Intolerance and discrimination against Christians

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 13th 2011, 15:18

"I was not aware that suddenly you were using the word queer as strange and eccentric ...." (ftheuma)

Dear ftheuma.

I ALWAYS use the word "queer" in its old traditional meaning of "strange and eccentric" but I guessed that someone would try to insinuate maliciously that I use it as a synonym for homosexual - hence my anticipatory and precautionary clarification. By Jove, you soon proved me right and it all only took you 30 hours!

Joe Xuereb

Jan 12th 2011, 21:48

2) And off s/he goes until the next dark cloud thunders by, as it surely must. Meanwhile, s/he believes s/he was put here - like a rabbit being lowered inside a wicker-basket by its floppy ears or some other pendulae (is this correct Latin plural doctor?) accoutrements, on its journey to Buskett while hissing, 'I didn't ask to be born' - maybe to win a jackpot and be charitable. You see Andrew, a non-believer's life is so much less convoluted, so self-contained. Look mummy, no hands!
True, not only Catholics pray when in dire straits. Or offer a child to appease a punishing god when he allows war.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 12th 2011, 21:43

2) And off s/he goes until the next dark cloud thunders by, as it surely must. Meanwhile, s/he believes s/he was put here - like a rabbit being lowered inside a wicker-basket by its floppy ears or some other pendulae (is this correct Latin plural doctor?) accoutrements, on its journey to Buskett while hissing, 'I didn't ask to be born' - maybe to win a jackpot and be charitable. You see Andrew, a non-believer's life is so much less convoluted, so self-contained. Look mummy, no hands!

Joe Xuereb

Jan 12th 2011, 21:37

1) Andrew! Andrew! what is stupid about saying, 'I did not ask to be born'. Said just like that it does of course leave itself open to being darted and this is exactly why I 'corrected' myself in a subsequent comment. This was not enough for you so I wrote yet another comment and still you are not pleased. No problem! Allow me another bash, let's whittle it down to a fine point - the discussion, I've had enough of darts for the day. A non-believer can indeed claim that s/he did not ask to be born, and this with impunity. A believer, on the other hand, MIGHT, in a fit of anger/desperation, utter likewise but will renege 'when the dark cloud lifts'. S/he has recourse to something called confession if I remember rightly. Father, I have sinned. I have not been duly grateful to the gift that is my life (damn, it, but this under his breath lest the penance will be too onerous).
continued

Kevin Cassar

Jan 12th 2011, 20:27

@ Andrew Farrugia

No contridiction whatsoever. I still stand by what I said because it's right. I thought I made it clear enough, but will repeat it for your sake. Here's what I said:

"What I can offer though is my opinion on what can be done until (if ever) the situation changes. In my opinion there is really no real need to be totally sure since responsibility does not really change the effect of the deed to society. The law (courts) deems the person to be a danger to society and protects itself by doing two things - examine the sanity of the person and try to rehabilitate the person and keep him away from others (prison) until it deems it's safe to let him free. While this is not perfect, it's the best we have."

If the evidence proves that whoever committed the crime did so because he temporarily deprived of his mental facility (as in someone who is drugged unwillingly or other causes) then he is not a danger to society and it will let him free.

ftheuma

Jan 12th 2011, 19:33

@ Dr Francis Saliba

Just in case you missed it, below your last comment to me you will find that I corrected myself the minute I realised I had erred, indeed you never wrote homosexuality but homophobe, I repeat that that was an error on my part due to haste.

As to contortions, I can just read your comments and admire and hope to learn from a master. I was not aware that suddenly you were using the word queer as strange and eccentric, but enough, I can see that you are not a person to concede a point. I am sure that we will cross comments again in the future - looking forward.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 12th 2011, 18:52

Dear Xuereb

What's your point really? Are you cross with me for pointing out, in an amicable manner, that you should never think, believe or utter such stupidities, irrespective of belief, non-belief, orientation, etc etc? You, yourself, stated that you had "retracted". You seem to love playing with "darts" (as in hitting set targets), i only resort to darts when i am moved to anger and i have already explained that it will not happen with you. And what about your statement: "Catholics are wont to do all kinds of silly things when in dire straits"; only Catholics are wont to behave like that?

Joe Xuereb

Jan 12th 2011, 18:24

2) Often we hear people say, I was put here for a purpose. They never look for that purpose only managing to be a pain in the arse to everyone else instead. They are afraid of the dark(symbolism kicks in here). Life's purpose?! reasons to be cheerful, part III?! I HAVE TO accept my real enough limitations, my conception,(that did not stop the horror that is war), my living and my demise like I'd never passed this way. Accept that simple fact and you're laughing. In psychotherapeutic terms, It is called 'letting go' of things that stop you soaring. As I said, there is a price to pay for everything - I'll soar, but downwards where the worms will have a bean-feast. As for 'I was put here for a purpose' - that's humbug of Christmas just gone. Like all the others past and those still to come.
Darts, be they sharp or be they blunt, intentional or not, can be deflected. But one needs to know one's stuff.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 12th 2011, 18:21

1) Catholics are wont to do all kinds of silly things when in dire straits. Like conceiving a child when bombs are raining down, vainly trying to allay the whatever of an omniscient/potent god. So I did not ask to be born. But I'll make the best of it that I can.
continued

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 12th 2011, 15:43

@ Mr Kevin Cassar

"...can anyone hold that person liable for the actions committed in that state? The answer is NO and this is not an opinion but a universally accepted FACT".
You are obviously referring to DIMINISHED responsibility here. Right.
However, are you sure that it is a UNIVERSALLY accepted fact? And don't you see any contradiction between the above statement and the one you addressed to me previously, that is "there is really no need to be totally sure since responsibility does not really change the effect of the deed to society."?

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 12th 2011, 13:08

Xuereb

it was never intended as a "dart", and from your comment it seems that it wasn't "blunt" either. Like you, I am a "stickler for principle".

Patrik Larsson

Jan 12th 2011, 12:54

Kenneth & Kevin:
My apologies for that. My eyes are getting old I think.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 12th 2011, 12:50

@ Mr. Farrug. Andrew, my dear fellow-man in connivance,* I hope you're noted my 'retraction' in comment #1, immediately after your blunt dart.
*as in 'living a life of quiet desperation'(as in, 'the unexamined life is not worth living' (thanks Aris, you little tottler, you!); as in, 'there's a price to pay for everything'; as in, 'don't even go there'. This last one very much dependent on who says it and whence they are coming.

Kevin Cassar

Jan 12th 2011, 11:48

@ Patrick Larsson

It's actually Kevin and not Kenneth (he's my brother).

You are right that I don't recognize "sin" as a real thing but I know what it means. My agrument with Jessica was not about whether or not the mentioned act is a sin or not - but that even if it is a sin, one must wilfully commit it with a clear intent (mind) for him to be held accountable for it. If one is not mentally stable, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol (which sometimes are not taken consciously - spiked drinks or date rape drugs) can anyone really hold that person liable for the actions committed in that state? The answer is NO and this is not an opinion but a universally accepted FACT.

Kenneth Cassar

Jan 12th 2011, 11:40

@ Patrik Larrson:

"I think you are both missing the forest for the trees here..."

I'm sure you meant Kevin (my brother). For the time being I have decided to avoid futile debates with people who clearly and explicitly suspect I have less than honest intentions when posting here.

Kevin Cassar

Jan 12th 2011, 10:40

@ Jessica DeBattista

I can't see what is so hard to understand. In order to be guilty of commiting a crime or "sin", one has to be in control of his actions and conscious of their effects. I know this, you know this, everybody know this.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 12th 2011, 09:20

Kennet & Jessica:
I think you are both missing the forest for the trees here. The problem you have in your exchange is that only one of you recognise "sin" as a real thing, I believe. You can debate that to kingdom come without reaching a consensus, as you will always talk at cross purposes.

Perhaps if you tackled the morality aspect instead and you might have an easier time getting somewhere.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 20:41

3) Others go on to get married and sire children (and end up leading secret double lives - the loneliest homosexual(?) referred to by Richard Curmi earlier). Others still (used to) take Holy Orders, but fewer now I imagine (in my younger days, out of a clique of six or seven, four at least of the older guys had been through Seminary but left because they couldn't hack it even then - the sixties. Not many in your peer group are going through Seminary Matthew, I shouldn't wonder!). Times and fads change and people map out their existence accordingly. NEVER easy. For ANYONE.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 20:30

2) Excuse me but don't you think that sounds a little apologetic, unaccepting of self? You needn't be apologetic because you're fine just as you are I'm sure. Whether you change or not is up to you*. As long as you are yourself, work to be financially independent, take care of your health - anything or anybody else does not matter. Sounds selfish right?! Maybe. But I give you permission. Why would you or anyone else put somebody else's interest before your own. They won't show gratitude believe me and THEN where will you be?
*Believe me, I've been there. Bowing to peer pressure with faddy fashions, competing with the rest who'd dare to be the most outrageous and getting away with us. One lucky clique giggling through their young years. Many others have much to catch up on. These ones they date girl sweethearts and hold hands in a fumbling kind of way and they do this for all sorts of reasons. With not a small pinch of self-loathing, and fear, and conflict if they're at all aware. Some come round to accepting themselves in an inimical world.
continued

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 20:17

1) I said, 'I did not ask to be born'. Sounds a bit like an apology for being. In fact I meant in a most general sense, directed at every human born.
Matthew Vella. Please do not misunderstand me. Our 'natural' leanings we have no control over. But how we perceive ourselves, within that wider context, can change. I mean, I thought I looked fabulous in flares forty years ago, but now. What people are attracted to also changes. Often, young (gay) men look to an older (sometimes much older) person, subconsciously seeking reassurance and guidance (having been disappointed in his gay peers). Roles are (in fact they're not from my experience) are fixed and taken for granted in heterosexuals. Gay people either feel innnately dominant, or more laid back. Often a mixture. And very often this is something they have to find out. Don't forget, no role models.
Matthew, you say you're a bit effeminate but not much (nothing wrong with that - some straight men are known to scream more than gay 'screamers'). But you also quantify your effeminacy by adding 'but not too much'.
continued

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 11th 2011, 19:41

Xuereb, Xuereb,

There is a limit to my honest liking of you as a fellow human being!
That was the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my life; in context and out of context!
"I did not ask to be born." At times you do tend to get carried away!

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 11th 2011, 18:33

@ Kevin Cassar: “In the case of a heterosexual who "experiments" with homosexuality, again if this is done due to the effect of drugs or alcohol, then it is also not a sin since it is not done with intent, which unless I'm mistaken is required.”

I don’t know! I am inclined to give up discussing this topic with you since all you can say is that since there is not intent to sin, it cannot be sinful.

Lust and gluttony are two of the seven vices.

Excess (gluttony) which in this case pertains to alcohol/drugs divests one of inhibitions and heightens the libido leading to reprehensible practices one would never do under normal circumstances.

To indulge in excessive drinking is always intentional and to drug oneself is also intentional so if the consequences are reprehensible practices, they are only the result of intentional behavior.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 18:22

3) I did not ask to be born. But I was - three/four month s before the Convoy - and did the best I could. It's not a given. Indeed I would say that, if anything it's amazing that gay people are as healthy as they are in spite of (or because of?) all they have to put up with (meaning - straight men's worst nightmare is homosexuality. Which is ironic seeing human sexuality is not a black and white issue. And we all know how scapegoating operates - anything but take a close look at what we believe to be our unassailable self. How convenient, (e)scaping one's uncomfortable goat's hair-shirt. And the fact that homosexuals don't fare too badly on the whole, and all things considered. Meaning - heterosexuality is not exactly a piece of cake. Yes, we're all in this together guys. Welcome on board the 'Human Condition' ocean-going cruiser.

Believe me, if I may pre-empt and say, I'm not sobbing. Certainly not crying out for sympathy. I've earned my dues.

Matthew Vella

Jan 11th 2011, 18:16

Wow some of you need to educate yourselves about what a gay person is. Just because a gay person is masculine or a lesbian is feminine doesn't make them any less gay!! Saying I am gay but still act like a man is so incredibly idiotic and shows a deep lack of education. I'm also gay, and am slightly feminine (nothing extreme though) and should point out that its simply how some guys are. Some are feminine and some are masculine, and many are somewhere in between. Its not something people decide Xuereb.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 17:58

2) .....and the tattoo parlour. They become what some of the bitchier ones amongst us call, Muscle Marys. Now all this is terra incognita for most straight people with much info. received being prejudiced, mis-informed, you name it! It's a fascinating world for gays (who care about their so-called condition) and straight researchers alike. It has inspired much that is worthy in literature and art (this last in very subtle ways - Michelangelo and Gustave Moreau the Symbolist in particular). I've had a good run for my money when younger, survived the onslaught (just) and feel no particular need to act out my drive which will not leave me until half an hour before my demise. That's how it has been decreed by the Almight or Nature. Knowledge has liberated me - I can assess the pleasure and the folly from my armchair. It is the wisdom of the age. I've earned my 'penzijiet' (medals for services rendered) even if no titles as such. I did not ask to be born.
continued

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 16:54

1) Jess, you're giving me a hard time today dear.
Effeminate gay guys (sorry Andrew, gay is shorter than homosexual), in the absense of role models, do what comes naturally to them - be effeminate. Was always so but 'acceptable' now - anyone noticed straight guys with tidied eyebrows, plucked to within an inch of their natural growth? Green young gays see themselves as 'women substitutes' and flirt with men. Some men, gay and straight, succumb. Some gay men genuinely like effeminate gays (maybe saying, I may be gay but at least I look/behave like a man. Their effeminate choice of friend reinforces this neurosis). Some straight men will succumb to anything. As green young gay gains maturity and knowledge (not automatic by any means) he'll come to realise that he's not a woman substitute. The penny drops that a gay man wants a man and not a token woman. If men turn me on, why on earth would I go with a man who parades as a woman. I'd go for the real thing. But no..... Makes sense non?! So, young gay guys gradually relinquish their effeminate accoutrements and start going to the gym and the tattoo parlour.
continued

Mary Borg

Jan 11th 2011, 16:08

"You make absolutely no sense. Are you saying that knowledge of condoms lead to statues covered in condoms and semen?"

NO! That is not what I am saying. I am saying there is a massive difference between teaching about the existence of abortion or condoms AND actually PROMOTING condoms and abortion!! I have no problem if they teach them about the existence of racism but I have a problem if they PROMOTE racism as harmless!!!!

Patrik Larsson

Jan 11th 2011, 14:34

Jessica DeBattista:
I think I agree with you even less after your latest clarification.

To assert your position in a society that doesn't accept it doesn't make you agressive. As you know, I do assert my opinion on religion quite regularly, but I doubt you would find few people who would describe me as agressive.

If you want a more illustrative example, look at what the pope is saying in a more and more secular Europe. That is the pope asserting his opinion in contrast to what is contemporary the common view. Does that make the pope agressive?

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 14:29

3) Jessica, prostitution always existed but there are young 'het' males who are cashing in their attractiveness. They rationalise that they only do it for the money (abominable career, incidentally). Some will be acting out their latent homosexuality as previously pointed out. Some will be genuinely heterosexual in it only for the money. THAT is truly perverse and dangerous because it becomes a criminal act (such a person is prone to sudden bursts of anger and violence).
A criminally inclined individual could be homophobic with a vengeance. Another type of homophobe would be an individual in whom any manifestation of homosexuality would churn up feelings of his own latest inclinations, never addressed and never acted upon and therefore leading to this permanent state of conflict in said individual. Our drives are necessary and certainly endemic (Nature is wily making sure that its creations need and seek intimacy with others, leading to the inevitable - ed il giuoco e` fatto!); to dismiss them as sin does nobody any favours. Maybe we could all do with some psychotherapy. But then again, some would be less receptive than others.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 14:13

2) Jessica, promiscuity causes homosexuality? Shades of 'divorce causes marriage breakdown' perhaps?
People who experiment to heighten their sexual experience are indeed playing with fire (the therapist would say, 'leave fantasies as fantasies'. These days fetishes are celebrated, specialist clubs open. Not advisable. Promiscuity is an addiction and typically, wreaks havoc on the body and messes up the mind. Sexual promiscuity shortchanges - the addict sees only the repeat opportunity for gratification in the person of choice and not the person's other qualities. Ad infinitum. How destructive is that?!
I trust it doesn't escape people that talking of matters sexual, as a necessary human drive, I do not differentiate between homo and hetero. Talking about sin and demonising one orientation more than the other simply 'because it is natural' misses the point entirely and obfuscates rather than helps. And finally, I see no anomaly in a heterosexual therapist's involvement with homosexual campaigning for their rights. It is unfair to suggest that Weinberger could do with a couching session himself. Just because one has it in for homosexuality.

continue

Joe Xuereb

Jan 11th 2011, 13:43

1) Jessica, let's forget sin for a moment and think of 'Catholic guilt' and its consequences.
The heterosexual sees homosexuality unnatural and therefore sinful? If natural means SOLELY procreative, yes. Which makes everybody a repeat sinner. Who is to say that Nature did not intend homosexuality for a(useful) purpose? Especially considering that homosexuality is not a clear-cut sub species as pointed out? The wages of sin are death we're told. Promiscuity is indeed dangerous. I would say that denial of one's god-given instinct is even worse. Death by 'sin' is final, over-and-done-with. Denial has longterm consequences affecting all those around, neurosis, deceit, etc.
It's a crying shame that some still condemn homosexuality sounding like they're guaranteed never to sire a child so 'blessed'. Such guarantees don't exist. What happens when it does? Hide the child? Cull it? Throw it out?
The doc doth protest too much. The ills of psychotherapy? Maybe Weinberger saw the light. Meaning, a pseudo-psychotherapist in a cassock is fine. A lay one who believes in fairytales is not. Study of the human 'soul' and religious beliefs are so incompatible.
continued

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 11th 2011, 13:16

@ftheuma

Please submit a final apology (I hope) for your last error in attributing to me a statement that I never made, namely " ... the term 'homosexuality' was coined by homosexuals ... ". The word I used was "homophobia" not "homosexuality". In order to obviate the need of still more apologies by you I hereby declare that the word "homophobia" was initially employed by homosexuals in their underground rag called "Gay and Screw" at the instigation of a queer (in the sense of "strange" "eccentric") heterosexual psychotherapist who castigates his own profession.

Please, no more contortions from YOU.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 11th 2011, 12:53

David Seychell:
I think we are facing the problems of having a sentence with a double negative.

What I meant is that I think priests should have a negative attitude to the concept of "sins". I don't think it's a real concept and it adds nothing good to human morality. I think it would be better if they left that behind completely, but I really don't exect them to.

ftheuma

Jan 11th 2011, 12:06

Of course in my previous post I meant 'homophobe' and not 'homosexuality'. An annoying error due to haste. Hope that this august company does not waste a lot of space lambasting me for it, as I am sufficiently contrite.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 11th 2011, 11:54

@ Patrrik Larsson: “I think you are playing loose and wild with the word "aggressive" :)”

Well Mr. Larsson, I do not always take “aggressive” to mean bellicose, violent behaviour.

In the situation we are discussing I took it to describe an ‘emphatic’ assertion. We never think of an “aggressive" campaign… for instance, to mean anything but that it is an “emphatic" campaign.

I know boys I used to teach, who are open homosexual young men today - and whether some of you believe it or not, they are also friends of mine too (you meet quite a few of them in the art world).

Some of these young men are effeminate withot having to resort to make up and flamboyant clothes but others take to wearing heavy makeup including false eyelashes. They even provocatively display a cleavage –if you know what I mean. I tend to think that this display of their homosexuality is rather uncalled for. They are pushing their sexual orientation onto a society which is not yet ready to take it without offense. Now that to me is a rather agressive behaviour.

Kevin Cassar

Jan 11th 2011, 11:41

@ Jessica DeBattista

"However you are still far away from what I meant, or you may be trying to twist what I said."

Yes of course I can obviously be far away from what you meant, but why on earth would I be trying to twist what you said?

I am glad that you say that you do not condemn homosexuals who are just following their natural inclination, but find it contradictory that you then go on to say that they might be sinning. How can someone "sin" by acting out his nature? I can understand that people may think that they are sinning, but surely someone who knows better would not.

You know that I do not hold a belief in a god but I am very much aware of the concept and qualities that believers attribute to God. So how can a God who created someone fault that person for acting out his nature? In the case of a heterosexual who "experiments" with homosexuality, again if this is done due to the effect of drugs or alcohol, then it is also not a sin since it is not done with intent, which unless I'm mistaken is required.

ftheuma

Jan 11th 2011, 11:28

Apologies for the mispelt Winberger instead of Weinberg. The rest of your post, while interesting, is mere contortionism. Your original claim that the term 'homosexuality' was coined by homosexuals remains incorrect.

David Seychell

Jan 11th 2011, 10:47

@Patrik Larsson
I asked him "Should priests have negative attitudes towards sins?"
You answered "Yes, of course I think they should, but I don't expect them to."

You don't expect priests to have negative attitudes towards sins even though you think they should. Incidentally, the following is my personal definition of the word 'Devil': 'An entity that expects you and tries to persuade you NOT to have negative attitudes towards sins even though it knows you should have negative attitudes towards sins.'

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 11th 2011, 10:21

@ftheuma.

No sir, I am neither “ignoring facts” nor “misleading” anybody. The facts are that the coiner of the term “homophobe” was not “Winberger” at all. He was George Weinberg. He did not introduce that word “in the 70s” because a decade earlier he had already induced the publisher of the homosexual underground newspaper “Gay and Screw” to adopt that term. His sexual orientation may have been heterosexual, but in practice, he was a very prominent activist in the homosexual movement. Therefore I was not “misleading” anybody in attributing the origin of the word “homophobe” to militant homosexuals - Weinberg was very prominent in that movement.

Weinberg is a very peculiar kind of “heterosexual psychotherapist” full of contradictions – a heterosexual who was a prominent activist in the homosexual movement and also a practicing psychotherapist who discredits his own profession so much that he writes a book entitled “Lies Your Therapist Told You”. It is my honest belief that he would benefit greatly from a session on a psychotherapist’s couch so as to resolve his conflicts - even if he has to listen to the “lies” of his colleagues in his profession.

Jessica Debattista

Jan 11th 2011, 10:15

@ Kevin Cassar:
Part 2.

It is the heterosexual who, for want of fresh titillations (which could be induced through a number of ways – alcohol – pornography – group sex etc….), would experiment with homosexual practices, who would be committing a graver sin.

For the fact that he is putting himself in situations that go against his nature, the heterosexual is opening himself to the possibility of an acquired vice.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 11th 2011, 10:12

@ Kevin Cassar:
Part 1.
I was amazed that you could not understand a straightforward comment such as I made when I said: "It seems that the number of homosexuals is ever growing and maybe this trend is a result of so much promiscuity which at times leads to experiments in fresh excitements. It is perhaps this type of homosexuality which is an abomination for in so doing one is going against one’s nature – the nature of having been born a heterosexual. It is a willful act to commit a sin. "

You understood my comment to mean: “....... that it is wrong (a sin) to go against your nature, which I totally agree with. It is wrong to be dishonest, again agreed. Homosexuality was/is perhaps seen as an abomination because of this - from the perspective of a heterosexual, a homosexual act goes against nature.”

However you are still far away from what I meant, or you may be trying to twist what I said.

I do not condemn true homosexuals who are just following their natural inclination. They might be sinning, but they cannot do otherwise unless they choose to remain celibate, which is doubtful.

Continued…

Patrik Larsson

Jan 11th 2011, 08:40

Jessica DeBattista:
"In my comment I had in mind the gay parades which are notorious for their noisy, flamboyant exhibitionism. "

I think you are playing loose and wild with the word "aggressive" :)

I get your point though. Perhaps "aggressive" was not the best description to it, but apart from that I think we are in agreement.

ftheuma

Jan 11th 2011, 07:58

I stand by what I said, that in my view the exhibition demonstrated sacrilege, blasphemy and ill taste but not intolerance and discrimination. Your light bout of linguistic gymnastics is imaginative but weak.

ftheuma

Jan 11th 2011, 07:46

@ Mr / Ms ftheuma
"coined by a heterosexual psychologist, .... Weinberg in the 70s". Eureka! A brilliant discovery! If you care to show due diligence i had already stated such after consulting wiki.

So what is your point exactly? Are you chastising me for not reading assiduously each and every comment posted below the article? Who is saying that its a brilliant discovery? What brings the bitter sarcasm? If you want to lay claim to being the first one to bring this relevant fact to light you're welcome. If you want to make me look stupid you re welcome too.

ftheuma

Jan 11th 2011, 07:35

So what to your so what! Fact remains that you were either deliberately misleading or ignorant of the facts in your original explanation of homophobia. I am sure it was not the second. Your attempt to discredit Winberger is expected and tiresome strategy but does not change anything.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 10th 2011, 21:59

3) Jessica, you asked about the increased incidence of homosexuality. Sign of the times is greater openness, the internet, etc. One would have to be 'ta' wara l-muntanji', mill-Ahrax tal-Mellieha' (the back of beyond) not to have heard that homosexuality is OK, sort of. So in societies such as Malta's fewer get married to hide their penchant 'for playing cricket with the guys'. That said, I've met guys in Malta who don't see themselves as homosexual because they are genuinely Alpha Male type in appearance and therefore, in their minds, they are seamlessly(sic) eligible for marriage. Good luck to these types and their women. You see, not all homosexuals make deep and serious enquiries into their differentness. Some of the thickest people I've come across have been homosexuals. All Michelangelos and Alan Turings in-the-making, they ain't!
I believe that the logo of a bitten apple on some computers/servers refers to the cyanide poisining which, it is alleged, killed Turing. He, of course, has a significant role in modern day computing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Joe Xuereb

Jan 10th 2011, 20:32

2)....... and this can be done solely by rejecting much, if not all, of received 'wisdom', and embark on an ongoing SOLO journey discovering 'truth' (by elimination process, usually). Such a person will often be alone. But lonely? In a word, no; but this may be difficult to grasp. Quality not quantity, remember?!
Jealousy. I presume the human aspect of (according to Richard's friend). A person heavily invested in another - becomes his identity, security, happiness even - of course such a person is going to get jealous if a third gets too close his alter ago. It's a symptom (in varying degrees, no two persons are identical) of threatened security as perceived, with tragic results as recently the case of Christina Sammut, killed by an INSANELY jealous ex-lover. For anyone to say that homosexuals are more prone to jealousy than anyone else - it betrays a sad degree of naivete and ignorance I'm afraid.
Dr.Saliba said somehing about inebriated homosexuals not doing what they do if they remained sober (words to that effect). Given his stance on the matter, he's saying he'd rather homosexuals didn't do anything. Would he dare say the same of/to heterosexual couplings?
continued

Joe Xuereb

Jan 10th 2011, 20:18

1) @Richard Curmi. May I presume that the friendly debate on homosexuality was with a homosexual who told you that 'queers' are prone to loneliness and 'extreme' jealousy. Self-loathing homosexuals say all kinds of things, just like non-homosexuals. S/he was, quite likely, merely projecting HIS/HER own anguish.
A women threatened suicide on Facebook this week. She had over a thousand friends and nobody responded to her cry for help. So, it depends what one means by friends. I learned years ago that - listen carefully here Richard - the people we call friends are usually people we pass the time of day with. Often these people are mutually parasitic, feeding off each other, always investing in ANYTHING other than themselves (instant gratification that comes at a price, wouldn't you know?!). The addictive personality will be addicted to his friends. Never lonely, never alone......but lonely. Because there's a vacuity underneath. Not unlike the alcoholic, or smoker - as long as there's enough money to buy both - they're happy. On the other hand, the person who invests in himself - and this can be done.........
continued

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 10th 2011, 18:02

@ Patrik Larsson: “"...to assert themselves, they very often resort to aggressive behaviour - especially when they are in a group."

Seems like a bit of an assertion. I think the general tendencies of homosexuals is to show less aggressive behaviour than their heterosexual counterparts. Do you have anything to back that up with?”

Mr. Larsson, the average homosexuals, at least the ones I know are quite mild-mannered and not as roudy as the heterosexual male, but when it comes for them to assert their homosexuality they choose to do it in an aggressive way. It is probably a way of letting off steam for past suppression.

In my comment I had in mind the gay parades which are notorious for their noisy, flamboyant exhibitionism.

Kevin Cassar

Jan 10th 2011, 17:43

@ Jessica DeBattista

"It seems that the number of homosexuals is ever growing and maybe this trend is a result of so much promiscuity which at times leads to experiments in fresh excitements. It is perhaps this type of homosexuality which is an abomination for in so doing one is going against one’s nature – the nature of having been born a heterosexual. It is a willful act to commit a sin. "

My initial reaction to this part of your comment was "this is nonsense!! Surely she's not saying that people would even think of going against their sexuality for the sake of experiment."

I tried to think of a way to make some sense of this and then I found that I may after all agree with your message - if the interpretation I arrived at is correct.

What I think you may be saying is that it is wrong (a sin) to go against your nature, which I totally agree with. It is wrong to be dishonest, again agreed. Homosexuality was/is perhaps seen as an abomination because of this - from the perspective of a heterosexual, a homosexual act goes against nature.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 10th 2011, 17:30

@ Richard Curmi: “Couldn't it also be because more and more homosexuals are finding the courage to come out as compared to a few years ago? I think there is a difference between being born homosexual and choosing to be one.”

Yes Mr. Curmi, “more homosexuals are finding the courage to come out as compared to a few years ago.” And that would partly account to the apparent increase of homosexuals.

I do not think anybody in his right mind would “choose” to be a homosexual and that is why I make a distinction between homosexual practice by born homosexuals and others who do it for “kicks”. I would describe the latter as “deviants” for they are deviating from their natural sexual orientation. These people exist as Mr Xuereb who seems to be well read on these matters might attest.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 10th 2011, 16:49

@ Mary Borg: “"Catholic and Anglican schools will be required to promote abortion, contraception, “civil partnerships” and homosexuality as “normal and harmless.”

WHAT?! Catholic schools are promoting evil things like abortions to kids? What's next? If this is what religion is teaching to our kids, no wonder then, if someone displays Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered in a condom and sperma!”

Ms. Borg, kindly re-read Fr. Borg’s article.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 10th 2011, 16:28

David Seychell:
"I like your liberal view. Because of their views regarding homosexuality you're free to label them homophobic and because of your views regarding their religious beliefs, they are free to call you Christianophobic. Nice."

I'm not following you. Which should and which shouldn't be allowed? If the priest can call homosexuals for sinful (or homosexual activity a sin), why can't Matthew Vella call the priest homophobic? Maybe I'm missing something.

You just don't make it very clear what you actually oppose or agree with.

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 10th 2011, 15:16

@PatrikLarsson.

You are making exactly the same point as I when I wrote: "Higher levels (of alcohol in the blood) impair and inhibit the higher controlling functions of the brain involved in civilised “self-censoring” so that the affected person reverts to a more primitive maudling sentimentality or aggressive antisocial behaviour". It is clear that the deliberate lowering of cerebral functions affects negatively all human behaviour - not just sex. I quoted homosexuality specifically only to maintain a nexus with the mainstream comments that were about about homosexuality and alcohol abuse.

The debate about my use of the Dr. title arose because, once more, an atheist commentator, unable to submit logical arguments, stooped to defame me by suggesting that I was making a fraudulent claim to my correct title by addressing me provocatively as "Dr (?) Francis Saliba".

David Seychell

Jan 10th 2011, 12:55

@Matthew Vella
"Well if they consider homosexuality to be wrong, a sin, of course they have the right to be express disapproval. Just like we have to right to call them homophobic and intolerant because of their homophobic views."

I like your liberal view. Because of their views regarding homosexuality you're free to label them homophobic and because of your views regarding their religious beliefs, they are free to call you Christianophobic. Nice.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 10th 2011, 10:20

David Seychell:
"The Church also says that homosexuals are God's children. According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies 'must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.'"

So even if the street preacher in my view wasn't doing anything illegal, he was breaching what is ordained by the Catechism?

Patrik Larsson

Jan 10th 2011, 10:19

David Seychell:
"Should priests have negative attitudes towards sins?"

What a non-sensical question. Yes, of course I think they should, but I don't expect them to.

It's like saying "Should klan members have a negative attitude to other races?". Of course they shouldn't, but it's inherent in what they are that they do (and I'm not here comparing klan members with priests, so don't even try).

Patrik Larsson

Jan 10th 2011, 10:09

ftheuma:
"Leaving all the etymological hairsplitting to the latinists that seem to populate this page, would Fr Joe have had a problem if the person in the story was, say, a fascist demagogue rather than a street preacher?"

Like, say, Fred Phelps?

To be honest, I still stand by my previous point. Fred Phelps, for example, is scum. An absolute disgrace to humanity, for so many reasons (hating Sweden definitely being one of them). But I wouldn't want to jail him for his view, nor have him fined for it.

Best way is to expose him for what he is. An intolerant fraud, with an absolutely insatiable lust for power. Highlight that. Make people aware of that. But whatever you do, don't change the liberties that make up a working democracy to silence some deterrent views.

And as a side note on Phelps, I recommend anyone to read up on his son, Nathan Phelps, who have left his father's church many years ago and the struggle he had to free himself from it. Nathan is today an atheist, but that's a side note.
http://natephelps.com/10801.html

Patrik Larsson

Jan 10th 2011, 09:56

Dr. Saliba:
"Homosexuality does not come into it at all except that the homosexual under the influence of alcohol may indulge in homosexual behaviour that he/she would normally control when not inebriated."

Not that I really want to get into another debate, but I think you should realise that the above sentence would have literally the same meaning, while being all inclusive, if it was changed to:

"Sexuality does not come into it at all except that people under the influence of alcohol may indulge in sexual behaviour that he/she would normally control when not inebriated."

Further, I'd love to expand on your drunk driving reference. It seems like Malta is finally reacting to the many years of breeding a culture that is ok at putting others at risk. I have become a social pariah too many times for simply not accepting wine over a social lunch or dinner, for the simple reason I'm driving home after.

What is the defense of such behaviour? Why do otherwise moral and upright individuals think it's ok to putting other people's lives at risk?

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 10th 2011, 09:51

@ftheuma

So what! In spite of his heterosexuality George Weinberg is a well-known homosexual activist who induced publisher Goldstein to use the term “homophobia” in his underground homosexual newspaper (significantly called “Gay and Screw”) as far back as the late sixties. Incidentally, although he is an authentic psychotherapist he devotes much of his time debunking this profession, his latest effort being titled “Lies Your Therapist Told You”.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 10th 2011, 09:50

In the ongoing titles war I have to, for a change, side with our dear doctor. I'm not an academic myself and have no titles to decorate my name with, but I do recognise the honour gained by those who do.

Getting a doctorate degree means many years of hard studying and that kind of endeavour should be encouraged.

I don't know how that whole debate got started, but perhaps it would be wiser for all to just agree to disagree at this point, as it adds nothing to either side of the argument.

I'm not saying that to please anyone really, I just find it so boring :)

Patrik Larsson

Jan 10th 2011, 09:45

Jessica DeBattista:
"I read somewhere that homosexuality is not genetic, but how does one explain the fact that at a very early age one can detect characteristics that point to a future homosexual orientation? "

It seems like this is very inconclusive so far. What seems to be fairly agreed upon is that homosexual tendencies can be found from a very early age and whether it's a cognitive behaviour, or acquired at a later date, it seems very close, if not contingent upon, the nature of a person.

"...to assert themselves, they very often resort to aggressive behaviour - especially when they are in a group."

Seems like a bit of an assertion. I think the general tendencies of homosexuals is to show less aggressive behaviour than their heterosexual counterparts. Do you have anything to back that up with?

"...number of homosexuals is ever growing ... a result of so much promiscuity which at times leads to experiments"

I strongly doubt that experimentation turns people homosexual. Perhaps allows some to discover they were all along. I doubt many men wake up one day saying "hmm... I should sleep with a bloke today".

Richard Curmi

Jan 10th 2011, 07:42

@ Jessica DeBattista: "t seems that the number of homosexuals is ever growing and maybe this trend is a result of so much promiscuity which at times leads to experiments in fresh excitements." Couldn't it also be because more and more homosexuals are finding the courage to come out as compared to a few years ago? I think there is a difference between being born homosexual and choosing to be one.

"Granted that homosexual practice is a sin, but then, so are all the other bad practices that we as Christians are called to refrain from but hardly ever do." But according to the catholic church homosexuals who practice their homosexuality are 'living' in sin and as such are looked at as different to those who sin but promise not to sin again even if because of human fragility they sin again. The homosexual would not promise not to go back to their lover; they live together.

Joe Xuereb; Verbally I was told in a friendly argument that homosexuals are more prone to lonliness and jealousy than heterosexuals. Is there any evidence that support this belief?

I agree that Christianity has become an easy target for persecution.

Mary Borg

Jan 10th 2011, 02:15

"Catholic and Anglican schools will be required to promote abortion, contraception, “civil partnerships” and homosexuality as “normal and harmless.”

WHAT?! Catholic schools are promoting evil things like abortions to kids? What's next? If this is what religion is teaching to our kids, no wonder then, if someone displays Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered in a condom and sperma!

Joe Xuereb

Jan 10th 2011, 01:24

@Andrew Farrugia (related to Inez Farrug twice removed by any chance?) and F.Theuma. George Weinberg rings a bell. Time was way back in the late seventies/eighties when I was reading every book going about human sexuality at the library near my office then. One day these books disappeared from the shelves and stayed hidden for years. All because of the infamous Section 28 (as it 's known). Talk about discrimination! All this in UK and not a million years ago. In fact it was enacted in 1988 and abolished in the year 2000; not a day too soon.
It took us decades and decades campaigning for the age of consent(for homosexuals) to be lowered from 21 to whatever. At 18 one could vote and die for one's country but not bed a fellow man if that was their proclivity. And criminalised if they were under 21. I remember (especially when homosexuality was still illegal before 1967) when private clubs (discreet entrance, up flights of steps), just a bar and a piano in the corner - they were regularly raided by uniformed police hoping(?) they'd discover, what?! Over fifty years I've seen the long but slow arm of British Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 10th 2011, 00:25

@ ftheuma: “'November 2010: The lower Austrian main building of government (NÖ-Landhaus) hosts an exhibition which displays Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered in a condom, and sperma. This exhibition is funded by public money and approved by the governer Mr. Erwin Pröll.' - blasphemy, sacrilege and poor taste certainly but I cannot see any intolerance and discrimination.”

“blasphemy, sacrilege and poor taste certainly” but also certainly harassment – harassment for the duration of the exhibition – prolonged harassment, ergo religious persecution, ergo intolerance.

Discrimination?

“What is a synonym for discrimination?
bigotry, favoritism, hatred, inequity, injustice, INTOLERANCE (my caps), partiality, prejudice, unfairness, wrong. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_synonym_for_discrimination

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 9th 2011, 22:27

@ Mr / Ms ftheuma
"coined by a heterosexual psychologist, .... Weinberg in the 70s". Eureka! A brilliant discovery! If you care to show due diligence i had already stated such after consulting wiki.

ftheuma

Jan 9th 2011, 21:03

'Homophobia is a non-medical derogatory appellation invented by homosexuals to provoke hetereosexuals.' An interesting theory but I believe you'll find that the term was coined by a heterosexual psychologist, George Weinberg, in the 70s.

ftheuma

Jan 9th 2011, 20:53

'November 2010: The lower Austrian main building of government (NÖ-Landhaus) hosts an exhibition which displays Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered in a condom, and sperma. This exhibition is funded by public money and approved by the governer Mr. Erwin Pröll.' - blasphemy, sacrilege and poor taste certainly but I cannot see any intolerance and discrimination.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 9th 2011, 17:34

3) Dr.Francis Saliba, why do you give yourself such a hard time? Identify the source of your problem and attack it at source. That rules me out.

PS Jess, homosexuality has greater acceptance and visibility but the natural incidence seems to remain constant. Of course in the past marriage and taking Holy Orders was an option but not any more. One could hazard a guess this may be the reason why vocations for the priesthood have diminished. Just a thought. And don't forget, the construction worker with tattooes up to here could well be one of the brotherhood. We're not all hairdressers and hat designers you see.
I hope the Sunday Roast 'fil-forn' with the nutty filling was to everyone's taste. Go easy on the Seasonal Salt.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 9th 2011, 17:20

2) The apparent increased incidence of homosexuality? As I said, there's a degree of overlapping in acting out any sexual orientation. Homosexuality is also 'opportunistic'. Where there's an absence of women, for example. Or when a man is having a rough time with a woman/women. He might end up experimenting with the guys. This is not so much becoming homosexual. Rather, it is a case of a man in emotional dire straits (the two pintsa lager syndrome) and will grap at any resource. He digs not too deeply and finds succour in his latent homosexuality. He might just discover his true self, granted. Or he might just as likely revert to heterosexuality. Jess, I know this from being out there from the time when the rallying cry of us Maltese expats in London was, 'let's go to the 'Arkata'(Marble Arch). Speakers' Corner was for Sunday nuts after Sunday roast. The rest of the week one had smaller crowds well into the night and the opportunity for boys to be like any boys since day one.
continued

Joe Xuereb

Jan 9th 2011, 17:09

1) Education at street level is not unlike the seasoned globetrotter. Some 'globetrotter' do it from their armchair. The true globetrotter will forever speak of incidents, experiences, insights, wisdom. The 'armchair traveller' just goes to the library.
Jessica, there are homosexuals who are effeminate (noticeable in childhood). Like many heterosexual men in fact. As I said, homosexuality is not a separate nexus but a scale of human behaviour. So much so, how does one explain the trend these days for homosexuals to be uber-masculine. It can't all be cultural; some of it has to be innate masculinity. That said, what's the big deal about heterosexual man with clear top-heavy testosterone from childhood. We know that this type, the extreme hetero male, is often capable of horror.
continued

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 9th 2011, 10:40

"Titles? Who needs them?" (Joe Xuereb)

Obviously the fox who has not got any but keeps moaning "Sour grapes!"

Those who have titles readily admit that they are not at all essential but they come in useful as an alternative to a university education acquired in Hyde Park corner.

David Seychell

Jan 9th 2011, 07:58

@Joe Xuereb
"If the Church is seen to condemn homosexuality the totally irreligious homophobe with murderous will spout 'even the Church condemns them'. So the Church could still have blood on it hands. Of course violence against Christians is reprehensible but the Church needs to do its homework too."

The Church also says that homosexuals are God's children. According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 8th 2011, 23:09

Part 2.
Homophobia has done a lot of harm to society for it has antagonized homosexuals (male/female) to the extent that, to assert themselves, they very often resort to aggressive behaviour - especially when they are in a group.

Many of them sever ties with the Church for they are unable to live a celibate life.
Celibacy is a choice one makes and not a condemnation for having been born a homosexual!

Granted that homosexual practice is a sin, but then, so are all the other bad practices that we as Christians are called to refrain from but hardly ever do.

It seems that the number of homosexuals is ever growing and maybe this trend is a result of so much promiscuity which at times leads to experiments in fresh excitements. It is perhaps this type of homosexuality which is an abomination for in so doing one is going against one’s nature – the nature of having been born a heterosexual. It is a willful act to commit a sin.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 8th 2011, 23:06

Part 1.
I read somewhere that homosexuality is not genetic, but how does one explain the fact that at a very early age one can detect characteristics that point to a future homosexual orientation?

Children as young as ten or eleven can display traits which do not escape fellow students and that is why, as at times happen, young boys are bullied and called sissies. The said boys themselves may not be aware of it and parents might go in denial about it, but it is only a question of time before they have to come to terms with it.

It often happens that older boys go into a relaxed camaraderie with girls their age but tend to keep aloof from boys.

Nowadays, homosexuality has totally lost its taboo except with some of the older generation who still hang on to old-fashioned views.

Continued….

Joe Xuereb

Jan 8th 2011, 21:17

Dear Farrug (may I? easy does it, one step at a time, I'm a shy flower). First line of my comment #2 I was careful to say not everybody's a rogue. In a roundabout way - and I'm sure I've said this elsewhere, another time - I was saying that sure, I respect everybody as a necessary social grace. But at the end of the day, in my book at least, respect has to be earned and be seen to be earned. 'Innocent until proven guilty' kind of thing. It is not unlike my take on forgiveness. Easy once the person who wrongs me admits the whatever. Anything is would put my self-esteem at risk. I should add that this has nothing to do with atheism. To me it's automatic and the most one can accuse me of is being a stickler for principle.

Matthew Vella

Jan 8th 2011, 20:22

I am simply blown away by the fact that “civil partnerships” and homosexuality being taught as “normal and harmless” is being used as an example to show intolerance and discrimination against christians.

Matthew Vella

Jan 8th 2011, 20:12

@ David Seychel
You asked me: "Should priests have negative attitudes towards sins?". Well if they consider homosexuality to be wrong, a sin, of course they have the right to be express disapproval. Just like we have to right to call them homophobic and intolerant because of their homophobic views.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 8th 2011, 19:14

Dear Xuereb
"Titles? Who needs them ? .......don't necessarily mean much?"

Come, come, Dear Xuereb, let us not start waving red flags and pooh-pooh the honest endeavour, creativity and brilliance of so many people who have devoted their lives in pursuit of knowledge and assisting mankind. While it is true that we can find bad apples among the titled, the supposedly honourable, and the pseudo-dignified, we must not fall into the trap of tarnishing everyone with the same brush. It is also a fact, as you probably wish to point out, that respect needs to be earned on a daily basis; in fact you have earned my respect despite not being titled in any way and i hope that i have earned yours, even though i similarly have no titles. But it does not mean that we should show disrespect to titled people simply because we disagree with them.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 8th 2011, 19:06

Quote: 'Drinking alcohol becomes “transgressive” when it deviates from socially acceptable conviviality and annoys or endangers others'. So one must not forget that when inviting members of an alien religion that forbids imbibing alcohol, to encourage them to integrate, one must be convivial on sugar water and hide any effigies that the guests might, indeed would, find offensive. Strange but it gets weirder. Quote: `the homosexual under the influence of alcohol may indulge in homosexual behaviour that he/she would normally control when not inebriated'. Oh dear! I wonder if the doctor would say the same about/to heterosexual people. It would be interesting to see their reaction. Because basically he is saying he would rather homosexuals did not act out their natural orientation, inebriated or not. So sad when people's titles go to their head!
Underlying all this is, of course, our instinct to survive. Some are surviving rather less well than others.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 8th 2011, 18:35

2) Titles? Who needs them? Not all doctors and lawyers are con-artists but even tiny Malta has had it's share of roguish stalwart of society judges and lawyers. Meaning that titles conferred by (any) society don't necessarily mean much; more so when the titled, come bedtime, muse on the equivalent of nursery rhymes in their still enforced infantile state.
Years ago, and still, society conferred on me the title 'queer' to keep me in my place. It did for long enough until I set me free by informing myself. And embraced the gay collective. But one outgrows the rebellion and these days many embrace the 'queer; and if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. As we say around Westfield way, 'none as queer as folk' (as in hell is other people, blah-blah-blah).

News item, yesterday, an ex-MP, colleagues and others swore on his honesty and hard graft. He was caught embezzling expenses and was sent down. His supporters protested his diligence. Yes, I bet! So much for outward respectability.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/07/mps-expenses-david-chaytor-jailed

Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth as we say. Shattered his constituents' trust and that warranted jail-term. If only we did the same to errant priests.

Mary Mills

Jan 8th 2011, 15:48

ftheuma: Indeed! That's the point.

Ramon Casha: "The law merely states that adoption agencies engaged by government with taxpayers' money may not discriminate against gay couples. Similarly employers.... Muslims may not... Catholics may not...."

Indeed, what else should citizens be asking for?? And at the core of the concept of 'res publica', now that we're on to Latin!

Joe Xuereb

Jan 8th 2011, 13:11

Homophobia=fear of that which 'engages with same'. Made up of compounds 'homo' from Mod.Grk. omologei'a = avowal, omo'logo=bond, omologo'=acknowldge, omo'neia=concord (as in Omonia Square in Athens, a popular 'cruising' area for homosexuals. Phobia is of course from Md.Grk fovamai=to dread. The lot from Ancient Greek no doubt but I so don't do dead anything.
Whoever insists otherwise, and fails miserably to turn the tables on homosexuals, is a homophobe. Classic.
If homosexuals are a separate nexus, like heterosexuals distinctly apart, then phobia is indeed fear (fear of that which is different). But homosexuality is not a separate nexus, it is part of a tapestry of human sexuality. Often overlapping with heterosexuality. What is called bisexuality. A bisexual who passes for heterosexual (as in married or in a cloister) - to these numerous one, the fear becomes a panic because homosexuality churns up feelings just below the surface. In other words, the worst homophobe is the closet homosexual who, in a social setting such as Malta's, feels the need to act hetero. Naturally, one does not learn this stuff from books necessarily. One learns a lot from being out there in the fray, at street level. As in field-work+ benefits.
Peri-o'dos=period.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 8th 2011, 12:24

@ Mr P Larsson

Thanks for supplying that link, Mr Larsson. What a great example of solidarity in Egypt! We can indeed learn a lot from this. When people of goodwill feel that any member/s of a community are being targetted by murderers and delinquents, irrespective of age, faith/non-faith, sexual orientation, colour, etc., etc,, they should stand together in solidarity against all those who pervert their beliefs/ideologies in order to exterminate others. This is surely the most effective manner of combatting terrorism, injustice and despotic regimes.

ftheuma

Jan 8th 2011, 11:56

“homophobic remarks…aggravated by religious prejudice.” Leaving all the etymological hairsplitting to the latinists that seem to populate this page, would Fr Joe have had a problem if the person in the story was, say, a fascist demagogue rather than a street preacher?

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 8th 2011, 11:44

“Surely there must be a lot more Joe Xuereb’s, or Peter Dingli’s or Kevin Cassar’s, but I don't see too many titles to distinguish these fine people.” (Arthur Soler).

Be precise, please. To your knowledge how many titles, if any, do these fine people share between them?

David Seychell

Jan 8th 2011, 11:05

The words with the suffix -phobia are generally coined by doctors and denote a mental disorder. This was especially true a few decades ago, when the non clinical term homophobia was first being used. Now, since homophobia is not really a phobia and since almost all the words with the suffix -phobia denoted a mental disorder, I suspect that the original intention behind labelling someone who dislike homosexuality as homophobic is to implant into our subconscious the impression that people who dislike homosexuality are mentally ill. Therefore I think that "homophobia" is a rather mischievous word.

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 8th 2011, 09:59

@Andrew Farrugia.

The literal definition of “homophobia” as “fear of the same” is considered to be “less common” by Wikipedia because the meaning of “fear of same” is so vague and so improbable as to border on the irrational. The simple truth is that “homophobia” was initially applied pejoratively by homosexuals as a malevolent taunt implying that all heterosexuals hate mankind in general. It has now acquired a more intelligent and generally accepted meaning as someone who fears and disapproves homosexuals/homosexuality.

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 8th 2011, 09:13

Drinking alcohol becomes “transgressive” when it deviates from socially acceptable conviviality and annoys or endangers others. Drinking and driving is definitely transgressive because even low blood alcohol levels impair driving skills and endanger life. Higher levels impair and inhibit the higher controlling functions of the brain involved in civilised “self-censoring” so that the affected person reverts to a more primitive maudling sentimentality or aggressive antisocial behaviour. Homosexuality does not come into it at all except that the homosexual under the influence of alcohol may indulge in homosexual behaviour that he/she would normally control when not inebriated.

David Seychell

Jan 8th 2011, 09:07

@Matthew Vella
"Modern society has decided what the meaning is, and that is negative attitudes towards homosexuals."

Should priests have negative attitudes towards sins?

Patrik Larsson

Jan 8th 2011, 07:55

Hard feelings and debating aside, I just had to quickly share a story of human solidarity which I think we can all revel in.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspx

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 8th 2011, 07:07

@KevinCassar.

There is no conflict between your quoted dictionary definitions and other comments. What started as a pejorative label created by homosexuals and applied indiscriminately to all heterosexuals has evolved, by popular usage, into the dictionary definitions quoted by you. No one is using any "different dictionary". The etymology is correct and has not been reasonably challenged by anybody.

victor rodenas

Jan 8th 2011, 06:57

Fr .Joe writing about the persecution of Christians is a good topic .Viewing Italian TV stations morning,afternoon and evening there is always a programm on the subject,but in Malta it looks that people who usually have important programmes on TVM seem reluctant,disinterested to make a programm about this persecution.I wonder why nobody tackles this subject on TVM,maybe in Bondi + or Xarabank.Am I wrong..,do you agree with me ?

Joe Xuereb

Jan 8th 2011, 03:17

At what point does drinking alcohol become 'transgressive'?
I've noticed that when a group of lads are drinking and one of them says, nonchalantly like, that he feels gay, this is invariably followed by guffaws of laughter. If there is a queer (I don't like the word gay - what's so gay about anybody's life whatever their proclivities?) nearby he might hear this throwaway merriment-inducing snippet made at the expense of a feared minority. If the queer is worth his seasoning salt he'll use his radar and realise the guy's merely off his head having fun and, as likely, trying to raise cheap laughs at others' expense. Whatever the intent, it really isn't worth sweating over. Queer guys are big guys now. Anyhow, many so-called heterosexual guys are copying them in the fashion department at least. Plus we all know what happens to some guys after two pintsa lager. What a clappy day in spite of the anti-climax that is all those Christmas trees on the walkways, still lushly-verdant plus the odd gayly coloured bauble still hangin' on, waiting to be scooped by that cute Polish rubbish-collector guy-and-'his-lunch-box'(jargon). He always says 'Dzien dobry' waving at me. looking happy enough. Thanks.AF.

David Seychell

Jan 8th 2011, 01:02

@Patrik Larsson "There is a massive difference in criticising an idea/concept, compared to criticising who, or what, someone is. That is what makes it intolerant. Religion is a concept, a collection of ideas and thoughts. Those can be criticised. By being a homosexual, your conduct in homosexual activities is a fulfillment of your human nature"

You change the defintion of "intolerant" each time it is showed that it can be applied to you. But let us use your new version. You say that by criticising homosexual sex, the Church is criticising homosexuals because homosexual-sex is needed for them to fulfill their human nature. But can't you realise that the same thing can be said against you? Religion is necessary for millions of people to fulfill their human nature. For these people, life without God is nonsense. I'm not a religious person, but I too firmly believe that developing one's spiritual side is essential to fulfill our human nature. Therefore, using your latest version, and since you often criticise the people's belief in God, you are guilty of being intolerant towards religion and religious people. Now, since "we can't tolerate intolerance", this means that we can't tolerate you or your behaviour...again.

David Seychell

Jan 8th 2011, 00:46

@Patrik Larsson
" The term means intolerance by religions, not towards religion."

"Religious intolerance is intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance

Definitions apart, giving the context in which I used that phrase and giving your intelligence, I'm sure you understood what I meant to say (i.e. intolerance towards religion).

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 7th 2011, 23:30

.....which brings me to another example of "political correctness gone haywire".
Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer have had to be edited as the word "nigger", considered as a racial slur, appeared about 250 times in Huck Finn and 40something in Tom Sawyer. The word has been replaced with SLAVE. Slave? Isn't this word similarly offensive? And Injun Joe has been replaced with Indian Joe, and half-breed with half-blood. Just imagine telling people that you only have the normal litres of blood that some others have! And what about Joseph Conrad's "The Nigger of the Narcissus"? Guess what: in the US of A the title has been changed completely. And people call this progress; we are beginning to censor our own thought and expression. Absolutely mad!

Kevin Cassar

Jan 7th 2011, 22:48

@ Andrew Farrugia

"Who establishes whether one is responsible for his actions or not and how is this done (this area of science is still in its infancy, in fact some studies suggest that some humans may be "hard-wired from birth" for criminal desires and activities.)?"

Excellent question (in my opinion) and just the question I would have asked myself. The truth is that no human being (so far) can determine that with a 100% accuracy, so obviously it can definitely not be answered by an ignorant (of science and intentions) person like me.
What I can offer though is my opinion on what can be done until (if ever) the situation changes. In my opinion there is really no real need to be totally sure since responsibility does not really change the effect of the deed to society. The law (courts) deems the person to be a danger to society and protects itself by doing two things - examine the sanity of the person and try to rehabilitate the person and keep him away from others (prison) until it deems it's safe to let him free. While this is not perfect, it's the best we have.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 7th 2011, 22:33

Would this help to clarify etymology? It's from wiki - not the fount of all knowledge - but hey, at least it clarifies matters,for me at least.
"The word HOMOPHOBIA is a neologism coined by clinical psychologist George Weinberg in his book, "Society and the Healthy Homosexual", in 1971. It combines Greek PHOBOS meaning 'panic fear' with the prefix HOMO- which means the same. The HOMO in HOMOPHOBIA comes from the word homosexual, not to be confused with the Latin HOMO, meaning man(as in homo sapiens).
The less common and literal meaning is "fear of the same". It is, howeve, almost exclusively used in the alternate sense of an intense aversion to, or disapproval of homosexuals and /or homosexuality, bordering on the irrational."
Faithfully reproduced from Etymology of Homophobia: Wikipedia.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 7th 2011, 22:15

Huh! "Loads of people going on about linguistics" - and they have the cheek to cide others about name calling! Wonderful! Particularly when it emanates from those august stables that have acquired a certain notoriety for elegant sophisticated wordsmithing! First they make one heck of a blunder - hardly surprising, seeing that they often shoot from the hip - by accusing my dear friend of harbouring homophobic tendencies, and then, AND THEN, they baldy state that "modern society (how i dislike these general platitudes!) has decided what the meaning is, and that is negative attitudes towards homosexuals (syntax errors anyone?)". Thus we should all shut up and take modern society's word for it; no ifs or buts. How amazingly democratic! Now this is a thing which has been bugging me for ages: why is it that i cannot describe myself as being gay (as in "a gay mood"), if i happen to be happy, exuberant and have had one more tot than i can actually handle? WHO has decided to hijack this word and divested ME from using it to talk about myself without being misunderstood or accused of ulterior motives when i only intend to have some fun?

Emanuel Farrugia

Jan 7th 2011, 22:05

Chrsitians

A dictionary definition of a Christian would be something similar to “a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.” While this is a good starting point, like many dictionary definitions, it falls somewhat short of really communicating the biblical truth of what it means to be a Christian. The word “Christian” is used three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). Followers of Jesus Christ were first called “Christians” in Antioch (Acts 11:26) because their behavior, activity, and speech were like Christ. The word “Christian” literally means, “belonging to the party of Christ” or a “follower of Christ.” A true Christian is a person who has put faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ, including His death on the cross as payment for sins and His resurrection on the third day.

Emanuel Farrugia former Executive Secretary Mtarfa Local Council

Matthew Vella

Jan 7th 2011, 20:02

Okay loads of people going on about linguistics.

Homophobia is simply the term used to describe negative attitudes towards homosexuals. Irrespective of how the phrase came about, that is how society has decided to use the term. It does not have anything to do with actual fear (even if thats what part of it is derived from) or, as Joe Xuered said, homosexuals being deliberately pejorative towards heterosexuals(????) . Modern society has decided what the meaning is, and that is negative attitudes towards homosexuals.

Kevin Cassar

Jan 7th 2011, 19:55

Oxford Dictionary - homophobia = an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary - homophobia = irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Collins Dictionary - homophobia = intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

Seems to me that Mr Xuereb does not require to suggest anything to anyone because his definition is the correct one. But of course some people obviously have a different (possibly immaginary) dictionary at hand.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 7th 2011, 19:20

@ Mr Larsson

Thanks for the compliment : "what i thought was apparent to any thinking person" (no offence meant to the messenger, no doubt): Sorpassiamo.
"as long as they are within the frames of what is legal, moral and under consent from whoever they are doing it to" Eureka, agreed 100% Mr Larsson, BUT can you explain WHO establishes/sets, HOW and ON WHAT BASIS we (as in society, any society) establish/set these grounds? Going back to my example, please be informed that the "victim - the one murdered and eaten" actually consented and wrote a declaration to prove his consent. Weird? Crazy? Suicidal? Whatever! I know that this is an extraordinary example and cannot be used to prove anything at all, but my earlier questions (yes, questions this time) remain valid.
@ Mr K Cassar
Bingo! Agreed 100% with "criticising the deed rather than the doer", but i also have some questions for you. Who establishes whether one is responsible for his actions or not and how is this done (this area of science is still in its infancy, in fact some studies suggest that some humans may be "hard-wired from birth" for criminal desires and activities.)?

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 7th 2011, 18:16

@JoeXuereb

“Latin I never really studied”(Joe Xuereb) - and it shows abundantly. That deficiency can never be corrected by a belated quick reference to on-line dictionaries or Orators'Corner at Hyde Park.

The prefix homo can be used to mean “mankind” in general (Latin derivation) and also “same” (Greek derivation) as in “homogenous” (having uniform consistency). Homosexuals invented “homophobic” as a deliberate pejorative term for heterosexuals. They ignore the fact that the Latin “homo” (both upper and lower case “H”) did not have any sexual connotation at all. Restricting the etymology to the Greek language, homosexuals cannot reasonably taunt heterosexuals of hating/fearing their own sex – only that heterosexuals do not actually make love to their own sex, on reasonable anatomical, physiological and religious grounds.

I do not fancy your proposal to create the tongue-twister “homosexual-phobia” – you are at liberty to propose it yourself to the homosexual community. I have a premonition that it will never become popular. Admittedly it has greater clarity but it lacks the malevolence implied in the false concept that heterosexuals hate all mankind.

Kevin Cassar

Jan 7th 2011, 18:06

@ Andrew Farrugia

"So, if someone is pathologically driven to murder and cannibalism, like that German fellow some years ago, we cannot criticise him, on the basis that we would be demonising his particular search for fulfillment. Is this logical? (Since i am aware of the strategies of mischief makers, I would like to declare that i am NOT equating the example i have provided with any kind of sexual orientation whatsoever.)"

The best practice is always to follow a simple rule - You should NEVER criticise the person but you can and should criticise the deed. Besides, if as you say in your example, the person is pathologically driven to do whatever "evil" deed, then he is not even responsible for his action, which enforces the reason why you should always criticise the deed and not the doer. This is something that both atheists (perhaps referred to as "mischief makers") and believers agree on. Have you never heard the saying "Hate the sin and not the sinner".

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 7th 2011, 17:53

I do not think it is a question of tolerating homosexuals, but rather accepting the fact that as Mr. Larsson said, “By being a homosexual, your conduct in homosexual activities is a fulfillment of your human nature.”

To my way of thinking, homosexual activity is reprehensible only in cases of rape and enticement of an individual at an age when the latter’s sexual orientation is still not fully developed and therefore susceptible to sexual advances from a person of the same sex.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 7th 2011, 17:26

Andrew Farrugia:
Ok, let me add what I thought was apparent to any thinking person. We can't denigrate someone based on who or what they are, as long as they are within the frames of what is legal, moral and under consent from whoever they are doing it to. So in the case of cannibalism we have good grounds to not accept it, especially in a case where he was instrumental in the killing.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 7th 2011, 16:21

So, if someone is pathologically driven to murder and cannibalism, like that German fellow some years ago, we cannot criticise him, on the basis that we would be demonising his particular search for fulfillment. Is this logical? (Since i am aware of the strategies of mischief makers, I would like to declare that i am NOT equating the example i have provided with any kind of sexual orientation whatsoever.)

Patrik Larsson

Jan 7th 2011, 14:42

David Seychell:
One more point. "Religious intolerance", if you read the term literally, can only mean intolerance based on religion. The term means intolerance by religions, not towards religion. In everyday speech that term might have changed meaning slightly - as with the case of "homophobia", but how my "intolerance" towards religion can be deemed religious doesn't quite add up to me.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 7th 2011, 14:40

David Seychell:
I can't tolerate broccoli, but I wouldn't push too hard to have them criminalised.

There is a massive difference in criticising an idea, or a concept, compared to criticising who, or what, someone is. That is what makes it intolerant. Religion is a concept, a collection of ideas and thoughts. Those can be criticised. By being a homosexual, your conduct in homosexual activities is a fulfillment of your human nature.

I'm sure you can see the difference in denigrating a political party, compared to denigrating a race. Same thing applies here.

Again, I don't disagree with you on your latter point. I'm sure that he is more competent to judge what is sins or not, as to me "sin" is a completely useless concept, bordering on imaginary. My better way would be to argue for higher tolerance to someone with a sexuality different than your own. It is that simple.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 7th 2011, 14:18

2) Sorry doctor, you got it all wrong. About the homo- I mean. Homophobia non-medical appellation you say? To suit your agenda? Try homosexual-phobia. That should be easier to grasp.

@Matthew Vella. I'm afraid yet again, I am misunderstood.

Richard Curmi. One should indeed live the Faith. But the Faith is getting weaker (as you know) and the minarets could one day outnumber the steeples. What then? In the longer term it's a question of numbers, demographics. AND IT PAINS ME TO SAY THIS, believe me.

David Seychell

Jan 7th 2011, 14:18

@Patrik Larsson
I thought that 'not tolerating' means not allowing the presence or activity of something. But let us use your definition which is "criticising harshly". Intolerance means 'the act of not tolerating'. Therefore, saying that 'homosexuality is a sin' = intolerance = criticising harshly homosexuality or homosexuals. So far so good. But you often criticise harshly religion and its beliefs. Therefore, by your own definition, you're "guilty" of religious intolerance. Now, since you said we can't tolerate intolerance, this means that we can't tolerate yourself (or your attitude). And by the way, how are we supposed to "criticise harshly what the preacher said when criticising harshly is by your definition being intolerant?

Anyways, you said: "The way to fight it is to argue for a better way. A more humane and open way." How are we supposed to argue for a better way with a preacher? By trying to convince him not to preach what he believes in, or by convincing him that homosexual sex is not a sin? The latter is like trying to convince a doctor that you know more than him about medicine even though you're not a doctor and never studied medicine.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 7th 2011, 14:13

1) Yet again, the ethymologically correct one has spouted. I'll explain.
According to Collins dictionary: ho-mo- combining form. being the same or like: homologous; homosexual. Compare hetero- (via Latin from Greek from 'homos' >same.
In this homo is a mere prefix, with a lower case 'h' (unless it's at the beginning of a sentence when it's an upper 'H'. Some need spoonfeeding.
Homo, invariably with an upper case 'H' means human kind, mankind. As in Homo sapiens. Any primate - including the cross crossed one, very primate - of the hominid genus Homo. Thus, Ecce Homo (which is where the Cross, in his zeal, is still stuck it seems). Collins continues - hominid genus, including modern man (including the sapient one) and several extinct species of primitive man. (Latin: man). NOT entirely extinct obviously. So back to school.
On a personal note, Latin I never really studied. I never aspired to social stalwartship via those honourable professions so commom, VERY COMMON, in Malta ie. Law and Medicine. But I do speak Greek. Started when the Grand Harbour hosted the world's Navies, back in the days of my esordio (debut).....
continued

Matthew Vella

Jan 7th 2011, 12:43

@ Joe Xuereb

Again condemning homosexual acts as sinful is homophobic. How on earth could it not be? How can someone say two men making love is wrong and sinful, but claim not to be homophobic? Again, the motives behind the homophobia are not necessarily wrong or evil, and could actually be noble, but the attitude itself is still homophobic. Call a spade a spade.
In other words you'd be intolerant of gay people. You could be intolerant because you think that there is something morally wrong with homosexuality, so in a sense you're being intolerant of what you consider to be wrong behavior, but you cannot deny that the homophobia is still there.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 7th 2011, 12:32

David Seychell:
Not contradictory at all. When I say we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, I don't mean we throw people in jail for it. I simply mean we have to criticise it harshly.

I don't think we should tolerate intolerance towards homosexuals being preached from the bible, but the way to fight it is not to throw every preacher in the slammer. The way to fight it is to argue for a better way. A more humane and open way.

In the case of the bible we should also have the right to criticise both the core message, as well as the validity. That's a right that has been trampled on in this country. There are hundreds of blasphemy cases every year. I can't see how a blasphemy law is anything but discriminatory and intolerant in and of itself.

Dr Francis Saliba

Jan 7th 2011, 12:17

Homophobia is a non-medical derogatory appellation invented by homosexuals to provoke hetereosexuals. It is not even ethymologically correct because strictly speaking, homophobia does not mean an unreasonable fear/hate of homosexuals, it implies an unreasonable hate of all mankind.

David Seychell

Jan 7th 2011, 12:04

@Patrik Larsson
I asked you "if a preacher says that homosexual sex is a sin... Does that mean he is "intolerant" according to you?" You answered: "intolerant yes" Therefore saying that 'homosexual sex is a sin' equals 'intolerance'. Earlier, you said: "The one thing we can't tolerate is intolerance". Therefore you're saying that we can't tolerate that someone says 'homosexual sex is a sin'. But you also said: "And for the record, I do think the police did wrong in pursuing it. I believe in freedom of speech, even if I don't agree with what is being said."

From one hand you say he should have the right to say it, but from the other hand you say we can't tolerate him saying it. Sounds contradictory to me. Care to explain?

Patrik Larsson

Jan 7th 2011, 11:41

Richard Curmi:
We all do mistakes and I readily admitted mine. There was a lot of cases on that website and a very easy mistake to make.

That said, I'll gladly apologise for it and can assure you I will try harder next time.

Richard Curmi

Jan 7th 2011, 10:17

Patrik Larsson I know that you retracted your comment but being someone who demands facts, evidence, truth etc from everyone else shouldn't you have done your homewrok better before including as one of your three plausible explanations "You added it to strenghten your point" which is tantamount as accusing Fr. Joe of cheating?

On to another point. Maybe replacing Catholicism as the main religion no as long as that is what is wanted by the Maltese citizens but not at the expense of tollerance of other beliefs or non beliefs and their right to have places of worship or meetings. After all I don't think that 2 or 3 minarettes are going to mar the steeple-ful Maltese landscape.

Besides I am noticing that more and more Catholicism in this context is being defended primarily as a culture/tradition and not as a lifestyle of faith. Christians are supposed to live their faith not because it's their culture or custom but because they believe.

It is very unfortunate that the three biggest religions are almost all the time being in conflict with each other. They say peace and love are their marks - therefore why persecute each other?

David Seychell

Jan 7th 2011, 07:17

It seems that homophobia is not really a phobia, after all. All the below quotes are from Wikipedia.
"A number of terms with the suffix -phobia are used incorrectly but have gained public acceptance to actually mean something... Once again these terms are not actual phobias but buzz words used in society. An example of this would be someone with a real fear of heights, water, flying, etc have definite physical reactions (increase in adrenaline, sweating, etc) with subject of their fears. Someone who is supposed to be homophobic does not. Another example would be a Doctor can clinically determine a person has Alektorophobia, Entomophobia, or Mycrophobia. But one does not go to the doctor for diagnosis of homophobia. These dubious phobias are typically used as labels cast on someone by another person or some other group"
"A group of psychologists from the University of Arkansas conducted research that showed that participants responses were not fear-based but reflected a disapproval of homosexuality that was due to other factors, such as "disgust"".

"Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in DSM or ICD; homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense."

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 6th 2011, 23:31

@ Fr Borg
Sorry to split hairs, but there was a typo in relation to the Portugal incident: it should read Jose Saramago - a libertine and an arch proponent of anarcho-communism who distinguished himself, apart from his literary efforts, for his hatred of the Catholic Church and Jews. And yet, like Dario Fo, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, i believe. Go figure!

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 6th 2011, 23:11

Dear Xuereb
Must correct myself - i am not as assiduous a reader as i would like to think; after all, you are a slippery customer. Took your hint and went back to find what some wally-ies had to say in your regard - personally i find them rather nasty (why, they had the gall to call perverts all those who disagreed with their views on divorce); well, at least they were less haughty than one bordura-whatever of some moons ago. Take my advice, for whatever it's worth; at times it is better to stay aloof from the crowd - the crowd tends to behave like Goneril and Regan, full of oily flattering sweet-nothings but ready to pounce on one like wolves and hyenas (with apologies to the said wild creatures). Keep well Xuereb.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 6th 2011, 22:57

Dear Xuereb
I did suggest that you should stick to piping hot cocoa rather than a grog; as for me i drank some good wine and wished you all the best. I must reassure you that i have never resorted to "less than honourable means" in my pursuit of anything in life; how else would you explain that i remained mum when Ms Debattista wondered where i had got the info.? For a minute she may have thought that i possessed some form of ESP; in fact i do possess a form of ESP ( a Masters in the teaching of E. for Specific Purposes) - hahaha. Anyway, take care Xuereb.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 6th 2011, 20:27

Thanks Jess. Thanks Andrew.
Only yesterday I queried a Libyan's residential status in Malta (caught trafficking many birds in three small cages). From unexpected quarters I was unceremoniously called a bigot. Did I want a high wall round Malta with no foreigners? And no tourists either? Why do many Maltese go off at a tangent into irrelevance? Generelly speaking, as Andrew says, I do not come across as a bigot/racist. But there you are!
Matthew Vella. If a preacher condemns homosexual acts as sinful does it make him a homophobe. What worries me, Matthew, is that such words will feed the homophobic listener on the street. He or she may not be religious at all but suddenly, they side with the Church on this issue alone. The Church (her representative) is saying, and endorsing, what they want to hear. And off they go, the ones on the hatred band-wagon, to harangue another queer. The fires of conflict must indeed not be stoked as D. Attard says.
PS Farrug, having found out my age by 'less than honourable means' do you still want to know, however tangentially obtuse as in 'never-good-at-Maths.', this old fogey?
Had a vodka grog yesterday. And choked.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 6th 2011, 16:29

@ Ms Debattista

Mr Farrugia may not necessarily agree with all that Xuereb thinks and believes, but Mr Farrugia follows and reads assiduously what Xuereb writes on the various threads of this paper.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 6th 2011, 16:00

@ Joe Xuereb:

So it’s your birthday Joe! I wonder where Mr. Farrugia got the onfo! I’ve scrolled up and down looking for it…..

Well have a good day and many Happy Returns Joe. X (That’s a hug and not your initial).

Jason Fenech

Jan 6th 2011, 13:38

As you sow, so shall you reap ... enough said!

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 6th 2011, 13:17

@ Mr Matthew Vella

It may indeed be your heartfelt desire to RELEGATE that which is Constitutionally-enshrined to wherever you wish, but any Constitutional change is subject to the appropriate procedures, which i do not need to expound on given word limit. Additionally, your views concerning what qualifies as discrimination, intolerance and respect /disrespect are a matter of opinion and controversy, so i fail to understand the kind of authoritative, bald assertion - "....relegated to the private sphere is NOT intolerance and discrimination" - which
appears to be aimed at turning mere fancy into concrete, established fact. But, i guess we are used to the kind of rhethoric that oozes out of certain journo stables.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 6th 2011, 12:28

Dear Xuereb

Happy birthday and best wishes. I will have a drink this evening after work; hope you do the same, even if it is cup of hot piping hot cocoa. That will help us to transcend time and space.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 6th 2011, 10:49

@ Joe Xuereb:
Part 2.

The world is being rapidly transformed and it seems like we cannot keep up with the pace.

There is frenzy for power and a fear of the ‘enemy’ that drives people to commit atrocities beyond imagination. Everybody wants to have the upper hand almost as if being on top is what life is all about.

Life is about understanding the needs of others and helping out. It is not about finger pointing at the presumed guilty.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 6th 2011, 10:47

@ Joe Xuereb: "The paradox here is that, although a staunch atheist, I would not want Catholicism to be replaced by another religion."

Part 1.

You know Joe, for a self-professed staunch atheist, you seem to be very level-headed. It is good to know that the religion that your mother country had embraced since the time when Paul had the misfortune - but our good fortune- to get shipwrecked on our island, is still dear to your heart.

I can empathise a lot with your bone of contention towards the Church, for the Church is an institution run by human beings subject to erroneous interpretation or bigoted old- fashioned views.

I always maintain that religion is something very personal. It is a personal relationship with you and your God. Nobody knows the inner feelings/conflicts that plague each and everyone of us.

The Church, of course, has to abide by its teachings for it caters to the whole community, but the individual, if he believes, can enter into a spiritual communion with God. This kind of relationship with God can bring one a great deal of solace.

Continued....

Patrik Larsson

Jan 6th 2011, 08:30

Ok, I found the note which Fr. Joe quoted from, which clear states it was a "direct question". I retract the former comment.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 6th 2011, 08:04

I keep getting stuck with the street preacher and I know the article is about so much more, but it is the wording of that case in your article, Fr. Joe, that just keep bugging me.

You wrote he was telling passersby "in answer to a direct question, that homosexual activity is a sin".

There is nothing in the article, nor in the source, nor in the videos, that says anything about being an answer to a direct question. It just says it was said during a conversation.

Why adding the "in answer to a direct question", Fr. Joe?

The way I see it - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that there are three plausible explanations to this addition:
1. You made a mistake
2. You have further articles about this case, specifying in more detail
3. You added it to strenghten your point.

I really want to know which one, if any, it is.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 6th 2011, 07:56

David Seychell:
"What I would like to ask you is, if a preacher says that homosexual sex is a sin, does that mean he is a homophobe according to you? Does that mean he is "intolerant" according to you?"

Homophobe no, intolerant yes. Even though it's the bible that says it's a sin, he follows that view. If he said "the bible says it's a sin, but the bible is only metaphor bla bla, we don't really take that into account because we have a better understanding of theology etc", then it would have been fine.

And for the record, I do think the police did wrong in pursuing it. I believe in freedom of speech, even if I don't agree with what is being said.

A few years ago we had a pastor in Sweden saying to his congregation that "homosexuality is a cancer to the body of society". He was sentenced quite harshly for it, although eventually freed. What I think of the pastor I couldn't express here due to explicit language, but I still think he had the right to say it.

Freedom of speech have limitations, but not enough space to ellaborate.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 6th 2011, 00:09

2) The cri de coeur against prosecution of the Christian faith is understandable but necessitates scrutiny. Humbly it proffers tolerance as in:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta

And hoping for reciprocity - time was, but those times are long gone. So forget about a Maltese Alhambra cheek-by-jowl next to Mosta Dome or the Co-Cathedral.

Keeping in mind that, as we say here, one may stoop and pick up nothing.

The paradox here is that, although a staunch atheist, I would not want Catholicism to be replaced by another religion. Because it's not ONLY about religion and in this sense, I share Switzerland's insistence on an unadulterated skyline. For anyone who cares to know what I mean.
If Christianity feels that its status is threatened it could review its proselytizing tactics. For sure it should not do this at the expense of minorities, never an option for a body that preaches love and peace. Like any healthy organism, the Church should grow of its own accord and with a little help from above.

Joe Xuereb

Jan 5th 2011, 23:42

1)The Crown Prosecution Service(inUK) dropped the case against Mr. McAlpine after Peter Tatchell, the Gay Rights Activist, offered to defend him(McAlpine). I guess the thinking is about defending freedom of speech and, McAlpine's opinion reflects the Church's, his preaching amounts to the Church exposing itself on this matter. The finer points of whether it is the acting-out it condemns but not the 'shock, horror!' condition is just hogwash.
If the Church is seen to condemn homosexuality the totally irreligious homophobe with murderous will spout 'even the Church condemns them'. So the Church could still have blood on it hands. Of course violence against Christians is reprehensible but the Church needs to do its homework too.
I can understand Mr.Tatchell's view. He's also saying, 'McAlpine did no obvious lasting damage on the spot but it is useful to allow him to declare his stance so that one may know who one is dealing with. But then Tatchell is a lawyer with much experience.
It's all very well for the Church to condemn the sin but not the 'sinner' (re:homosexuality). It has enough of them within its ranks. How condescending! And what a price the brethren pay!
continued

d.attard

Jan 5th 2011, 22:24

Religion continues to be at the core of much of the strife in this world underpinned by ethno-religious nationalists who unfortunately also prosper in our society.

Religious nationalists are often driven by their conflict with modernity. They tend to view their religious traditions as being closely tied to their nation and any perceived threat to their dogma is a threat to their existence.

Religious nationalists seek a political position in which their faith is privileged at the expense of others. Religious symbols are used to forward nationalist causes such as Catholics in Northern Ireland, Serbian Orthodox in Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, and Hindu nationalists in India.
Should the political hold of a religion weaken, ethno-religious nationalists may seek an event to trigger escalation of a conflict with some 'enemy' which conflict may regenerate national pride and restore its privileged position. Historic grievances may be recast as the responsibility of the ‘enemy’.

Yet religion is not inherently a source of conflict. We need to guard against the stokers of conflict and promote awareness of the positive reconciliatory role religion has played in many conflict situations. Fighting ignorance and designer-bigotry can go a long way.

Matthew Vella

Jan 5th 2011, 22:22

Religion being relegated purely to the private sphere is NOT intolerance and discrimination. Its called respect. Just because I respect the right Christians have to hold their beliefs does not mean that I want them imposed on me by the government. State and Church are, or should be, separate!
Intolerance and discrimination is wrong, be it against Christians and be it against atheists or other faiths.

And to reply to what someone else said in a previous comment, which was :" What I would like to ask you is, if a preacher says that homosexual sex is a sin, does that mean he is a homophobe according to you? Does that mean he is "intolerant" according to you?"
YES. OF COURSE. Its perfectly possible that the intentions behind his homophobic attitude are noble and good natured (albeit idiotic), but that does not mean that the attitude itself isn't homophobic.

David Seychell

Jan 5th 2011, 20:02

@Patrik Larsson
He didn't simply say "the bible says it's a sin" Read the BBC article please.
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/8687395.stm"

Again, that's not the point though. What I would like to ask you is, if a preacher says that homosexual sex is a sin, does that mean he is a homophobe according to you? Does that mean he is "intolerant" according to you? I'm genuinely interested in understanding your view.

Dr. Edward J. Clemmer

Jan 5th 2011, 19:19

In some of these examples there are clear issues of "freedom of conscience," in this case regarding religious freedom. Regarding children, who also may want to "convert," is the "Law" or the "State" to presume that children have no right to exercise that fundamental right apart from their parents? I think not. I think fundamental religious and political freedoms also should apply to children of "capable reason" and "good faith." For example, parents do not have absolute rights to make medical decisions against the socially recognized best interest of the physical life of a child. Even children, I believe, should be preserved from the potential secular abuses that may not allow them to practice the "moral" or "spiritual" freedom of religious thought and expression of faith even as pre-adults.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 5th 2011, 18:59

Andrew Farrugia:
I deny the existance of neither of those academic principles. Doesn't mean that they have found anything supernatural to be true.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 5th 2011, 16:22

@ Ms Debattista

Or like some other northern artist (German? Danish?) who thought he had outdone Michelangelo by inserting the Cross inside a jar of urine! Such brilliance, creativity and insight of the post-modern era!

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 5th 2011, 16:01

@ Mr Larsson

hahaha! Sure i remember what i wrote; ever heard of metaphysics or the paranormal, Mr Larsson? Or do you reject outright the existence of these academic disciplines?

Patrik Larsson

Jan 5th 2011, 15:30

David Seychell:
Read the article, please.
"McAlpine said in a discussion with a woman that 'homosexuality is a sin.'"

He didn't simply say "the bible says it's a sin". Not that it would have mattered too much. I can't quote Mein Kampf on jews and not take responsibility for doing so by simply saying "Mein Kampf says so". Also, the article does not state whether this preacher was Catholic, so the Church's opinion and his opinion could differ.

Furthermore the article might not make what he said justice, but how could I comment on something I do not know. I can only comment on what is reported.

When I wrote about defending homophobes and bigots I wasn't simply referring to this one case, although reading it again I can easily see how it could be interpreted as that and for that I apologise. It was more of a blanket statement, in the regards that if you are the kind of person who wants to defend intolerant people by crying intolerance, then feel free to do so. I want no part of it.

David Seychell

Jan 5th 2011, 14:50

@Patrik Larsson
If you say that the 'fined preacher' said that homosexuality is a sin, it does not mean that YOU're saying that homosexuality is a sin. So technically speaking, Dale Mcalpine (the preacher) did not say that homosexuality is a sin. His exact words were: "the Bible SAYS homosexuality is a sin". But this technicality is hardly the point. The point is that according to the Church homosexuality (being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex) is not a sin. What is sinful (according to the Church), is having sex with persons of the same sex.
What I genuinely don't understand is why according to you a preacher who publicly says that according to the Bible, or according to his own beliefs; homosexuality is a sin, is a homophobe. "Homophobe" means: person who hates or fears homosexual people. I mean, the Church also says that heterosexual sex is a sin when done outside marriage. However, no one ever said that the Church is afraid of or hates heterosexuals.

Jessica DeBattista

Jan 5th 2011, 14:21

Ruskin said: ‘Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words and the book of their art. Not one of these can be understood unless we read the two others, but of the three the only trustworthy one is the last’.

If one were to try to understand the art that is being promoted nowadays one would find that man has lost his equilibrium. He professes to have rights which should be respected but then he, himself will not respect the religious sensibilities of his fellow men.

We think that we are a civilized people but I fear that we are reverting to barbaric practices. We are living very decadent times!

I do not understand why an artist would stoop so low as to denigrate the Virgin Mary by encasing her in a condom.

To me he is just another artist seeking fame through shocking the public, which is a sure way to make the News. He will probably be likened to Serrano and his ‘Piss Christ” and he will probably be lauded for his sick imagination.

But what does that prove if not that we are infact living decadent times?

Dominic Fisher

Jan 5th 2011, 14:18

Tony Blair is a poor advocate for Christians. His actions helped marginalise us. It was only after leaving office that he converted to Catholicism and his spokesman, Ali Campbell said when journos asked about Blair's faith that 'we don't do God'.

Ramon Casha

Jan 5th 2011, 13:50

Those examples that I've heard about are all being misrepresented here. For instance, there is no new gay rights law that forced the Catholic church to pull out of adoption services. The law merely states that adoption agencies engaged by the government with taxpayers' money, may not discriminate against gay couples. Similarly, employers of any faith are obliged to follow non-discrimination rules. Muslims may not discriminate against women. Catholics may not discriminate against gays.

On the other hand I absolutely support the decision to take action against the individuals who abused their positions within the government to forcibly convert a Muslim child to Christianity, or to take advantage of the terminally ill's discomfort to put pressure on them to turn to their religion.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 5th 2011, 13:47

Hey, Andrew, do you remember this:

"One wonders how one is to describe certain natural and unnatural/ephemeral/spiritual phenomena which SCIENCE has recorded, witnessed, reported but DISMALLY failed to explain."

Such as?

Perhaps you should get back on answering that before digging yourself in to your claim pit. I really have no need on wasting time answering to your challenges, when I know you are going to ignore anything I say and keep spitting out baseless claims.

Ramon Casha

Jan 5th 2011, 13:43

@Andrew Farrugia: I remember the case about the man who was charged of, among other things, describing the host as "nothing but a cracker", as well as "insulting the President". I think they also threw in "disturbing the peace" or something like that. I don't know if he was convicted. It was reported on The Times, some time back.

victor rodenas

Jan 5th 2011, 13:16

But who did not know that this was going to happen ?Their leaders have been telling them to kill Christians for quite a time now.The latest statement given a few weeks ago was,....`we will take over Europe, and we will make Europe black.Does anybody think they are joking ?....Some weeks ago I was talking to a Moslem who was working close by and I brought up this subject.He said you Christians have been doing the same thing to Moslems,in Africa,South America and elsewhere for ages,now its our turn and about time too...

Joseph Abela

Jan 5th 2011, 13:13

I agree that intolerance and discrimination of any kind should be abolished.
But is this what Fr Borg really believes or does he think that only intolerance against Christians should be abolished?
What about the centuries-old discrimination and intolerance against minorities within the Church? What about such discrimination against homosexuals, for instance, often fuelled by the leaders of the Church?
Would people like Fr Borg and Andrew Farrugia speak up against such intolerance? Or is it only against Christians that gets the attention of these people?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say. I repeat: discrimination and intolerance is ALWAYS wrong but the Christians have not exactly an impeccable past to show in this area.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 5th 2011, 11:50

@ Mr P Larsson

But. of course, it is a form of persecution when you have to take matters to court in order to obtain which you are entitled to by right.

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 5th 2011, 11:38

@ Mr P Larsson
" I can't stop bringing up the case of an African man here in Malta who was fined for calling the Host ...." Care to provide more information about this?

Andrew Farrugia

Jan 5th 2011, 11:30

@ Mr P Larsson
" most of them not making any sense ....." Can you kindly tell us which ones do not make sense to YOU?
"is not proving anything": Wrong: it is sufficient EVIDENCE of intolerance and discrimination.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 5th 2011, 11:18

David Seychell:
"The fined preacher did not say that homosexuality is a sin"

Read the full article:
http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/index.php?id=630&user_extmininews_pi1[detailid]=206&user_extmininews_pi1[page]=1

And it's also worth mentioning that the preacher was found to be right and was awarded £7,000 plus expenses.

So, a police officer did not carry out his duties diligently, justice was made, yet Fr. Joe deems this case fit as a sign of Christian persecution.

Interestingly enough I read the case of the next case, of the Italian professor's statements. Again, this was resolved in favour of the university, hence the persecution seems absent.

Mary Mills

Jan 5th 2011, 11:15

A uniform adherence to the law has to come above "religions", a state of affairs which in fact promotes tolerance and when it comes to tolerance, Britain is a relatively tolerant country - has been the refuge, in fact, for certain free thinkers, historically.

p.s. Tony Blair (and Mrs Blair, millionnaires by now, thank you very much) is hardly a credible proselytiser against "aggressive secularism". Taking the country to war is what people will remember and not the fact that he walked the red carpet in Westminster Cathedral on occasion of conversion to Catholicism.

David Seychell

Jan 5th 2011, 10:54

@Patrik Larsson
"Put that in contrast with someone calling homosexuality a sin." The fined preacher did not say that homosexuality is a sin. According to the Church homosexuality is not a sin.

Mary Mills

Jan 5th 2011, 10:50

Re Christianity in the UK: with respect Fr Borg, you seem to mix up "the law" and "a religion"as in the case of the preacher fined for importuning people in the street, going about their business. Not a dissimilar case of a man also fined £1000, this week for sticking up a notice (somewhere he shouldn't have) about his lost cat.

Then, you mix the upholding of employment law (which an employment tribunal is expected to uphold) with "religion", a personal and not an overruling matter in the workplace, indeed in society.

The example re "Christian foster carer" of Muslim child allowed to convert... " child" means s/he is still a minor. Also adult a "foster carer" only, i.e. not an adoptive parent who would have had more rights to bring up child as s/he sees fit. Hence a question of "the law" again here and not prejudice against "a religion".

Then we get the STATUTORY obligation of sex education in ALL schools - again NOTHING to do with prejudice. Moral questions / implications are very likely to be discussed during RE lessons not only in church schools but also in state schools.

Cont...

Patrik Larsson

Jan 5th 2011, 10:16

Further... I can't stop bringing up the case of an African man here in Malta who was fined for calling the host "nothing but a cracker". Put that in contrast with someone calling homosexuality a sin. I wish I could find the original article, but it's nowhere to be found. I have posted the same case before in this very blog, but conveniently noone wants to answer it.

Patrik Larsson

Jan 5th 2011, 10:05

Sometimes there is so much to say that it's hard saying anything.

I agree that intolerance of all kinds has to be fought, but you really have to do better than this. Citing individual examples - most of them not making sense, others having a wider story than a simple sentence can portray, further more being done justly - is not proving anything.

That you also say this in a country where a single Church has constitutional right to teach what is right and wrong makes the whole article outright absurd.

In the cases of violence being done I have to give you my full support, but you make the massive error of claiming that Christians is the most persecuted group. In the Middle East I can assure you it's far more dangerous to be a non-believer, especially if you are an apostate, than a Christian. Further it's worth reminding that the majority of Muslim violence is perpetrated against other Muslims.

The one thing we can't tolerate is intolerance. You want to defend homophobes and bigots, be my guest, but in my book their views needs to be fought - although never violently.