Morbert wrote: » The issue is far simpler. Is a secular government obliged to protect the religious sensibilities of people?
I don't see why it should be.
Though it is obliged to protect children (and it is argued that even artwork is damaging, as it promotes a culture of such crimes).
PDN wrote: » I'm pretty sure that isn't the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.
Mary's immaculate conception should not be confused with the Incarnation of her son Jesus Christ; the conception of Jesus is celebrated as the Annunciation to Mary. Catholics do not believe that Mary, herself, was the product of a Virgin Birth from Saint Anne and Saint Joachim.
Bob Cratchet wrote: » What do you mean by this ? And it never "mentions", as you try to put it, the trinity at all. The vast majority of professsional historians of all beliefs and none agree that Jesus existed as a historical person, and therefore, so did his mother.
In Protestantism, except Lutheran and Anglican churches, veneration is sometimes considered to amount to the heresy of idolatry, and the related practice of canonization amounts to the heresy of apotheosis. Protestant theology usually denies that any real distinction between veneration and worship can be made, and claims that the practice of veneration distracts the Christian soul from its true object, the worship of God. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes that "(t)he distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity." Likewise, Islam also condemns any veneration of icons. The Hindu honoring of icons and murtis, often seen as idolatry, may also be looked upon as a kind of veneration.
johnmcdnl wrote: » Blasphemy 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct. Mary would be considered holy so yes it would be considered blasphemy..
joolsveer wrote: » My mother is a real person, whereas the BVM is imaginary, so I would be against abuse of my mother.
hotmail.com wrote: » Mary was mentioned 3 times in the bible, only 3 times and yet many people believe she's brilliant. I don't get it.
Lapin wrote: » Anyone know where and when this art exhibition is taking place?
PDN wrote: » The problem with poking fun at others on a subject where you are woefully ignorant is that you are the one who ends up looking an ass.
PDN wrote: » I am not a Catholic, and I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, but even I can see the difference between the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived in her mother's womb) and the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.
PDN wrote: » Now, I suggest you take a good read of the Forum Charter, because if you continue to troll (ie deliberately inflame and rile the natives) then infractions and bans will fall on you from a great height.
Ellis Dee wrote: » That is your opinion, and you have the same right to express it as I have to express mine. Saying that I look like an ass does not prove I am one; it merely proves that you might need to brush up your manners a bit and remain civil when you engage in discourse. Why do you feel the need to deny that you are Catholic? What does it matter whether you are or not? The point I was making is that no one can really see the difference between those two events, because there is no proof at all that either ever happened. Yes, I'll read them in detail. However, I would like to point out that I was not trolling (assuming we both have the same understanding of that term). Rather than setting out to inflame and rile other users (and I question your rather patronising use of the word "natives" to describe them), I was expressing my sincerely held and very passionate opposition to anti-blasphemy laws of every kind - everywhere in the world. One of the ways of doing that is to make fun of beliefs that no rational person could possibly take seriously. If you use and/or abuse power, it only proves that you have it, but it does not make your own arguments stronger or any more valid. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
gimmebroadband wrote: » I don't think anyone is 'entitled' to make fun of anyone's belief or unbelief, live and let live!
gimmebroadband wrote: » Well first it starts off as sattire and when that's not enough........
gimmebroadband wrote: » I will defend my right to believe in God and to practice my faith!
Ellis Dee wrote: » Nonsense! Satire is one of the most potent weapons there is against irrational beliefs. When one proceeds to use other means, such as discrimination or violence, against religious believers, one has already lost the battle by descending to their level.:rolleyes:
Bob Cratchet wrote: » Well it hasn't worked for at least 2500 years.
Guitar_Monkey wrote: » Ellis Dee...Do you not understand how offensive your comments might be to someone with religious beliefs ? Mockery is a form of descimination. Fair enough....you don't believe. That's your choice, no problem there. Do you not believe in respect ? It would seem not from the way you are conducting yourself in this thread. As for wether the image itself is blasphemous ? I would say yes. But Christians don't have to go see it, so i don't see why it should bother us. If it was plastered all over billboards etc, then it would be a different story.
Ellis Dee wrote: » It works for me. I still have control of my own mind.:)
philologos wrote: » I agree with Ellis Dee to a degree. It is a persons right to be obnoxious, but nobody is obliged to respect it as it is the height of bad manners.
Ellis Dee wrote: » As I've said before - and you will notice that I have been careful never to be personally offensive or ad hominen - offence is usually in the eye of the beholder, in the eyes of people who choose to take offence. That is their way of seeking to dominate others. What a cowardly cop-out it is to just scream "offence" or "blasphemy" every time someone says something that ridicules your beliefs! As for respect, I have always believed that it is something that has to be earned. I also reject your assertion that mockery is a form of discrimination. I would call it free speech. Sorry if it is not always what you are hoping to hear. How old are you? Probably not old enough to remember the days when some of Ireland's finest and internationally renowned writers were banned in their home country, usually because self-appointed offence-detectors took it upon themselves to snitch on them to the censors.
Bob Cratchet wrote: » Mary, the mother of Jesus is a peaceful an inoffensive figure, as I'm sure so is your own mother.
philologos wrote: » Sometimes I have to wonder is Ellis Dee a reincarnation of the one and only rohatch.
Ellis Dee wrote: » My mother is dead. And I would prefer if you did not drag her into this discussion. In fact, I find it offensive that you do.
Ellis Dee wrote: » offence is usually in the eye of the beholder, in the eyes of people who choose to take offence. That is their way of seeking to dominate others. What a cowardly cop-out it is to just scream "offence" or "blasphemy" every time someone says something that ridicules your beliefs! As for respect, I have always believed that it is something that has to be earned. I also reject your assertion that mockery is a form of discrimination. I would call it free speech. Sorry if it is not always what you are hoping to hear.
Guitar_Monkey wrote: » First of all, i fully support free speech ! I also believe that it is possible to make a point without knowingly causing offense to others. My previous comments relate to the fact that this is a Christian forum. You've come into this thread mocking Christian beliefs. You're fully entitled to your opionion of course, i just think you're being a bit disrespectful. As for saying people choose to take offence as way to dominate others ?? Do you realise how crazy that sounds ?? So do you believe in a society where everyone can just do whatever the hell the please with no regards to anyone else ? I'm not a big fan of censorship. As i said, nobody has to go an see the artwork in question. I would only have a problem with it if it was imposed on people who might find it blasphemous, against their will. What's my age got to do with anything ? Get off your high horse. I can remember when Life of Brian and The Exorcist were banned. Did i agree with it ? No. I don't see what that's got to do with you coming in here and disrespecting people ? Just so you know....most of them probably don't give a damn what you say, they're used to it...i don't either. I just think people are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe as long as they're not harming anyone, without the persecution of others.
