Wednesday, 4th March 2009
The dictatorship of relativism
The Bishop of Gozo, Mgr Mario Grech, recently commented about abuses committed during the Nadur Carnival. It seems that there were some people who thought that it was funny parading around the streets mimicking the Risen Christ and the Apostles. Their warped sense of humour is considered as disgusting behaviour by many. The Bishop was right to voice his protest and concerns.
But the goings on of the Gozo carnival had other grotesque aspects. Someone thought that it would be a good idea to do a maskra grottesta in the form of a door which resembled the door of the Basilica of St George in Victoria. This “outrage” against the door brought a strong reaction against it. A judicial protest was filed and it was reported that the police took swift action so that the door was immediately locked away. Isn’t it incredible! In this most Catholic segment of the world you can make fun of the Risen Christ but you cannot make fun at a Church door! Bishop Emeritus Cauchi once had referred to some Catholics in Gozo as people with a “pigeon mentality”. This is quite an appropriate appellative in these circumstances as well.
The seriousness behind the Carnival
But the aspect I wish to bring out is not the reference by Bishop Grech to such outrages. More important was his conclusion. He said – and I quote in the original:
“Din l-imġiba tikxef il-qawwa tal-irrazzjonalità preżenti fi żminijietna. Għax kieku l-bniedem juża r-raġuni żgur li ma jwettaqx għemejjel degradanti u juri aktar rispett lejh innifsu u lejn is-soċjetà.
Inċidenti serji bħal dawn jikkonfermaw li qed ngħixu taħt id-dittatura tar-relattiviżmu, fejn kulħadd jemmen li għaliex huwa ħieles minn kull kejl legali jew etiku, allura jista’ jgħid u jagħmel li jrid, anke jekk b’dak li jgħid u jagħmel ikun jikkawża ħsara fl-oħrajn. Hija mentalità relattivista li twassal biex il-bniedem jirridikola mhux biss dak kollu li għandu x’jaqsam mas-sagru, imma wkoll li jneżża’ lilu nnifsu mid-dinjità umana tiegħu.”
The fault line of relativism
Bishop Grech’s reference to the dictatorship of relativism is not original and I am certain that he makes no such claim. He was repeating a phrase used by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger one day before he was elected Pope. On that occasion Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave a homily calling on his fellow cardinals to counter forces sweeping the world toward what he called a "dictatorship of relativism."
He has since then spoken on more than one occasion about this scourge.
Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, when asked to comment on this phrase said that Pope John Paul in his 1993 encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" "showed that just as there was a fault line in the Soviet empire that eventually brought it down ... there is a fault line in our society, in our culture, between concern for personal freedom and abandonment of objective truth.”
While Pope John Paul supported the democracy movement in countries like his native Poland, he later feared that policies were no longer being based on moral principles. After his experience under totalitarian rule, the Pope worried that if a democratic society cannot reach consensus about truth then power takes over. Pope Benedict shares this concern.
So should we as this fault line has been causing so much havoc in our societies.
How awful he’s a Catholic
In the above mentioned homily to the cardinals the then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that standing up for Catholic principles in political debates is often derided as fundamentalism.
Let’s take a number of examples from different countries in the last few years.
- Spain. When the Socialist government was pushing homosexual marriage, adoption by gays and express divorce all those who took a stand against this position were submitted to all kind of abuse and attacks. In March of last year El Pais daily reported that Zapatero had pledged to "put the bishops in their place" after his party's victory.
- The Buttiglione case can be considered as a good example of intolerance towards Catholics by many today. He suffered for his convictions at the hand of intolerant relativists.
- When Catholic leaders expressed their opinion against abortion during Mexican national debates, politicians and others wanted the federal government to silence them. Cardinal Norberto Rivera, Archbishop of Mexico City, and his spokesman, Father Hugo Valdemar Romero, were accused by several political parties before the Secretaria de Gobernacion (Ministry of Internal Affairs) of violating state laws by engaging in the abortion debate. They were eventually cleared in 2007.
- Boston Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years. In 2006, however, the agency had to stop this service rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples.
- Besides we all remember the opposition of many secularists to any mention of God or Christianity in the European Constitution.
Today it is very politically incorrect to be anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-black etc. And so it should be. But the creeping mentality, even in Malta, considers being anti-Catholic as the zenith of political correctness. It seems that everyone has ever increasing rights except for Catholics. It seems that every opinion has a place and a value barring Catholic opinions and positions.
Relativism starts by promising to be very democratic. It pretends that all ideas should be treated equally. But it soon becomes very intolerant of everyone who does not believe in relativism. The relativistic mentality is the archenemy of real dialogue as it tries to impose itself on everything and everyone.
Thank you all, especially Hospice and ENT
Time flies. It will soon be one month since we buried my brother-in-law, Mario Borg. We buried him exactly one year to the day after he was operated for cancer. He fought the battle bravely but finally he succumbed. It is true that cancer prepares you for the moment of death but in a certain sense one is never prepared for this awesome moment. Fortunately light shines even in these dark moments.
The great respect that Mario enjoyed among the sports, especially the football, community in Malta was very evident. The administration of the MFA, B’Kara Nursery, B’Kara St Joseph and the Luxol Club were present en masse for his funeral. During his life he dedicated a lot of energy and gave a very valuable contribution to each of these associations. They showed solidarity at the moment of his death. Their support and that of the members of so many other football clubs is appreciated.
The caring love and professional help of Mr Charles Borg, ENT consultant, and the wonderful staff of his ward at Mater Dei is greatly appreciated by all the members of his family. Mario would have said a very big thank you for the wonderful way they took care of him. During all the hours I spent at hospital I witnessed the great dedication and keen interest in all patients that the members of the ENT staff continuously showed.
The Hospice Movement provided us with a lot of support. They cared for him and his as if they were their own. Hospice co-ordinated the support of other caring professions and were always there when we needed them. They are still offering their helping hand. This wonderful Movement deserves the support of all.
We his family, especially Helen, his wife (my sister), Sue, his daughter, James her husband and Mario’s sisters and brother also heartily thank all the concelebrants, the President and Mrs Fenech Adami, President Elect Dr George Abela, the Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tonio Borg, Minister Dolores Cristina, Minister Tonio Fenech, Minister John Dalli, the Mayor of B’Kara, the Management of EneMalta and all those who showed solidarity in one way or another.
We feel the loss but are consoled by all the support we received and especially by the joie de vivre that little Julian communicates to us all. He was Mario’s favourite and the source of so much joy in his life; now he is communicating that same joy to us. Mario must be very happy at that.
RSS
Comments
The USA has its own particular set of social problems. Each State is an independent entity, able to formulate its own laws that do not necessarily apply to the whole USA. Some of the southern States are still ultra conservative and racist. They are anti-Obama, because he is African-American. Obama himself certainly did not ban or discourage the wearing of t-shirts, masks or anything else bearing his image. The vast majority of people in the USA are not like that and they, together with most others from all over the civilised world, would see plenty of reason for us to be "banging our heads" over what happened in Nadur. The basic issue here is who is running the show, civil or ecclesiastical authorities? The latter have amply demonstrated their willingness to act in a self-effacing manner, inciting the police to act on what most would see as a trivial matter when a short while earlier they used their full authority to protect those close to their quarters from prosecution, having conceded a crime had been committed. What happened at Nadur, at worst, bruised a few egos. What happened at Lourdes destroyed lives.
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2009/03/obama_portland_student_talent.html
Now for another matter. Elsewhere, in a thread that you were apparently no longer following ( http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090305/local/bishops-urge-authorities-to-act-on-nadur-carnival ), I had directed readers to a thread where you were posting your replies to me.
Considering that I wrote that I will give you the last word in the thread from which your quote (below) is taken, and suggested we take the discussion here, I wonder...will you play fair as well, and direct readers here?
Elsewhere ( http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090226/local/gozo-bishop-condemns-offensive-behaviour-at-gozo-carnival ), after I wrote that I would no longer be posting there, and suggested we move our debate here, you wrote:
"You disagreed with John Meli when he said that those who had acted indecently at the Nadur Carnival should be prosecuted (1 week 2days ago). That means that, according to you, the police should not have done their duty and they should not have prosecuted those who had violated the law".
To understand my point of view, you must understand how I view the severity of the "crime". There is a law that says that people who wash their cars in the street will be fined. Of course, I expect the police to turn a blind-eye in this case, since the law is obviously silly). I have the same view with regards to the police and the Nadur "incidents".
However, if, as you believe, the Nadur "incident" is a "serious crime", then why did they let people in the "incriminating" clothes for at least one whole night (Saturday night)?
Dr Saliba, you are conveniently avoiding this simple question.
Cont...
Cont...
However, here is something local on the teaching of evolution in Malta:
"We don’t teach evolution," Pastor Victor Fenech, director of Mosta’s Accelerated Christian Academy, proudly informed (Malta Today) in 2007. "On the contrary, we inform our students that the theory of evolution is an attempt to discredit the Holy Bible, by providing an alternative explanation for the origins of life."
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/02/22/t11.html
You aren't paying attention.
I had said that "you will find both atheists who want to actively ban religion, as well as Christian fundamentalists who want to ban atheism, the teaching of evolution, etc. Fortunately, in both cases, these are only a few in our country".
This means that you will find these types of people in the world, but in Malta they are definitely a negligible minority.
Then you said that you "still got to meet someone who tried to ban the teaching of evolutionary science in schools", so I provided you the link.
When you (personally) use the term "I still got to meet someone", you seem to be using the term to refer to people all over the world, not just in Malta (even though you would never have met them). This is evidenced in your claim that "all atheists (you) KNOW have sent people to prisons, to torture chambers, to gulags and to the gallows". I am sure that there, you were not referring to atheists in Malta, even though you said that you "know" them.
Of course, I wouldn't know how many in Malta want to ban the teaching of evolution.
And to answer your question, I would like to ban religious indoctrination in state schoole, while keeping religious education.
The "one bloke" you mention is just one person, and he only said he wants to ban religion from public shools. Of course, I disagree...I would only ask for the teaching of comparative religion.
"One bloke" is a far cry from a "multitude". Can you show us from where exactly did you get the information that a "multitude" wants to ban religion?
Christians who banned whatever: Zilch "
I still can't get my head around what you mean here. Taken on their meaning, the words seems to claim that there are tons of atheists who banned stuff, while no christians have. Is that what you are trying to say? If that is the case it's probably the dumbest I have read here in a long time, so I truly hope this is not the case.
Please elaborate.
Cont...
You must pay more attention to what I am saying, before saying I am wrong. When I said that "you will find both atheists who want to actively ban religion, as well as Christian fundamentalists who want to ban atheism, the teaching of evolution, etc...fortunately, in both cases, these are only a few in our country", I was obviously speaking about Christians and atheists IN OUR COUNTRY.
You cannot say I am wrong by mentioning what happens or happened in other countries, even if you dispute the fact that the foreign atheists who banned atheism are still a minority (Remember that dictators are one person).
"But I still got to meet someone who tried to ban the teaching of evolutionary science in schools".
http://www.politicalbull.net/no_more_evolution_in_kansas_schools.html
And that is just one example.
"What happened to morality...?"
I did mention social, didn't I? Morality is part of the social. If you think that an atheist has no morals, you are greatly deluded. So no, no slip at all.
"Wherever Christianity was elbowed out of mainstream education, society is collapsing".
Have you any statistics to back up this huge claim?
As for teen violence, you will find that atheism has nothing to do with this. I won't quote statistics showing that most offenders are believers. I'll just say that you will find both violent believers and violent atheists.
Regarding cannabis users, yes, our court sentences are sometimes disproportionate, having paedophiles with more lenient sentences than someone smoking a joint. I hope you won't blame this on atheism too.
Feel free to criticise Lenin's ideas, feel free to criticise Marx ideas, but do it in an appropriate manner. As I said, using a quote out of context is not helpful for your argument and trying to turn it around and saying it's ok because someone else did (in this case a despotic fanatic), is even less helpful.
As an idea yes in some ways, but I do not hold communism as a favourable system for any society, although you completely missed my point.
It was your criticism per se that was only partially true, not because it should restrain from criticising such ideas, but because how you used it as a criticism of an unrelated topic (atheism).
What I find curious is that I rarely see atheists trying to ban religion from state schools, as you put it. Rather most atheists I know (not all though) wants comparative religion to be taught and their children to be informed, not indoctrinated. Do you find this to be a bad idea?
Although I don't agree with your church and especially with the Archbishop whom i consider as a puppet in the hands of others, I am disgusted at what happened in Nadur. What occurred ridiculed the figure of Jesus Christ. Therefore hurting the sentiments of people who practice the catholic church.
As I mentioned above I am nearly always against the church and I will not even call myself a christian, but on this issue What makes me even more disgusted is the attitude of certain liberals who have taken the occasion to attack the church. You can disagree with someone all your life but this does not mean that if this someone has suffered any form of injustice it does not matter or try to justify it.
The psuedo liberals just hate your church whatever happens, they are so blind that they can't hide their hate. These liberals have been a disappointment to me since they have proved to be even more intolerant than your church. Its funny but I will have never imagined that these people would have made me agree for once with the church.
Unfortunatley you are wrong. There have been, and are, many atheists who have banned religion, freedom of expression in many countries for decades, nearly a whole century. But I still got to meet someone who tried to ban the teaching of evolutionary science in schools. According to my knowledge, what have cropped up is a fringe group that took the authorities to court because it wanted to teach creationism in schools but their requests were refused. I believe this group lost its case in a court of law. Read about, google it and come back to tell me if I am right or wrong. Hence the result reads as follows:
Atheists who banned religion and other freedoms: Multitude
Christians who banned whatever: Zilch
What happened to morality: has it been thrown out with the bathwater by which the atheist cleansed himself from theism? Or was it just a slip of yours? I hope it was the latter but maybe its not. Wherever Christianity was elbowed out of mainstream education, society is collapsing. The reason being that morality based on 'love thy neighbour as thyself" has been replaced by political-correctness, teaching school children how to be "correct' towards others. This translates into a sense of indifference towards society, even a state of violence, as can be witnessed in the UK with the teenage murderers, knifing other kids just for fun. There are areas in the UK where old people are afraid to venture out of their houses during daylight, due to the violent character of the new youth, as brought up by the new philosophies. Even today we had one UK letter-writer insulting us Maltese for our 'backwardness', citing our harsh court sentences for cannabis users.
"Pity we do not see eye to eye!"
I don't think that is true. We seem to find lots of common ground after much debating ;)
"DERISION and RIDICULE are euphemisms when compared to what actually took place in Nadur. It went far more than that, and you, as a nice person, should understand what I mean".
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. From the information I gather, it was just people in costumes (and perhaps having too much to drink - although this was not specifically mentioned anywhere).
I have already asked (elsewhere, I think) what else happened that caused much offense (apart from the costumes), and also wrote that an explanation of what actually happened could make me change my opinion on all this. For instance, I would condemn unreservedly any kind of vandalism.
My question, unfortunately, remained unanswered.
“I was only leading you to explain what other steps should be taken, if not that it remains illegal. If by other steps you mean education and discussion, then we are in agreement.”
Glad you have understood my point, and what’s more, that you agree.
“Also, you may wish to note that I was only referring to a right to deride institutions and public figures (like politicians, actors, religious and secular leaders, etc) and not the common man/woman in the street.”
I had assumed as much since you do seem to be too much of a nice person.
Pity we do not see eye to eye!
“Also, public figures who can't take some derision, are perhaps not fit for their post. To be easily offended by humorous ridicule is a sign of weakness.”
DERISION and RIDICULE are euphemisms when compared to what actually took place in Nadur. It went far more than that, and you, as a nice person, should understand what I mean.
Also, if one removes belief in the spiritual (atheism), one is left with the social, political, and rational (which is not saying that these are absent in theism...just to be clear).
Now you will find that people generally have different beliefs and opinions with regards to the political, social and rational (hence the different political ideologies and cultures).
Hence, addressing atheists as a single group when discussing politics or morality in general, is to make sure that one starts on the wrong premise (the false assumption that atheists compose a single group with identical beliefs and opinions).
You will find both atheists who want to actively ban religion, as well as Christian fundamentalists who want to ban atheism, the teaching of evolution, etc. Fortunately, in both cases, these are only a few in our country.
Regarding your reply and question to Patrik Larsson, yes, communism could be good in other ways. For instance, the doctrine "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is very similar to the teaching of Christ, I believe (although probably, some will see this as blasphemy). The problems arise when such a doctrine is imposed by law.
Also, this doctrine being possibly good in principle, does not justify all the other evils of despotic authoritarian communism, apart from the fact that neither Lenin nor Stalin applied it in practice.
Regarding Marx's quote, the fact that Lenin used Marx as a kind of political bible (not atheistic, as you claim - non-belief cannot have dogmas), followed by mass-murders and a very despotic rule, does not mean that Marx was completely wrong in anything he said or wrote, just like a murderer quoting Deuteronomy does not necessarily make the Bible (in part or in whole) wrong.
Finally, if civilised countries did not have the right to deride, most British (and to a lesser extent, Italian) comedy would be illegal. Now that would be a shame, wouldn't it?
Also, public figures who can't take some derision, are perhaps not fit for their post. To be easily offended by humorous ridicule is a sign of weakness.
This empire finally imploded mainly due to the insistence of the NATO, the Catholics of eastern europe and that great man Karol Wotyla.
I am not putting words in your mouth. My question as to whether you thought that ridiculing the Church should remain illegal, followed your point that "I contend that certain steps to arrest this sweeping trend of derision against the Church, has to be taken".
I was only leading you to explain what other steps should be taken, if not that it remains illegal. If by other steps you mean education and discussion, then we are in agreement.
Regarding "civilised", you will find that the term has several definitions, depending on the context. Your definition is correct when it refers to individuals. When referring to whole countries, the definition which applies would be: "having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc". "Polite and good-mannered" does not necessarily apply in the context I was using the term.
Also, you may wish to note that I was only referring to a right to deride institutions and public figures (like politicians, actors, religious and secular leaders, etc) and not the common man/woman in the street.
@Patrik_Larsson: Re your comment: "...your criticism of communist regimes is fair in some ways..". Does this mean that in your opinion communism is good in some other ways? If you think that it is, in which way is it good? Can you expand please? In truth I believe that you are being apologetic towards those communist despots mention a few lines above.
Kenneth, please do not put words into my mouth…
I said ‘...certain steps to arrest this sweeping trend of derision against the Church, has to be taken’.
Now if you take that by ‘certain steps’ I meant the Law, you are mistaken. There are other ways by which you can take steps….
I could be doing it even as I write this comment directed to you.
“In the rest of the civilised world, anyone who finds a public figure or institution ridiculous (which is always subjective, and a matter of opinion) has the right to deride him/her/it ....” (your quote)
Civilized: polite and good-mannered (Oxford Dictionary)
Deride: express contempt for; ridicule (Oxford Dictionary)
Strange that you should use the word CIVILIZED to emphasize your right to DERIDE.....!!!!!
Your examples about communist dictatorial and tyrannical regimes does not invalidate atheism at all. Neither does it "prove" a correlation between atheism and despotism.
The only lesson history teaches us about these dictators (and their counterparts in Right-Wing Catholic dictators such as Pinochet), is that when one follows an ideology religiously (pun intended), there is the danger of believing that the end justifies any means.
You tell Robert Attard that: "Your (Robert's) comment proves my (Alex) point on proselytising atheists".
Well, my comments below disproves your comment.
Also, consider this:
If it is their atheism that made communist dictators torture and kill people, could it not equally be said that it is their Christianity that made Christian dictators torture and kill people? Of course, I don't believe either is true.
And If you think I'm referring only to Inquisitors - I can expect you to repeat your "I am not referring to 2000 year old histories" - how about a more recent example: Augusto Pinochet (November 25, 1915 - December 10, 2006)?
If you know atheists who send people to prisons, torture chambers, gulags or gallows, you should report them to the police.
In the historical cases you mention, the same atheists even consigned other atheists to prisons, torture chambers, gulags etc, the same way that Catholic inquisitors sent other Catholics to the same tortures.
The atheists I know are alive, and are all tolerant. Apparently you speak to the dead.
As for Hilary Clinton (a Christian), I'm not interested in discussing her.
"I am in favour of banning religion from state schools!".
I'm not. I'm in favour of making (or keeping, as the case may be) the teaching of religion optional. I'm also in favour of the optional teaching of comparative religion.
No one puts anyone else in a bad light. People usually put themselves in a bad light.
"However, I contend that certain steps to arrest this sweeping trend of derision against the Church, has to be taken".
Do you mean to say that deriding the Church (or any public figure or institution) should remain illegal? One does not have to be in favour of deriding the Church to notice the absurdity in this. In the rest of the civilised world, anyone who finds a public figure or institution ridiculous (which is always subjective, and a matter of opinion) has the right to deride him/her/it provided that the derision does not include libel.
Rather than repeating a quote so often misused, why don't you read the full context it's taken from and then make up your mind of it's relevance and meaning.
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
- Karl Marx Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
It's easy quotemining and your criticism of communist regimes is fair in some ways, but you lend your arguments no help by quoting people of out context.
Your comment proves my point on proselytising atheists ".... with finding a base in ex-communists and hardline socialists with the help of proselytising atheists....."
Thanks
Re your comment saying that all atheists you know "do not believe in either banning religion, persecuting religious people, or denying freedom of speech."
My reply:
All atheists I KNOW have sent people to prisons, to torture chambers, to gulags and to the gallows. I am not referring to 2000 year old histories, nor to 1000 year old or centuries old history, but to what happened under the atheistic communist regimes in eastern Europe and still happeneing mainland China and North Korea, under the banner of RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE.
Only last week Obama's secretary of state Hilary Clinton was in China licking the soles of the regime's leaders and telling them that combatting climate change is more important than human rights. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS WOMAN. Isn't killing unborn babies enough for this monster? Does she have to go to China saying these words on Tibets's rape anniversary?
These words were of course not bannered by the international press which is controlled by left-wing agnostic and atheist journalists and anchorman who are ready to ridicule Christian politicians for every slip, physical or oratory, that these may make, but hide HC's words from us.
I am in favour of banning religion from state schools!
I cannot say I agree with the authorities for having booked these individuals for such a move only serves to give them further excuse to go on the attack. However, I contend that certain steps to arrest this sweeping trend of derision against the Church, has to be taken.
These individuals have found a convenient outlet in the Nadur Carnival, to throw mud at the church and its members under the pretext that during Carnival anything is allowed. They are not there for the enjoyment of the event but there to insidiously infiltrate amongst the people and to sow doubt and disrespect towards the Church.
The fault line is Religious intrusion in state affairs and the rights of the individual.
What are you talking about?
All the atheists I know do not believe in either banning religion, persecuting religious people, or denying freedom of speech.
All that we demand is that you return the favour.
"If it makes you happy I will admit to making a mistake - and that is in answering most of your "questions" quite often more than once when you feign not to understand them".
I see. THAT is your only mistake. Very humble of you. Isn't humility a Christian virtue?
If it makes you happy I will admit to making a mistake - and that is in answering most of your "questions" quite often more than once when you feign not to understand them. I must admit that not all of them get posted in their original form.
The key sentence in Fr. Joe's blog is:
".......just as there was a fault line in the Soviet empire that eventually brought it down ... there is a fault line in our society....."
Kenneth it’s illegal to dress as a priest and as a police officer yet the Borg-Bonaci actor wears the Dun Benit garb and Eileen Montesin that of a police officer and they get away with it. LOL
When Daphne Caruana Galizia dies, goes to haven and made a Saint anybody depicting her in Rio or Nadur would be liable to imprisonment.
What a Carnival! What a Circus!
As you will find, I have at least twice (in this blog only) admitted a mistake of mine. This, I believe, proves that I do not have unshakeable convictions that could never be shaken by any answer from anybody, as you wrongly claim.
However, I fail to find any instance anywhere where you have admitted a mistake of yours. Could it be that it is you who has unshakeable convictions that could never be shaken by any answer from anybody?
True, a swear word usually is also blaspemous when addressed to divinity. I was mistaken on that count, since blasphemy also means irreverence, and irreverence is not limited to just denying divinity, but also disrespecting divinity.
But still, blasphemy is only illegal in the sense of "swear words" or "haqq" directed at divinity. Otherwise, if blasphemy in its general sense were illegal, all religions apart from Christianity would be illegal.
What's ironic in all this is that I do not blaspheme (in the sense of saying "haqq" or worse before mentioning divinity), because I find it extremely stupid. Many Christians swould do well to follow the example of an atheist, in this particular case.
Just left a comment on previous blog.
‘Haqq’ literary translated means ‘Justice’ like in ‘ha li haqqu’ however when used in a state of anger and followed by the name of God etc. it becomes blasphemous. Without knowing it you confirmed that yourself as you described it as profane- profane actually means blasphemous. Swearing is also blasphemous ( The term swearing has different meanings, positive and negative) You probably meant to use ‘rude.’
When you say ‘The bloody table’ you are being rude but if you say ‘The bloody finger’ you’re OK. Some four letter words and some Maltese words starting with ‘z’ or ‘o’ are rude but not blasphemous. Our laws allow us to be rude.lol.
Of course. When discussing law, the questions must necessarily be of a legal nature. If you freely choose to debate law, you must be prepared to reply to questions of a legal nature. If you are not prepared to do so, you should refrain from telling others who are willing to, that they are wrong.
I also have no problem with your claim that a question could be both rhetorical and direct. However, when one explicitly says that his questions are direct, one expects a reply.
Your claim that my questions are often rhetorical because "they are really a hidden expression of your absolute and unshakeable convictions" is just your own prejudice. My convictions are so not unshakeable that I am willing and prepared to answer any of your questions. Apparently it is your convictions that are unshakeable and absolute, because you persist in avoiding questions that show you to be wrong.
Evidently you would never reply to questions that prove you wrong - so why should I waste any more time?
Lets make this simple by posting a maltese legal definition of Blasphemy. I failed in my research so I leave it up to you. Is this term used in maltese law?
does the 'last temptation of christ', 'life of brian' and the 'da vinci code' violate the article mentioned below?
The claim that Catholics are in any way victimised in our society is pure fantasy. Spanish Catholics were completely free to voice their opinions. The Spanish Government did not "push" anything. It was a democratically elected government which was legislating in favour of equality. Incidentally this legislation is backed by the majority of Spaniards. It is the unelected Bishops of Malta who are "pushing" our police to prosecute people. As a result a young man now has a criminal record. Would an apology not have sufficed? Forgiveness perhaps? What El Pais wrote about the Spanish bishops could very well be said for the Maltese and Gozitan bishops: somebody needs to tell them where there place in our society is.
Yes infact if Mintoff had interrupted a religious cermony in the same way as some believers did in his mass meetings he would have been arrested!
The power that the church can wield from our constitution is beyond what is acceptable in a pluralistic society (the PN are to blame). The danger of religion is that it can be exploited politically to control people [as was the case of the 'Interdett'].
"Your comments are undeniably full of questions addressed to me. Either they are rhetorical (which you deny) or else they should be referred to your lawyers because I will no longer be there to answer them for you".
My questions are directed to you because it is you who is making claims I am challenging with my questions. I would only refer my questions to a lawyer if that lawyer participates in this debate and challenges my point of view.
It is a sign of weakness when someone freely chooses to participate in debates and then refuses to answer challenging questions.
I will consider this correspondence closed if you choose to do likewise.
If I may revert to my comment about the 1961 Court case, the irony of Article 338 (bb) 1933 is that while the court protected the Archbishop from his political adversaries, the law allowed him and the church to insult half of the Maltese population with their unjust process to demonise Mintoff and deny a dignified burial to them.
A recent Council of Europe study on freedom of expression and freedom of religion, argues that it is no longer desirable for European democracies to criminalise blasphemy, and calls for the abolishment of such laws.
"If I, a Christian, utters disparaging remarks, use profane language as ‘haqq’ etc towards God or sacred things or ridicule Jesus, the Son of God at Nadur, I will be blaspheming".
Using profane language such as "haqq" towards God is not blaspheming. It is swearing. In any case, I have already shown that people who do this are just being at best silly, whether one is a believer or not.
"some by showing or exhibition of Jesus Phallus".
This is false. The people you mention, as has been explained in several blogs, were dressed as cavemen, not Jesus.
"Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Mark 12:17
If anything your bible should convince you otherwise
Your comments are undeniably full of questions addressed to me. Either they are rhetorical (which you deny) or else they should be referred to your lawyers because I will no longer be there to answer them for you.
John please do not make sweeping statements that would suggest that I agree with with you. No I do not agree that “those who had acted or done any indecent acts should be prosecuted and sentenced.” I definitely do not condone such like behaviour but I do not think that it should be punishable by man’s law. Spiritual and temporal are two different things. God judges everything but man’s laws have to be restricted to earthly matters. No more no less sorry.
"What makes you think that I am impressed by your obsession, your opinion about me or that I take instructions from you?"
1. I am not trying to impress.
2. My opinion about you is irrelevant, as is yours of me.
3. I don't expect you to take instructions from me, but if you engage in a debate, you are expected to reply to questions, and not evade them. If on the otherhand, you do not wish to debate, the choice is yours.
"Why should I give you advice that , anyway, you won't take?"
I'm not asking for any advice. I'm only asking that you back up your claims with facts.
"Consult your family lawyer because I have no intention to answer any more your rhetorical questions".
1. I don't need to consult any lawyer.
2. My questions are not at all rhetorical. But of course, if you wish not to answer to questions that challenge your point of view, you may choose not to participate in moral debates. I'm fine with that. Just don't tell me I'm wrong when you do not even reply to questions that challenge your position.
The main point will always remain that according to official Police Reports and those of the Ministry of Justice & Home Affairs stated that photographs published in media (internet) and supplied to the authorities do demonstrated that their bad behaviour was "not simply a case of people dressing up as Christ or that of saints" but much more, so it's a matter of "a question of public indecency and offending religious sentiment, some by showing or exhibition of Jesus Phallus (penis)" - Do you approve such a things, making fun of Jesus?
We all support our Bishops, because we believe and respect God, who is in Heaven who one-day will come to Judge those who do disrespectful acts (unless repented) including myself, if I would have done such things !! In my opinion, have fun, but not with anyone connected with other religions.
What makes you think that I am impressed by your obsession, your opinion about me or that I take instructions from you? Why should I give you advice that , anyway, you won't take? Consult your family lawyer because I have no intention to answer any more your rhetorical questions.
The main point will always remain that according to official Police Reports and those of the Ministry of Justice & Home Affairs stated that photographs published in media (internet) and supplied to the authorities do demonstrated that their bad behaviour was "not simply a case of people dressing up as Christ or that of saints" but much more, so it's a matter of "a question of public indecency and offending religious sentiment, some by showing or exhibition of Jesus Phallus (penis)" - Do you approve such a things, making fun of Jesus?
We all support our Bishops, because we believe and respect God, who is in Heaven who one-day will come to Judge those who do disrespectful acts (unless repented) including myself, if I would have done such things !! In my opinion, have fun, but not with anyone connected with other religions.
@ Kenneth Cassar
As a layman, I would define ‘blasphemy’ as the profanity of something, done or said, which shows disrespect for God or sacred things by a believer who knows what they are saying or doing. It is therefore very subjective.
If I, a Christian, utters disparaging remarks, use profane language as ‘haqq’ etc towards God or sacred things or ridicule Jesus, the Son of God at Nadur, I will be blaspheming. However, if a non believer or a pagan acts in the said manners they would not be blasphemous.
On the other hand when Christian denominations utter profane language etc.in regard to other religions they would not be blaspheming although in both cases they would be offensive to different groups.
This means that if a Hindu, citizen of Malta, performs one of their Religious rituals that may be seen as offensive to the Catholic Religion they would be contravening our law notwithstanding that our constitution guarantees freedom of worship and expression to everyone. I see a gross anomaly here.
Spiritual misbehaviour, including blasphemy, is so personal and complex that its attendant final judgement and punishment must be left to God not to a Court of Laws.
"Holding the unbelief of an atheist is not being blasphemous in itself as long you do not violate that article in the manner specified in that article of the Criminal Code".
I'm not speaking about holding the belief. I am speaking about proclaiming, by means of speech, writing, public media (including blogs, television, books etc) that Jesus is not God. Does doing so violate the article of the Criminal Code? Is proclaiming outwardly to others that Jesus is not God constitute blasphemy?
A simple yes or no answer will do.
And don't tell me "as long as you do not violate the article...", since the article is not clear in that respect.
And speaking of Charles J Buttigieg quoting the article "in full", he also mentions that someone was imprisioned just for writing "Hail Nero, Rome which you had burnt, salutes you". Is THAT blaspemy? Kind of confirms that the article is not clear and could be interpreted in any way the authorities deem fit to their purposes.
You are deliberately shutting your eyes so that you would not have to admit that what you are saying is wrong.
So like I said, it all boils down to the interpretation of blasphemy. And like I said, the onus is on the law to define it legally.
Lacking a proper definition, the state has the option to choose whether it takes the position of a fundamentalist theocratic state or a democracy with freedom of religion.
Does anyone have the legal definition of blasphemy? I'm honestly curious.
For the purpose of this blog blasphemy is not what you claim it to be. It is what Art 338 of our Criminal Code says it is - it is quoted in full in the comment by Mr Charles J Buttigieg addressed @ Robert Attard. Holding the unbelief of an atheist is not being blasphemous in itself as long you do not violate that article in the manner specified in that article of the Criminal Code.
You are deliberately shutting your eyes so that you would not have to admit that what you are saying is wrong. Excuse me but I will not reply to any more nonsense about what is blasphemous and what isn't.
Here in the outback we give the right to live even to the unborn.........and I thought we were the only ones who champion the " live and let live" concept !
@Robert-Attard
Yes Robert, blasphemy is a criminal offence and punishable by imprisonment.
Article 338 (bb) enacted in 1933 states that it would be an offence to,“ even though in a state of intoxication” publicly utter “any obscene or indecent words, or make obscene acts or gestures ,or in any other manner not otherwise provided for in this Code, offend against public morality ,proprietary or decency”
In respect of this contravention, where the act consists in uttering blasphemous words or expressions, the maximum punishment may be imprisonment for a term of three months.
In 1961, during a visit to Zurrieq by Archbishop Gonzi, the MLP Club put up a poster –‘Ave Nero, Roma Quam Incendisti, Te Salutat!’ (Hail Nero, Rome which you had burnt, salutes you.) The Archbishop considered the poster blasphemous and ordered the police to take criminal actions. Rocco Abdilla, Alfred Roberts and Tony Sammut were identified by the police as being the law breakers and were all given a prison sentence.
However if you utter offensive words against Buddha, the Hindu Gods Vaishnava, Sakthi, Saktha, Harry Krishna and Mohammed you’ll get away with it because it doesn’t offend the noble Maltese Catholics.
And they call me a radical.
Blasphemy:
1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or LACK OF REVERENCE for God b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2: IRREVERENCE toward something considered sacred or inviolable.
I don't think that denying the divinity of God shows much reverence, do you? So by its proper definition, denying God is blasphemy.
Do you still insist that blasphemy is illegal? It's not too late to admit a mistake. I can tell you that I did it here, and it felt good ;)
Finally you got it out of you that denying the divinity of Christ is not blasphemy. You can hardly accuse Robert Attard of falsely accusing you of anything when you avoided the same question after I challenged you to answer it more than once.
But thanks anyway for the clarification. As they say, better late than never.
As for a suspended sentence being a slap on the wrist, you do know that it means a criminal record, don't you? All for wearing a costume.
The sum total of your "argument" is the patently untrue allegation that I have said anywhere that your denial of God and the Christian religion amounts to blasphemy. Can't you do any better than putting words into my mouth and falsely accusing me of saying things that I never said or implied? Do you think that I would ever do anything on the advice of anyone who behaves in that fashion?
If what you are saying is true and that my Blasphemy (as in the denial of God and the christian religion) is illegal you should report me to the authorities at once! There is ample evidence in my comments to build a case against me!
@Charles J Buttigieg
Thanks and Best Regards.
You cannot pick and choose which bits of the political correctness doctrine suit you and which do not. After all it is the same with Catholicism, you either accept it in toto or not at all.
PC dictates an anti-Christian and pro-Islam stance. Even the Church is slowly accepting this and sending subtle messages to the faithful. When you have prominent church figures go praying in mosques and justifying it by saying that Christians and Muslims all pray to the same god, the message is clear.
Christianity is no longer the assertive religion it once was. Islam is filling that void. Christianity has become decadent and is destroying itself. Turning the other cheek and loving your enemy are taken too literally, unless that percieved enemy is a fellow Catholic in which case get him hauled to court for making a drunken fool of himself.
In polite circles, such an argument would elicit a good laugh, but seeing that it comes from the highest authority of the Church -- an intellectual giant, to boot -- it begs the question: How can anyone believe that an Almighty God needs to be defended by puny mortals?
@Fr. Borg
"Relativism starts by promising to be very democratic. It pretends that all ideas should be treated equally. But it soon becomes very intolerant of everyone who does not believe in relativism. The relativistic mentality is the archenemy of real dialogue as it tries to impose itself on everything and everyone."
This argument imputes to critics the Church's own brand of intolerance.
Here, in Canada where the Catholic Church thrives as do all other religions, no one accuses us of being anti-Catholic despite the fact that we have Divorce, Abortion, and Same-Sex Marriage -- all legalized after considerable public debate. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enshrined in our Constitution, guarantees everyone's right to live as seen fit without the benefit of "spiritual guidance".
Respect for Human Rights, including those of minorities, is a simple concept ... live and let live.
I almost misunderstood you the second time re article 163. Truth is that I did not see Dr. Saliba’s post of the article in Maltese.
Have a nice day.
There’s a tendency in some people to oppose just to upset others, sarcasm I can accept but I find sweeping statements revolting. I did however misunderstand you this time, you do not need to apologise as the fault was mine. So sorry.
Silly you! The English version was for the benefit of those who did not understand my previous Maltese version. Hadn't you noticed that there were those who did not understand that Art 163 forbids blasphemy, however you define it, and in no uncertain manner.
A misguided man from Zejtun pleads guilty to wearing some forbidden carnival costume and gets his wrist slapped by a sentence suspended for a few months. This is magnified into an untrue declaration that he has blotted his police record for the rest of his life. As if that were not enough he is called a Simple Simon. Lay off gentlemen - don't continue to hit a man when he is down.
P.S. I am being sarcastic.
What is the point of reposting article 163? Could that be a friendly warning?
So you are saying that nobody really needs to believe in god, all we need to do is love each other and live a good life and that's it, we all go straight to heaven.
I partially concurr but may I also add that if humanity really loved each other we wont be yearning for an afterlife anymore because heaven would be on earth.
The distasteful scenes at Nadur were rightfully criticised albeit over sensationalised. To appease the hypocritical Maltese outcry the police took immediate steps and exercised its executive powers to bring Simple Simon to book because he committed a criminal offence and now his record with the police is ruined for the rest of his life.
Yes I do call this Justice, the Maltese double standards hypocritical style.
This is an invitation for all the righteous to come out and start hitting us sinners.
You misunderstood me. I really meant that! I was not being sarcastic
I agreed with you that somebody who offends religious sentiments should not be treated like a criminal. I just wanted to acknowledge that you had the maturity to see that what happened was blown abit out of proportion.
I apologise for this misunderstanding.
I don't know if you reproduced Art. 163 for me, but Art. 163 is about vilification, not blasphemy. There is a difference.
I think you have the wrong idea of liberals, which was the term you used. But thanks for the clarification.
It is you who said blasphemy is illegal. I insist that it is not. If you still insist that it is, the onus is on you to prove it.
I am not putting questions so that I would be given the opportunity to twist and interpret them to suit my fancy. I am only putting you questions the answer to which would prove you wrong. Of course, with your back against the wall, you try to evade the questions.
You made a simple assertion: That blasphemy is illegal. I replied that it is not. If denying that Jesus is God is blasphemy, and blasphemy is illegal, then denying Jesus is God would be illegal. Elementary.
So once again, define blasphemy, or else stop saying untruths, like that blasphemy is illegal.
163. Whosoever by words, gestures, written matter, whether
printed or not, or pictures or by some other visible means, publicly
vilifies the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion which is the
religion of Malta, or gives offence to the Roman Catholic Apostolic
Religion by vilifying those who profess such religion or its
ministers, or anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated
to, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic worship, shall, on
conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to six
months.
Your statement that my maturity is beyond anything imaginable on this island is fragmented and half baked. Please show some maturity yourself and instead of a sweeping statement tell us what’s immature about my comment in question.
"So those Germans who helped Jews flee from Nazi Germany in World War II were criminals? They were breaking the Criminal Law after all."
Genius!! I couldn't have possibly done any better!
Read Matthew 25: 31-46, think on it, and come back to me with an answer.
Look for yourself to discover the definitions you need but do not expect that I am going to do that for you. You are not putting questions in the right spirit to acquire knowledge but only so that you would be given the opportunity to twist and interpret them to suit your fancy. And that includes your question about being arrested for not believing that Jesus is God. The Malta Criminal Code prohibits vilification of other religions beside the Catholic faith - again look that up for yourself.
There can be no doubt that under certain obnoxious dictatorial regimes abroad, grossly immoral behaviour has been legalised rendering honest citizens criminals in the eye of the laws of that particular regime. What has that got to do with the uncivilized, licentious and deliberately offensive carnival behaviour in Nadur?
I am sorry, but you are degrading the tone of this exchange to a level where it would be undignified for me to continue to participate in it.
"Of course this man was insensitive and offended the Religious belief of some people including mine- but does that make him a criminal and worthy of a suspended sentence? If I dare be judgemental I may look at the man as, maybe, a sinner and should be encouraged to repent."
Your maturity is beyond anything imaginable on this island.
Lumen Gentium can only offer his interpretation of the bible texts in an effort to reaffirm its relevence. The truth is that the bible is very clear about what will happen to someone like me.
"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned"
John 15:6 (New King James Version)
Kindly note that I am not quoting the old testament! It seems that for the christian religion I am just as good as trash! The bible shows no respect for the unbelievers so give me one reason why I should not oblige the favour? It is more likely for me to take a spongebob movie seriously then your religion and if you get offended by that then you're just wasting your precious time.
The religious take their faith too seriously and that is why we end up having people crashing planes in buildings and blowing up each other!
Google 'pope carnival float' and you'll finally see why you're all making a big fuss out of it!
"Anyone who breaks the Criminal Law is, by definition a criminal".
So those Germans who helped Jews flee from Nazi Germany in World War II were criminals? They were breaking the Criminal Law after all.
"There is in Malta a law against blasphemy provided that one does not involve himself in nit picking about what blasphemy means respectively to the atheist and to the believer".
The onus is on the law to define blasphemy. Perhaps you can provide the information.
"It is true that it is not invoked as often as it shoud be".
Just a curiosity...do you think I should be arrested if I say that I do not believe Jesus is God?
Commercials, such as were discussed yesterday on ‘Xarabank’, had such lewd and overt sexual connotations that made me realize how low we can go. By the fact that they are commercials, they will be aired over and over again until even they will cease to shock and have effect, and it follows that the next commercial would have to be even more shocking.
Our democratic society, with its emphasis on freedom of expression is carrying it too far. It is divesting us of our moral principles, degrading us as persons, and making us insensitive to our finer and more noble qualities.
Yes! There is in Malta a law against blasphemy provided that one does not involve himself in nit picking about what blasphemy means respectively to the atheist and to the believer. It is true that it is not invoked as often as it shoud be.
A suspended sentence is a salutary mild warning that the police and the judicial system are saying "enough is enough" to any similar recurrences in the future. It is ridiculous to compare it with the Rushdie fatwa because that was a sentence of death. This suspended sentence was a demonstration of "compassion" par excellence and it is much more likely to be efficacious with people who consider spiritual guidance a ramming of religion down their throats.
Anyone who breaks the Criminal Law is, by definition a criminal.
"Don't tell me the so-called liberals will not be the first to jump up (together with Muslims, understandably and rightly so), cry foul"
I wouldn't. and neither did the newspapers that re-published the "Danish cartoons". Does that make me too much of a liberal, or not enough of a liberal?
If everyone had the right to have his religion respected, then you would probably have to respect the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (google it).
Of course this does not mean that we should intentionally offend people if we can avoid doing so.
My point, which was on blasphemy and not ridicule, does not apply only to atheism. That is why I mentioned Zeus. Is there a law against blasphemy? I don't think so. If there was, all non-Christians (note that these include believers in other religions) would end up in prison.
There is a difference between blasphemy and swearing. I may blaspheme (in the view of Christians) every day by denying that Jesus is God, but I still think that swearing is at the least very silly. Believers should not swear because they woud be offending their God. Atheists should not swear because only someone crazy would insult someone he does not believe in.
Anybody who thinks that giving a person a suspended sentence for imitating Jesus at Carnival shows a sign of maturity by both the Maltese Justice System, and the Maltese as a whole please do not include me because I think that this is as pathetic as the Muslims chasing Sir Salman Rushdie for his ‘Satanic Verses’.
Of course this man was insensitive and offended the Religious belief of some people including mine- but does that make him a criminal and worthy of a suspended sentence? If I dare be judgemental I may look at the man as, maybe, a sinner and should be encouraged to repent.
Some compassion and spiritual guidance would have sufficed.
I agree that it would be hopeless to invoke any condemnation of blasphemy when addressing an atheist. But, atheist or not, observance of the law is binding on all. And that is what I am advocating. The alternative is anarchy.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
It seems to me that there's an attitude permissive of Catholic-bashing - and yes, we can 'play' the victims. Do not tell me I am guilty of torture committed hundreds of years ago, because that is human error which the Church has long since apologised for.
I also suggest you read Lumen Gentium paragraph 16, before saying that the Church preaches hell fire for all those who do not believe. The text refers to those of good conscience who strive to be good - including atheists who believe they are doing right.
No, but if you need to contact me, you may do so on kenneth.cassar@gmail.com
I have no problem with that. Every Christian has the right to voice opposition to such behaviour. But should someone dressed as "Christ" be imprisoned? Does this not make a "victim" out of the "offender"?
do you have a facebook account?
On the other hand I feel greatly offended with the personification of Christ during a Carnival whatever the nature of the impersonification.
Blasphemy is very subjective, but I will concede that most believers will not understand this simple fact. Think about this: Would you be blaspheming if you said that Zeus is not God? To someone who believes in Zeus, you would.
A law prohibiting blasphemy is a law imposing religion.
'Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.'
True but I never heard about anything that comes close to 'the right not to be offended".
What rights am I violating if I decide to impersonate christ?
The fact is that we all are offended from time to time by something we see or hear. Are you suggesting that I can arraign the church in court for preaching that as an unbeliever I am a potentially bad person with no morals and condemned to eternal fire! I am sure that could be a source of offence?
I hope that you will not dispute that as long as the law is on the statute book and as long as it is in conformity with the status of the Catholic faith according to the Constitution it should be obeyed and it should be enforced despite the vulgar pretensions of a minority of uninhibited carnival revellers who have no respect for the religious feelings of all denominations.
There is no comparison between caricutures of members of the professions and rank blasphemy. Your reference to laws that have been abrogated is obviously irrelevant.
Most of my previous comment was not addressed to you, but to everyone ;)
Oh yes, the Life of Brian is hilarious. But I suppose its illegal in Malta...but wait...you can rent it in local DVD rental stores.
Prepare for raids on all book and DVD stores.
Just to be clear...I wouldn't dress as Jesus for carnival...its not in my nature to knowingly and unnecessarily offend others, but I think we're going over the top here.
OK, the law is clear...but perhaps it needs to be changed?
Also, if its illegal, why did the police not ask the perpetrators to go and change clothes? And don't anybody tell me the police did not notice them.
If the police did not take immediate action (which they didn't), weren't they sending the message that "its ok this year"?
Fair enough the law is the law and we all know what the law says! But are you seriously suggesting that you are right just because the law says so? When that law was written down in 1933 we also had laws that saw it fit to criminalise homosexuals, condemn people to death! and no vote to women.
The simple answer to your question is that "impersonating Jesus Christ during carnival activities", which have become renowned for their vulgarity, is specifically against the Criminal Code (vide Art 163 et seq) and all citizens are supposed to abide by the law and not to claim illegal exemption from its observance simply because they choose to jettison all inhibitions and norms of decent behaviour to respect the religious sentiments of others.
@ Robert Attard
Robert thanks for your compliment, you strike me as being a person with a good sense of humour yourself. If you really want to have a good laugh read Dr. Gonzi’s report on his Gonzipn achievements during the last 12 months.
I'll just mention one...the issue of contraception.
Fr Borg knows this very clearly from what I read in this Blog but does he spare a word to condemn those who impersonated doctors during carnival?
@Kenneth Cassar
seriously! I think that would work!! :)
Kull min bi kliem, b’gesti, b’kitba stampata jew le, bi stampi jew bxi mezz iehor vizibbli, ikasbar ir-Religjon Kattolika Appostolika Rumana, illi hija ir-religjon ta’Malta, inkella joffendi r-Religjon Kattolika Appostolika Rumana billi jkasbar lil dawk li huma ta’din ir-religjon jew lill-ministri taghha, jew kull haga li tkunta’devozzjoni tar-Religjon Kattolika Appostolika Rumana, jew li tkun ikkonsagrata jew iddestinata biss ghad-devozzjoni ta’din ir-religjon, jehel, meta jinsab hati, il-piena ta’ prigunerija minn xahar sa sitt xhur.
Ken, speaking about naughty, one of my favourite movie quotes is from The Life of Brian...'He's not the Messiah. He's just a naughty boy'.
'Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.'
Hence, allowing for the 19th article without respecting those rights set forward in other articles such as article 18 is in itself a breach of human rights.
The crux of the matter is that with rights come responsibilities. We seem to have forgotten the latter and made a god of the former, leading to the mistaken notion that 'anything goes'. Not everything goes.
Another point I want to make is that the Catholic Church is an institution, and run by humans, who, from time to time, make mistakes. One should look at the Church in the past through a historical perspective, placing themselves in the shoes of the mentalities of that time. Interpreting the actions of the Church through a modern perspective skews one's perception.
I think the problem with the entire saga is the fact that there was utter lack of respect to Catholics. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, even though if I may find them repugnant as a Catholic; however, no one has the right to offend the feelings of others. It is acceptable, for example, to discuss religion, or to engage in civilized an intelligent debates.
Quoting from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
'Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
"could this lead to a ban on films like 'the life of brian'?"
Now there's an idea for the defense lawyers. "Your honour, my client was not dressed as Jesus...he was dressed as Brian" ;)
Yes, I guess you're right about that.
I see that titular painting almost every day, not just once a year during the 8th Setember village festa. There are no chaplains in that painting. It commemorates Malta's successful defence against the invading forces of the mighty Ottoman empire.
Are you suggesting, by any chance, that the right of legitimate self defence should not have been availed of?
Chaplains to the armed forces of any nation are not there to declare war, fight battles or to incite to kill. Ironically you and I celebrate the feast of our Patron Saint, Our Lady of Victories. Have a look at the Titular painting which adorns the main Altar of the Mellieha parish church.
Oh yes, I forgot about the Buddha who even preached "turn the other cheek" before Jesus did. And interestingly, many Buddhists (and I'm not speaking of pseudo-Buddhists like Richard Gere) actually practice this today. Of course, I wouldn't go that far...but then again, neither would do most Christians.
__________________________________
@ Robert Attard:
"Nobody really objects to a satirical comic making fun of politicians"
You'd be surprised:
"The culture of making fun of the authorities is rapidly being promoted, calling it maturity. However, is it?" - Emily Barbaro-Sant
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090305/letters/rude-and-offensive-carnival-goers
Chaplains to the armed forces of any nation are there to give spiritual comfort to soldiers in imminent danger of losing their life in battle. They are not there to declare war, fight battles or to incite to kill!
Before going to battle, the troops attend a Church Parade, they are blessed by their Chaplain and encouraged to fight courageously for the love of their country. This ritual happens on both sides of the battlefield. After they slaughter their enemy, the victorious soldiers return home to be applauding as heroes and a religious thanks giving ceremony would invariably follow irrespective who the victors are. And the defeated hole up to lick their wounds.
This can’t be right can it? Isn’t this a case of loving the enemy (our soldiers) of our enemy?
whether you like it or not christianity is borrowed from other religions which goes on to prove that revelation is inspired by humans and not by some divine entity with no sense of humor.
This is rich coming from Demartino.
Not that I agree with universally loving your enemies, as it would in a great deal of cases be highly suicidal. But, even that teaching predates christianity.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful."
-Lao Tzu
"Christ’s message is original and a vast improvement on the Golden Rule of antiquity because He preaches additionally the love of one’s enemies".
I won't argue with that. Of course, one would have to define "love", and I find it next to impossible to love one's enemies if one's enemies persistently do you lots of harm. But if the message of Jesus means "not to do harm to one's enemies except in self-defence if absolutely necessary", then I'm all for it as well.
That said, I do not hate my enemies. People who knowingly do harm to others (except in self-defence) are to be pitied, and possibly helped to change their ways. They do not know the exquisite pleasure one gets from doing as much good and as little harm as possible.
I couldnt stop laughing after reading your comment!!! well said!!!
The Buddha was teaching about love for one's enemies in 2500BCE. I am not pointing this out to undermine the validity of Christ's teachings but it must be realised that he was not the first one to say such things.
@ Kenneth Cassar:
Don't you just love Mr DeMartino's comment? You're only happy because you're living like a Catholic ;)
Also just before I wrote this I saw the article about 9 men being taken to court over the Nadur carnival... love in action? No doubt they will emerge from their experience brimming over with love and devotion for the RCC.
Its a shame really, perhaps the Bishops should have approached this with an attitude of love anf forgiveness rather than going for the jugular. It might have worked better and maybe even spared them from falling into the "Do as I say not as I do" trap.
Or are we petrified at the thought - at the realisation - that things in society are not taking place exactly as we would want them to be?
And that our next door neighbour is not living exactly as we would want him to do?
There’s another golden rule Giovan, ’Love thy neighbour’ Would you love Mintoff if he moves next door to you? Hi hi hi.
Christ’s message is original and a vast improvement on the Golden Rule of antiquity because He preaches additionally the love of one’s enemies
Oh...you said "preached by a Jew (Jesus)", so you were correct in making that statement. There are several of Jesus' teachings which I do follow, because I understand that it is the right thing to do. Most of my problems with the Catholic church (and they are not that many), do not arise from the teachings of Jesus, but from other teachings and dogmas added later.
I appreciate your comment, and thanks for the compliment. Just for clarity's sake, I will only correct you by pointing out that the Golden Rule predates the birth of Christ. Here are some other versions of it:
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales)
"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates)
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus)
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." (Epicurus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
I also would like to correct your claim that "Without a God it doesn't make much sense to live a decent life full of all sorts of sacrifices". Perhaps it is in my nature, but I take great satisfaction in doing good things, and that is rewarding in itself.
"If you look around you, don’t you feel what a disorderly way of life we are living? "
For a religious person that embraces a two thousand year old unrevised morality, yes, the way we are living this life could be seen abit disorderly. I personally think that we are better off then that time when men was ruled by Kings and priests.
"If you happen to hold on to principles that have their basis on moral upbringing, you are ridiculed and made to appear as a fossil from pre-history".
Not necessarily. Some moral principles are timeless, such as the Golden Rule.
"So! we are living in the year 2009! What is so special about it".
Nothing special about that particular year. What matters is that with the passing of the years, we can test our morality on all the accumulated knowledge.
"except that maybe we are rapidly going downstream and history will probably describe this period as a decadent period".
That is also possible. Knowledge is no guarantee of morality. Knowledge can only inform us and help us test our handed down principles against accumulated new facts.
"And to top it all, we are losing our faith in religion for we insist on being free".
He who thinks he lost faith in religion just to be free, has not really lost the faith. He would be simply ignoring it. Loss of faith is not a conscious deliberate action. Also, atheism/agnosticism is not about permissivity and lack of morals. Most atheists/agnostics I know (including myself) have a strict moral code.
If you happen to hold on to principles that have their basis on moral upbringing, you are ridiculed and made to appear as a fossil from pre-history. “In this day and age, 2009, how can you reason the way you do?” Some might say so pompously that you feel yourself cringe as you hasten to retire into your shell.
But when you get over the rebuke, you tend to think that maybe your beliefs are more right than theirs.
So! we are living in the year 2009! What is so special about it except that maybe we are rapidly going downstream and history will probably describe this period as a decadent period.
If you look around you, don’t you feel what a disorderly way of life we are living? And to top it all, we are losing our faith in religion for we insist on being free.
Sometimes you might feel that religion shackles you, and you want too break free, but if you think of religion as an anchor, you might feel that your life has a measure of permanence and you are not left adrift in dangerous currents that abound in this permissive day and age.
"We also have to agree that morality will shift and develop according to newly acquired knowledge".
Of course. That's why several practices deemed commonplace and ethical in the past, are nowadays deemed highly immoral, and vice-versa.
Yes I agree with a rational approach to morality. We also have to agree that morality will shift and develop according to newly acquired knowledge. This would be painful for those who believe in dogmatic truths.
Some do good for a reward in paradise. Some others do good for goodness' sake.
Others do bad despite a belief in hell. Some others do bad for earthly gains.
Yet, others find themselves somewhere in between.
Disbelief (or doubt) in God does not necessarily mean living in despair. Neither does it ean that one necessarily seeks to replace God with money.
As an unbeliever in a personal God, and an agnostic in the case of a non-interfering prime-mover "God", I find myself quite happy to live by the golden rule "do to others what you would wish others to do to you in similar circumstances".
As for dislike of Catholicism (not Catholics), that's what you get for shoving beliefs down people's throats for so long.
Stop writing as if Catholics are poor poor victims.
Cont...
What I'm trying to say is that for a moral action to be deemed right or wrong, it must have logical reasons to denounce or support it. Once that is established, the moral/immoral action applies to everyone (in similar circumstances).
Moral relativism claims that morality is subjective, and that:
1. An action is justified or excused just because a religion permits or demands it.
2. An action is prohibited just because a religion prohibits it.
3. An action is justified even if wrong just for the sake of respecting cultural diversity.
Neither of the three is supported by reason or evidence. It is also good to point out that the claim that faith, by itself, is morally binding, itself leads to moral relativism, unless one is prepared to suppress freedom of religion.
The alternative to moral relativism is the view that morality is universal and is derived from rational thinking. This view does not deny the existance of different (and sometimes conflicting) perceptions of morality, but recognises that if morality is to mean anything at all, conflicting "moralities" cannot all be right. If, for instance, there are 2 morally conflicting views, at least one of them must be wrong.
The universal standard to provide most of the answers is that of rational debate, the rejection of censorship of ideas, and the rejection of blind faith.
Science can be used to help us form our morality, but not on its own. Science provides us with the tools to help us in our philosophical/ethical debates.
Should the religious moral standard be universal? I think I already provided the answer in my previous comment. In a pluralistic society, it helps no one to introduce religion in debates on binding morality, which is not the same thing as saying that the religious should not participate in moral/political debates in a pluralistic society. Of course they can, and they should. But religion per se should not carry more weight in such debates.
If moral relativism is wicked can you suggest an alternative? What universal standard can we accept to provide us with the answers? I would accept science and reason but I am not sure the religious would be quite happy about that.
Considering the wide range of cultural, political and religious ideas that model the moral zeitgeist, my view is that moral relativism has become a natural default. The religious are against moral relativism because they got their moral golden standard set and ready but should it be universal?
If your definition of catholicism is one that wants to establish itself in the forefront of an inclusive society but then preaches that there is only one dogmatic faithbased truth for all humanity well I will be more then happy to join an anti-catholic league.
The problem only comes where one is to decide what's moral or not. Catholics will say that Catholic teaching is the moral way. People from other religions (or atheists) will say that theirs is the moral way.
This is why, as retired Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway says in his book "Godless morality - keeping religion out of ethics", it is important for politicians and religious leaders to bring forth secular arguments in support of any politically moral positions that they hold. After all, faith-based morality could (or should) only be imposed on adherents to that faith, but morality which is supported by reason is (or should be) binding on all.
On the same lines, standing up for Catholic (or Muslim, Buddhist, secularist etc) principles should not be derided as fundamentalism, provided that rational arguments (that do not rely on faith alone) are given in support of politically moral claims.
Rather than Catholics being persecuted, it is more a case of Catholics losing their grip on power (at long last) and not being able anymore to impose their beliefs on all and sundry. You mention the Buttiglione case, but you don't mention his inflammatory remarks with respect to homosexuality and his attempts to deny gays and lesbians their human rights. Examples: 1. He tried to deny gays in Italy from staging peaceful marches, in violation of their right to freedom of assembly. 2. As a member of the Convention that drew up the EU's Charter on Fundamental Rights, he moved a motion to remove sexual orientation from the anti-discrimination provision.
Armed with this information, no wonder that MEPs refused to confirm him as Commissioner. As our elected representatives, they rightly decided not to trust such a sensitive office (dealing of all things with human rights in the Commission!) to such a bigot.
You also fail to mention that the post in question is political, not administrative. With your same argument, you would be discriminating against a pro-choice political candidate if you don't vote for him. Whilst people are entitled not to be discriminated against when it comes to jobs and administrative posts, the same does not hold for positions of political power where the individual is responsible for shaping policy and where that individual requires the confidence of the people and of their elected representatives. That's what happened in Buttiglione's case. His vision of human rights, which excludes people because of their sexual orientation, was not the one espoused by the majority of MEPs or the majority of the people of Europe. Well done for sending him back where he belongs!
Please accept my deepest sympathies for the loss of your brother-in-law, Mario Borg.
As you say, it is a terrible moment for all his loved ones to bear. At such times, words of condolences give comfort, but one also feels that they are somehow futile. With time the pain will ease off, but the memory of the loved one will live on forever and the beautiful moments that you and his family had once shared will be recalled with tenderness and a special significance.
Please extend my sympathies to his wife and the rest of the family.
Best Regards,
jessica