam and Sharia law are not suitable for Europe and Malta. So stop calling people racist, because most people are behind you on your issues, but totally against you when it comes to Islam and illegal immigrants.
J. J. Borg
Jun 25th 2010, 13:58
Civil rights movements are about inclusion rather than exclusion and have no interest in any support from far right groups.
Ramon Casha
Jun 25th 2010, 19:36
I'd go a step further and say that religion's place is not to interfere with the governing of a country. The problem is not Islam but that in many countries, Islam dictates the law. History shows that when Christianity held the same position, similar troubles ensued. That is why the separation of church (or mosque) and state are so important.
N.Lawrence
Jun 25th 2010, 12:56
The historical Christ was a Jew. What he did in his lifetime was entirely for Judaism. He did not found a Christian church. He would NOT found a church that accepted Gentiles as it's members.
The mythological Christ can be anything people want him to be.
A. Zahra
Jun 25th 2010, 14:29
What absolute nonscense. How can you say what Christ would or would not do? Do you really believe that god is interested in who is a jew or not? Salvation for Jews but not for the rest of mankind....
Tommy Lee
Jun 25th 2010, 14:41
Then you know little,if anything about The Christ.
He exposed Jews for what they were and told them straight to the face, that is why they killed him. It is all written down in the Gospels for anyone and everyone to read, even you.
charles caruana
Jun 25th 2010, 18:17
There is an ignorance which is 'vincible', and an ignorance which is invincible. Out of charity I will refrain from saying which one applies in your case.