Article 525.1 of the Spanish Penal Code prohibits publicly making fun of beliefs or ceremonies of members of any religious confession, or humiliating those who practice any religion. Pink News today reports that in Spain, a pro-family group, HazteOir, has invoked this provision in charges filed against organizers of this year's Madrid Gay Pride celebration. Marchers at the event carried a banner picturing Pope Benedict XVI on fire and calling him "chief of the inquisitors."
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
12 comments:
Yes, he should be upset. The formal title isn't "chief of the inquisitors", it's "Grand Inquisitor". They should correct the sign.
j/k
He actually doesn't do much inquisiting now. They should be a little more precise with what their issue is. He makes proclamations that he expects the world to follow, so "chief of the dictators" may be more appropriate.
Maybe so, but he's not really on fire, so this is an insult; unless, showing the Pope "flaming" is actually an endearing gesture by the gay demonstrators.......
It's okay for Teh Church to attack, insult, and demean gays, but it's not okay for gays to return the compliment?
Pretty unbalanced scales of justice, doncha think?
"The Church" demeans gays by believing and teaching that the gay lifestyle is in their opinion wrong? Since when is it an attack or an insult to believe that a particular behavior is wrong?
In this enlightened era of tolerance, I am dismayed by your narrow minded bigotry Mr. Chimera.
"Since when is it an attack or an insult to believe that a particular behavior is wrong?"
Probably since the Church has tried to make homosexual behavior illegal. Or, when they say homosexuals deserve divine punishment. Showing the pope on fire is actually a pretty close parallel to what he maintains will happen to them. And keep in mind the Church never says it's their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, they claim it's God's opinion.
"In this enlightened era of tolerance, I am dismayed by your narrow minded bigotry Mr. Chimera."
Oh. Right. Hating gays because they are gay is sooooooo tolerant. Telling the whole world to hate gays because they are gay is soooooo love-thy-neighbor.
"Since when is it an attack or an insult to believe that a particular behavior is wrong?"
Not when you "believe," but when you try to force that belief upon everyone else by creed, screed, deed, and legislation, that's when.
I don't care what the Church thinks. I do care that they promote hatred of one group of human beings to another group of human beings.
Wow, what a stretch. Just because you are very wrong in your opinion doesn't mean I hate you. Because somebody is a thief, or a drunk or a liar doesn't mean that I, or a church, or a community "hates" them. Believing something is wrong doesn't automatically invoke "hatred" of the person doing it. Quite the opposite, most religions teach that while homosexual behavior is wrong under God's law, the person isn't to be hated (OK, one religion will kill them, but that is rare).
Trying to legislate conduct in a society doesn't necessarily denote hatred either. A society usually does legislate behavioural standards. That is what society does. It usually is an evolutionary (or revolutionary)process, but its intent is usually for the greater good, even if misguided.
You like to throw around "hatred" as common place among peoples you disagree with. It's amazing how you can read minds and so acurately assess other people's thoughts.
Churches aren't forcing their beliefs on everyone else (OK , one religion is trying to) but rather are trying to convince, recruit, teach others to see things their way. It's because they don't agree with you that you decree them a hate group, trying to rule the world, oppressing minorities blah blah blah.
You pretty much spell it all out in your closing remark, Chimera, when you pit "group" against "group". Instead, try to consider us all just humans with opinions.
chimera unfortunately used the word "hatred" when your original post (if that was you, anonymous) was "since when is it an attack or insult". Legislating someone's behavior as illegal is an attack and insult, regardless of whether hatred is involved. Churches are often "trying to convince" by convincing legislators to make certain behavior illegal and sometimes by excommunicating politicians who hold a certain position.
"Hate the sin, love the sinner" might work if the sinner is repentant. If there were a murderer, teaching that murder is wrong but that the committer should be forgiven is fine if the person wants forgiveness. What about an unrepentant sinner, though? Is it really so practical in that case? Don't we hate murderers who gleefully say they'll do it again? The Bible doesn't actually give much in the way of guidelines for differentiating types of sin, each is similarly bad, and the specific penalty for homosexuality tends to be severe (though not mentioned much at sermons these days).
Churches try to get to my children to convince them when they're a captive audience in school. Just before I was born, it was churches that advocated making it illegal to marry the woman who is my wife. It is churches that agitate for the laws which keep me from buying things on Sundays (and keep business from selling them). Using the force of law isn't just trying to convince, it's trying to dominate. Force of law is appropriate for behaviors that are detrimental to all of society, not behaviors that you think are wrong purely because of an old book.
Who can't imagine Audrey Hepburn ... trembling ..."The gays in Spain stay mainly on the plain..."
Seriously, gays in Spain have finally won civil equality, fighting Catholic Church fossils every step of the way. Pontification from an ex-nazi - whats not to mock and revile?
"You pretty much spell it all out in your closing remark, Chimera, when you pit "group" against "group". Instead, try to consider us all just humans with opinions."
Read it again. I'm not the one that pits group against group. It's the spokesmen for organized dominating religions who do that. They pit those who want to be seen as "good" (however they define that) against those whom they say are "bad" (however they define that).
I'm all for individuals having individual opinions. One-on-one, there is room for everyone, and even those who disagree with one another are able to get along well enough to be effective in any task. But when any group (and I include religious organization in this) mobilizes against anyone they perceive to be outside their group ("bad"), that's hatred.
And you don't hate me because I'm wrong. You hate me because I don't care that you think you're the only one who's right.
Chimera, I don't hate you at all. You just are completely wrong. It's sad that you so quickly devolve every issue into a "hatred" thing.
I don't hate speeders but I will mobilize my neighbors to get a stop sign and enforcement on my street. I don't hate kids drinking underage but I might mobilize the high school parents to protest at a liquor store selling booze them, and without hating the store operator.
You are completely twisting your personal bias against religion into a global argument about humans uniting to create a stable societal environment. That is what governments are, that is what families are, that is was organizations of all kinds are. And nearly all of these "groups" disagree with something that somebody or some group does or represents. So what? That is why we have set up laws, and courts, and armies.
Sometimes these groups are wrong and sometimes they are right. You are saying that even the ones that are right are to be hated. What kind of boneheaded belief is that?
What you mean to say is; If Chimera doesn't agree, then they are dead wrong and haters and should be banished to hell forever, but most importantly, their rights to lawfully function in any society should be stripped away because Chimera saith such.
And it shall be so.
The arrogance.
hey folks why do you argue with people like this? it only helps to legitimise them.
if your child came home from school one day and started to argue that cows are in fact yellow in colour, you would correct them once and not enter into an argument with them.
same principle here. if some people want to believe the delusional stories of a book written by clueless people millenia ago then let them. just put your beliefs across positively, then laugh shrug and move on at the nonsensical ideas :))))) life is too short.
Post a Comment