Replies

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.

It does, and it should.

This principle applies obviously for any religion.

How about cults who claim religious status? Lot of 'em to go around, and one of them is extraordinarily popular, comprising 1/5 of the world's population.

The problem with denying others their freedom to their own religion is that they will deny us ours.

Ever hear about the Know Nothing movement?

In theory, I should love a situation where the official religion of the US would be Christianity, but then one needs to ask, which brand of Christianity?

In Maryland's past history, there was a time that Catholicism couldn't be openly practiced. Priests had to dress in street clothes, rather than clerical garb. Mass could only be celebrated in private homes, rather than churches, leading to an interesting architectural phenomenon, the 'home church' (the entrance to the church was always through a private home, thereby making it a private home, rather than a church). I'm certain that in Europe, after the reformation, it would have been likewise difficult for a Protestant group to worship publically as they'd like in a 'Catholic region,' as well.

IMHO (and YMMV), it's far better to allow a open marketplace (which really doesn't exist today anywhere) and allow people to make their own choices on how they choose to worship. [Note: that's different than the ACLU vision of supressing all religions other than that of secular humanism]

In the meantime, if you want somebody to respect your freedom, you need to allow them theirs. It doesn't work one way without the other.

I think Catholics need to take another look at this document. We are bound to it since it was the teaching of the council. (Please all you Vatican ii is not valid folks please dont respond). We certainly can under the teaching of the Church support the current free speech laws that allow the "publication of cartoons" However it really doesn't get us off the hook as to how we deal personally with the issue. It also must guide our feeling to what sort of political action we cannot advocate. Interesting to read it again.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

"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."

With all due respect, they are flat wrong here. Religious sentiments are no more protected than opinions about sports teams. My view is something I can express. If you are offended, state your case in rebuttal or shrug it off and be quiet.

Freedom is a tough game but that's how adults play it. If you can't play, find the bench.

Actually, the cartoon response was not in reaction to the content of the cartoons, but simply that they depicted Mohammed in the first place. The reason that the cartoons were drawn was because the publisher could not find an artist who dared to illustrate a book on Mohammed because of the threats of Muslims against people who depict Mohammed. So we are technically not even talking about insults, but about the doing of something that is harmless and was not intended to offend in one culture, met by a violent offended reaction from another culture.

I don't think even the Vatican's non-offense policy would apply in that case.

While as simple courtesy it might be a good idea not to gratuitously insult people's religions - after all, the missionaries the Church used to send out treated the native religions with respect but still convinced people that they were not true or complete - I don't see how this could be used by the Muslims to justify their imposition of a religious taboo on the rest of us.

I respectfully disagree with the Holy-See.

As a Christian, I can only expect Jesus Christ to be revered and respected by other believers. We have no control over disbelievers treatment of our Saviour or attitudes toward our beliefs, whatsoever. We can only pray for them.

People are worshiping a very pathetic and helpless Deity when they feel they must violently attack those who they feel has disrespected their God.

TSK! TSK! TSK!