Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Catholic Patriarch: UN resolution that outlaws religious defamation is needed



How would this pan out? In the light of the anti-Islamic films and the terror that has followed the Maronite Patriarch has called for an international law banning the denigration of religion.
From here, I suspect the reaction will be to have a law banning religion but then not everywhere is Euro-centric.

8 comments:

Jonathan said...

It makes no sense to talk about 'religion' as if it was one entity. Would this law prohibit defaming mormons or paganism or pastafarianism? If it defames Islam to say that Mohammed was not a prophet doesn't it defame Christianity to say that he was?

TomG said...

The United States will never be a party to that. I'd like to think that Dr. Johnson would have been with us.

nickbris said...

I thought that Christianity taught Love & Tolerance;the teaching does not seem to have sunk in yet.

Anybody who has travelled amongst people of different faiths will have noticed how kind everybody is.

We have to learn to respect everybody,not force them to change.

Insulting people because of their beliefs,calling them savages and stealing their countries is not what we are supposed to be about.

The way we live this life determines how we will live in the next and even Pagans carefully looked after their dead knowing that they were going to a better place.

Not only should Christianity should be taught in Schools but tolerance of all believers in God.

Why can't we just get on with each other and show respect which is the meaning of civilisation,civilised people don't need laws against defamation,it should be natural

Ma Tucker said...

Nick, you speak as if civilisation somehow happens despite what you believe. No it does not. It would be true to say that people are generally cordial as you have. However, the test for civilisation is how you respond when people are not cordial. Do you slit their throats, shout, scream, run around like an out of control lunatic, smashing and breaking things, reducing yourself to the level of a vicious animal or do you bear the wrongs with dignity, offering the suffering up to God while patiently working to right those wrongs. One approach is uncivilised and the other is civilised. We could never have come up with the way of the cross ourselves. It is not natural it is supernatural. Jesus Christ is the most civil person anyone will ever meet. I think we all do well to follow Him. It would be very hard (original sin) to be civilised (i.e. behave well towards our neighbour, even when things go wrong) otherwise.


I share your concerns Father. Julian the Apostate made very good use of religious "tolerance" legislation as a cover for his malice. These types of laws are always used by the lawless against Christ. After all the world, and man made religious systems will never tolerate the cross.

Mike Cliffson said...

TomG
The present US administration already IS a party to this, action by action, brivk by brick.
If it fleshes out there, that'l be tell anything within distance of the truth about islam: punishment , prison, or death.
The existing Us law already stops Bishop chaput saying much about elections, support for anything concrete in sermons...
Like everything else these days , "Religion" means the ones they want.
Havent got there yet, that's the way it's going.

John Fisher said...

I just don't agree. The problem is Islam as an ideology. The movie on u tube which we shall not name simply dramatizes episodes from the hadiths. How can one debate Islam showing it for what it is if violence is used to stop all debate? Islam and violence are one and the same. That is the example of its founder. How do we proclaim.... if we are frightened of being killed. St Stephen did not shut his mouth. I think and alliance needs to be struck between athiests and Christians against Islam. I think one stands up to bullies and appeasing does no good. We need an end to Moslem immigration because of its violence and cause of civil disharmony! This conforms with the Church's teaching on religious tolerance and its limits.

Independent said...

Is it disrespectful to Mohammed to point out that according to early Muslim sources Ayesha was only 9 when he had sexual intercourse with her? Is any discussion of the origins and history of Islam which is even mildly critical disrespectful? How is defamation defined, how is it distinguished from criticism? It would be useful to have some hard evidence on these matters. Many of us are open to conviction by rational argument backed by evidence.

John Fisher said...

The Koran has many errors that do not stand up to any claim it is divinely inspired as that inspiration is defined by Islam. Muhmamed the divine telephone of god. 1/ The Koran says Ismael not Isaac was the sacrifice Abraham offered. Yet we know this false at the Old Testament was compiled 1000 years or more before Muhammed. They claim this because the Arabs claim to be descended from Ishmael. 2/The references in the Koran about Jesus birth are lifted directly from Nestorian writings. Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of Jesus are confused for the same person in the Koran. Moslems claim Jesus was not crucified. They think Mary is God's wife. There is a 600 year gap between Christ and Muhammed. Yet Moslems seek to claim everyone from Adam and Eve onwards are Moslems already. One is lead away from Islam by other false faiths. We know Christ warned us as did the apostles about false prophets. Islam claims all OT and even Jesus as Prophets...all Jews. Then claims a non Jew is a prophet (Muhammed). They are like Mormons.. and when this is imbedded in Arab conquests and domination of the Middle East through violence we face a problem as big as Nazism and Communism! Moslem Immigration is allowing the Srab conquest of the world through Islamic ideology.