Posted on 03/11/2006 2:34:03 AM PST by HarleyD
Excuse me?
Yep.
Having the right to say something does not make what you said right.
Don't put words in my mouth and then attack for something I never said.
That's a loser's way to debate.
First of all I wasn't attacking, and secondly my post was posed as a question. .....and I'd appreciate an answer.
The Vatican claimed that "The right to freedom of thought and expression ....cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers. This principle applies obviously for any religion."
I asked you if this principle applies to fringe groups (like Scientologists and Wiccans) who claim religious status, and you replied (in post #22) with "yep."
Then I asked you point blank, for clarity, if you believe that no one has the right to "offend the religious sentiments" of the followers of those fringe groups.
Still waiting for an answer....
....lol...and no, you're not being "attacked."
I entered the "debate" here, in response to your defining other religions as cults.
You responded here, and commented that the Vatican's words had to apply to the religions mentioned in your post, to which I said yes here.
What you asked, was whether I believed that the Vatican's words should apply to those groups.
The Vatican said what it said, and their action should be consistent with what they said.
What THEY said Mojo, I did not say it, they did.
So again, don't put their words in my mouth, then attack me for what they said.
Here's your quote:
"Well, since those two groups have declared themselves to be religions, then I gather you believe no one has the right to "offend the religious sentiments" of their followers?
What both you ad I should gather, is that since the Vatican said that no one has the right to "offend the religious sentiments" of the followers of other religions, then the Vatican should not offend the religious sentiments of Wiccans and Scientologists.
So, my answer to the question you posted on #19, is still a resounding YES, the Vatican should stand by what they said, and not "offend the religious sentiments" of the followers of other religions.
I would have preferred if they had made it clear that mutual respect would be a moral requirement, not necessarily a legal one.
I totally agree. The fact that the bishps have ignored the directives as to sacred music is obscene.
UNfort for a Catholic if its so easy. This was a Council of the Church. Therefore its free from error. Of course the immediate statement we see is not that but again is an interpretation of those documents. Some level of assent is implyed here Again I dont quite agree with your example there and I dont think thats what the Church is talking about at all. Paul was there but he was notstanding up ranting. Again there was still a connection between the Jews and Christians at that period so Paul was not some rabble there. Paul would not have insulted Jewish customs.
The question I posed in #19 was not whether the Vatican should offend the religious sentiments of the followers of other religions (the article made it made perfectly clear that the Vatican believes that no one has the right to offend the religious sentiments of followers of other religions, which as I pointed out in post #20 is a statement of sheer nonsense), but whether the Vatican should recognize fringe groups (like Wiccans and Scientologists) who claim religious status as religions.
So I'm asking YOU: Do you believe the Vatican should recognize Wiccans and Scientologists as religions, given the fact that both groups claim relgious status?
We just let them be offended.
The Vatican should abide by their stated position on all religions, because they did not include a disclaimer or a qualifier in their statement.
Here's the Vatican's statement:
"1. The right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers. This principle applies obviously for any religion."
What part of that statement is not clear to you?
If the Vatican recognizes the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which include freedom of religious thoughts, by what right would they claim the ability to either recognize, or not recognize the right of freedom of religion as stated in the very same document?
Really?
Here's post #19:
"I see, so if Wiccans or Scientologists declare themselves a religion then they're a religion, no questions asked. ....and the Vatican's words would have to apply to them too."
I know that English is a second language to me; but I don't any sort of a question in your post, I see a statement.
"...the article made it made perfectly clear that the Vatican believes that no one has the right to offend the religious sentiments of followers of other religions, which as I pointed out in post #20 is a statement of sheer nonsense..."
Let's see your post #20:
"The right to publicly criticize religion is protected by the U.S. Constitution."
Let's now read the First Amendment (I think that's what you base your statement on):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The U.S. Constitution forbids the Federal government from abridging your religious freedoms as well as your freedom of speech, I don' see where it forbids the Vatican from ITS freedom of speech regarding what it thinks about this subject.
You spin like a Democrat.
So why did you write this in post #29?: "So, my answer to the question you posted on #19, is still a resounding YES."
When I responded to your post #29 I took your word for it that I indeed asked a question. Obviously I shouldn't have trusted your reading abilities, as you shown time and time again.
The U.S. Constitution forbids the Federal government from abridging your religious freedoms as well as your freedom of speech, I don' see where it forbids the Vatican from ITS freedom of speech regarding what it thinks about this subject.
I doesn't, and I never said it did.
You spin like a Democrat.
You read like an idiot.
I realize understanding this might be tough for an ESL student, but I'll give it a go anyway. Here's the Vatican's statement:
1. The right to freedom of thought and expression ....cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers. This principle applies obviously for any religion.
They're talking about the right to offend the religious sentiments of believers, and they don't believe that right exists. I maintain that it does, as the First Amendment confirms. I said absolutely nothing about the Vatican not having a right so say whatever it wants.
Now hit those books, kid.
Oh, really?
However, your having the right to say something, does not equate to what you said being right, or without legal consequences. There are acknowledged limitations to the First Amendment, and you are held liable for the extent of your "critizism" of others and the actions those words incite or intended to incites.
Plenty of case law concerning limitations on free speech available to "scholars" such as yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.