Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« Fr. Johansen on homosexuality, seminaries, and the Vatican's instruction | Main | One Man's Musings: Is there any pop/rock music worth listening to? »

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Comments

BillyHW

Which politician has the courage to enact an immigration policy that keeps these barbarians outside the gates?

It's not too late to save the Western Hemisphere. The Vatican will need to be relocated to Guadalupe for the coming millenium of darkness.

Thomas Crescenzi

Immigration policies won't matter if there are no native Europeans left in Europe. The fact is that the birthrate among native Europeans is something like 1 child per couple. European nations _need_ to let Muslim immigrants in because they need them to support the EU economy. The underlying problem is the culture of hedonism and secular humanism that pervades Europe. The Church is an artifact of a prior age that most Europeans would sooner forget. Having children is expensive and would cause too much discomfort to their lifestyle of modern conveniences. Marriage has all but disappeared in many places. The Holy Father seemed to hint that this modern trend of selfishness in Europe and the need for evangelization among Europeans would be a priority in his pontificate. He is from Germany after all, which is one of the hotspots of the crisis. I trust that the Vatican realizes the grave danger in the moral vacuum that is enveloping Europe and sees the opportunity to reach out to not only straying Europeans but to encourage preaching the Gospel among the immigrants, many of whom cannot hear the Gospel message in their homelands. We will see the Vatican address this soon, I am sure.

American Papist

I was watching BBC's HardTalk as it interviewed Denmark's chief Imam. The interviewer challenged the Imam about (at least) three amazing facts:

1) the Imam had to admit that he issued a statement welcoming the violence and demonstrations as something "we [the clerics] would be very happy about."
2) the Imam (or his staff) apparently slipped in 3 additional pictures NOT AMONG THE ORIGINAL 12 PUBLISHED IN DENMARK when he went before the leaders of various Muslim nations... these 3 additional pictures were far more inflamatory depicting Mohammed with a Pig's head, advised by satan, and as a pedophile...
3) the Imam defending his provoking of the worldwide muslim community, "or else someone would have taken a gun and shot [the editor] if they had not seen that something was being done already."

Tip of the iceberg indeed...

Ed Peters

Besides the unfolding story that some of the pictures these yahoos are rioting about were apparently FAKED, I'd like to remind folks that ANY depiction of the human prophet are forbidden and, especially when sketched by "infidels" would have provoked essentially the same irrational response. In other words, it not the caricature that is setting them off, it's any pictures. How does one deal with that kind of irrationality. No pictures of human being? Gimmeabreak.

Deacon John M. Bresnahan

I find myself thinking about how little we did with all the non-violent, democratic means at our disposal to defend Christ when our tax money was used to dip images of Him in urine and dob feces on Our Blessed Mother. How many Catholics vowed to vote against the politicians that wouldn't do something about it? How many Catholics kept donating to or kept attending the sleazoid art museums that put on these blasphemous shows? Weren't there enough Christians in the cities where they were displayed to mount large enough non-violent actions to make life really difficult for those who trash our Faith?
Yes, the Moslem violence is wrong. But aren't we Catholics and Christians pathetic, gutless, lazy, complacent, and COMPLICIT in the way we have let religion hating secularism define what is acceptable in the public square when presenting opinions or attitudes to do with religion. As much as I am opposed to the currently ascendant Islamo-Fascism in the Middle East(and elsewhere)--another part of me wonders when we are going to start defending our Faith from secular anti-religios hate mongers.

Cristina A. Montes

And when a few Christian defenders speak up, they are criticized as "closed minded", "fearful", etc. by many fellow-Christians themselves.

Jackson

What do you make of this?:

Vatican Condemns Cartoons of Mohammed
Also Denounces Violent Reaction of Muslim World

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 5, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See condemned the publication of caricatures of Mohammed in the Western press, as well as the violent reaction of the Muslim world.

Today in Damascus, Syrian, Muslim demonstrators torched the Norwegian Embassy and the building housing the Danish Embassy. This follows the publication in a Danish newspaper of what the protesters deemed to be 12 blasphemous cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

Thousands of angry Muslims protested in other cities, including Islamabad, Pakistan; Baghdad, Iraq; Khartoum, Sudan; Jakarta, Indonesia; and the Palestinian territories.

In an unsigned statement released by the Vatican press office Saturday, the Holy See stated: "The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion."

"This principle applies obviously to any religion," the Vatican said in response to several requests for the Church's position.

Provocation

Coexistence, the statement continued, calls for "a climate of mutual respect to favor peace among men and nations."

The statement continued: "Moreover, these forms of exasperated criticism or derision of others manifest a lack of human sensitivity and may constitute in some cases an inadmissible provocation.

"A reading of history shows that wounds that exist in the life of peoples are not cured this way."

The Vatican clarified that the government cannot be held responsible for the actions of the press in its country, but the "authorities might and should intervene eventually according to the principles of national legislation."

The statement also acknowledges that "violent actions of protest are equally deplorable."

"Reaction in the face of offense cannot fail the true spirit of all religion," the Vatican said. "Real or verbal intolerance, no matter where it comes from, as action or reaction, is always a serious threat to peace."

Carl Olson

The statement also acknowledges that "violent actions of protest are equally deplorable."

"Equally"? I'm stumbling on that one. Let's see: offensive cartoon vs. rioting and violence. Equal? Really? Not convincing...

MenTaLguY

Argh, yes. I think the author of the Vatican statement has really missed the boat on this one.

Having seen the original 12 cartoons, I wouldn't say they were really very offensive. A few were barbed, but nothing like some of the outright obscene fabricated cartoons that some Muslim provocateurs circulated.

The latter were certainly deplorable (given they were an explicit attempt to stir up violence), but it's not clear that's what he was referring to.

MenTaLguY

Er, "explicit" should be "deliberate".

MenTaLguY

Also, an additional -1 to the Vatican spokesman if he is in fact invoking the UN Declaration on Human Rights. There are better documents available to a Vatican spokesman, I'm sure...

MenTaLguY

Blegh. Also, "it's not clear that's" should have been "it's clear that's not". That'll teach me to post in the morning before I'm awake...

Sandra Miesel

Something apparently unknown to contemporary Muslims is that their arts did depict human beings, other living things, and even the Prophet himself. Flip though any book on Islamic illuminated manuscipts or decorative arts and see. But inasmuch as the Islamic world hasn't produced any interesting art within its own traditions for several centuries, it's a wonder that they don't know.

BillyHW

Ignatius Press has a book cover with an image of Mohammed on it:

http://tinyurl.com/ck3dn

Miguel

Immigration is indeed an issue which should be considered in these United States. Muslims, who reproduce at a greater rate than Americans generally do, appear to be free to emigrate and reside in the U.S. There is no regard for whether these Muslim emigrants respect the civil freedom of individuals to practice their respective non-Islamic faiths or the freedom of Muslims to convert to Christianity if they so desire. Are we letting Muslims emigrate to the U.S. who in fact believe that Muslims should rule this country under their sharia law? Perhaps we have nothing really to fear in these matters, but on the other hand, it appears that we are engaged in what could be a long war with an Islam which does not believe in co-existing with Christians. Is the enemy already within the gates?

Ed Peters

SM should expand on her good point. look at muslim "art" and you see it's really decoration, patterns, designs. kinda pretty at first glance, but not art. still, it's better than i could do.

MenTaLguY

Ed, for Islamic depictions of Mohammed, see:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Contemporary Islamic art depicting Mohammed is rarer, but it does exist.

(Further down it also gives numerous examples of non-Islamic depictions and then discusses the cartoon controversy, including, near the bottom, pictures of some of the fabricated cartoons, and some later western cartoons in response.)

(n.b.: the last two groups of cartoons are definitely offensive, so be forewarned.)

CM Cody

In the article above is written:
NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's."

A group of Christians DID speak up, did take action and NBC has said they have pulled the offensive segment. We did our "protest" within legitimate methods of letter writing, faxes and phone calls to the network and it's affiliates.

Rain

Sorry to be picky (especially during a serious discussion) but the correct spelling is "iceberg".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

October 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad