Saturday, 7th March 2009
KARN EVIL 9
I’m not going to explain the title – there’s the comment section for people who want to show off – and I’m using it as an eye-grabber for some thoughts about carnival, so I’m not even sure it’s contextually correct.
I was at the Nadur Carnival on the Saturday and it was fun. Sporadically weird, generally crowded and sometimes head-shakingly peculiar, it certainly wasn’t the threat to general good order and public peace that so many people seem to think it is.
True, the law, ass that it is, still prohibits the donning of costumes that represent clerical ladies and gentlemen (though I’m not sure whether this is restricted to Christian versions of such folk) or that represent the uniforms of the military or coppers. The law is hard, but it remains the law, though there is much to be said for the enforcers of the law taking a leaf out of Nelson’s book.
Again true, believers (of any stripe) don’t like to see their beliefs made fun of or lampooned and the leaders of the belief system concerned have the right to have a bit of a moan when this happens – freedom of expression cuts both ways, after all.
So far be it from me to gainsay the Bishops in their protests about fun being made of their religion – not that I noticed such fun being made, I have to point out. The mickey was being extracted from Islam, to a very slight degree, but I didn’t spot anyone being less than respectful of Jesus and the Apostles. This is not to say that it didn’t happen, just that I didn’t see it.
But protesting and generally having a moan is one thing, while encouraging the authorities to clamp down and come over all fundamentalist is quite another. Leaving aside the damage done to their own cause by the po-faced stance taken by the Bishops (I don’t suppose it would be realistic to expect that they should have a jolly good laugh about the whole thing) and leaving aside as well the thought that, just maybe, Jesus had a bit of a sense of humour and a bit of a belief in His convictions to the extent that people being rude about it aren’t going to threaten the Faith, is any good going to be done by prosecuting people?
After all, many of the comments made demonstrate that “we the people” are getting a tiny bit fed up of other people taking it upon themselves that they can tell us what to think or do when faced with representations of opinion and expression. It’s clear in my mind that the Friggieri woman should have led her Cinema and Theatre Classification Board to do its job, that is to say to classify and not ban. It’s equally clear to me that the Bishops – while being perfectly free to make their opinion known – should not have invited people to make pretty unfortunate references to the priorities that seem to concern the authorities, be they Church or State.
Frankly, certain people in authority seem to have become much too eager to clamp down and react when people speak their mind. We’re not, by any stretch of the imagination, back in the bad old days when to dare to criticise the Church earned you a visit from the Inquisition (those were really the bad old days) or, not as long ago, when to dare to criticise the Government was equated with high treason and earned you a visit from, at best, the boys in dirty brown.
But – perhaps with the benefit of a couple of weeks of holiday, when no-one except a traffic cop tells you what to do – there seem to be too many people ready to jump down your throat and fire you or berate you or prosecute you or stop you going to the theatre or call you a Philistine nowadays. Tolerance and forbearance, anyone? Yeah, right.
Getting back to the Nadur Carnival, though, many of those who weren’t mildly annoyed by the way the cops decided to prosecute after the Bishops made a noise justified this incursion on liberalism by making the point that if it had been Islam that had been insulted, all hell would have been let loose and the dogs of war slipped.
Balderdash, not to put too fine a point on it.
Just because loony Islamic Fundamentalists think they can scream and shout and declare Fatwe (is that the plural of Fatwa?) if someone dares to joke about their religion, this doesn’t mean that when the same thing is done in the name of Christianity, that’s all right then.
And before anyone draws himself up to his full height and says that what the Bishops did was not loony Christian Fundamentalism, let me hasten to point out that it was not I that made the comparison, but the people who justified their protests by invoking Islamic threats following those cartoons.
More than ever, I am tending towards the idea that it should be made law that telling me what to say and how to say it and what to think and how to think it should attract severe punishment.
RSS
Comments
Cont...
Regarding paralellism (suspended sentence/jail to killing), I already pointed out that this wasn't a parallel example. But I did follow it with a "what if", followed by an exactly parallel example. But I know that you agree with me on that particular point, since you say that "If it were (parallel) it would have still been wrong either way".
As for Christians killing and persecuting Romans or Jews, maybe not, but they certainly did not only kill non-believers, but even Christians who were not Catholics at other times (Cathars come immediately to mind). But in any case, I believe we are in agreement that beliefs should not be imposed.
Regarding Constantine, I know that he was not even a converted Christian until shortly before his deah, which was very convenient of him (making Christianity the official religion, but not converting himself, so that, being an Emperor, he could do what he want, in the belief that with baptism at his death-bed, all would be forgiven). But like you say, we have gone slightly off-topic, although the subject is both relevant and interesting.
In any case...thanks for your input. Debating with reasonable Christians is always a pleasure.
I'm sorry to say that you have misunderstood me. Changing the law (about ridiculing religions and the wearing of some costumes) does not create a paradox, in terms of majorities and minorities. The paradox is only created by the intorduction of the illegality of offence. Let me explain further.
If causing offence is to be illegal (irrespective of majorities or minorities), this would bring us to the absurd situation where anything and everything could be illegal, provided that the thing would cause offence to someone. Some people, for instance, are offended by women wearing "western" clothes, so following this logic, we would have to make these clothes illegal.
If, on the otherhand, causing offence (which does not include libel) is to be made completely legal, people may cause offence and those offended have the right to criticise or offend back.
The only other alternative would be to only make illegal the causing offence of some people but not others. However, this would not be justice, since it would not be treating people as equal.
Cont...
including the fact that changing the law creates a paradox (we also seem to agree on this)
as there will always be the other side of the coin, irrespective of it being a minority or majority, oppressor/oppressed which ever way you look at it.
NB the law was altered to persecute and KILL Christians (not give a suspended/jail sentence) so no parallelisms here!! If it were it would have still been wrong either way. Did the Christians kill and persecute the Romans or the Jews for that matter?..they only posed a threat (religious wise).. Again my original point was misinterpreted.
In the Edict of Milan in 313AD Constantine did not change the law to imprison/kill the non Christians!..Constantine was not even a converted Christian then! He was baptised shortly before his deah! Besides he did much more than just tolerate Christians.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16066a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
Anyway the subject is not Constantine the Great
I also think the subject is exhausted ..we seem to agree anyway on many aspects of freedom
good day :)
Cont...
Also, the difference between "lawful" Rome (note that Imperial Rome was lawful at the time, and Constantine was Imperial too) and Imperial Rome is irrelevant. Let me change the question to a hypothetical one:
What if there is a democratic country today, whose majority was offended by Christianity, and that country made a law that gives a suspended sentence to Christians, followed by a jail sentence if they persist in being Christians?
My point is that being offensive, in itself, does not warrant a sanction, unless people are not treated equally (in the sense that it is OK to offend minorities but not OK to offend majorities).
Then again, you say that you do not agree with incriminating the "Zejtuni" even though you disagree with his actions. So basically we agree.
"I think the law was altered in order to persecute Christians and not the reverse".
It depends on the point in time you look at. The law was altered to persecute Christians...true...but when a law is altered, the new version is the law. After Constantine, the law was altered once again, making Christianity the only permissible religion.
"My argument was not as to whether or not the persecution of the early Christians was justified/deplorable. Killing is killing! we all agree on that :)"
Of course we agree on that. But I also said: What if the law back then was: If you're a Christian (offensive to the majority of Romans), you get a suspended sentence...if you persist, you are jailed? If one believes that being offensive to the majority justifies a suspended sentence followed by imprisonment if you repeat the "crime", then one would have to believe that the imprisonment of Christians in ancient Rome (before Constantine) would have been morally correct and justified.
You did not tackle this point...hence my repetition of it.
Cont...
Yes Christianity was 'offensive' (and still is) not only to the Romans.
I think the law was altered in order to persecute Christians and not the reverse.
'Is it justifiable to change[..]deprived of its right to freedom?'
...I think this part was misunderstood: I am not saying that it is not justifiable but am saying that when it is, it creates a paradox.
My argument was not as to whether or not the persecution of the early Christians was justified/deplorable. Killing is killing! we all agree on that :)
Also there is a difference between the ‘lawful’ Republican Rome and the 'dictatorial' Imperial Rome. NB Not only Christians died in the Roman Circus!
but.. I questioned whether in today's republic/democratic society we can request changes which may take us down dangerous irrevocable paths? Hence my example of the gladiatorial fights. Where do we draw the line?
Some established rules are justifiably challenged others are not.
So I do not think it was fair to try the Zejtuni in the first place, despite the fact that he REALLY offended my religious beliefs, it is high time we separate religious from state law, I leave that trial to God:)
Ever thought how offensive the Christian religion was to the Romans before Constantine?
Would you have asked at the time, "Is it justifiable to change the law (the imprisonment and killing of Christians) so that it pleases the section which deems it right, lest it suffers emargination or feel deprived of its right to freedom?".
I know that a suspended sentence is a far cry from imprisonment or death, but would you see nothing wrong if the Romans gave Christians a suspended sentence (followed by imprisonment if they repeat the crime) just because the Christian religion offended the majority of the population in Rome?
Was hoping for a real definition, but thanks anyway:)
Insomma in a nutshell the freer we to claim to be the more enslaved we seem to become! Primarily by none other than ourselves! Heq that is the blessing/scourge of post modernist, politically correct, ethically evolved cultures. Wherein moral and religious issues conflate yet are expected to be regarded separately in a pluralistic society. Should transgressive performances be banned in fear of plaguing the ‘republic’, or allowed to be staged to achieve the Aristotelian 'catharsis'? Will the ‘abject-lured’, ‘adrenalin junkie’ of a spectator, eventually desire to take this beyond - as was in the Roman Circus where reality and fiction merged into one – the gladiatorial fights? What then?Anarchy? Is it justifiable to change the law so that it pleases the section which deems it right, lest it suffers emargination or feel deprived of its right to freedom? Where does one call a halt? Everyone should exercise the right to choose, but should this give one a free passport to allow/accept all, in the name of freedom of expression? Then again who decides who is on the enforcement/obeying side of the moral (in the non-religious sense) judgement?
The law of an Anarchical Society.
Is there a law against those who insist they should be exempt from the law of the land
According to one of DCG’s articles. This is what Carnival should be about: -
“A carnival is not a carnival without widespread drunkenness, disorderly conduct, rude behaviour, a shedding of inhibitions, much letting down of hair, obscenity, mockery of society’s sacred cows, pillorying of authority figures, and general letting off of steam. What Malta has today is not carnival but the antithesis of carnival. It wasn’t always this way, and Nadur has gone some considerable distance towards reminding us what carnival is all about. Meanwhile, the bishops and their variegated acolytes appear to have forgotten why Lascaris was the most unpopular and vilified grandmaster in 250 years of life under the military boot of the Order of St John.”
It is obvious that I was taking a jibe at you with the order of the Commandments, since you re eager to tell others to be careful when writing, after all it's not a court room, was just pulling your leg :)
insomma..I like the syntax argument actually, sometimes the syntax (or orderly arrangement - which suits my argument better) varies but the substance is the same. Thus is it not the fact that this man (dressed up as part of a performance ie carnival) the same as in other performances? Only the place was different. Should his performance have been treated as such rather than isolated and put in another group of arrangement/context? And please do not tell me that carnival costumes/participants are all derogatory cos I’m sure that all the little spider/bat men, barnies, princesses, zorros etc disagree, as much as would all the ‘wonna be’ Casanovas and Marie Antoinettes who paraded at the Gran Ballo on Saturday 21st. How does the Maltese law decide mela if a person dressed up for carnival, is mocking, emulating or admiring some mentor? Can we define Carnival? performance/not, satire, mockery, emulate/revere, all of the above?
Very true...we are in complete agreement here.
The official policy of the church in Malta is that when they investigate a member of the clergy or a nun, they will not convey the result of the to the police even if they find a criminal guilt including paedophilia ,child abuse and and assault and battery.
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!
The Wikipedia’s version of the Ten Commandments, the version of Exodus 20:1- 17, the version which Tal Muzew thought me and the version I learnt at school may vary a little in their syntax but the substance is absolutely the same.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS -- EXODUS 20:1- 17
1"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
2) "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,"
3) "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;"
4) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."
5) "Honour thy father and thy mother:"
6) "Thou shalt not kill."
7) "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
8) "Thou shalt not steal."
9) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
10) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbour’s
The debate is all about the Ten Commandments and The Criminal Law. Can you dispute what I wrote instead of being pedantic? Spell it out if you can.
'Before one puts words into writing,[...]know what they are writing about'
mela check the correct order of the commandments ..ps not from the wikiwiki, but the Catholic Encyclopedia. the blank spaces can be filled by visiting
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm :)
Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, [..] (First).
Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated.
And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third).
Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, [..]child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).
His life is the object of the Fifth;
the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;
his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;
his good name, of the Eighth;
And [..] it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;
and in his property rights by the Tenth.
Do you believe that everyone has the duty to report paedophiles to the police? The Bishops chose not to, but then demanded that a person wearing a costume be arrested.
How's that for a warped sense of priorities.
Regarding Bishops siding with the accused, you have very short memory. It had to take pressure from the US for a paedophile priest to be investigated by the police. The Bishops, apparently, did not care.
Regarding your definition of self-imposed exile, it is just that - your definition. Do you also believe that the Dalai Lama's exile is self-imposed too? I guess you'll reply yes as well.
Your comments are weak and without substance.
Precisely my comments - Church law and Country Law should be divorced not merged, and this is our main problem. Charles i was going to refer to your text, but ran out of words :-)
Pero, gerfixthom naqra fil-kmandamenti ta sur Buttigieg :-). Kemm mort inqerr ghalxejn jahasra mela meta kont zghir.....i never murdered anyone ta :-) (see 6th below)
Anyone telling you that we have laws fashioned around the Ten-Commandments given to Moses by God ask him to revisit the texts.
First. - While this commandment says it’s sinful to have more than one God, our Constitution guarantees us the opposite.
Second. - You shall not make for yourself an idol. Again our Constitution guarantees the opposite.
Third. - You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God. Blasphemy is illegal.
Fourth. - Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Workers get double pay on the Sabbath.
Fifth. - Honour your Father and mother. No law against it.
Sixth. - You shall not murder. Isn’t it obvious?
Seventh. You shall not commit adultery. Adultery is not against the law.
Eighth. You shall not steal. Also very obvious.
Ninth. You shall not bear false witness. Also obvious.
Tenth. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife. A law against sexual desire would put most of us in Prison.
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour. No law against it.
As Franco Farrugia says, Before one puts words into writing, It is suggested that one first prepare oneself and know what they are writing about.
If Jesus lived today and decided to vote Labour, I will accept it on the basis that Jesus may know something which I do not. Unfortunately when we talk local politics, it is quite evident that we are dealing with human evaluations and unless you and LP apologists have some Divine light inspiring them, then your evaluations could be totally erroneous. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and governing for 20 years versus 20 months is ample proof of Labour's miscalculations. I would however leave Jesus out of politics.
@ Kenneth Cassar
Your comments are weak, repetitive and without substance.
Paedophilia is disgusting whether practiced by lay people, priests, nuns etc. I never defended them so your comment is completely out of place.
If a religious person is accused of paedophilia I dare you quote one instance when any bishop sided with the accused. Again, your comment is ludicrous.
When a terrorist threatens someone and that someone decides to go into hiding, it is called self exile because the alternative would be to continue to be a sitting duck for the terrorist. I would hope that no one would be so stupid.
Do the individuals dressed as drag queens, schoolchildren, gorillas, Casanovas, sluts, etc in 'real' life do that? taken to trial or nuthouse (isn't a loitering prostitute persecuted by law, why is'nt the canrnival counterpart not? is Good Friday not a form of religious performance? Should there be parameters in carnival like the red flag as at Golden bay. Next year it could be us!
Re blasphemy laws, you have said this precisely. It is a silly law. To link to your comment re libel, it is only when Jesus requests to defend himself from such comments/actions that it starts to make sense - and the likelihood of this is to say the least remote :-) . We humans have a tendency to be offended with every tom dick or harry and have thus over the years introduced libel laws to safeguard our egos to ensure that nobody takes "anything" from us. Is it making us any wiser? i doubt it very much....it is possibly making a few lawyers justify their existance (so sorry had to make this comment Bocca :-).) Let us remember that the Subject in question asked us to turn our cheek when hit on the other! Far cry from his teachings.Our main problem is confusing moral issues with legal.Not all commandments can and should be enforced legally. If a person a person steals, it means that someone is worse off thus enforcing legally makes sense.if a person does not honour his father, it is not right, but does not attract a 6 month suspended sentence.
Re laws,
Spot on! Thanks. With your references and quotes from case law, you have proven what I was saying all along in Fr Borg's blog (regarding blasphemy).
1. Since it is the right of every citizen to ask for the law to be enforced, is it my right to ask for the Bishops to report paedophile priests to the police? As for those who "do not have any respect for authority", when you say that "they might as well get lost", are you sure you are following the teachings of Christ?.
2. If people are offended when the law is broken, should not the Bishops be offended more by paedophilia? So why do they protect paedophile priests? And why don't the police demand that the Bishops disclose the names of paedophile priests so that justice is done? I think that peadophilia is much more distasteful than the wearing of any constume. Don't you?
3. When terrorists threaten someone, and that someone has to opt for exile, do you really think that the exile is self-imposed?
If Jesus lived today and He votes Labour Martinelli would not be out to defend him. He might even participate in the Nadur Carnival. LOL
I certainly do not need any lessons from you explaining what the Church's mission is, here on earth and I wish that you take that statement about spewing venom back.
When I deal with political matters I dare you find anything I wrote which is not the truth or which is not in reply to some comment made in haste and without foundation and which contradicts known facts. Moreover I keep church and political issues quite separate and I never accuse anyone of spewing venom even when they happen to have strong opposing views.
Comments like the one about 'thinking that the Church is like a political party, a political club' simply does not elicit a reply.
Your 'holier-than-thou' attitude smacks of a feeble attempt to curtail my right to express my opinion barely staying on this side of libel.
Using your argument implies that the law which prohibits blasphemy such as saying haqq...followed by a deity or a saint, should be abolished because (a) it is never enforced and (b) it is a silly law anyway. I humbly disagree.
Using this line of thought, then why should we have laws protecting life from conception until death? Why have libel laws for insulting an ordinary human being but not if we mock God? Why do we have laws fashioned around the ten commandments given to Moses by God thousands of years ago? Are they not passé ? We, the modern beings who can fly to the moon, surely can do without laws against murder, stealing, perjury, adultery etc. Mocking Jesus can certainly be excused at Carnival time!
To the others who think that by simply recommending that laws be obeyed or by defending the Bishops' statement, I am spewing venom, had better think again because if we continue on this slippery slope we can only arrive at chaos.
The Shepherd is there looking for the lost sheep all right, but the lost sheep is usually glad to be found and not mock the Shepherd for having found her.
With these words, you show how little you know about the RCC's mission on earth and what the mission of JC was all about. You simply have no idea what the shepherd's mission is, that of looking for the stray sheep, the 100th one!
Don't try and imagine that the Church is like a political party, a political club!
Before you put words into writing, I suggest that you first prepare yourself and know what you are writing about, and not spew out venom as you usually do in the realm of politics!
When a Christian National makes a derogatory statement about the Prophet Mohammed there’ll be no contravention of our laws.
Yet Chapter IV 41(1) of our Constitution guarantees ‘Protection of freedom of conscience and worship’ and Section 42 (1) guarantees ‘Protection of Freedom of expression’
Isn’t it high time to revisit some of our laws dealing with religions? Isn’t it silly to enforce an antiquated law on a pick and chose bases?
Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an. The Qur'an also states that it is blasphemy to claim that there is more than one god or that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God (5.017). Speaking ill of God is also blasphemy. In Islam, blasphemy is considered a sin. The Quran says "He forgives all sins, except disbelieving in God (blasphemy)". In Islam if a person dies while in blasphemy, they will not enter heaven, except if said person repented before death. However, in Islam, interjections such as "God!"; "Good Lord"; or "for God's sake" are not considered blasphemy, unless the word "God" is replaced with another name that implies worship to someone or something other than God. For example "Jesus!" or "Holy cow" are considered blasphemy because they denote worship to something other than God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
Blasphemy laws in the United Kingdom were specific to blasphemy against Christianity. The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the fundamentalist group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). The charges were rejected by the City of Westminster magistrates court. Christian Voice applied to have this ruling overturned by the High Court, but the application was rejected. The court found that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions (s. 2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968) and broadcasts (s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990).[11][12]
On 5 March 2008, an amendment was passed to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 abolishing the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel (common law is abolished, not repealed). The Act received royal assent on 8 May 2008,[15] and the relevant section came into force on 8 July 2008
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
I am, as stated in my other comment, a practicing Catholic AND PROUD of it too, but unlike you, feel strongly irritated that a person should be arrested (never mind convicted) for such folly. Yes i am offended at what he did so let us not get the wrong impression that the Barbara chap should be applauded. Anyone offending Christ offends me but taking this to these extremes is shameful to me as a Catholic and is in my opinion even WORSE than the alleged act of folly itself. Where do we draw the line? If a person says Haqq.... should we place him in prison because that obviously offends us..... We need to draw people towards Christ not push them away from Him, and He least of all would have done this. Also if we truly love Christ and are prepared to put our neck on the line to defend Him, do we have to say things like "think before you blab", or "they might as well get lost".....let us be more responsible and tolerant in ALL our actions as otherwise we risk losing all credibility.
Peace and love to all :-)
1. Asking that the present law be enforced is the right of every citizen, be it the corner barber, the politician or the bishop. Those you refer to, obviously already do not have any respect for authority, including the Church, so the Church is not losing them. They might as well get lost.
2. People are offended if the law is broken under the very nose of the police and contrary to your beliefs (or lack of) normal people are offended when they witness distasteful behaviour.
3. Did Salman Rushdie not go into hiding for a few years fearing for his life? What do you call that? Living under an assumed name and looking over your shoulder constantly is not self-imposed exile?
Think before you blab.
1. The only fuss about the Bishops' statement is where they demand that people be prosecuted and sentenced. As it turns out, the people involved got a permanent criminal record...all for wearing a costume. I'm sure that they will grow to love the Church for it.
2. If people are offended by someone simply wearing a costume, they deserve to be offended.
3. Salman Rushdie did not self-impose his own exile. Have you even read the book? I have. It certainly does not deserve a death-sentence, and is only very mildly offensive (that is, if you believe in Islam). It is also interesting that the person who issued the Fatwa (who is now dead), presumably has not even read the book, since the Fatwa applies to anyone who reads it, and not just Rushdie.
If you happen to be a non believer, disregard my comment. Obviously it would not apply to you.
I never defended law breakers, be they lay people, priests or nuns, on the exact contrary.
So your comment is completely out of place but at the same time reinforces my statement that breaking existing laws, especially in police presence, should be prosecuted and the perpetrators brought to justice.
Believe it or not!
@ Robert Attard
Yes, but He was on the 'receiving' end while you seem to be on the 'giving' side otherwise there would be no reason for you to jump in.
So don't get offended if we share his sense of humour.
Been following recent 'blogs' (sic!) & threads in the same vein.
I think there is little doubt that the laws are being flouted quite severely, lately by one & all (yes even the govt), in a blatant manner and with a "how dare you tell me what to do!!!" attitude.
Frankly, this attitude and (dare I say it lest I get branded (shock horror!!) a communist, dictator, a Christian even!, etc...)
Especially when flaunted so blatantly by those who should know better! ('nuff said).
You see, I am no doubt wrong(!) but I was brought up that "THE LAW IS THE LAW", whether I like it or not....
All of it, not just the parts that I like.
Yes even if it IS an ASS...
And it should be respected by all and upheld by those who swear to do so.
Am also no doubt wrong that IF you don't like the law, there is a perfectly democratic mechanism (accepted by all) to CHANGE that law to a more acceptable one.
But recently it is patently obvious that there are those who think themselves.... ABOVE, the law and also with a God (?)/Self (that's it!) given right to...
"he was crucified for all of us"...not "us" please..."for all believers"...non-believers don't believe anyone ever crucified himself or herself for the rest of us...and non-believers would find a carnival costume impersonating Christ and his Apostles or a priest quite amusing. I don't see why it offends.
What offends me is real priests and nuns abusing children.
After reading your latest, I cannot but bring up a few points on which I have some divergent views.
"True, the law, ass that it is, still prohibits the donning of costumes that represent clerical ladies and gentlemen..." Simple remedy - change the law, however inadvisable it may be!
" Again true, believers (of any stripe) don't like to see their beliefs made fun of or lampooned... have the right to have a bit of a moan when this happens – freedom of expression cuts both ways, after all". Very true, so what's the fuss about the Bishops' statement?
"... – not that I noticed such fun being made..." You may have not and neither did, I but is that a valid excuse? Obviously many did and the antics offended many.
"... Jesus had a bit of a sense of humour and a bit of a belief in His convictions to the extent that people being rude about it aren't going to threaten the Faith..." He sure did have a sense of humour, how else could he have coped with all that was thrown at Him?
But humour aside, He was also crucified for us all and I fail to see any humour at that! And with regard to people being rude about it (or Him) aren't going to threaten the Faith - judging from what I have read in other blogs, we seem to have passed that point already.
" we the people" are getting a tiny bit fed up of other people taking it upon themselves that they can tell us what to think or do when faced with representations of opinion and expression" This comment was a lead-in to your opinion about the Theatre Classification Board. I honestly cannot see the connection because the situations are completely different. Are you implying that some 'board' should preview Carnival and classify it and let those who are not offended attend while other sensitive souls refrain from going? Carnivals are free, public and supposed to entertain. Theatre shows can be controlled (ages), the contents classified, therefore the public is forewarned and those who don't like it can stay away.
Since you cared to mention Islam, may I remind you of Salman Rushdie and his self imposed exile in preservation of his own dear life?