Blasphemy?

Lapin

Anyone know where and when this art exhibition is taking place?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

The issue is far simpler. Is a secular government obliged to protect the religious sensibilities of people?

Yes. An atheistic government which wont protest them and institute a "There is no God and we will work against any who ask us to respect their religious beliefs" regime.

I don't see why it should be.

Every time that happened in history you could count the corpses. Hundreds of millions of them! That's a reason why.

Though it is obliged to protect children (and it is argued that even artwork is damaging, as it promotes a culture of such crimes).

The Church is helping children worldwide. I don't see international atheism helping any of them . Their meetings seem to be more concerned with talk and doing down religions.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that isn't the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

I stand corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

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.

joolsveer

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.

What I mean is that catholic churches are generally packed with art works and statues of saints, popes etc. as opposed to churches the protestant tradition.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration_of_Images

joolsveer

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..

Would an artistic lack of respect for the BVM be considered by the state to be blasphemous and prosecuted?

ISAW

joolsveer wrote: »

My mother is a real person, whereas the BVM is imaginary, so I would be against abuse of my mother.

Already dealt with earlier. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72821282&postcount=10

An image can be abused.

On a related issue . Look up "iconoclasts". IIR the image of Christ was not there in paintings for about two or three centuries. When it arrived it was usually depicted as a lamb beside the cross. the body of Jesus eventually was depicted on the cross fully clothed. Later the current image ( with just a loin cloth) became usual. Im not aware of a naked version of Jesus on the cross ever being culturally acceptable.

gigino

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.

If Jesus came back he probably would not get it either. He said " This do in remberance of me". He did not say " This do in remberance of Mary". If she was that important, would'nt she be mentioned more than 3 times in the bible ? Also, if people get upset over graven images, would that be why in the bible it says to avoid graven images ? There are other more important things in the world to be worried about, like hunger, disease, over-population, climate change, depletion of natural resources etc.

gimmebroadband

One of Jesus' last words on the Cross was of His Mother, he gave Her to John and us! 'Behold thy Mother!!

Catholics don't worship 'graven' images, and I don't know of any that do! OTOH, people worship money, and they depict graven images!

Brian Cowen was the recipient of some 'interesting' artwork not too long ago, and he didn't like it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cowen_nude_portraits_controversy

gimmebroadband

Lapin wrote: »

Anyone know where and when this art exhibition is taking place?

There's a big exhibition scheduled for 'Judgement Day!'

Ellis Dee

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

I don't think anyone is 'entitled' to make fun of anyone's belief or unbelief, live and let live!

Ellis Dee

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I don't think anyone is 'entitled' to make fun of anyone's belief or unbelief, live and let live!

I believe it is everyone's right. Try to make a distinction between persecuting people for their beliefs (which is definitely a no-no) or discriminating against them (likewise to be utterly opposed) and making fun of things that are --- well, funny -- Live and let live has to include allowing people to express whatever religious views they wish, provided they do not try to harness the civil law and force others to act according to their religious precepts, but it also must include not prosecuting or victimising people who express their amusement at those views.

Go to YouTube, for example, and have a look at some of George Carlin's or Bill Maher's stuff. Especially Carlin gave a lot of people a great deal of happiness with his brilliant satire of religion.

gimmebroadband

Well first it starts off as sattire and when that's not enough........

I will defend my right to believe in God and to practice my faith!

Ellis Dee

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Well first it starts off as sattire and when that's not enough........

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:

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I will defend my right to believe in God and to practice my faith!

It would probably astonish you to find out how many atheists, including me, would defend you if anyone ever tried to stop you doing those things.;)

Bob Cratchet

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:

Well it hasn't worked for at least 2500 years.
The book of proverbs provides good advice about scoffers and mockers.

If someone has to resort to satire for anything, then they've lost the argument, and deep down they know it, hence the insecurity and then the need to resort to scoffing and mocking.
It's just an ad hominem argument from there on in.

If someone had nothing better to do, it would be quite easy to satirise the Godless and faithless and scoff and mock them.

Ellis Dee

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Well it hasn't worked for at least 2500 years.

It works for me. I still have control of my own mind.:)

philologos

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.

Guitar_Monkey

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

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.

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

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It works for me. I still have control of my own mind.:)

Glad to hear it, so do theists.

Ellis Dee

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.

Faint praise, indeed! But, as always with religious people, you are the one who arbitrarily makes the definition (in this case of what is and isn't good manners and what is obnoxious) and then expects everyone to agree with that definition. The so-called pro-lifers and Youth Defence bullies with their arbitrary decisions are examples of the same thing. If you want respect from me, give me evidence - any at all - that a supernatural being exists.:rolleyes:

philologos

Ellis Dee: I've given numerous reasons. This thread is about blasphemy. I think it should be 100% legal for people to blaspheme just as much as I believe it should be 100% legal for people to be rude and obnoxious.

I don't expect you to hold any definition I hold. I'm just telling you don't be so surprised if people turn off if they hear you claiming that they haven't thought about what they believe, that they are less intelligent or other such vitriol that you come out with. You have free speech, but who says that all must accept what you say? The same is true for me.

Bob Cratchet

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.

Mary, the mother of Jesus is a peaceful an inoffensive figure, as I'm sure so is your own mother.

So if I painted a derogatory picture of your mother in an attempt to damage her character and reputation, and I put it on public display, and you took offense, I could easily retort with ;

"offence is usually in the eye of the beholder, in the eyes of people who choose to take offence. That is your way of seeking to dominate others. What a cowardly cop-out it is to just scream "offence" every time someone says something that ridicules your belief about your mother!"

No one is asking anyone to believe eachothers beliefs, but don't expect people to tolerate or respect intolerance.

Ellis Dee

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Mary, the mother of Jesus is a peaceful an inoffensive figure, as I'm sure so is your own mother.

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.

The difference between her and Mary is that I know for certain she (my mother) existed.

philologos

Sometimes I have to wonder is Ellis Dee a reincarnation of the one and only rohatch.

Ellis Dee

philologos wrote: »

Sometimes I have to wonder is Ellis Dee a reincarnation of the one and only rohatch.

Let me tell you that I have never heard of rohatch. Look at my profile and you will see that I only joined about a week ago and have never been here before. Whether or not you believe me is likewise pretty irrelevant to me, but I'm glad to see you wondering about something rather than just automatically believing it. Developing an enquiring mind is definitely the way to go IMHO.;)I suppose it will be a simple thing for one of the site administrators to check my IP number and then that of rohatch. It would greatly surprise me if we were even in the same country.

I don't believe in reincarnation, either.;)

Guitar_Monkey

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.

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.

Bob Cratchet

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.

Ellis Dee

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.

You really need to chill a bit.:rolleyes: And stop lecturing people so self-righteously.

I did not understand that this is a Christian forum. I thought it was a general forum and that this was a thread discussing blasphemy. Are you sure it is a Christian forum, and do you really expect everyone to just accept that particular ethos?

As it happens, I am totally opposed to anti-blasphemy laws. Totally. And I also believe Ireland has a really shameful history of censorship and hope we never go back there.

However, when you write: "So do you believe in a society where everyone can just do whatever the hell they please with no regards to anyone else?", you are indulging in utter absurdity and really need to cop yourself on. I never said that people could do whatever they please. I said they should be free to express their opinions. There is a difference, you know.:rolleyes:

Incidentally, you mention the Life of Brian movie. Fortunately, it was not banned in the country where I lived; almost nothing is in peacetime. There were quite a few self-righteous and judgemental fuddy-duddies tut-tutting about it in the newspapers, but that died down very quickly when one of the country's most respected film critics - who happened to be both an acquaintance of mine and an ordained minister, as it happens - wrote his review and pointed out that the movie was not mocking God at all, but was a fantastic send up of people.

Ellis Dee

Bob Cratchet, As I said already, I am mourning my mother and I asked you not to drag her into this discussion. Anyone who wasn't a scut would have left the matter at that and discuss issues rather than persons.

if you represent what Christianity is all about, then I'm doubly glad that I have nothing to do with it. Nor will I ever want to.:mad::mad: