The mother of all free votes

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 16th 2011, 06:19

No one here has said that "all other deistic creeds should not be allowed".

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 15th 2011, 10:18

@KevinCassar.

Your “freedom from all religion” is a euphemism for the tyrannical prohibition of the undeniable fundamental human right to choose and to practice a religion. The most recent evidence that you are advocating this tyrannical deprivation is to be found in your latest comment submitted just eight hours later. I do not intend to explain to you the implications of that comment if you do not realize it already, nor will I enter into any discussion of your anticipated radical revision of that clear comment. I got it right first time around, thank you very much. You are actually advocating the tyrannical imposition of one creed (i.e. a set and unshakeable opinion) namely the atheist creed that God dose not exist and that Christianity and all other deistic creeds should not be allowed.

In Malta any state aid to Catholic teaching establishments is in a mutually agreed exchange for the transfer of land from the Church to the State – it is not taxpayers’ money.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 15th 2011, 02:24

Dr Francis Saliba

Imposing freedom on others..... now that's evil. Typical atheists, how dare they want to impose the right to choose without any discrimination or special treatment. Special treatment is fair and democratic, I mean we Maltese treat all religions equally. That's why we make teaching religion compulsory and we teach all religions such as Roman Catholicism and em em, well we picked one at random so it's fair. We also grant tax free benefits to all religions such as Roman Catholicism and er er, well we can't afford to make them all tax free so again we picked one at random. We're so fair and holy that the whole island will probably be raptured any time soon.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 14th 2011, 18:24

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"You (Kevin) are not advocating the introduction of that "freedom from religion", you want to impose it on everyone else".

Any evidence of this?

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 14th 2011, 12:17

@KevinCassar

In all states that enjoy a true separation of Church from Sate – and that includes the Republic of Malta - the freedom to practice one’s religion is circumscribed by the local state laws. Wherever the form government is not a theocracy – and Malta is a non-theocratic state - religious people of all denominations do not expect to place themselves above the law – they observe it That applies to your examples of polygamy and divorce. Everyone in the State of Malta, irrespective of the faith he embraces, is “free to practice any religion they choose” always according to the state laws. That applies also to Catholics in Malta, therefore there is no discrimination. Incidentally, the state of Malta also allows your cherished freedom FROM religion as proved by the frequent atheistic and anti-religious comments in this blog. You are not advocating the introduction of that "freedom from religion", you want to impose it on everyone else.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 13th 2011, 20:49

@ Dr Francis Saliba

Freedom of religion in a country like Malta that has an Official religion only means that other religions are not persecuted. It does not by any means treat each religion equally and thus is not really "freedom". If I were to hold a gun at your head and tell you to choose between two options, one of which would mean I would shoot you - would that be considered freedom of choice? Similarly, to use an example of religion, islam allows polygamy, but is it permitted in Malta? Islam also permits divorce but can a muslim divorce in Malta? For a state to give freedom of religion, it requires to be free from religion (by which I mean the state and not the people, who are free to practice any religion they choose).

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 13th 2011, 17:27

@KevinCassar

Malta is truly a republic with an official religion (Catholicism) that actually guarantees and practices the freedom of all religions and actually protects them from vilification. That IS the constitutional law as promulgated and printed for general knowledge. It is not anything that only I “say”.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 13th 2011, 16:43

@ Andy Farrugia:

If all I have written in your quote is manifestly false, then Malta must be a secular state. I'll leave you to discuss it with Dr Saliba. When you reach a common position, please let us know.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 13th 2011, 13:50

@ Dr Francis Saliba

Regardless of what you say, no state can really afford freedom of religion when it has special treatment for one particular religion in its' constitution. As to the claim by you that calling Malta a secular state is an absolute and indefensible lie, I have already admitted it was an error on my part. If I wanted to be dishonest, I would not have admitted my error and perhaps said that this was in fact a HYPERBOLE and should not have been taken literally. Now where have I heard that one before?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 13th 2011, 13:36

@ Andy Farrugia:

If all I have written in your quote is manifestly false, then Malta must be a secular state. I'll leave you to discuss it with Dr Saliba. When you reach a common position, please let us know.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 13th 2011, 12:04

@ Andy Farrugia:

Have you actually bothered to read the Maltese constitution before saying that what I wrote is "manifestly false". The discrimination is actually acknowledged - demanded really - in the constitution itself.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 12th 2011, 15:20

@KennethCassar.

I choose to keep on ignoring you as long as you do not retract your allegation that I habitually evaded “answering questions” in the context of an evasion that was being carried out by somebody else, who had asked a "loaded" question addressed to me, which question I had answered promptly and adequately. I object also to your undeserved slur that I was some kind of beggar asking for alms when I was actually protesting in unmistakeable language. The same applies to your criticism of my reasonable habit of ignoring questions that in my opinion are not pertinent. You have no right to impose on an obligation to behave as some fool under some constraint to answer all questions, no matter how irrelevant or silly, otherwise you would malign me as a habitual evader of questions.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 12th 2011, 14:33

@Kevin Cassar.

No! Kevin. "Freedom of religion" is NOT restricted to secular states - it is allowed in all sorts of non-theocratic states ( and even, with restrictions, in some theocratic states).

The assertion that our republican constitution contains any statement suggesting that Malta is a secular state is an absolute and indefensible lie. The same applies to the canard that Malta is a Taliban-like fundamentalist theocratic state that denies, or interferes with, the practice of any religion. These are all deliberately deceptive lies that have been repeated so often with the malicious intent of denigrating our democratic Constitution, and to harm the official religion of the republic, by sundry atheists and anti-Catholics, that these irreligious people have actually managed to hypnotize themselves into believing that these blatant lies are true.

Joseph Camilleri

Mar 12th 2011, 14:28

Fr Joe made a distinction between ‘secularism’ and ‘secularisation’. Though I do not agree with him, he does bring out the connotation of ‘anti-clericalism’ which troubles many honest Catholics who think that the peaceful development of pluralistic societies depends on the distinct separation of the state from all religions. These Catholics have no wish to see their church under attack but, on the other hand, do not wish to see it renewing its crusading spirit. On the local issue of divorce, the church is well within its rights to tell the faithful that they (if they wish to remain in its community) can never seek a divorce; but it is an abuse to tell them that they should use their political clout to stop others (who may be non-Catholics or lapsed Catholics) from having the possibility to divorce. And this on pain on sin and eternal damnation! Of course, the Church has not officially said this but enough has been said, directly and indirectly, to frighten many gullible Catholics. A church that accepts the 'positive' distinction between state and church should tell its followers to show tolerance and allow others to live according to their own conscience.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 12th 2011, 14:24

@ Lina Caruana - a brilliant piece of rationale until it stumbles over the perennial moss-encased, slippery block that too often, neither archaeologist nor earthquake can shift. Of course a person needs to stand on his/her own two feet but at what cost the starvation of his/her soul? Well, that depends on one's vantage point. Feeding the soul nonsense is hardly nutritious (but I wouldn't expect anyone who finds the block to high to leap over to understand, never mind grasp, this). As for 'consistently subjected to secularism?' - nicely put but 'subjected?'. Wrong choice of word I'm afraid. Helping people to stand on their own feet requires them being given honest DOWN TO EARTH information. Nothing else will do. In modern parlance, we call this transparency. Such a diaphanous word, gossamer-like, but so loaded given what it's up against.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 12th 2011, 13:57

"it gives preferential treatment to the religious; it actively discriminates on the basis of religion; it gives preferential treatment to Catholics over other religions or atheists/agnostics/sceptics; it has a state religion; and it even includes compulsory Catholic education in its constitution."

MANIFESTLY FALSE!

Kevin Cassar

Mar 12th 2011, 10:53

@ Dr Francis Saliba

By "clearly defining Malta as a secular state", I was referring to the article that says that it allows freedom of religion (belief), which is a quality that is only possible in secular states. That is why there is so much confusion about whether Malta is or is not a secular state.

So, as you indicated, I was wrong about one thing but inherently right about another. I was wrong to claim that Malta clearly states that it is a secular state which means that I was right to claim that it is not. I apologize for the error and thank you for pointing it out. Hope that this clears all doubts on the issue.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 12th 2011, 10:31

To add to my previous post, Malta cannot be called secular because it is not neutral in matters of religion; it gives preferential treatment to the religious; it actively discriminates on the basis of religion; it gives preferential treatment to Catholics over other religions or atheists/agnostics/sceptics; it has a state religion; and it even includes compulsory Catholic education in its constitution.

Of course, the privileged will strongly oppose secularism and believe the above is fair. And this answers Patrik Larsson's question as well.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 12th 2011, 10:09

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

Here's a definition of a "Secular State":

"A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not guarantee that a state is secular".

So yes, because I value truth, I have to agree with you, even if this provides "ammunition to my enemies" (ring a bell?).

But I wonder...does this make Malta a semi-Theocratic state? You are of course free to choose whether to answer or ignore this question (or dismiss it as silly or impertinent if you like). You are also free to indulge in one of you usual diversive diatribes so as to avoid having to give an inconvenient answer.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 12th 2011, 07:09

"The constitution contains two conflicting statements, one that defines Malta as a secular state, and another that claims that the religion of the state is the Roman Catholic religion."(KevinCassar)

I know all about the article of our Constitution that says that Roman Catholicism is the official religion of the republic. I know also of other articles that protect all religions from vilification. But could someone, PLEASE, PLEASE, identify which article "clearly defines Malta as a secular state" (as claimed by Kevin) irrespective of the quibbling about the interpretation the words "secularism" and "secularisation". Just the number of the Article of the Constitution please - not the usual diversive diatribe that it is not there actually but it "should" be there so as to accomodate somebody.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 11th 2011, 23:22

@ Lina Caruana

If I understood your comment correctly, I can assure you that a secular state has no say on the personal beliefs of the people who live in that state. If it did, it would not be a secular state. Every person has the right to choose to believe whatever that person wants to believe and a secular state is the only state that can guarantee this.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 11th 2011, 22:39

@ Lina Caruana:

I think you're mistaking secularism for something else.

Patrik Larsson

Mar 11th 2011, 21:42

Lina Caruana:
What on earth do you mean by "...has to be starved by being consistently subjected to secularism"? Secularism isn't starving anyone. What secularism mean, as has been explained repeatedly now, is that the state passes no laws, makes no exceptions and gives no privileges based on religion.

In any secular state everyone is free to worship, to pray, to meditate and to think what you like about religion, but obviously with the added benefit of free speech both sides are encouraged to voice and defend their opinions. I can't understand the urge to resist such a basic liberty.

Please, someone explain to me why secularism is so feared.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 11th 2011, 20:37

@Dr. Brincat(1day.1hour ago). I think I understand what you're saying but I'll comment anyway hoping it's not too silly or irrelevant vis-a`-vis your comment.
Why does Malta have to belly-ache so much over this divorce matter? Why can't Malta adopt the legal framework that is already workable in other countries? Why does Malta always have to see itself as unique (often, unfortunately, to its detriment)?
@ Kenneth Cassar. As I've said (or at least, implied) often enough in the past; once the base hurdle is overcome the rest tends to fall into place. I'm so not an academic. I prefer my reading lightweight, only occasionally venturing into heavier, headier stuff. Not mine the need to impress myself, never mind others with transparent erudition. As an aside - and to be treated as a joke at one's peril - maybe I am afraid of reading Dawkins et al because I'm fearful that they wouldn't come up to scratch. And my whole world would collapse. One mustn't take one's faith too much for granted in other words.

Lina Caruana

Mar 11th 2011, 19:41

My attention was drawn to "secularism". Of course the Church ought not to be expected to think also of temporal needs even if it has been done in the past out of solidarity with the needy.So we speak of secularism moving away from "charitable" solidarity to state structure with the obligation to provide work and economic independence. Then to human rights in diverse ways. The awareness of the person has also been felt in a "secular "way associated with the State . Division of work as it were. Ceratinly it facilitates things for the person seeking to find his feet in society. Does that mean that a person's inner self has to be starved by being consistently subjected to secularism?

Kevin Cassar

Mar 11th 2011, 17:01

@ Fr Joe Borg

So it is now clear that the condemnation of secularism by the Church is due to a wrong interpretation. Now that this is cleared up, there are two possible paths the Church can take. The first is to recognize its' error and change its' view on secularism or otherwise stick its' head in the sand and keep condemning it. Somehow I tend to think it will take the second option, but I would be very pleased to be proven wrong on this one.

@ Andy Farrugia

No matter how many times you insist that Malta is a secular state, you cannot change the fact that no secular state in the world can have an OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION written in its' constitution. It's like saying - I'm a fair parent and love and treat all my children equally, however Child x is officially my favourite son and so I allow him special privelages. So saying Malta is a secular state is like saying Hitler was a real Catholic.

Patrik Larsson

Mar 11th 2011, 16:52

Adriano Spiteri:
That's a bit unfair. My favourite blog posts of Fr. Joe have been his commentary on media and communication. In fact I'm still kicking myself over the fact that I haven't gotten around to reading the book on the Maltese Media Landscape that he co-wrote.

Adriano Spiteri

Mar 11th 2011, 16:13

Stick to prophecies and theology Mr Borg.

Patrik Larsson

Mar 11th 2011, 12:50

"Secularism generally is understood to include a negative attitude towards the sacred and the religious. this is why secularism, understood in this way, is condemned by the Church."

It's not generally understood at all in that way, although it has become apparent that a lot of advocates for the Church thinks that. Regardless, I strongly believe that secularism is a necessary part of a democracy and an opposition to secularism is, by necessity, a plea for the state to treat a certain group of people differently from others.

Secularisation is, by its very definition, a process to move towards secularism. This is why it becomes so absurd when people talk about militant, or fundamentalist secularism. If you think the state should legislate either in favour, or in opposition, to anything based on religion, then by default you are not a secularist.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 11th 2011, 11:28

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"The only questions that I will not answer are questions that I have already answered or questions that are silly or irrelevant".

Yes...questions you claim you have already answered, and questions you consider silly or irrelevant. Been there...let's move on.

"You contend that you know pertinent questions that I did not answer but you prefer to retain them concealed, in pectore. I do not believe you. I believe that you have tried and failed".

Believe what you want, if it makes you happy. See if I care. Moving on...

"Readers will doubtlessly choose whom to believe".

Goes without saying. That's stating the obvious.

"End of matter as far as I am concerned - so please don't keep asking because I will not be there to answer you".

I stop asking when I want, and not when you tell me. Whether you'll be there to answer me is your prerogative. I'm not your keeper, nor do I ever wish to be.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 11th 2011, 11:13

@KennethCassar.

The only questions that I will not answer are questions that I have already answered or questions that are silly or irrelevant.

You contend that you know pertinent questions that I did not answer but you prefer to retain them concealed, in pectore. I do not believe you. I believe that you have tried and failed.

Readers will doubtlessly choose whom to believe. End of matter as far as I am concerned - so please don't keep asking because I will not be there to answer you.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 11th 2011, 10:15

@ Dr Francis Saliba (part 2):

"NO! sir. Whether you intrude in any dialogue between me and someone else may be your brash choice, but whether I accept your meddlesome intrusion that is MY decision".

Did I ever say that you have no right not to "accept" my "intrusion"? What I said was that whether I "intrude" or not is none of your business, since you have no say in whom I choose to defend, like I have no say in who you choose to defend. You're not the moderator. Deal with it.

"NO! sir. I did not admit that I left any pertinent question from ANYBODY unanswered".

I didn't say "pertinent questions unanswered". I said "questions unanswered". You did admit that you leave questions unanswered. But of course, when you fail to score, you move the goal post. Typical.

"IF and WHEN you discover one pertinent question from you that I did not answer..."

"Pertinent" is subjective. I never said you fail to answer pertinent questions. Don't move the goal post, or you'll get a yellow card.

"So far you have evaded/been unable to submit a single one".

I need not look for evidence on what I never said.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 11th 2011, 09:47

@ Dr Francis Saliba (part 1):

"I asked you to identify at least one of your allegedly "unanswered" questions so that I would explain to you under which category your still undiscovered question would fit in".

I know you did. And I already told you I won't waste any of my time doing that.

"I imagine that you are still searching for that elusive "unanswered" question".

Actually, I haven't spent even one second doing that.

"because, in desperation, you have reverted to your habitual quibbling and reluctant, sequential admission that what I wrote was true".

No, I NEVER admitted that I cannot quote a single question that I did not answer. I still insist that you have a history of refusing to answer my questions.

"I am still waiting the result of your search that by now must have reached really frantic proportions".

You're wasting your time. Like I said, I did not even spend a second searching. I had already told you I won't waste my time doing that.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 11th 2011, 07:39

@ Joe Xuereb:

I appreciate and learn from the works of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett etc, without feeling the slightest urge to adulate them. In fact, when reading their books, I do occasionally find myself disagreeing with some of the things they say. But that is to be expected from a free-thinker who doesn't believe in dogma. There are no high priests of atheism.

Of course, you probably know this already ;)

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 11th 2011, 07:05

@Kenneth Cassar

NO! sir. Whether you intrude in any dialogue between me and someone else may be your brash choice, but whether I accept your meddlesome intrusion that is MY decision.

NO! sir. I did not admit that I left any pertinent question from ANYBODY unanswered. IF and WHEN you discover one pertinent question from you that I did not answer I will answer it now explaining the cause of the delay.. So far you have evaded/been unable to submit a single one.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 11th 2011, 06:50

@ Fr Joe Borg:

While secularism is sometimes understood by non-secularists to include a negative attitude towards the sacred and ther religious, this is not really the case.

Secularism, at the most, is against religions having any secular privileges, and not against religions per se. Basically, "secularism, like democracy, involves treating people as individuals, not as members of a group".

For more information about secularism, visit http://www.secularism.org.uk/whatissecularism.html

Of course, it is true that the Catholic Church opposes secularism. No one likes to have privileges taken away from them.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 11th 2011, 01:54

Without using a dictionary - so I stand to be corrected - I understand that secularization is the process that leads to secularism. Much like Americanization. Maltesization-of-Gozo-via-underwater-chunnel. Or Islamisation-of-Malta where the powers that be are given free rein to build as many 'minarets' as they deem necessary. Because the Constitution says so. Freedom of worship and all that.
Elsewhere in this newspaper, someone wrote a letter drawing attention to the different meanings - as translated from Old Testament Greek - between the words 'test' and 'temptation'(of the Christ in the desert, I believe, or so the story goes). Now, whether the ancients differentiated between the two words we may never know short of studying scripts other than the Old Testament. Some translate it as 'test', some others as 'temptation'. Test may have a number of meanings but in the O.T. context, is it really feasible to make a feast of deciding the nuances of 'test' and those of 'temptation'. It's so frustrating, once one's decided that it's important, not to be able to face the original person and ask them exactly what they meant. Failing that, there are people who justify their existence writing theses on trivialities. They're only words!

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 10th 2011, 23:44

@KennethCassar.

Through no fault of your own, you are not replying to MY comment, as I had submitted it, regarding your self promotion as an "avukat tal-fqar" interceding on behalf of other silent commenters. You are replying to the moderator's Bowdlerised remnant of my comment. Not my fault.

No! I do NOT admit that "there is a history of questions of (yours) that (I) refused or failed to answer! " I gave you the reasons why I do not answer some questions from all sorts of commenters on the grounds that a question may have been silly, irrelevant or already answered. I asked you to identify at least one of your allegedly "unanswered" questions so that I would explain to you under which category your still undiscovered question would fit in. I imagine that you are still searching for that elusive "unanswered" question because, in desperation, you have reverted to your habitual quibbling and reluctant, sequential admission that what I wrote was true. I am still waiting the result of your search that by now must have reached really frantic proportions.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 23:20

@ Fr Joe Borg

"@ all. There is a difference between secularisation and secularism. The former reflects the autonomy (legitimate) between the secular and the sacred. This is positive. Secularism generally is understood to include a negative attitude towards the sacred and the religious. this is why secularism, understood in this way, is condemned by the Church."

No there is not. That is the (wrong) interpretation of the church (as aslo claimed by the priest during xarabank). Secularism is the separation of religion from state. It has no opinion on religion other than that the state should be neutral on religious belief, which is surely not the case in Malta. The constitution contains two conflicting statements, one that defines Malta as a secular state, and another that claims that the religion of the state is the Roman Catholic religion. This is a blatant contradiction. One of the statements does not make sense.

Fr joe Borg

Mar 10th 2011, 21:31

@ all. There is a difference between secularisation and secularism. The former reflects the autonomy (legitimate) between the secular and the sacred. This is positive. Secularism generally is understood to include a negative attitude towards the sacred and the religious. this is why secularism, understood in this way, is condemned by the Church.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 20:39

@ Dr Francis Saliba (part 2):

"When other commenters become as rash as you are, and when they accuse me of not answering any of their questions that were relevant, intelligent and not previously answered I will accommodate them also".

Ah! So there IS a history of questions of mine that you refused or failed to answer! It just so happens that you think the unanswered questions don't deserve an answer. I was right all along. Thanks for confirming that.

"But, please understand that I do not accept you as a self-appointed defender for anybody else".

Frankly, that's none of your business. You have no say in who I choose to defend, like I have no say in who you choose to defend. My, oh my! Dr Saliba does not accept me as a self-appointed defender of others! Should I be worried? (no need to answer this one).

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 20:33

@ Dr Francis Saliba (part 1):

"You accuse me of a ” … history of evading my (i.e. Kenneth Cassar’s) questions”"

True.

"...and I challenge you to identify just one of these questions".

True.

"In the same paragraph you admit that you have made an effort not to ask me any questions on this particular blog"

True.

"and in consequence you cannot quote a single question that I did not answer".

False. I CAN quote questions of mine you did not answer, except that I won't even bother to look for them. I never said that the questions I made which you did not answer, were made in this blog. That's not quibbling. That's fact.

"...admit that there is NO history of evading your questions".

False. There IS a history of you evading my questions. It just so happens that history does not start and end in this blog.

Dr Joe Brincat LL.D.

Mar 10th 2011, 18:18

I am of he opinion that there should be parameters for a referendum. But....

But the Bill presented jointly by JPO and EB presents a multitude of legal problems and is still an overgrowth in the Maltese judicial system in matters of family law. Both in substance and in procedural matters.

It would need drastic amendments in Committee Stage in Parliament. It would create problems of interpretation and would not be an easy matter to apply.

If the referendum goes through, then it is the responsibility of parliament to enact a fitting law.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 10th 2011, 17:41

2) The British, of course, are famous for their Academes. What is the point of treading the threshing floor once the chaff is separated from the wheat. A double hernia is the last thing I need.

* The Group was made up of many nationalities but mainly British. They are atheists OK! but never underwent the visceral indoctrination (I mean, a Holy Week Procession la Maltija is unimaginable anywhere in UK). So, to the Britishers, atheism expresses itself through belaboured anitpathy towards the Pontiff. I wanted more. Interestingly, I felt much closer to Italian, Spanish, etc. atheists. There was a commonality between us. The Group was useful as far as 'supportive' groups go. I never missed a meeting and 'enjoyed' them although at times they felt like a 'church congregation'. I don't miss them. I don't need them any more than I need Hitchens. The trick is to let go (very important in psychotherapeutic terms) of notions that prop one up but become unworkable. So one takes a leap into the 'dark'. But it's no greater a leap, no darker than a Yellow Brick Road that just peters out, saintly like, into nothingness.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 10th 2011, 17:37

@Kenneth Cassar

You accuse me of a ” … history of evading my (i.e. Kenneth Cassar’s) questions” and I challenge you to identify just one of these questions. In the same paragraph you admit that you have made an effort not to ask me any questions on this particular blog and in consequence you cannot quote a single question that I did not answer. Stop quibbling and admit that there is NO history of evading your questions.

When other commenters become as rash as you are, and when they accuse me of not answering any of their questions that were relevant, intelligent and not previously answered I will accommodate them also. But, please understand that I do not accept you as a self-appointed defender for anybody else.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 10th 2011, 17:25

1) This 'atheist morality' has been given an airing recently.
Believers experience their life(?) through Christ said this, god said that. They're told they have free will but are reminded, in much the same breath, that if they make the wrong choices there is a hefty price to pay. This teaching - somebody below mentioned childhoot cathechism when it all starts and becomes well-nigh impossible to kick away. I know. I've been there. It's controlling through fear (but why would a priest - ie a Church official - want to control me? What has he to gain?). So totally engulfing is the indoctrination that believers cannot conceive of anybody surviving without a 'higher authority'. Hence they speak of 'atheistic morals' and substitute jesuses like Hitchens, Darwin, Dawkings, etc. I cannot speak for the Cassars and anybody else but to me these secular luminaries are little more than just names. Atheism is an end in itself. Grasp it and so much falls into place, like automatically. I was thrown out of an Atheist Group for not being bookish enough, for being too 'viscerally godless'.*

continued

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 17:08

@ Andy Farrugia:

""Today the Catholic Church condemns secularism ..." Really? Where? When?"

Let's get closer to home, shall we?:

"Today, (Archbishop Cremona) continued, the country was being THREATENED by the ideology of secularism, which although based on personal choice, was a strong force which influenced society, sometimes even via legislation."

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080909/local/archbishop-warns-country-is-under-threat-from-ideology-of-secularism

Joe Xuereb

Mar 10th 2011, 16:42

Saliba, Francisco (no Goya, ni tampoco y Lucientes). Pity you have decided you cannot handle me. Pity for you, id est. But lose no sleep over the matter. I only mention you so that my readers can more quickly pin-point the source of the inanities. Saves time, mine and theirs. Please note that I've hardly participated in this particular blog. But some comments one has to comment on I guess. I owe it to my audience (although they can more than hold up their end). This is so because they quote themselves (therein lies their strength) rather than some mythical figure that, as likely as not, never even existed; never mind the words he is supposed to have said decades down the line.

Doctor, I'm sure you've done a worthwhile job in your time. However, if ever you chance to be near my death-bed please announce yourself. I'd rather die in a state of mortal sin than have you see my right buttock.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 10th 2011, 16:18

I was wondering whether i was supposed to be the recipient of certain missives; if this is the case, and i might be wrong, i would like to distance myself, at warp speed, from fr fahey, his misguided, demential plans and his reported anti-Jewish tendencies, in much the same way as i did with that American pastor who threatened to burn Korans, and those thugs who persist in beating up people of a different sexual orientation in Moscow, Belgrade and other places. I have nothing in common with such heinous crimes against humanity. Period. Bye to all. I have nothing else to say.

chris campbell

Mar 10th 2011, 15:14

Catholic Church condemns secularism in Leo XIII writings-just look them up and see what he states in his Encylicals on the staet,etc....try reading Pius X, Pius XI-yes, those are still valid, even post 1962......

chris campbell

Mar 10th 2011, 15:12

Secular state? Apparently you have not read your constitution-nor the Bible, in particular, Psalm 2!

Christ is King and Lord over all creation.......and states........and people....

chris campbell

Mar 10th 2011, 15:10

Evil is stil evil, the Church has authority over all Catholic marriages and should possibly have majority control -or consultative status-over the courts on others. See Fr. Fahey's 6 Point Plan....nuff said, Narak iktar tard!

Patrik Larsson

Mar 10th 2011, 14:03

Regarding the whole debacle about "atheist morals". Of course you 'could' make the meaning of it referring to the morals that an atheist have, but it's very counter productive. It's like saying "blond morals" to refer to the morals of a blond person, or "masoner morals" if you are referring to a stone worker.

Being an atheist simply means not believing in a God. We don't derive our morals from our atheism.

I think that's all that needs to be said about it. Neither side in this seems to be ultimately wrong, I'm just trying to provide an explanation that is more feasible for everyone and to avoid misunderstandings.

Joseph Camilleri

Mar 10th 2011, 13:58

@ Andy Farrugia
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your stand on the legalisation of divorce. However, I'm pleased (and no sarcasm meant) that there is common ground between us. (a) We both accept secularism, in the sense that in a pluralistic society the laws of the land should not be based on any particular sacred books but on the best that can be achieved by fallible human beings of different faiths and inclinations. Anything 'rampant' is obviously wrong. (b) We agree that homosexuality between consenting adults should be legalised. Can I presume that you also agree with the decriminalisation of adultery and the introduction of civil marriage? (c) So there is left the issue of divorce. With so much said about it, I thought that everyone has now made up his mind. My opinion is very clear since I consider divorce as a civil right. I would be glad to read yours.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 13:41

@ Andy Farrugia:

"Errata I refer to Point 2: Pope John Paul II and not Pope Benedict XVI".

Noted. And although I did mention it in a yet unpublished post, I only mentioned it for the sake of clarity. I won't make a capital out of a simple error. So don't worry about that.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 13:38

@ Andy Farrugia:

You have a funny way of "dismissing" a "puerile parting slur", "typical of my style" (a slur of your own, I should point out) - and yet dedicating two posts (and counting) to the imaginary slur you "dismiss".

As for whether my choice of words was "infelicitous", well, that's your opinion. I'll leave it there. It doesn't make any difference.

You tell me that the "proof" comes from Dr Saliba's reply. If his reply is any proof of something, it is of the fact that he says he is not begging for answers. There's no proof other than that.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 13:34

@ Charles Caruana

I am not sure what you mean by "woefully out of depth" so I shall not jump to conclusions. My comments on this blog are intended to challenge or ask for clarification for things that I do not agree with. I may of course be wrong but like everyone else will believe I am right until someone can point it out to me, using reason and in a way that I can understand. I know that the word count is sometimes limiting but nobody can expect other people to know what he has in mind unless he says it clearly in words. If you intend to let it be, then so be it. I would have preferred to understand your objections, and respond to them. In an argument there is not necessarily a winner and a loser. Sometimes the argument serves both sides as it is the only way to learn someone else's point of view.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 13:26

@ Andy Farrugia:

1. I never said that "infelicitous" is an offensive word.

2. The quote was from John Paul II, not Pope Benedict XVI. In any case, there is not much room for interpretations for the claim that secularism (no mention of any "aggressive" type) has "DISTURBING" effects.

3. I must have given you the wrong impression then. I am absolutely sure that there is no such thing as "atheist morals", but one could of course stretch its meaning to define any morality that excludes God. However, that definition would leave the morality it seeks to describe, still undefined.

4. I see that Dr Saliba has a new lawyer. Perhaps he can take a joke. Apparently you can't...even if the joke is on someone else.

5. Yes, this is a public forum, and you are entitled to comment or not to comment on whatever you choose. I am entitled to do likewise (and this includes criticism of what you write and giving my personal opinion on why I think you "sit on the fence" on the divorce issue). I never asked you not to comment, and never will. So as you see, there is no contradiction from my part.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 10th 2011, 13:19

@ Kenneth Cassar

"""Begging"? Begging? What an infelicitous choice of word!".

My choice of words is mine and mine alone. At least I'm not insulting people."

Let us dismiss the puerile parting slur in my direction which is typical of your style. True, very true, the choice of words is yours and yours alone, but "it" is still infelicitous and proof of this comes from Dr Saliba's reply: "I am not begging for anything. I am challenging..." Quite a difference, but you will not acknowledge this as usual; you will spin, twist and weave. Bye. Have a good day and the last word if you so wish.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 10th 2011, 13:06

Errata
I refer to Point 2:
Pope John Paul II and not Pope Benedict XVI.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 10th 2011, 12:26

@ Kevin Cassar

Yes we live in a secular state, despite all your protestations - particular exceptions do not change or alter the nature of our state.

@ Kenneth Cassar

1. " infelicitous" is not an offensive word; you are the one who constantly suggests that i am insulting people.
2. Pope Benedict XVI was referring to what i called rampant aggressive secularism. Period.
3. You give me the impression that you are not so sure about whether there is such a thing as "atheist morals", so much so that you had to clarify your position; anyway, that is your problem not mine.
4. Nit-picking? "blog" instead of "post"; yes, when you feel stumped you pick on superficial things like the way i write i.
5. This is a public forum; irrespective of what i think about certain issues, i will continue to express myself as i deem fit. It is not for you to tell me "what exactly i am doing here", or are you telling me to stop posting? If this is the case i note a contradiction with your earlier statement of you "not seeing anyone prohibited from expressing himself here".

charles caruana

Mar 10th 2011, 12:06

@ Kevin Cassar

I may be mistaken, but I think you’re woefully out of your depth here, so I’ll follow your advice, and let it be. As far as I’m concerned, this particular exchange with you is closed. On to fresh pastures. I’ll leave you the gracious onus of having the last word, even though I know you are not one of those who have a desperate need for it.

Richard Curmi

Mar 10th 2011, 11:13

"but rather because they (more often than not, the mothers) wanted to keep up with the Jones’. yes Ms DeBattista and I agree; indeed while they are trying to keep up with the Jonesses or neighbours the other partner gives up trying to keep up with her/him. Nagging little things that at first seem to be insignificant can and most often do ruin relationships. So as you rightly say they should be taken seriously (I add) into consideration in any preparation courses for marriage.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 11:06

@ Charles Caruana

You would comment to much greater effect if you followed your own advice. Don't just read other people's comments carefully, but also your own. I cannot make any sense of your last comment so I cannot reply without making assumptions (which I try to avoid). If you want answers or replies for me kindly ask again in a clearer manner, if not just let it be.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 10:19

I didn't know Joe Xuereb had a blog.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 10:17

@ Dr Francis Saliba

Intelligent people would also know that women were a possession of men, and half their worth at his time too, not just that he sometimes used hyperbole. They would also understand that Jesus would obviously condemn the way the jews divorced in order to get rid of their "old possessions" so it's no wonder that he spoke against divorce. Nevertheless he still made an exception for "porneia". Somehow we have "intelligent" people today, who "know" when Jesus' words are literal and when they are hyperbole but somehow can't figure out this obvious change in context due to culture.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 10th 2011, 10:14

@Joe Xuereb

On flipping through the comments on this blog I spotted my name mentioned in your blog. I have told you before, I do not waste time on reading your comments or answering them.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 10:12

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"a frank admission by you that there is not a single question by you to which I have not replied so as to merit your jibe of "an evader of questions"".

I never made such an admission.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 10:09

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"That is all I needed - a frank admission by you that there is not a single question by you to which I have not replied so as to merit your jibe of "an evader of questions"".

Cunning, but not sufficiently. I did not say that you evaded my questions in this particular blog. I did not originally even say that you were an evader of MY questions, for that matter.

So I stand by my description of you as an "evader of questions".

"I have no time to waste on doing your dirty for you and to search for evidence on your behalf".

I never even asked you to.

"You made the accusation, you prove it -i f you can!"

I have no time to waste on proving the obvious. When you decide to start addressing my own challenges to you, I will consider taking on your own challenges to me.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 10th 2011, 10:06

“Who am (I) to answer your questions about morality”? (Rev Fr Joe Borg)

I will tell you who you are, Reverend Father, “tu es sacerdos in aeternum …” even when running a controversial blog – and therefore you are in duty bound to answer questions about morality, especially if raised by your good self, instead of evading the issue and resorting to uncharitable sarcasm.

You do not answer your question simply because you do not have any better answer than the one I gave you, promptly and courteously – only to be brashly ridiculed by you as a High Priest of an outmoded Christianity.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 10th 2011, 09:42

"I have made an effort not to ask you any in this particular blog" (KennethCassar)

That is all I needed - a frank admission by you that there is not a single question by you to which I have not replied so as to merit your jibe of "an evader of questions". I have no time to waste on doing your dirty for you and to search for evidence on your behalf. You made the accusation, you prove it -i f you can!

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 10th 2011, 09:19

"The evader of replies is now begging for a reply". Ironic, if nothing else. (KennethCassar)

No! sir! I am not begging for anything. I am challenging Fr Borg to submit his own modernist answer to his loaded question. I gave my own reply without hesitation but he rubbished it as the opinion of a "High Priest of a passe' Christianity". Fr Borg's reply is just as eagerly awaited by sciortino m who does not often share my views. What is Fr Joe waiting for before coming off his uncomfortable fence and proving that apart from sowing discord he is also proficient at providing answers requested by his flock?

charles caruana

Mar 10th 2011, 09:19

@ Kevin Cassar
In your headlong rush to score points, you do not even bother to read accurately, much less write carefully. I spoke of ‘your’ atheist morals, and you missed totally my ‘whatever they are’ You also ‘forgot’ you used ‘all’ twice. You are an atheist, and you claim to have morals, so why the hair-splitting?
Have a look at Mrs Debattista’s last post, you might learn something about the ethics of reading and the humility of accepting just criticism.
And does it take a genius to know what an atheist is? Your intellectual brashness borders on the naif.
‘you cannot use a literal interpretation of a particular quote from Jesus to support your argument and then completely ignore another.’ Of course you can: we do it everyday most of the time, otherwise communication would be impossible. Words and life are not as literal and single-minded as you are.
About ‘all your belongings’, must I belabour an elementary Catholic distinction between a moral precept and a counsel of perfection, which we learned in our childhood catechism, and which you seem to be blissfully unaware of? Again , remember the wise fear of the angels, metaphorically speaking of course.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 07:07

@ Andy Farrugia:

To leave nothing unsaid, there could be a sense in which one could use the term "atheist morality" (or actually "atheist moralities"), but it would mean nothing more than "moralities without God". There still is no such thing as a common morality for all atheists (as there is for Catholic morality, for instance), and so, using the term "atheist morality" (unless qualified as I have done here) would be misleading.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 06:44

@ Andy Farrugia:

""Today the Catholic Church condemns secularism ..." Really? Where? When?"

Here's one:

"England and Wales, despite being steeped in a rich Christian heritage, today face the pervasive advance of secularism. At the root of this situation is the attempt to promote a vision of humanity apart from God and removed from Christ. It is a mentality which exaggerates individualism, sunders the essential link between freedom and truth, and consequently destroys the mutual bonds which define social living...

...Consequently it is not just the Church which encounters the disturbing effects of secularism but civic life as well".

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2003/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20031023_bishops-england-wales_en.html

With all your admiration of Pope John Paul II, I would have thought you knew that.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 06:37

@ Andy Farrugia:

"I have never ever expressed myself either in favour or against divorce legislation. If you (Joseph Camilleri) have any evidence to the contrary, please provide it".

Two questions immediately springs to mind. If you fail to declare your position under a blog article on divorce, what exactly are you doing here? Are you only interested in criticizing what others write, while playing it safe by sitting on the fence?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 06:32

@ Andy Farrugia:

Yes, Andy, there is no such thing as "atheist morals". Atheism is simply disbelief in God - or to stretch it a little further, disbelief in the supernatural. While atheists can be moral, amoral or immoral (just like everyone else), there is no such thing as an atheist morality.

The Golden Rule is a universal rule that was neither invented by atheists, nor is exclusive to atheists.

And yes, Hitchens would strongly agree with the statement "there is no such thing as atheist morals".

Now, if you were to ask whether there is such a thing as Humanist morals, that's a different matter. Then again, not all Humanists are atheists, and not all atheists are Humanists.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 06:23

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"If you care to identify any ONE specific unanswered question that you addressed to me, I will explain to you under which of the above categories your question falls - failing which I will reply promptly to that one question if is relevant to this blog".

I did not say that you refuse to answer only MY questions, so, sorry to disappoint you, but that won't work.

Given your history of evading my questions, I have made an effort not to ask you any in this particular blog. You can look up my unanswered questions in other blogs yourself, if you are not lazy (to use your terminology).

But here's a relevant unanswered question asked by someone else:

"If one spouse wants to leave the marriage what benefits is the other spouse going to get by keeping the spouse who wants out tied down to a failed marriage?".

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 06:12

@ Andy Farrugia:

"Begging"? Begging? What an infelicitous choice of word!".

My choice of words is mine and mine alone. At least I'm not insulting people.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 06:10

@ Andy Farrugia:

That the two sentences I quoted contradict each other is not simply what I think, but what every sensible person believes to be true. So much so that you refuse to declare what you yourself think about that.

As for freedom of expression, that includes the right to criticise opinions freely expressed. I don't see anyone prohibited from expressing himself here. Do you?

Joe Xuereb

Mar 10th 2011, 00:10

Quoting Dr. Francis Saliba responding to Charlie Borg, using impressively long words: 'Please read and digest........What is placed on the Sacrificial Table are not people whom you condemn as "wise and holier-than-thou" so that they would sanctimoniously lead the people of God". They are animals destined for sacrificial slaughter and who are in no position to lead anybody, anywhere. The practice went out of practice with Christianity that replaced it by the Holy Eucharist'. Unquote.

Well, some might say that the cessation of animal sacrifice making way for the eucharistic ritual was not necessarily a step in the right direction (for reasons obvious to me at any rate. So there's another atheistic moral for you, to mull over!).

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 9th 2011, 23:09

@KevinCassar.

Intelligent persons who honestly believe that Christ is the Son of God and who take his teaching seriously, would know when Christ is speaking in the hyperbole common amongst the Jews of his time, when his words are to be taken literally, when he is speaking in parables etc. They also try to follow his teaching but, being fallible human they frequently fail to attain the high standard of moral behaviour demanded by him. When they fail to attain that perfection they humbly beg for his forgiveness relying on his mercy towards the contrite. They do not reject him and his teaching because it is inconvenient and inexpedient for their lifestyle.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 22:11

@ Andy Farrugia

You continue to amaze me. Just when I am about to think that you are genuine, you come up with something like "goes to show that we live in a secular state, of which i am happy to form part. Believe me, i wouldn't have it otherwise."

Secular state? Really? By name perhaps but definitely not by deed. If this was a secular state we would not be having any discussions about divorce. We would not have people getting court sentences for dressing up as a priest in Carnival, or for showing a picture of the pope. Come on, you're wiser than that, surely.

Fr Joe Borg

Mar 9th 2011, 21:49

@ Dr Francis Saliba. Who am to answer your questions about morality? I am an entrapper, the thrower of apples of discord, and gives priority to journalism over and above my mission as priest. Furthermore I behave like those who are not followers of Christianity or who have rejected that religion for more expedient beliefs or non-beliefs. What type of answer can such a miserable wretch give?

Joe Xuereb

Mar 9th 2011, 21:44

Quoting Dr. Saliba (1day 3hours ago): 'Members of non-Christian religions who practice bigamy, divorce etc could be acting in accordance with their own cultivated conscience, and therefore morally correct. That conduct would be excusable because of an INSURMOUNTABLE (in- not un-) and NON-CULPABLE - my capitals - ignorance of the teaching of Christ'. Unquote. The tone of all this, and the choice of words (in my capitals) in particular, are interesting and telling. I find them patronising at best; and at worst, saying that any belief-system other than christianity cannot hold a candle to it(christianity) and it is just insurmountably unfortunate that the adherents of these other religions cannot be part of the christian fold. So we mustn't fault them their lack of enlightenment (but then one cannot expect missionaries to reach all people in all places so to some extent the blame can be put at the door of choosey missionaries or lack of them because of numerical insufficiency). The whole soup all rather uncharitable, tolerant, yes, but....patronising.

Maybe this comment could be taken as an example of atheist morality (said as someone who doesN'T go around constantly obsessing, 'this is moral, that isn't', driving myself up the wall.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 20:13

@ Andy Farrugia

cont.........

That's a very wise choice, and I also don't judge anyone personally. The way I see it (and the reason why I wrote the previous comment) is that if I honestly believed that Jesus was indeed the son of God, I would do whatever he said even when it did not make sense to me, as in the "sell all your belongings", "cut off any limb" "give no thought for the morrow" etc. Do you know any Catholic or christian who follows these (very clear) instructions? So how can any of them expect everyone to follow his teaching aganst divorce (for which he made a clear exception though it's conveniently omitted in the Maltese translation) and say that this is not taken out of context, is still valid today and should be imposed even on non believers?

Kevin Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 20:01

@ Andy Farrugia

"What about the Golden Rule? What about amorality (which is different and distinct from immorality)? Would Hitchens agree with the statement "there is no such thing as atheist morals"?"

The golden rule is a moral statement which I agree with. I am not amoral, even though I believe that certain moral issues change according to circumstance and even to person (but that's a philosophical issue too long to deal with here).
Yes, Hitchens would probably agree with my statement because it's true. Careful though, just because there are no atheist morals (as in rules), does not mean that atheists have no morals. This should be obvious but for the sake of any misconception, I am not a follower of Hitchens or any other "popular" atheist. I just happen to agree with a lot of his arguments and share the same "lack of belief" and skepticism. I also happen to agree with some of Jesus' teachings and philosophy but it's clear that I don't follow him either. I value truth, whatever the source, no prejudice, no judgement. I'm glad you state that you don't mean to judge or condemn anyone.

cont.........

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 18:58

@ Joseph Camilleri

"Therefore, in your opinion, should homosexuality not be legalized? "

As far as i know, homosexuality was decriminalised in the 1970s which goes to show that we live in a secular state, of which i am happy to form part. Believe me, i wouldn't have it otherwise.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 18:52

@ Joseph Camilleri

"Today the Catholic Church condemns secularism ..." Really? Where? When? The separation of Church and State are specifically derived from Christ's words.
Are you sure you are not conflating secularism with "rampant, aggressive secularism" which is aimed at expunging and banishing all forms of religious beliefs, references and symbols from the public sphere?

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 18:39

@ Joseph Camilleri

Mr Camilleri i regret to inform you that your comment in my regard is based on a FALSE premise. I have never ever expressed myself either in favour or against divorce legislation. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Joseph Camilleri

Mar 9th 2011, 18:15

@ Andy Farrugia
Let me assure you that I neither seek praise nor fear criticism. However, your comments convince me that the opposition to the legalization of divorce is based solely on religious grounds. You believe, as another commentator wrote, that whatever is considered immoral (according to the Bible) should not be legalized. Therefore, in your opinion, should homosexuality not be legalized? How does such an attitude differ from that of Muslims who want the Sharia to be the law of the land? Today the Catholic Church condemns secularism but in pluralistic societies, the Church may have to invoke the principle of secularism to protect itself. Far-fetched? It has already happened in Tanzania where Christian Churches have petitioned against a proposal to set up Kadhi (Islamic) courts to handle disputes among the Muslim community. The petition was signed by 64 leaders from the Christian Council of Tanzania. They argued that this would create religious tension in a country that prides itself on high levels of religious and social tolerance. The church leaders also objected to the government’s intention to join the Organisation of Islamic Conference saying that joining would contravene the country's constitution as Tanzania is a secular state!

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 17:42

"there is no such thing as "atheist morals"." (Kevin Cassar)

What about the Golden Rule? What about amorality (which is different and distinct from immorality)? Would Hitchens agree with the statement "there is no such thing as atheist morals"?
I am simply positing questions, which i believe is everyone's right. Whether people wish to answer them is their prerogative? I judge and condemn no one.

Charlie Borg

Mar 9th 2011, 17:13

But isn't this strange?
Here, we have a blog where supposedly - I repeat, supposedly! - intelligent and above-the-average-throng sort of people discuss ideas, and where all that is being discussed is so significantly cut off from the reality that inhabitants of these islands and elsewhere are living, when at the same time we have so many pressing problems at hand, both on the local as well as on the international levels. And we appear not to give a toss at these problems, because like the Pharisees in the Gospels, we are stuck to the letter of the law. We expect all and sundy to follow the precepts that we believe in (as opposed to practice!) when we show that we care tuppence to what the real people - not aliens, but people who may be one's relatives, after all! - are going through. Problems with Libya, the aftermath of this war, economic downturn once again, world poverty, especially in over-populated Africa thanks to the no-condoms-allowed stance of recent Popes, etc...
I find this so discorting. And then, some of us portray ourselves as humble, sacrificial lambs, ready for the taking! So disgusting.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 9th 2011, 17:09

@KennethCassar

I do not evade replies to reasonable questions that are:-

a) relevant to the subject being discussed
b) that I have not answered already, or
c) that are not nonsensical or rhetorical.

If you care to identify any ONE specific unanswered question that you addressed to me, I will explain to you under which of the above categories your question falls - failing which I will reply promptly to that one question if is relevant to this blog.

My question to Fr Borg for which I expect a reply, is highly relevant, still unanswered, neither rhetorical nor nonsensical. It deserves an answer from any gentleman who arbitrarily insults a commenter participating in his blog by calling me a High Priest of a passe' Christianity. A gentleman would substantiate that insult or withdraw it.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 16:22

@ Kenneth Cassar

"Begging"? Begging? What an infelicitous choice of word! I would have thought that Dr Saliba is "politely and courteously requesting an answer". He is, after all, fully entitled to one (and so am i) after having "earned [the ] uncharitable sarcastic sobriquet of a passe' Christianity / High Priest".

sciortino m

Mar 9th 2011, 16:17

Fr. Joe Borg

I would like to associate myself with Dr. Saliba's request for the modern view of the Church regarding the morality or otherwise of the faithful of other religions which permit divorce, remarriage and polygamy.

Thanks

Jessica DeBattista

Mar 9th 2011, 15:43

@ Some:

The problem with some of us on this blog is that in our enthusiasm, we get carried away and therefore are liable to make sweeping statements which later we might regret. If somebody is sharp enough to bring it to our notice we tend to take affront instead of taking it in the spirit of a teacher pointing out certain inexactitudes.

I am sure Fr. Joe had no intention of entrapping anyone. And blowing it up out of proportion does not put us in a better light either. It rather shows us up as being unable to take criticism.

When I first started contributing to Fr. Joe’s blog I was once chastised by him by these very words: “You wrote "but there is such a bitter undertone from all concerned that it rubs me the wrong way." It can be said that bitterness is in the mouth of the taster....But i do strongly advice that you test your taste buds. You write "all". I definitively do not agree....”

To be sure I was taken aback, but he was right and I tried to be more careful about what I wrote afterwards. :-)

Kevin Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 15:31

@ Charles Caruana

Sorry to disappoint you but there is no such thing as "atheist morals". That comment shows that you don't even understand what atheist means. My morals have nothing to do with atheism.

The word ALL was not mine, but Jesus', so you may wish to ask him whether he is fond of it. My point, which you completely missed, is that you cannot use a literal interpretation of a particular quote from Jesus to support your argument and then completely ignore another. Judgement has nothing to do with calling something by it's name, while also providing good justfication for it.

Besides, if you think that the "sell all your belongings" quote should not be taken literally, you should at least attempt to point out the correct interpretation. Good luck with that.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 15:15

The evader of replies is now begging for a reply. Ironic, if nothing else.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 14:56

@ Kenneth Cassar

What you think, irrespective of whether you formulate it as an interrogative, a declarative, an imperative or an exclamatory sentence, is precisely and simply that: what YOU THINK. As far as i know you are not the ultimate authority on thought, logic and truth.

@ no one in particular
I note that tolerance and freedom of expression are the two most abused concepts/words in the media and in the sphere of public discourse. It is clearly evident that hypocrisy and double standards reign supreme. I can almost hear Voltaire rattling his bones. Diversity of views are only tolerated as long as they match with ours. Even in this newspaper, one notes that the regular columnists and bloggers, for all their presumed diversity and "modernity/post-modernity", find common ground in their acute allergy to anyone expressing Christian / Catholic beliefs. Then they come out, all guns blazing - tossing epithets, hurling insults, firing anathemas, and generally bombing the victim back to the middle ages.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 9th 2011, 14:47

@Fr Joe Borg.

You owe it to your readers to supply the correct modernist Christian reply to the provocative loaded question you addressed to me about the moral status of non-Catholics practicing divorce and remarrying. You dismiss my reply as that of some High Priest of a passe' Christianity without giving any reason. From any gentleman, and above all from a priest, I would expect the elementary courtesy of a reply explaining to me how my reply had earned your uncharitable sarcastic sobriquet of a passe' Christianity High Priest and also what would have been an acceptable reply to an avant-garde priest like yourself - not necessarily a High Priest.

charles caruana

Mar 9th 2011, 14:47

@ Kevin Cassar
‘What about the "sell ALL your belongings etc.? What about the cut off any limb which may lead you to temptation? Too hard eh?’
You are very fond of the word ALL aren’t you? You tar with a broad brush don’t you? ‘all your belongings’, ‘all Christians’, ‘all the times’.
Correct me if I’m wrong: are those the words of a rational atheist or of a Texan, bible-belt literalist? Or even worse, a hand-chopping mullah? Do you take Christ for a literal fool, and the great majority of his followers arrant hypocrites for not taking his words literally? If that is the case, your exegetical abilities leave much to be desired, and this is putting it politely. Biblical hermeneutics is a serious discipline, and if you have not undertaken it, don’t rush in where angels fear to tread.

And if it comes to hypocrisy, do you claim to have always and everywhere perfectly lived up to your atheist morals, whatever they are? Are you claiming that you are some kind of secularist ‘saint’ or exemplar? If not, try to remember Christ’s words about throwing stones – not literal stones, as you may well understand.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 13:31

@ Andy Farrugia:

"What you consider to be honest/ dishonest, truthful/false, consistent/ hypocritical, pertinent/irrelevant, facts/fantasy etc., etc., are different from my own considerations. Have a good day".

I see that you're still evading my question. Is it so hard to admit you were mistaken?

Kevin Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 12:17

@ Andy Farrugia

"Your angst-ridden diatribes, your name calling, and your particular detestation of people like me are pathetic - you have problems. What's the use of me replying in kind?"

I have problems? I'm not the one who claims to follow some other person's teachings and then clearly do not actually follow them. You are the one with problems here.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 11:58

@ Kenneth Cassar

What you consider to be honest/ dishonest, truthful/false, consistent/ hypocritical, pertinent/irrelevant, facts/fantasy etc., etc., are different from my own considerations. Have a good day.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 11:39

@ Fr Borg

You are entitled to applaud others, like Mr. Joseph Camilleri, whereas i am not entitled to applaud Dr Saliba? Very democratic and tolerant.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 11:36

@ Andy Farrugia:

Can you please point out where exactly Kevin has called you names? Or did you just make that up because you can't even begin to address his pertinent post?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 11:27

@ Andy Farrugia:

"So, we are once again SELECTIVELY quoting from Dr Saliba in order to get me (entrap me?) to answer questions which you formulate yourself? Sorry, it won't wash with me".

1. The only selective thing I did was in selecting two quotes and asking you a clear and unequivocal question on whether you believe they contradict each other. You refused to answer, for your answer would either have to be dishonest or acknowledge that you were wrong in claiming that the contradiction between the two statements is a matter of opinion.

2. I'm not interested in entrapments. I'm only interested in honest replies.

Jessica DeBattista

Mar 9th 2011, 11:20

@ All:

Part 2.

Sometimes couples who have separated for very valid reasons, so much so that they could be candidates for an annulment, are not prepared to take steps to annul their marriage, for annulment to them is far more degrading and hurtful than a separation and possibly a divorce.

A marriage annulment implies very serious faults which could also be faults that the couple is not ready to divulge to anybody, least of all to a curious society. So they opt to separate but they remain in a platonic relationship.

As I see it, in the eyes of society they might be living in sin if they were to divorce and remarry but I am not ready to condemn anybody, for nobody can really know what goes on between a couple, and being a Christian who believes in the love of God I feel certain that God’s mercy is ever so available.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 11:18

@ Kevin Cassar

Your angst-ridden diatribes, your name calling, and your particular detestation of people like me are pathetic - you have problems. What's the use of me replying in kind?

Jessica DeBattista

Mar 9th 2011, 11:18

@ All:

Part 1.

Some people might have grounds for annulment but there are so many shades to a person’s personality!

Marriages that break do not always leave antagonism in their wake. It is surprising how many marriages break and the two parties remain in good friendly relationship with each other. It can happen, and I can vouch for it, that a marriage breaks but respect remains, and people are not always ready to fire recriminations at each other.

Continued….

Andy Farrugia

Mar 9th 2011, 11:13

@ Kenneth Cassar

So, we are once again SELECTIVELY quoting from Dr Saliba in order to get me (entrap me?) to answer questions which you formulate yourself? Sorry, it won't wash with me.
@ Charlie Borg
For some strange reason, i appear to have attracted your intense displeasure. Well, all i can say is that i am in very good company, and hallowed one at that. As to your various "I am NOTs", by which you clearly intend to portray me as some kind of intolerant bigot (you are similarly in some kind of company here), these are merely gratuitous barbs and figments of your imagination. Enough histrionics; i will ignore your slanderous comments from now on. Touche, my left foot.
PS. As to your flagrant LIE (among others) concerning what i think or believe about DIVORCE legislation, please supply EVIDENCE of where i say so. I have never ever posted any comment in favour or against.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 9th 2011, 10:30

For me, it is a matter of regret that Fr Borg often gives top priority to his journalistic mission at the expense of his image as a Catholic priest. He has a tendency to throw in an apple of discord among readers of his blog and then to retire off-stage and to sit on the fence and to enjoy the ensuing mayhem. I am not complimenting anyone. I write as a humble perplexed Catholic who would appreciate priestly guidance but I do not find any in this blog. I do not consider myself any sort of High Priest of Christianity, either passe’ or avant garde.

I invite Fr Borg to climb down from that fence and to give us his plain answer to his query, is “a Jew, a Hindu, a Moslem, a Buddhist or any other person who is a member of another religion or no religion at all … doing something morally wrong if they divorce and re-marry?” I gave my answer, it was a clear “no” and I gave the reason why. If that is a passe' Christianity I would appreciate Fr Borg's guidance as to what is the acceptable version to the modernists.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 09:48

@ sciortino m:

"This is a real story and not a made up or fictional story. What advice would you give this woman? is she wrong to leave her husband? Is she wrong if she seeks love from another man?"

I think we'll all be in agreement here that it is not only right, but advisable for her to leave her abusive husband. The disagreement only comes regarding what to do next.

Those, like me, who don't unreservedly oppose divorce, believe that if she so wishes, she may start a new relationship with another man - and if she can get a divorce and wants to, she is morally entitled to get one and remarry if she wishes.

Practicing Catholics, however, will tell you that she should not seek another relationship with another man, and should spend the rest of her life celibate.

It must be noted that, from the details given in the blog article, she has no grounds for annulment.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 09:33

@ Andy Farrugia:

"what you consider to be a contradiction may not necessarily be so".

Let's see what was actually written:

"I am saying that divorce is always morally wrong even where it is sanctioned by law and it is MORALLY WRONG for everybody, Christian or not".

"Members of non-Christian religions who practice bigamy, divorce etc could be acting in accordance with their own cultivated conscience, and therefore MORALLY CORRECT".

Now, the question is: Do you seriously believe that the claim that the second quote contradicts the first is a matter of opinion?

sciortino m

Mar 9th 2011, 09:30

To all on this blog.

A couple of months ago Fr. Joe Borg gave us the story of "Emily", a wife who decided to leave her husband after years of physchological and physical abuse. Those who want to read the story may click here.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20101228/fr-joe-borg/the-silent-victims

This is a real story and not a made up or fictional story. What advice would you give this woman? is she wrong to leave her husband? Is she wrong if she seeks love from another man?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 9th 2011, 09:26

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"He was only gently prompting the usual pro-divorce commenters in his blog what type of intelligent question they should be asking instead of their puerile quibbling and pretended obtuseness".

If any pro-divorce commenter had asked that same question, you would have judged it "inane" and refused to answer it.

sciortino m

Mar 9th 2011, 09:23

Dr. Saliba

I am even more confused. You have come up with a third interpretation.

First you said that divorce was 'morally wrong for everybody, Christians or not.'

The second one was divorce was "morally correct" for ''Members of non-Christian religions who practice bigamy, divorce etc could be acting in accordance with their own cultivated conscience,"

Now the third position is divorce and bigamy could be "excusable, even if immoral"
by those who "practice in good faith .. other religions".

To summarise first it was "immoral for everyone", then it was "morally correct" for practitioners of other religions and now it is "immoral but excusable" for the followers of non-Christian religions.

One final question, by whom is divorce by non-Christians "excusable?"

Fr Joe Borg

Mar 8th 2011, 23:44

Oh my! Now I am an entraper and I behave like those who are not followers of Chrstianity, or who have rejected that religion for more expedient beliefs or non-beliefs.
I am flattered by the comments of Saliba (Dr) and Farrugia (Mr). Any more compliments from these High Priests of a passe kind of Christianity are most welcome.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 21:05

@ Andy Farrugia

"I am quite happy with my humble station in life, and especially in TRYING my hardest to follow the teachings of Christ."

Well forgive me for not being impressed with hollow words. You actually mean, you are trying hard to follow the teachings of Christ which appeal to you. What about the "sell ALL your belongings etc.? What about the cut off any limb which may lead you to temptation? Too hard eh? The truth is you, like all christians, cherry pick the items which you adhere to and just ignore the rest (perhaps there are some exceptions just in case someone decides to "nit-pick").

It's no use ignoring this all the times I've pointed it out. The truth is hard but shoving it aside will not change it. I have no problem with anyone expressing his views, but I do have a problem with hypocricy (claiming to believe what you do not).

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 8th 2011, 20:52

@PatrikLarsson

I do not agree that my reply made no sense or that it was contradictory. I clearly said that bigamy and divorce were always immoral but their practice in good faith by practitioners of other religions could be excusable, even if immoral, because of an insurmountable and non-culpable ignorance of Christ’s teaching. I cannot reword it more simply than that.

I will submit a second answer only if Fr J Borg confirms that his contribution was meant to entrap me – I think otherwise. I think he was only trying to raise the level of his blog by prompting more logical queries.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 20:17

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"Aplogies for not anticipating your nit-picking comment. I should have said: '"The obvious fallacy in your argument is that social benefits are universally acknowledged to be intrinsically "good"" (although there are always exceptions to every rule)."

Not nit-picking at all, since your argument was that Kevin's own argument doesn't count BECAUSE EVERYONE acknowledges social benefits to be good.

Now that you concede that there are exceptions (Just as Malta and the Philippines are exceptions to the belief that divorce is not intrinsically bad), you have shown that Kevin's argument stands.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 8th 2011, 20:14

@ChalieBorg.

Please read and digest carefully my reply to Andy Farrugia when, hopefully, you will be able to understand that your sarcasm is misplaced and inappropriate. What is placed on the Sacrificial Table are not people whom you condemn as "wise and holier-than-thou" so that they would sanctimoniously lead the people of God". They are animals destined for sacrificial slaughter and who are in no position to lead anybody, anywhere. The practice went out of practice with Christianity that replaced it by the Holy Eucharist.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 20:14

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"...or from those who had been brought up as Christians but who later rejected that religion for more expedient beliefs or non-beliefs".

Expedient? Prejudice at its worst.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 8th 2011, 20:13

@ P Larsson

If it does not make sense to you, it does not mean it does not make sense to others; what you consider to be a contradiction may not necessarily be so. As far as i know, you have not yet been universally acknowledged as the ultimate authority on morality, ethics and logic.

Charlie Borg

Mar 8th 2011, 20:09

@ Andrew Farrugia: Howdy yourself!

Well, I am NOT the one expecting all and sundry to live according to how I pretend to see fit, by refusing to allow my neighbour to live the life that he or she wants to live, and thus preclude one and all from the possibility of divorce.

I am NOT the one expecting everybody else to believe that I know something about the effects of two Popes on society as a whole, and on the Church.

I am NOT the one expecting everybody else to adhere to the teachings of the Church simply because I decided that this is the only way to save society.

I am NOT the one who sends to eternal damnation those whose views are considered 'liberal' and 'modern'.

I am NOT the one who would agree with a certain priest ONLY INSOFAR as he sings the song I want him to sing.

Qui est l'intolerant, maintenant?

Touche', je crois!

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 8th 2011, 19:54

@m sciortino
You should not be confused at all. My second comment is an elaboration of the first, that was less detailed.

@AndyFarrugia.
I don't blame Fr Borg. He was only gently prompting the usual pro-divorce commenters in his blog what type of intelligent question they should be asking instead of their puerile quibbling and pretended obtuseness.

Patrik Larsson

Mar 8th 2011, 19:43

Dr. Saliba:
"Members of non-Christian religions who practice bigamy, divorce etc could be acting in accordance with their own cultivated conscience, and therefore morally correct. That conduct would be excusable because of an unsurmountable and non-culpable ignorance of the teaching of Christ. "

That makes absolutely no sense. So it is suddenly moral to divorce, as long as you are not Christian? This completely contradicts what you previously said.

So, perhaps you should have another go at an answer and perhaps the second time around you can get it right.

Andy Farrugia:
"Excellent answer, Dr Saliba; allow me to warmly applaud you for the way you answered a seemingly innocuous question which was however intended as a form of entrapment"

If it was meant as entrapment it certainly worked. Fr. Joe managed in a simple short post get Dr. Saliba to completely contradict himself.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 8th 2011, 19:02

@ Charlie Borg

Hi there again; just need to reassure you that poor little me never harboured any aspirations either to become a columnist or a member of the cloth, with all due respect to both. I am quite happy with my humble station in life, and especially in TRYING my hardest to follow the teachings of Christ. In this latter respect, i have been enormously helped by the example and teachings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI - needless to say, i feel way out of depth when it comes to mentally digesting their words of wisdom. I do hope that you do not seem to have any problem with anyone expressing his/her point of view, irrespective of how right or wrong that person might be. Else, it would smack of intolerance on your part, n'est-pas?

Charlie Borg

Mar 8th 2011, 18:45

Father Borg, I think it would be much more practical to desist from writing this blog, and give over to the likes of Messers Francis Saliba and Andy Farrugia, On second thoughts, go one step further, defrock yourself and push THEM on the Sacrificial Table so that with their wisdom and holier-than-thou attitude, they would be able to sanctimoniously lead the people of God in what they see as the right direction.

sciortino m

Mar 8th 2011, 18:14

Dr. Saliba,

You wrote "I am saying that divorce is always morally wrong even where it is sanctioned by law and it is morally wrong for everybody, Christian or not, and it has been so from the beginning of creation."

Later you wrote ''Members of non-Christian religions who practice bigamy, divorce etc could be acting in accordance with their own cultivated conscience, and therefore morally correct."

I am confused - which one of your statements is correct? Is divorce morally 'wrong' for everybody, Christian or not, or morally 'correct' for those who follow conscientiously a religion that permits divorce?

Andy Farrugia

Mar 8th 2011, 17:40

@ Dr F Saliba

Excellent answer, Dr Saliba; allow me to warmly applaud you for the way you answered a seemingly innocuous question which was however intended as a form of entrapment. Like you, i never expected such a question from such quarters. One always learns and discovers new things.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 8th 2011, 17:19

@KennethCassar.

Aplogies for not anticipating your nit-picking comment. I should have said: '"The obvious fallacy in your argument is that social benefits are universally acknowledged to be intrinsically "good"" (although there are always exceptions to every rule)."

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 8th 2011, 17:10

@Rev Fr J Borg.

Members of non-Christian religions who practice bigamy, divorce etc could be acting in accordance with their own cultivated conscience, and therefore morally correct. That conduct would be excusable because of an unsurmountable and non-culpable ignorance of the teaching of Christ.

I had long been expecting that question, but not from a priest who would know the answer. I expected it from those who are not followers of Chrstianity, who may not even be aware of the teaching of Christ or from those who had been brought up as Christians but who later rejected that religion for more expedient beliefs or non-beliefs.

FR Joe Borg

Mar 8th 2011, 15:11

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"I am saying that divorce is always morally wrong even where it is sanctioned by law and it is morally wrong for everybody, Christian or not".
Are you saying that a Jew, a Hindu, a Moslem, a Buddhist or any other person who is a member of another religion or no religion at all is doing something morally wrong if they divorce and re-marry?

Kevin Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 14:47

@ Dr Francis Saliba

"I know that when I do not submit a reply there are those who jump to the wrong conclusion that I do not have an answer, but they would be absolutely wrong. The truth is that when comments or questions sink below a certain level of inanity I do not feel bound to answer them."

Guess What? Nobody is bound to answer anything, even when the questions do not "sink below a certain level of inanity" (translation - when I cannot answer them without making myself look like a fool).

Nevertheless, most of us do answer all the questions asked of them because they CARE about the TRUTH, and are not only concerned whether they win or lose the argument.

The truth is simple, if you wish to use Jesus' teaching on divorce as your argument then you cannot ignore other teachings which are on the same page. Since you clearly and undeniably ignore them while claiming to believe that he is God, how do you expect us to not ignore them too?

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 8th 2011, 12:53

@sciortino-cassar

I know that when I do not submit a reply there are those who jump to the wrong conclusion that I do not have an answer, but they would be absolutely wrong. The truth is that when comments or questions sink below a certain level of inanity I do not feel bound to answer them.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 12:24

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"I am saying that divorce is always morally wrong even where it is sanctioned by law and it is morally wrong for everybody, Christian or not".

That's just a minority opinion.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 12:21

@ Dr Francis Saliba:

"The obvious fallacy in your argument is that social benefits are acknowledged by everybody to be intrinsically "good"".

The obvious fallacy in your argument is that you start your argument with an obvious fallacy. Social benefits are not acknowledged by everybody to be intrinsically good.

Here's just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

sciortino m

Mar 8th 2011, 12:18

Dr. Saliba

You did not answer the question I put to you. You simply state that Christ is against it which doesn't really answer the question since you did not state why Christ is against it.

Seems that you do not have a reasoned reply.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 12:13

@ Dr Francis Saliba

"Christ himself declared it to be wrong and he also said that it had been wrong long before his time, as far back as the beginning of creation itself."

So many problems with the above quote that I hardly know where to begin.

Christ himself declared it to be wrong - that's one out of many iterpretations of the scripture, apart from the fact that this must be taken on "faith" since we have no evidence that he ever existed, let alone that he was divine.

Beginning of "creation"? You mean Adam and Eve and the talking snake???

Sorry but while this may be suffiecient for you, and you have every right to believe it, it does not make it sufficient for everyone.

Besides, the scriptures also say that Christ gave clear instructions on what was needed in order to gain eternal life - Sell ALL your belongings, give to the poor and follow me.

Somehow, you (or any other "believer") ignore this quote which is taken (ironically) from the same chapter as the one which you quote (Just a few verses down).

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 8th 2011, 11:43

@KevinCassar

The obvious fallacy in your argument is that social benefits are acknowledged by everybody to be intrinsically "good" and there is no doubt that legislation enabling that good social measure (with precautions against abuse) is also good. The same cannot be said of divorce. It is wrong, not because of my "fixated" opinion against "rabta coff" marriage (pace! m.sciortino). Christ himself declared it to be wrong and he also said that it had been wrong long before his time, as far back as the beginning of creation itself.

I do not contest that the state "can" legislate in favour of divorce, as you say - it is being done all the time all over the place. I am saying that divorce is always morally wrong even where it is sanctioned by law and it is morally wrong for everybody, Christian or not, and it has been so from the beginning of creation.

Jessica DeBattista

Mar 8th 2011, 11:11

@ Richard Curmi:

Part 2.

I can relate actual facts: I have seen a couple openly quarelling because the mother wanted a specific “brand” of doll for her daughter who incidentally had liked another much less expensive doll. The husband was happy enough to save some money but the mother angrily pulled away the daughter out of the shop leaving the husband muttering about his wife being jealous and wanting her daughter to have the same doll as the neighbour’s daughter.

Such behaviour cannot but make one question whether a marriage can turn sour by such “apparently” insignificant anecdotes.

Little things add up and there is no saying whether this jealous trait is not carried to the extreme making it impossible for a couple to suffer each other.

Marriage preparation should take such negative traits into consideration for it is not always infidelity that is the cause of a marriage breakdown.

Jessica DeBattista

Mar 8th 2011, 11:08

@ Richard Curmi: “Parents, who might have missed out on so many things in their life, didn't want to see the same thing happenning to their offsprings and so went to the other extreme and even deleted the smal word 'no' from their vocabulary.”
Part 1.

First of all Mr. Curmi, I see a lot of sense in your suggestion that 2 separate questions be asked when we are called to vote in the referendum: 1. Whether pro or con divorce. 2 Whether they want such parameters in case they answered yes to the 1st question.”

As regards the quote above, I can add with conviction that it is not always because people would not want their offspring to miss out on what they did not have, but rather because they (more often than not, the mothers) wanted to keep up with the Jones’.

Continued….

Kevin Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 10:23

@ Dr Francis Saliba

The state gives out unemployment benefits.Many abuse this. Nevertheless, the state does not remove the benefit. The state also gives out benefits to single mothers. Many abuse this. Nevertheless the state does not remove this benefit.

Similarly, the state can allow divorce. Many will "abuse" this. Nevertheless, the state should as in all the above cases, work towards curbing the abuse and not remove the benefit. Besides there can be no instance where a divorce that is sought by one, would be detrimental to the other. When one spouse wants out, regardless of how trivial the reason may be, the real value of the marriage is over. There would be two things that one can do at this point. The first is the current state, where one gets to stay in a dead marriage, where the couple do not live together or love eachother. The other is to move on.
I know that many would be "happy" preventing divorce just to spite their estranged spouse, but that wouldn't be doing anyone any good. I agree that prevention is much better than cure, but cure is still available for those who need it.

sciortino m

Mar 8th 2011, 10:22

Dr. Saliba

You seem fixated with this 'rabta coff'.' Have you ever asked yourself the question - If one spouse wants to leave the marriage what benefits is the other spouse going to get by keeping the spouse who wants out tied down to a failed marriage?

Richard Curmi

Mar 8th 2011, 10:11

“Is there a future for marriage?" Your question is not out of place, Ms. Jessica DeBattista. Parents, who might have missed out on so many things in their life, didn't want to see the same thing happenning to their offsprings and so went to the other extreme and even deleted the smal word 'no' from their vocabulary. As you said the new generation do not know the meaning of sacrifice. Many are shunning marriage, wedded bliss has become a joke and soon the marriage vows will run something like " I commit to you in health, for better and richer and till I get tired of you".

Furthermore I agree with Fr. Joe's last paragraph although I would add that the discussion should be followed by serious action.

Victims of violence be it physical, emotional, psychological or verbal should not be left without a way out of that situation and the shouldn't be denied the opportunity of entering in a new relationship.
Catholics can always stop at getting a divorce, the church prohibits them only from remarrying.
As many theologians are rightfully saying it's high time for the church to renew the pastoral care of such people.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 8th 2011, 09:00

"The point at issue is whether the proposed divorce bill applies ONLY to wives suffering at the hands of wife beaters".

That would be very dangerous, since some people might introduce violence (real or invented) just to get a divorce.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 8th 2011, 07:03

"No I do not ignore that point. In fact I said there were two sides to it and acknowledged both." (KevinCassar)

The point at issue is whether the proposed divorce bill applies ONLY to wives suffering at the hands of wife beaters (and similar destroyers of family life) or whether it is an "Open Sesame" for "rabta coff" marriages to accomodate all those desiring to change partners by "no fault" uncontested divorce applications. The answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes" or "No" - not a shilly shallying there are two sides to that questio. I insist that the proposed bill creates a "rabta coff" marriage at the disposal of everybody.

Jessica DeBattista

Mar 7th 2011, 19:50

Hedonism is rampant especially with the new generation for they are too spoilt, thanks to the older generation’s making. For it is partly the older generation’s fault for having slackened their hold on their children, besides providing them with more than the basic comfort.

Society changes because people start behaving in a different way. Financially, families became better off and they could afford to give their children more and more, which led to the children appreciating less and less.

So what do you expect if in marriage you are faced with just one toy/gadget when you are now used to getting any toy/gadget you want?

The new generation hardly knows the meaning of ‘sacrifice’ and they look on marriage, not for the purpose it was conceived but solely for their own delectation. The new generation is even developing a mentality of having children out of marriage and I dare ask: “Is there a future for marriage?

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 7th 2011, 19:38

@KevinCassar

I acknowledge your "other side of the coin" but I do not put on blinkers so as not to see that
the proposed divorce bill is NOT being introduced only as a palliative for the "irrevocable breakdown of marriage' due to violence. It is intended to provide a "rabta coff" marriage for the convenience of those who tire of their spouse and want to seek pastures new regardless of the harm to the children and to society.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 7th 2011, 14:58

@ Dr Francis Saliba

"You ignore the obvious point that divorce is not being offered only to "wife beaters" and their suffering wives. It is being offered to all bored/dissatisfied married people in search of new liasons and these will not need to prove any form of cruelty when applying for the "no fault" divorce on offer."

No I do not ignore that point. In fact I said there were two sides to it and acknowledged both. It is you that so far, have not acknowledged the other side of the coin.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 7th 2011, 14:30

2) The anti-divorcists make their case but sadly, their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny seeing as they are based on 'suffer, and be rewarded later'. People nowadays are too knowledgeable and often, destructively hedonistic*. But is this any worse than promising a lifelong 'two-merged-into-one' - a big lie, incidentally - 'in sickness-and-in health, for better-or- worse, till death us do part'? And all this heavy commitment projected well into the future based on nothing more solid than the vagaries of human feelings, primitive and uninformed ones at that? The religious will resist 'primitive and uninformed' but is their claim water-tight? Being based on what, exactly? Quite!

*I have no problem conceding that this(hedonism) needs addressing in psychotherapeutic terms. And urgently. But no more or less so than 'suffer and be rewarded hereafter' needing psycho-healing. Much of a muchness both of them. In fact, as likely as not, we could all do with a spot of reality checks with a trained specialist. WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO LOSE? WE STAND TO GAIN A LIFE.

Distaste for change is a human trait. Some learn to handle change. Many too insecure to consider it. Rather the devil you know sort of thing.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 7th 2011, 14:06

1) Quote: 'this bill offers to every married couple, without exception, a facile contrived dissolution of their marriage vow', unquote. Facile? Some people wouldn't recognise facile in a month of Sundays, they are such suckers for punishment. Besides, facile or not, the process is protracted and comes with a hefty price-tag, particularly when it's labelled 'annulment'. Same difference, but worse in fact. Not facile and targets where it hurts, the pocket.

Quote: 'even where no justifiable grounds exist, and without the need to prove anything beyond a de facto separation....', unquote. Well, as long as those 'justifiable grounds' do not exist, the marriage is safe surely so what's the big deal? Being happily married is fine, but ever the pragmatist, it is nice to know that should the setup go pear-shaped, there is a way out. We've only got one life. Why suffer? And for what?

continued

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 7th 2011, 12:03

@KevinCassar

You ignore the obvious point that divorce is not being offered only to "wife beaters" and their suffering wives. It is being offered to all bored/dissatisfied married people in search of new liasons and these will not need to prove any form of cruelty when applying for the "no fault" divorce on offer.

sciortino m

Mar 7th 2011, 11:17

"The other take goes as follows: Instead of adding more legal provisions that hurt children let us go the extra mile to strengthen marriage preparation, invest heavily in family therapy and come out with all the possible family-friendly regulations and laws. We will be asked to choose between these alternatives."

I don't understand. Seems to me that this 'choose between alternatives' is all spin.

Marriage preparation and family therapy etc. are not alternatives. Any responsible Government should have these things in place as part of the education and welfare budgets. There is no need for any referendum on marriage preparation and family therapy.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 7th 2011, 11:04

@ Dr Francis Saliba

"You have not said anything to disprove my precise contention that divorce laws actually reward the “wife beater” (or any other wrecker of a marriage) by imposing divorce even against the wishes of the suffering wife, and to replace her. All he has to do is to start co-habiting with his latest fancy for a few years after which the proposed divorce laws would reward him for his criminal behaviour."

Well actually I did, by pointing out that in the majority of cases, the wife beater would not be the one to want out of the marriage. Divorce would not reward the wife beater as it would take away from him, his object of control. Not allowing divorce, on the other hand would suit him just fine as it would allow him to keep his victim until death, probably a violent one.

There are two sides to every coin. I can see both sides and acknowledge them both, which is why I believe that not allowing the right to choose would be an injustice to the victims of a bad marriage.

Richard Curmi

Mar 7th 2011, 09:00

Whichever question is put to the people, I do not think that the referendum will indicate precisely what the Maltese really want. The result will surley receive diverse interpretations by the different political parties as happened everytime there was a referendum.
I already suggested that maybe asking 2 questions could be a kind of solution. 1. in favour or not. 2 If they like PL's model or not.
The way things have turned out up till now it looks like that if the people were to be asked solely to say yes or no to the introduction of divorce, the MPs would be doing their best not to introduce an a la carte divorce, easy to get at one's whims.
I base this assertion on these facts: If the Nays will have it, then it stops there. If the Ayes will have it then those MPs who were against would do their best to at least have a strict legislation and those who were in favour would be sort of bound by the proposed model albeit it can be made stricter or bettered in other ways. This of course rests on the MPs' honesty and reliabilty.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 7th 2011, 06:29

@d.attard.

No, I have no time to waste providing links if you are too lazy to look for them yourself. I will simply reiterate that what you glibly “believe” is contradicted by the evident fact that this bill offers to every married couple, without exception, a facile contrived dissolution of their marriage vow, even where no justifiable grounds exist, and without the need to prove anything beyond a de facto separation of four years that can be mutually arranged. During that cooling down period the divorcing couples could go through the motions of attending some reconciliation programme whilst, at the same time, openly or clandestinely, pre-empting the divorce by co-habiting with their intended future “partners”. This mocking travesty and charade is what you extol as “the most conservative of divorce parameters” - that speaks volumes!

d.attard

Mar 6th 2011, 21:33

Dr Francis Zammit, can you provide links please? Thank you.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 6th 2011, 19:49

@DAttard

My previous replies on this blog and as comments to the news "Christians have to build a new culture with respect to marriage - bishops" deal adequately with the points being raised by you now. Please look them up because I will not repeat them here. If you have already read them, but pretend not to understand my plain English, no amount of repetition by me will serve any purpose whatsoever.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 6th 2011, 19:00

Quote: 'What is much more sinister is that your "wife beater" would be rewarded by a legal means to discard his innocent spouse, against her wishes, and to replace her by someone else who has taken his fancy'. A wife, victim of her husband's fists not wanting to let him go? (I know of one such masochistic woman who did the best thing not even her husband could prevent her from doing - she died of cancer and finally, release). What she needed was available treatment except when this was forthcoming, decades ago in Malta, she decided to return to her abusive husband (violence continued for years afterwards) simply because the counsellor was such a 'holy' man with wax-like hands. Bad choice, exorbitant price. And then she died and went to heaven. Oh yeah?!
The wife-beater in the quote is now free to abuse his latest chosen one? Wait a minute! Any woman with a smidgen of self-esteem should push for her chosen partner's track-record. She must not accept cop-outs like 'I was unlucky - now I've found you'. She must then do a runner and he, Mr.Wife-beater, will become a wandering Jew, forever in search of victims to beat.

d.attard

Mar 6th 2011, 18:54

The JPO-Bartolo is NOT offering divorce exclusively to those whose marriage has irrevocably broken down (Dr Francis Saliba)

I believe it is

1. divorce is allowed only after a committed reconcilation programme so that the number of divorces are kept to the minium possible. Marriage breakdown is unhealthy to family members and society.

2. If professionals conceeded defeat, divorce would still be a long way off. The parties would have to live separately for at least four years to ensure that even when emotions settle, the parties will continue to insist on divorce.

3, This hands-on process will help courts allocate proper maintenance to ensure, as humanly possible, the wellbeing of any children caught in the cross-fire of family breakdowns. The children's interest is poorly represented in present seperations.

etc etc

This type of divorce is considered to be the most conservative of divorce parameters and allows divorce only when there seems to exist no hope for a recovery.

As for the unilateral argument, you will no doubt know that it takes two to make a marriage work. There is no such thing as keeping a marriage alive if only one (possibly the guilty) partner wants to 'stick' it out.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 6th 2011, 18:23

@ Andy Farrugia

"Oh really? "

Yeah REALLY! When someone speaks out and is criticized for what he says, that's called expressing your disagreement to the argument. If the Bishops had said nothing and were "attacked" or "vilified" it would be called attacking the person. Simple enough?

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 6th 2011, 18:00

@KevinCassar.

You have not said anything to disprove my precise contention that divorce laws actually reward the “wife beater” (or any other wrecker of a marriage) by imposing divorce even against the wishes of the suffering wife, and to replace her. All he has to do is to start co-habiting with his latest fancy for a few years after which the proposed divorce laws would reward him for his criminal behaviour.

I ignore rhetorical questions that are too silly to do not deserve an answer from me.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 6th 2011, 16:54

@ Kevin Cassar

"Possibly because they agree with the "attacks" (which are nothing but criticism of their statements and not attacks on their person)."

Oh really?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 6th 2011, 16:23

@ Andy Farrugia:

"Why is it that no one complains about the way the Bishops are being "attacked" and vilified on some threads?".

Could it be because this blog is not about the bishops?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 6th 2011, 16:17

@ Andy Farrugia:

"Thanks Kenneth, for your usual objective, impartial, logical, no-bearing-of-grudges assessment of the issue".

How about that for sarcasm? By the way...I don't bear any grudges. Its just that I am tired of pointlessly arguing with you. Fair enough?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 6th 2011, 16:11

@ Andy Farrugia:

"Why is it that no one complains about the way the Bishops are being "attacked" and vilified on some threads? Now if i had to write about double standards and hypocrisy concerning the right and freedom of expression i would be accused of attacking and ridiculing people".

Ah, double standards and hypocrisy. I assume you include me in that description, don't you? Well, let me just say this:

1. Double standards and hypocrisy is when one judges something in a way, and judges something similar in a different way. It has noting with choosing to comment on one thing and not another. If we were to comment on everyone on the planet just to escape the charge of hypocrisy and double standards, a lifetime of typing would not be sufficient.

2. However, since point 1 will probably not satisfy you, I am willing to give my own judgement if you point me to a particular post you have in mind. Quote and direct link please.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 6th 2011, 16:05

@ Andy Farugia:

"Had no wish to drag anyone into the issue but would have appreciated some form of tangible evidence to support your judgement".

The only "judgement" I made, and only because you asked me for it, was that you use your fair share of sarcasm in some of your posts. However, I will not waste any of my time looking for the "evidence", since it was you who asked me to give my "judgement". Take it or leave it.

Now can you please leave me out of this? I waste enough time arguing with you, so much so that I am avoiding replying to any of your posts that are not specifically addressed to me. Furthermore, I don't wish to waste several days arguing on an opinion you ask for yourself.

As for apologies, as far as I can recall, I did not ask for your apology. I thought we had reached a compromise before you dragged me into your argument with Charlie Borg. Let's not spoil that, shall we?

Kevin Cassar

Mar 6th 2011, 15:44

@ Andy Farrugia

"Why is it that no one complains about the way the Bishops are being "attacked" and vilified on some threads?"

Possibly because they agree with the "attacks" (which are nothing but criticism of their statements and not attacks on their person). The ones who would complain are those who agree with what the Bishops are saying (presumably you), so perhaps you may wish to ask the question to yourself.

Joseph Camilleri

Mar 6th 2011, 14:51

Divorce is old hat. It is an issue that has long ago been debated and settled in the rest of the world. The fact that the Maltese, especially the younger generation, are now debating the issue shows our opening to the outside world, thanks in no small way to our membership in the EU. Divorce has become a universal civil right, recognised not through a Convention but through legislation in all countries. Its universal application is acknowledged even in Malta which recognizes and respects divorces obtained by its citizens from foreign countries. But civil rights, like freedom, should be indivisible. The resistance to the legalisation of divorce says little about our respect for civil rights and much about the confessional nature of our society. For, at the end, the only argument against divorce is the religious one, as so bluntly but honestly stated by a prominent politician. Bar that sentence in the Bible (usually interpreted out of context) the anti-divorce lobby have no leg to stand on - except, of course, the contention that universal civil rights do not necessarily apply to Maltese citizens (except for the few who have the means or opportunity to obtain a divorce abroad).

Andy Farrugia

Mar 6th 2011, 14:29

Why is it that no one complains about the way the Bishops are being "attacked" and vilified on some threads? Now if i had to write about double standards and hypocrisy concerning the right and freedom of expression i would be accused of attacking and ridiculing people. Oh well, seems as if i have an uncanny way of riling some people, and probably that is why they reply to my comments.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 6th 2011, 14:24

@ Kenneth Cassar

Thanks Kenneth, for your usual objective, impartial, logical, no-bearing-of-grudges assessment of the issue. Since i promised to accept your judgement i will apologise to Charlie Borg, to others and to you as well. Had no wish to drag anyone into the issue but would have appreciated some form of tangible evidence to support your judgement.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 6th 2011, 13:49

@ Dr Francis Saliba

"What is much more sinister is that your "wife beater" would be rewarded by a legal means to discard his innocent spouse, against her wishes, and to replace her by someone else who has taken his fancy. "

Do you really believe that a wife beater would want to discard his easy and legally approved punching bag, and that the victim (the innocent spouse) would wish to stay in the "marriage" getting beaten? Sure it can happen in a few rare cases, but usually, a wife beater, who is an insecure and jealous person who treats his spouse as a possession would not normally want to give up his object of control (what makes him feel good) up.

In essence, you are pointing out that there may be cases where divorce will have negative effects just as the absence of divorce will have negative and unjust effects on others. That is exactly why divorce should be available and each case treated according to its' own merit. It's not a fix all solution, nothing in this world is.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 6th 2011, 13:31

@ Andy Farrugia:

Since you took the liberty of dragging me into a dispute I don't feel the slightest urge to participate in, I'll only say that for many people, sarcasm is a form of "attack".

So perhaps this is why Charlie Borg feels you are attacking people, while you don't believe you are.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 6th 2011, 11:39

@ Charlie Borg

I respect your wish not to have any further communications with me and do appreciate your sense of discomfort in hogging Fr Borg's blog (even though it is a public space) but i would be more appreciative if you were to substantiate your wild claims about me "attacking and ridiculing people". Prove it, quote where i have attacked people! I'll go one better, i will leave it to Mr Kenneth Cassar, my greatest critic, to judge whether i have attacked anyone on this thread. If Kenneth says that i have, i forward my apologies in advance, to you and to everyone else.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 6th 2011, 11:18

@ Charlie Borg

Guess what, Charlie? There are going to be more than ONE MILLION "empty vessels" like me who will be attending Pope John Paul II's beatification in Rome on May 1; regretfully, i will not be physically present, but my heart and soul will be there with them. Not but eh, for such country bumpkins?

Charlie Borg

Mar 6th 2011, 10:46

@ Andy Farrugia - I do not wish to continue indulging in repartee with you because it gets us nowhere (pathetic, however, that you are constantly attacking and ridiculing people and then at the first sign of people standing up to you, you grab the nearest palm branch) and it also makes me feel uncomfortable that I am 'taking over' Fr Borg's blog as well as annoying the resident readers of this blog. Until next time.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 6th 2011, 10:10

@ Charlie Borg

I have no reason to doubt that you must be well-grounded in theology and spirituality, but i take exception to your comment:
"you [meaning i] try to profess sheer knowledge in both".
That is patently untrue; i never did anything of the sort, in fact, i readily admit to being an absolute beginner in such matters. Still, it is good to note that "spalancare le porte" has now come to mean that idiots in theology and spirituality like myself should be brow-beaten into submission by luminaries in such matters. And there was i thinking that the "new deal" meant inclusivity, fool that in am.

Richard Curmi

Mar 6th 2011, 06:20

I do not think that the lack of interest you refer to is due to the debate being forced prematurely. This lack of interest has to do more with the 'how' it was presented or brought about rather than with the 'when' as in my opinion the debate and action on this matter was long overdue.

Regarding the question to be asked on 28 May the two major parties are proposing questions that can be percieved to be either simplistic or complex/complicated. "Iva jew Le" required as an answer to the question about being pro or con to the introduction of divorce leaves the "Iva" respondents with no knowledge of what kind of legislation will put their 'Iva" in practice.
The other question, which includes a model of legislation relevant to divorce, can be percieved as, ever so subtly, presuming that the voter, seeing the model, would most probably say "Iva" .

Would it be a solution if 2 separate questions: 1. Whether pro or con divorce. 2 Whether they want such parameters in case they answered yes to the 1st question.
Legislators can find ways of guaranteeing alimony eg. direct deduction from income

Joe Xuereb

Mar 6th 2011, 01:35

2) In any case, advice for one to grin and bear a living disaster and buoy oneself up by thoughts of eternal happiness, that too is not guaranteed. A 'short' life is bloomin' long when willfully suffering (as the partner must surely be who refuses his/her other half wanting out). I've known of cases (women usually) who prefer the fists than freedom (another classic of the need for boundaries)....better the devil you know, blah blah.

So let's leave it at that for the time being.

Thanks for your heartfelt best wishes Andrew F. I was listening from the wings and thinking, life is difficult as it is. Why all this sparring?

Joe Xuereb

Mar 6th 2011, 01:19

1) I read the first paragraph and thought, good! divorce on a back-burner. Twas not to be (some anaesthesia lurking still?)
Children need boundaries for safety and learning what's acceptable, what ain't. They mature and push OUT the boundaries, managing this joke thing called Life. But not all. Some feel insecure in their chosen 'status' and they welcome boundaries in case they do something silly.
Divorce and happy, valid marriages are spoken of in the same breath. Wrong! Divorce and rotten (as in dead) marriages are the tandem-operative words (rhetoric+emotive bleatings). Dead can only turn to putrid. Dead can be revived - miracles do happen - but under a different guise. But not for the faint-hearted and anyone with limited vocab. These can go on to a second marriage, hopefully having learnt something from the first 'frittata andata male'(as in something gone pear-shaped). Children will of course to opt to live with a rotten parent who buys the occasional milky-bar; they're innocent like that. But in the longer-term, they're better off taken away from a destructive environment, chocolate notwithstanding. Give them a chance. A happy second marriage isn't guaranteed any more than regular alimony; but both can be buffered.
cont.

Charlie Borg

Mar 5th 2011, 23:09

@ Andy Farrugia: Well, that's one of them. You have no idea what Vatican II was all about. You have no idea what the long-term vision of John XXIII (spalancare le finestre della Chiesa) was all about. You have no in-depth grounding about theology and about spirituality; and you try to profess sheer knowledge in both. So, yes, empty vessel. Cheers.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 5th 2011, 21:54

"The bill offers divorce only to those whos marriage has irrevocably broken down." (DAttard)

No sir! The JPO-Bartolo is NOT offering divorce exclusively to those whose marriage has irrevocably broken down. It is offering an easy divorce to all and sundry, including those who have grown bored of being tied down to the same faithful partner, to those who are seeking (or who have already found) a new consort. The bill affords them an easy way out by means of a "no fault", uncontested divorce concocted by mutual arrangement. What is much more sinister is that your "wife beater" would be rewarded by a legal means to discard his innocent spouse, against her wishes, and to replace her by someone else who has taken his fancy.

Please note carefully that I am not putting words in your mouth. I am simply explaining to you the full implications of the divorce bill you are endorsing - in case you do not understand it already.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 5th 2011, 20:56

@ Charlie Borg

Ah! So that's what got your goat, my unabashed admiration for Pope John Paul II (Santo Subito) and Pope Benedict XVI. Oh well, in that case and for them you can call me anything you like; in fact, i will call myself the emptiest of vessels. Cheers.

Charlie Borg

Mar 5th 2011, 20:37

@ Andy Farrugia: I am not going to tell you the extent of my 'spirituality' but whatever that is, I do not go screaming my head off to the four winds against 'liberalism' and in favour of two 'sublime' popes who actually pushed the Church centuries back with their traditionalism and of which, sorry to say, you know NOTHING about! Yet again, empty vessels! You do not convince.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 5th 2011, 19:39

@ Charlie Borg

Oh, by the way, Charlie, considering how you characterise and classify people you don't even know, you must definitely be brimming with silent spirituality and the "milk of human kindness".

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 5th 2011, 19:30

@ Fr Joe Borg:

1. Fault divorce is dangerous. If people are not eligible for divorce because, for instance, there is no violence in the marriage, people might introduce violence just to get the divorce.

2. It is true that some might not want to divorce while their husband/wife wants to. However, everyone is free not to remarry. In any case, separation is also forced on people who do not wish to separate, and I don't see anyone campaigning against that.

3. True, as the law stands now, alimony cannot be guaranteed, just as in separation cases. However, laws can change, especially where children are involved. The courts cannot act against the law.

4. "why not hurt them more by divorce?" is a silly question. Separation or divorce makes no difference to children.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 5th 2011, 19:24

@ Charlie Borg

Why should i answer your questions? Am i under some sort of interrogation?
Please, continue to amuse me since as you say you "enjoy making people laugh". And thanks for your generous compliments, it does take one to know another.

d.attard

Mar 5th 2011, 19:13

@DrFrancisSaliba

You put words into my mouth through emotion rather than reason.

All Partners in a marriage in difficulty should do their utmost to heal and save the marriage.

Government has no effective support mechanisms in place to evolve such a culture and even lacks basic scientific data reflecting the real profiles of Maltese relationships.

Only when a marriage dies does society bury the marriage in the hope that its scattered victims can have the happiest future possible. The bill offers divorce only to those whos marriage has irrevocably broken down.

It is Borg who states that divorce as proposed by Nationalist MP JPO 'can be forced on an unwilling partner'.

I therefore have the right to ask Borg why he has a problem with that when a two-timing wife basher can be an unwilling partner. 2/3rds of divorces are filed by women.

I extend my question to whoever prefers having a 'dead corpse' sitting in their living room to a respectible burial that enables loved ones to have closure and better life prospects.

It is for this powerful reason that divorce is a reality the world over; and a reality with all major religions with only one noteable exception.

Charlie Borg

Mar 5th 2011, 18:57

@ Andy Farrugia: No game at all. Just to show you for what you are. You are very, very good at trying to get away from answering questions which you don't have an answer to. You did it already twice in the short space of a couple of hours. Again, an empty vessel.
Note: I enjoy making people laugh. I am encouraged.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 5th 2011, 17:48

@D Attard.

YOU should be answering your own question about obtaining the signature of a wife beater before an application for a divorce is made. It is YOU, not Fr Borg, who are advocating divorce as a panacea for a marriage in difficulties.

d.attard

Mar 5th 2011, 17:02

@ blogger

people will follow parliament when something is said that has not already been said.

The divorce issue remains very high on the National agenda as seen in the example i give.

It is important to take not of this point as the 'delayers' will use anything that moves to delay the process for any excuse (eg studies when the whole world has gone through the process and all countries have adopted divorce legislation and no country is even thinking of having a rethink...even south carolina along the bible belt has repealed divorce legislation only to reintroduce it because the case gor divorce legislation is simply overwhelming!).

Now there seems to be a consensus of opinion that the question as proposed by the motion provides parliament with a clear public opinion while the simple (simplistic) yes/no question will only confuse matters as it does not lay any parameters and those adopting delaying tactics will then have a field day with studies and debate on what kind of divorce law etc. But then I am confident that you are aware of all this...

Andy Farrugia

Mar 5th 2011, 16:30

"Or is it that just at the bare mention of divorce, you feel the ground under your feet breaking away with doubt and uncertainty?"

Extremely funny - almost burst my sides laughing there! By the way, since i appear to have attracted your attentions recently, what's your game mate?

Fr Joe Borg

Mar 5th 2011, 15:52

@ d. attard. Thank you for proveing my point. I said that the debate in Parliament fizzled out not the debate in the country. Your example as the most commented item is about the debate in the country and not about the debate in Parliament.

Charlie Borg

Mar 5th 2011, 15:19

@ Andy Farrugia: Of such stuff are men made. Really? What men, Andy? This same Honourable Member may also believe in other things, things that you wouldn't like. For instance, Andy, I know for sure that he is also in favour of hunting. Well, now, where do you stand? Or is it that just at the bare mention of divorce, you feel the ground under your feet breaking away with doubt and uncertainty?

d.attard

Mar 5th 2011, 13:12

so borg tells us that the divorce debate has fizzeled out.

All he needs doing is look at the 'young couples campaigns against divorce' under the most commented, most read piece on this the most read newspaper in malta. Fizzeled out? if borg says so it must be so

then borg tells us on how liberal the proposed legislation is.

All he needs doing is look at ireland, the question and the law that was introduced in this country, a law that is considered to be the most conservative possible. But if borg says that four years is the making of a hey presto divorce, then it must be so.

and then the peach among the peaches. borg is flabbergasted because divorce can be initiated by just one party to a marriage.

so would an application for divorce need the signiture of a man who beats his wife into subission and to the service to his every needs? apparently borg seems to think so, and if he does than surely it should be so.

and then the 'studies' delaying-tactics lark. Why not ask government why we lack a robust family-strengtheing department that other countries had for decades upon decades.

Andy Farrugia

Mar 5th 2011, 13:10

"even those who declared that: “I will not be moved unless directly told so by Christ”"
Why don't you mention him by name, that is, MP Dr Adrian Vassallo? Jeez, he must be one of your pet hates (welcome to the club, Dr Vassallo, we are only a select few)! Anyway, where is the implied inconsistency in Dr Vassallo's position? He is democratically giving his consent and agreement to a discussion and a referendum on the issue. As for his position regarding the matter, Dr Vassallo has categorically made it clear ages ago, irrespective of the political price he may/might have to pay. Of such stuff are such men made.

Kevin Cassar

Mar 5th 2011, 12:55

"Taken at face value the question supporting JPO’s proposed law can be mistaken as a reasonable one. I am sure if people are asked for their position about it, the majority will turn out to be overwhelmingly in favour. Nevertheless, on analysis the question is recognised for what it really is: a sham."

You mean as opposed to the No camp's stand which does not even SEEM reasonable? Oh so it's a SHAM because you say so! All your "reasons" are not valid arguments because they are not effects which are unique to divorce but to all states which undermine marriages, all of which are perfectly accepted except for divorce.

You later state that a study on the impact of divorce would have to be done in order to assess how this would affect the family. A somewhat justified objection, were it not so evident that you never bothered to ask for a similar study to see how separation and annulment affected the family.

Guess that's what you get when you take advice from someone who wants to protect the "state" of marriage at the expense of the humans who make it up.