Joseph ibus is-salib
Published:
October 20, 2008 at 11:09am
Never one to do anything by halves, the leader of the opposition gives the crucifix a good frenching.
59 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Featured Posts
-
Paltry €50,000 fine for illegal Siggiewi zoo lifted in exchange for state school visits...more
-
Owner of illegal Siggiewi zoo parties with Environment Minister one day before Planning Authority sanctions it...more
-
World Economic Forum index/Malta: public trust in politicians plummets 17 places in one year...more
-
When freeloading Clyde Puli spent 16 days at the Olympic Games in China and made us pay for it...more
-
The leader of the Nationalist Party and Miss Rebecca Dimech...more
-
Well, the Kap tal-Kattolici u l-Latini certainly has a roving eye...more
While I am sure you will receive lots of flak from people who think that some things should be sacred, I have to say that this is a brilliant caption.
In a “secular” country we shouldn’t be kissing crosses to take oaths, in the first place.
@Dave
What you said is true, granted. Recall however what had happened when Sant did not kiss the crucifix to take an oath – I had heard a wise woman telling her neighbour on the bus, (making sure that everyone else could listen) that “Sant Satanist”…
In Catholic Malta you can’t do away with kissing the cross. We’re so busy pretending to be staunch Catholics that things like that could potentially lose you an election.
[Daphne – There are reasonable ways out that offend no one. Sant’s dramatic refusal to kiss the cross was the other ridiculous extreme of Muscat’s french-kissing it. In court, for example, you are now merely asked to swear that you are telling the truth – the cross isn’t actually brought out for you to kiss. At least, in my case it isn’t because I have made a point of saying that I should be taken at my word, and there is no need to make me kiss a crucifix to prove anything. It has little to do with religion really, just a matter of respect for the person. If he is swearing something, then he should be believed without any crosses, bibles or mother’s graves involved. The problem with Sant was not his refusal to kiss the cross – it was his lack of belief in God that offended people. People are more inclined towards secularism now, but they certainly were not back then.]
I’m sorry to the the first to shoot the flak , but the caption is in very bad taste. I am not that relgious but i do have respect for the Crucifix, and describing what Joseph Muscat is doing to it in such deragatory terms is movingly offensive to someone with a thick skin like mine.
We make fun of Jospeh and lots of other people, but lets not do it to the Son of Man, shall we?
[Daphne – Actually, the whole point is that he’s not the son of man but the son of God. Come off it, Mario – you’re no better than the Mullah with the Danish cartoon.]
People who aren’t religious shouldn’t have to “respect” the crucifix at all. Why is there such an aura around religion that makes it wrong to poke fun at it like everything else? On the other hand, it’s fine for Christians to look down on non-believers isn’t it? Not believing in anything, or not knowing what one believes, are a belief systems in themselves.
[…] So come Joseph. Inhobbkom Joseph – the man who has laugh and smiles to dispense to all. You’d imagine the guy smiling at an Automated Teller Machine and telling it “grazzi” the moment it spoke to him – all the while flashing that nauseating smile that is as genuine as that of a model on a Sensodyne ad. Joseph probably studied the marketing books backwards and somewhere in the footnotes of “How not to alienate the conservative crowd for idiots” he must have read: When kissing the cross during the swearing-in do so passionately. And so he did. Much to the amusement of the pink side of the blogging world. […]
@J Grima
That’s precisely the reason why cross-kissing should be abolished completely from anything which has to do with the state. Not all politicians are Catholic, and not all the electorate they represent are, either.
I’m sure somebody will correct me if I’m wrong but I THINK that any act of blasphemy (to those who admit there is such a thing as blasphemy) harms the subject rather than the object, because it gives one the impression that whoever is being “blasphemed about” is just “somebody else” and not a sacred/hallowed spirit and/or supreme being.
In the case of “Joseph Muscat frenching a crucifix” it’s in bad taste only to those (us, in my case) to whom the Crucifixion means anything. On the other hand, one must not go overboard and scream blue murder .. it is just an IMAGE, after all. If we were to attribute any form of deity/sanctity to an image I THINK we’d be guilty of idolatry.
And, for the record, Jesus described Himself as the son of man, somewhere .. which is why Charles Manson was so proud of his surname and why David Berkowitz went with son of Sam …
Regarding Mario Debono’s comment, I don’t think that he can be compared to the Muslims’ reaction to the Danish cartoon. The last time I checked on the times website he wasn’t burning your (Daphne’s) house or anywhere remotely associated with you, now, was he?
[Daphne – I was kidding Mario, but that’s not to say that the roots of his reaction are not identical to those who feel themselves offended at a cartoon of Mohammed.]
May I add that as a non-believer I’m actually not required to kiss the cross at all, at least not anymore. While signing our wedding papers only my wife was made to kiss the cross, while I could pass after declaring I simply don’t believe in God. Perhaps in other occasions it’s different though.
[Daphne – So what we’re saying here is that non-believers are taken at their word, but Catholics are not to be trusted and so must swear on the Crucifix. Very amusing.]
QUOTE
but that’s not to say that the roots of his reaction are not identical to those who feel themselves offended at a cartoon of Mohammed.
UNQUOTE
I tend to agree there, but I would ask another question. Why should anyone take offence if one’s religious beliefs are challenged – or even questioned?
If somebody asked you, say, about some market trend or other and you didn’t know the answer off the cuff, or somebody challenged your figures would you take offence?
You’d probably do some research or check your sources and get back to your “challenger”, gaining more knowledge along the way.
The way I see it, the same methodolgy is applicable to a challenge to one’s religious beliefs. I don’t think that offence is a suitable reaction .. but then again, that’s only little me
Time to remove the clause about the Roman Catholic religion being the ‘official’ religion from the Constitution methinks.
Daphne,
What is so different between the caption above and the one of Gonzi on the Times of Malta:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080312/general-election-2008/gonzi-sworn-in-as-pm
[Daphne – Ask any woman: one of them is doing it out of conviction and the other is more concerned with how he looks. The clue lies in the partially open eyes.]
Daphne…..i am just offended. There are things you just dont say or do, especially on the effigy of the crucified christ. As i said, i’m not religious or even a mullah or a clap happy Charismatic. I am a catholic who tries his best and fails miserably most times. God knows, I enjoyed watching the Martin Scorsese epic on Christ,or even the Monty Phyton one, or even a rather memorable one in Mellieha some years back when someone decided to open the windows behind the stage where an easter pageant was being held on a freezing february day, prompting the normally eloquent actor representing Christ on the cross to shout at the backstage crew to close that Bl**dy window because his B**lls were freezing, to hilarious applause..with the rest of the cast clamouring that “ara, qed jghajjat lill Elija” to cover up ..i dont mind that. What i do mind is 1) Smarmy kissing of crosses, and then,of all people, by Mr Smarmy himself 2) the way the kissing was described. Sorry. It offended me….full stop. And, GUYS please credit me with a sense of humour.And a Jesuit traind Kuxjenza.I am not at all offended by HER comments :)
and for your info….He is described as the Son Of Man. And Of God.
[Daphne – Man as in human-beings, though – like MANkind.]
@Daphne and Dave
That’s exactly what I meant – the cross-kissing procedure is null. What Sant did might have looked dramatic – but the drama was blown out of proportion by the pseudo-catholics we have to face on a daily basis. Alfred Sant could have kissed the cross and no one would have mentioned anything, but that’s maybe one of the few things for which I admire him. From day 1 it was obvious that he didn’t have what it took to be a politician, yet he hated the church’s influence as much as I do.
And when will someone tell Dr.Muscat that he is overdoing it? Why does he have to be sensational in anything he does? MLP’s political strategies are too petty and sensational – and this after they admitted that University students contributed towards their failure in this year’s election. It’s an insult! They think that we’re going to buy the crap! excuse the language but that’s what it is
It’s a bit like Gordon Ramsay – pop culture does not associate him with food anymore but with his colourful language. When someone mentions Joseph Muscat, the first thing I can think of is… “Inhobbkom”
oooh – you really pressed some buttons here Daphne dear!
It takes two to french-kiss Daphne – do you also see Jesus on the cross participating in your imagination??
Its not even a question of being religious or not.
Are you that bored that you have to create sensation when there is absolutely none?
How depressing and disrespecful.
[Daphne – It takes two to French kiss? Really? Try telling that to any girl or woman who’s had somebody’s unwanted tongue shoved down her throat complete with attendant slobbering. You have no idea how we girls sympathise with the Crucifix.]
I am a believer, one of many, and it is sad reading these exchanges on such a serious theme.
[Daphne – Actually, I’m a believer too, after a fashion. Belief and the ability to laugh at what you believe in are not mutually exclusive, despite what tal-Muzew say. If you can’t laugh at the quirks of your own religion, you’ve no right to turn your nose up at those who start riots about Mohammed cartoons. The latter is just your approach taken to its logical extreme.]
what a totally nonsensical reply.
The point is the joke isn’t funny, just a weak excuse for another dig at the Opposition Leader. Your favourite passtime. Anyway we’re all expecting 5 years of the same repetitive drivel about every little thing Joseph does wrong in your eyes. It’s pretty predictable. Don’t disappoint us! Everyone needs a hobby especially if lucrative for business hux :)
[Daphne – Please clarify: are you a Jesus-freak or a Joseph fan? Or both? And before you go nuts, Jesus-freak is no longer a pejorative term: http://www.jesusfreak.com]
true Tino…Dr Gonzi seems to be a great frenchkisser! :)
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080312/general-election-2008/gonzi-sworn-in-as-pm
shall we hold a debate about who is the best cross-kisser?
what exciting debates you start wow daphne to be commended!
really relevant to the greatest good of our country
we should be proud of you seeing half the country’s population is so uneducated you’re doing a great service to bring the rest of us up to scratch! :)
[Daphne – Talk about a literal society….]
[Daphne – Ask any woman: one of them is doing it out of conviction and the other is more concerned with how he looks. The clue lies in the partially open eyes.] … and with raised eyebrows to boot!
[Daphne – Yes. If a man kissed a woman like that she’d know immediately he was faking it. The same principle applies in view of the crucifix. Very progressive, I must say.]
In Sweden a few years back, a photographer, Elisabeth Wallin, started an exhibition called “Ecce Homo”. This portrayed Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals and, in some cases if I remember correctly, as transexuals. Even in Sweden this sparked major controversy and quite a bit of outrage, although it was never stopped. If you find a bearded man kissing a cross offensive, this would have blown you away.
Personally, although not being afraid of germs in normal cases, I did find the whole kissing of the cross sequence quite disturbing. I had never seen anything like it before when I entered the registry office.
[Daphne – The only things I find disturbing are those involving children, animals and non-consenting adults. Everybody else can do pretty much what they like, including accosting a non-consenting wooden crucifix. However, given that the crucifix is considered to be a symbol of something deeply significant to Christians, I don’t think it should be abused by various random politicians seeking to prove that they are saying the truth when they swear to be loyal to the country, or whatever it is they swear. Their word should be enough. Yes, I do actually find it offensive to see the crucifix kissed by a charlatan, but hey – here’s the thing – the fans of the charlatan and of Catholicism think that what is actually offensive is mocking the masquerade, and not the masquerade itself. Here’s to the intelligence of the human race….]
@Mr Pace
That’s Tango…
It takes two to Tango…
I don’t know why all this fuss about disrespecting the crucifix. If God exists and is great, I’m sure he/she/it has a sense of humour and can take a joke.
[Daphne – Yes, that’s true. This might come as a surprise to some of these folks here, but if Jesus were alive and kicking and had to choose between my company and theirs, he would probably choose mine – and Mary Magdalene has nothing to do with it. He comes across as somebody who liked his fun and couldn’t stand hypocrisy. He would have probably been mad with rage at the sight of a charlatan kissing his tortured image to prove something that he doesn’t necessarily mean.]
Lol Daphne congrats on the witty caption!
Might I opine that I think Catholics should not feel offended by the above caption. We Maltese seem to have it ingrained “in our DNA” (sic!) that it is a taboo to satirise certain objects. And I purposely say ‘object’ because in this case the other party to the french kissing is nothing but a piece of wood only symbolising the crucifix and not the Crucifix itself. Imagine if we were Buddhists and JM had to frenchie the Buddha’s belly-button….
I’d be offended, not by Daphne’s caption but by JM himself if he had really done something icky, like if for example the real photo showed his tongue or if he bit instead of kissed, because that would then really be a show of disrespect on his part towards the object which is symbolising the crucifix… but fortunately the photo doesn’t show anything like this (yet this doesn’t deduct anything from the funny-ness of Daphne’s caption!) If anything, the link given above of http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080312/general-election-2008/gonzi-sworn-in-as-pm shows the PM’s lips more pursed…. And to continue the comparison, notice how in the JM photo Dr Galea kept holding the cross at a distance (ugh please don’t kiss it!), so that JM had no choice but to stretch his body, pull his face upwards essentially making him look like a baby swan (that would be the ugly duckling?) hungrily reaching for food. Contrast with the way the cross is held in the PM’s TOM photo, in a way which the PM had to bend his head down to do the kissing stuff, not reach up, which is certainly a more photogenic and gracious pose. Which he still spoilt by touching the cross with his lips… If the cross has to be kissed, in my opinion one should leave an inch distance – after all the kissing is only symbolic and never does one need to actually smooch it. Leaving a decent inch or so distance would show respect not only to the symbol/cross and to the people who as evident above might feel offended if the cross is slurped too eagerly, but also to anyone who, in the interest of hygiene has to touch that cross later on… So let’s be practical shall we?
We Maltese should learn to be light-hearted and enjoy making fun, especially of our politicians. After all, don’t those same politicians take us for ride after ride, year after year? [Pls Dr Gonzi give them those effing 5 bulbs or whatever, so they quit the storm they created in their teacups! At least for my sake because I can’t bear it anymore (not the lack of bulbs but the crying and bickering).]
That’s why (allow me to digress) my opinion is that not only politicians but also religion and its respective representatives, should be allowed to be the object of satire not only in the newspapers but also during such occasions like Carnival, and why not, Halloween. Coming to think of it, we have plenty of public figures available upon which to model extensively hideous Halloween costumes as well. Would make this quite recent addition to our festivities all the more varied and fun…
We all remember making fun of AS’s wig don’t we? And we make fun of JM’s hairdo even though he doesn’t attempt to cover it up as vehemently (he does need to learn some things — the main amongst them being that gelling up the hair makes it look more sparse and makes the scalp show, it’s better to just comb through and leave the hair naturally dry to get a fuller look — PR people note, Michelle note, I love you too :)
All politicians have their faults which can be made the object of satire, allow me to try out my own feeble wit: look at Dr Gonzi’s face full of throughs and bumps and hollows, while JM’s is as smooth as a baby’s… it reflects the same degree of wrinkling inside their heads as well because I bet JM’s grey matter is also quite exceptionally smooth unlike that of our PM’s… :) [As a courtesy to the readers who didn’t study Biology and Evolution, the more wrinkled the cortex of the cerebral hemispheres is, the more intelligent and advanced is the creature possessing such cortex].
All in all (hoping to be back on topic and apologies for the boring length of this post), I agree that this kissing of the crosses is all BS which should be abolished, and as others before me said also should the clause in the Constitution stating that Malta is a Catholic country. For the simple reason that it is not. The majority might be, but that’s no reason to discriminate against all the foreigners (and locals) who harbour some other religion or none at all.
When I was studying law (there I digress again!) I remember being amused by one particular piece of legislation which I admit I haven’t checked whether it is still in force or has been repealed but am ready to bet it’s still part of our law. It’s a fine of 50c (old cents not Euro obviously) for whoever is caught spitting on a catholic church ‘zuntier’. I remember thinking yeah so I can go in front of the Mosque at Paola and spit for all that it’s worth…..
Anyway that finishes it. And by way of disclaimer (I am not eager to end up on some Malta Today frontpage for what I wrote here) I don’t harbor any bad/malicious intentions in writing the above. I’m just a person who likes fun and wit, who likes poking it at all and sundry, even myself, and who got drawn here by Daphne’s great caption to the photo above.
[Further to that I am drunk and hence according to Maltese Law I am not to be held accountable for anything I wrote.
Nice excuse huh? And perfectly exonerating :)]
This is my all time favourite Jesus joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6UBgYV1r8
[Daphne – Thanks for the laugh. I bet Jesus would have loved it a whole lot more than Mel Gibson’s perverted exercise in sado-masochism. Now that’s one weirdo and a half…]
@Daphne – Actually, I’m a believer too
No you’re not
[Daphne – Are you in my brain now?]
Daphne…you’re pathetic!
[Daphne – If you say so, dear.]
This picture says it all. But Joseph’s faux-intensity isn’t the big deal.
The really shocking thing about this picture is that layman Speaker Louis Galea (who looks a bit like a Franciscan monk but isn’t one really) is ‘administering’ the crucifix to the leader of the Opposition (who isn’t an altar-boy but looks a lot like one in this photo).
This was a golden opportunity for Inhobbkom Joseph to show us that he’s serious about his ‘progressives and moderates’ pledge. Instead he’s just having his cake and eating it. As usual.
Maria Ballocca
If you look properly at the photos, you’ll see there’s a big difference: Gonzi is kissing the crossbar (i.e. the hand) while Muscat is kissing the centre of the cross (i.e. the mouth). It’s ok to kiss the hand but very rude to snog the mouth. Didn’t they teach you anything at the duttrina classes?
[Daphne – So what we’re saying here is that non-believers are taken at their word, but Catholics are not to be trusted and so must swear on the Crucifix. Very amusing.]
Some years ago when a Maltese Muslim was elected local counciller, he swore on the Koran. No one saw reason to mock him or his creed, and why should they, anyway? This has been so far , a free country. Taking the mickey out of Jesus or His followers is sooo cool and fun and so safe too. Isn’t it?
[Daphne – The difference is that the Muslim councillor would have asked to swear on the Koran because he believes in it. Here, if you’re Maltese and don’t make a point of claiming you’re Muslim, a crucifix is shoved in your face whether you like it or not, whether you’re a practising Catholic or not. Nobody bothers to ask whether the Crucifix means anything to you. Only Catholics kiss the cross when taking an oath. All other Christians merely place their right hand on the Bible, which strikes me as a more civilised thing to do. Catholics don’t use the Bible because they were dissuaded from having any sort of relationship with it in case they read it for themselves and got ideas.]
omg what a pathetic article! I do not check these articles so often…but lots and lots of people spoke about this special one today! It’s disgusting and pathetic.
[Daphne – omg its anudder layber elve]
QUOTE
Catholics don’t use the Bible because they were dissuaded from having any sort of relationship with it in case they read it for themselves and got ideas.
UNQUOTE
Says who?! I really can’t begin to imagine the nature of the source of some of your assertions. Honest.
[Daphne – Says no one. It’s a matter of historical fact. The Catholic Church argued that it never discouraged its followers from reading the Bible but that it only discouraged interpretation of the Bible – so in other words, you were allowed to read it, but not allowed to have any views on it. The only way to prevent people having views about something they read is keeping them in ignorance so that they feel themselves unable to formulate opinions, or persuading them not to read the thing in the first place. One of the original ‘schisms’ between Protestantism and Catholicism was that the new Protestant leaders encouraged a direct relationship with God and plenty of Bible-reading, without using priests as intermediaries or ‘interpreters’. Until then, those who weren’t scholars couldn’t even read the thing because it wasn’t available in a language they could understand. It was in Protestant countries that the Bible was first translated into the common language of the people so that they could read it themselves, published and disseminated. The wish to disseminate the Bible widely was in fact just one of the original motivating forces behind the development of printing. The idea in Catholicism that the Bible shouldn’t be read by lay people, who should instead have parts of it read out to them in church and explained to them by priests, persisted right up until our own time. In all the religion classes I was forced to sit through, there was the occasional reference to the Bible, but absolutely no reading from it, or encouragement to read from it. Contrast this with the Protestant equivalent of children’s ‘duttrina’ which was Bible classes at ‘Sunday school’, and which actually consisted of reading passages from the Bible and talking about them. Catholics were rather late in the day in coming to this – and it had to be by means of ‘prayer groups’ mainly organised by lay people, not by the organised church. Read this interesting article from The New York Times a century ago, just for its curiosity value. It opens in pdf format.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9506E0DB113BE631A25757C1A9649C946497D6CF
@ Hope: Actually its not an article. Its just a photo with a caption underneath it :P
sometimes you re a bit too much!!!
[Daphne – Too much for some is not enough for others. Really, how overly dramatic.]
“Says who?! I really can’t begin to imagine the nature of the source of some of your assertions. Honest.”
Martin Luther translated the bible into German and is one of the largest independent influences on the modern German language because of it. Now how did the papacy feel about this? You can bet they weren’t all cheery and celebratory about it. No, good grief, imagine the people can actually read the bible on their own, what a disaster.
yeah right.. and you never ARE!
[Daphne – One day I will understand why grown women are teleported to the school playground whenever they engage with other women.]
I think it’s your interpretation of a historical fact, and with all due respect to the new york times I would hardly call it a suitable platform to discuss scriptural interpretation.
As you probably know, the “first” Protestant was Martin Luther, who, rightly, spoke out against the indulgence racket. And some princes of the area jumped on the bandwagon. What started out as a theological discussion ended up as a political power struggle. His mistake was that he wanted to fix things from OUTSIDE … which as you know is not the way things work.
Following that, everybody and his brother had a valid opinion on the Scriptures because the net effect of Luther’s action was the “weakening” of the Catholic Church’s temporal powers in Northern Europe and over time there was no Church presence to speak of. And we know the result of that.. zillions of sects. Each sect getting whackier and whackier … and focusing on particular issues suiting their interests while remaining mum on (or ignoring)other issues.
The Catholic Church does not want this to happen. Which is why it directs interpretation of the Scriptures. And anyway … nobody is forced to accept it. You know it’s there. You know what “The Rules” are. You’re free to join or leave. You’re not “someone special” if you join and you’re not “someone special” if you don’t.
I still can’t understand why people insist on putting the church in a bad light when all they have to do is ignore it. live and let live, sort of thing.
[Daphne – The Catholic Church has some pretty whacky sects too, only most of them are called prayer groups nowadays. They speak in tongues and hold all-night vigils for ‘Paceville’. And then we laugh at the ones who pray around petrol pumps in the US. Please, I really don’t feel like another debate about what has been historically recorded. The role of the Bible in Catholicism and Protestantism respectively is not up for discussion. It’s just there. You can choose to disbelieve it in the way that Creationists don’t believe in dinosaurs, or you can choose to accept the evidence. But I’m not going to bicker about this just as I’m not going to bicker about whether dinosaurs truly existed. What really bothers me, though, is the way some Catholics feel they have to rush forward to defend the church even in its historical excesses. Can’t you just admit that the Catholic Church discouraged the reading of the Bible, that Protestantism encouraged it – mainly as a way of undermining Catholicism – and that now anyone who wants to read the Bible does so? Why is this so problematic? What next – defending the Inquisition?]
[@Daphne – The difference is that the Muslim councillor would have asked to swear on the Koran because he believes in it. Here, if you’re Maltese and don’t make a point of claiming you’re Muslim, a crucifix is shoved in your face whether you like it or not, whether you’re a practising Catholic or not. Nobody bothers to ask whether the Crucifix means anything to you. Only Catholics kiss the cross when taking an oath. All other Christians merely place their right hand on the Bible, which strikes me as a more civilised thing to do. Catholics don’t use the Bible because they were dissuaded from having any sort of relationship with it in case they read it for themselves and got ideas.]”
But whose business is it anyway wether one swears by the Bible, Koran or Talmud by kissing or placing one’s hand on it ? If an unbeliever has a Koran or a Bible or a crucifix shoved under his nose to swear on, as far as he or she is concerned it is just a religious symbol of no significance. If Catholics kiss crosses whilst others place their hands on a Bible, what’s the big deal anyway?
[Daphne -The big deal is that you shouldn’t have to swear on anything. Just taking a solemn oath should be enough. If you are asked to swear on a religious symbol, what you are being told in effect is that your solemn oath alone is not believed, unless you invoke God and religion, implying that God’s wrath will be brought down on your head if you perjure yourself, and not just the wrath of the law on perjury.]
“[Daphne – The Catholic Church has some pretty whacky sects too, only most of them are called prayer groups nowadays. They speak in tongues and hold all-night vigils for ‘Paceville’. And then we laugh at the ones who pray around petrol pumps in the US. Please, I really don’t feel like another debate about what has been historically recorded. The role of the Bible in Catholicism and Protestantism respectively is not up for discussion. It’s just there. You can choose to disbelieve it in the way that Creationists don’t believe in dinosaurs, or you can choose to accept the evidence. But I’m not going to bicker about this just as I’m not going to bicker about whether dinosaurs truly existed. What really bothers me, though, is the way some Catholics feel they have to rush forward to defend the church even in its historical excesses. Can’t you just admit that the Catholic Church discouraged the reading of the Bible, that Protestantism encouraged it – mainly as a way of undermining Catholicism – and that now anyone who wants to read the Bible does so? Why is this so problematic? What next – defending the Inquisition?]”
Why pick on Catholics for doing what followers of all other religions do , ie stick up for what they believe? Is’nt it the same as in the case of staunch party political diehards who defend their political party at all cost , no matter what? So why single out Maltese Catholics at every opportunity?
[Daphne – The fact that followers of other religions do the same does not mean it is right or even wise. I don’t ‘pick on’ Maltese Catholics. I live among them. It would be more than a little odd if I ignored the Maltese Catholics and wrote about, say, Muslims in some remote region of the former Soviet Union. Besides, people like you, who are always on the defensive, make the exercise an interesting one.]
No one in his/her right mind can defend the Inquisition outside its context, just as much as no one can justify the building of empires with today’s frame of mind. I don’t know why you keep throwing in irrelevant asides. To confuse less knowledgeable readers, perhaps?
And why mention the “emotional” side of Catholicism as representative? Everybody knows that “speaking in tongues” and “all night vigils” are dangerously close to showmanship. Personally, I don’t think too highly of such activities, but then again that’s just me.
You imply that the Church aims to foster ignorance and fear. Everybody knows who opened the first university in Malta. Everybody knows who oopened the first banks in the world. Everybody knows under whose patronage were the artists and scientists “responsible” for the Renaissance. Everybody knows who runs one of the world’s most advanced observatories…
The debate is not about what has been historically recorded but of your impression/inference/interpretation of it. And before you even think of mentioning that the bible was in Latin, bear in mind that Latin was the lingua franca of the day, just as English is today, so it allowed academics from different countries to understand each other. That is also why we’re stuck with scientifc names for species in Latin and why scientific papers are written in English. Would you argue that the scientific community wants to keep the man in the street “in the dark”? Probably.
[Daphne – Your first para: it is you who are defending the Catholic past in the irrelevant context of the present, whereas I am saying that you should just accept it and move on. I am not describing prayer groups and so on as representative of the Catholic Church – my use of the word ‘sects’ indicates that this is precisely how I don’t see them. I don’t imply that the Catholic Church aims to foster ignorance and fear. I never imply anything. I say it straight out: that the Catholic Church sought to maintain ignorance and to foster fear. I used the past tense, not the present tense. The University of Malta has its roots in a Jesuit college. The first ‘banks in the world ‘ – I assume you mean Europe – were set up and run by Jews, and famously so, because Christians were not permitted until fairly recently in historical terms to lend money at interest, just as Muslims are still not permitted today. The great bankers of Europe were without exception Jewish: does the name Rothschild ring any bells? Jews made their progress through Europe by providing a service no Christian could provide: money-lending. Hence the famous starring role in The Merchant of Venice. The role they performed as money-lenders was in fact largely responsible for anti-Semitism: we all hate and resent those to whom we owe money. Starting a pogrom against Jews was one way of making sure that your debts were not going to be called in. Latin was definitely not the lingua franca of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance period. It can definitely not be compared to the role of English today. It was the language of scholars and very educated people. It was not accessible, because learning was not accessible. Scientific names are not ‘Latin names’ – this is a common misunderstanding, based on the fact that they sound Latin and that’s how the system began. Now they are just that: scientific names. Latin is a full language, not a naming system. Does the scientific community want to keep non-scientific people in the dark? No: you answer your own question yourself by pointing out that scientific papers are written in the most widely understood language of the contemporary world.]
You are a very patient woman.
[Daphne – Discussion is important. Very often, when people have fixed views on things, it’s because they’ve never had the opportunity of seeing them differently.]
…erm .. the first banks were run by the Knights Templar, the military arm of the Church.
The Jews were money lenders, which is not quite the same thing, as loans weren’t all the rage then.
Scientific (taxonomic) names ARE Latin names, there is no misunderstanding about it – common or eclectic. Anyone discovering a new species has to Latinise the name.
Re your comment about English being the most widely understood language of the country … I dare you … go to Barcelona and try to get by in English. BARCELONA, not the provinces….
[Daphne – I honestly can’t understand what you are trying to prove here. The Knights Templar? If anything, the most powerful banks of the 15th century were run by Italians, but they operated like pawnshops, taking goods instead of interest. The papal ‘banking’ operation did the same. The most powerful Italian bank was the Medici bank and it operated in close collaboration with – you guessed it. I have to make do with directing you to articles on the internet, unfortunately, but this is a reasonably comprehensive one http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/medici.html
Right up until the late 18th century, pawnbrokers were called ‘lombards’ in England, because of the association between the Italian way of ‘banking’ and the pawning of goods. There might be the equivalent in other European languages. If you see a street called ‘Lombard Street’ in a British city, that’s not where the Lombards lived, but where the pawnshop was. The surname ‘Lombard’ does not necessarily mean that this person’s ancestor came from Lombardy. It means he was a pawnbroker. It is in the same class of surnames as Taylor, Cooper, Smith, Miller etc. There is no equivalent surname for banking or money-lending, but European Jewish family names are ripe with references to gold. Banks were primarily glorified money-lenders and still are today. It was always the money-lending function, and not the safety deposit function or the letters of credit function, that was paramount. And it was the money-lending function which, at the end of the day, has caused the current crisis we are seeing.
The Latinisation of scientific names has about as much to do with Latin as the words ‘kuxin’ and ‘xorts’ have to do with Maltese. You can’t invent words for a language that hasn’t been spoken for 1,500 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature . I’m surprised you are unaware that calling them ‘Latin names’ is the mistake of the non-scientific amateur, when you are a scientist and I am not, but I have known this for years, probably since O-level biology lessons.]
I hope that you can touch-type.
[Daphne – Almost all women of my generation can touch-type. We were packed off to secretarial courses as soon as we finished our O-levels. It has served some of us in very good stead. I was once typing something out in somebody else’s office and looked up to find a tiny crowd of curious on-lookers. It was so funny. I don’t think anyone is taught to touch-type anymore.]
“I was once typing something out in somebody else’s office and looked up to find a tiny crowd of curious on-lookers. It was so funny. ” o kemm qed nidhaq……imma nimmagina lil alan montanaro jimitak. now that was funny.
[Daphne – Kemm int bniedma antipatika, hanini. Alan and I have known each other all our lives, and grew up in the same neighbourhood. If you imagine for one moment that he was impersonating me in the spirit in which – say – you or the Labour Party would, you are way off the mark. Alan doesn’t really need to try hard to impersonate me, given that he is more or less the male version of me. What I found most amusing, actually, is that he clearly still pictures me as a thin person. What I find even more amusing is that people like you are addicted to your negative feelings towards people like me. When I don’t like people, I just avoid them. I don’t hang around their blogs getting upset. You should try it sometime.]
the Knights Templar ran the 1st operations that can today be called banks, long before the lombards and the money-lending operations of the jews. They were disbanded in 1305 as a direct result of false allegations made against them by Philip the Fair (VI or VI, I forget which)
Re: your comment about people having fixed views because they’ve (we’ve, possibly?)never had the opportunity of seeing them differently … you may be interested to learn that, with me, it was the other way round. I devoted most of my free time reading stuff about cosmology and evolution in an attempt to do away with the need for introducing a Supreme Being, but Nature is so beautiful, perfect and logical that it must have been created. The debate as to how it was created rages on – but even if we admit that the universe created itself in a Big Bang, you cannot escape the fact thatthe laws of nature were such that they allowed the event to happen… You might find Martin Rees’ Six Numbers intriguing, in this respect.
From then on, it was all downhill, as I imagine you would say ;)
[Daphne – I’m really not into that kind of stuff, sorry.]
“Daphne – Besides, people like you, who are always on the defensive, make the exercise an interesting one.]”
It takes one to know one I guess.
[Daphne – Read my remark elsewhere about grown women using the language of the playground. Takes one to know one? What next – look in the mirror? Gesu hanin.]
“but Nature is so beautiful, perfect and logical that it must have been created”.
It depends on what one means by “nature was created”. Evolution teaches us that simple things cumulatively give rise to complex things. Therefore, the “creator” need not have been complex. Atheists, after all, do not dismiss outright the idea of a “first cause”. They simply disbelieve that the “first cause” would have necessarily been omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent.
Also, we say that nature is “beautiful”, “perfect” and “logical” only because our species has survived natural selection. Millions of beings from extinct species (as well as trillions of hypothetical beings who would not survive in our nature) would claim otherwise.
Nature is neither “perfect” nor necessarily “beautiful”. We just happen to be beings who thrive in nature’s “laws”. As for beauty, it is subjective and has no value of its own.
Richard Dawkins gives eloquent explanations on this topic in most of his books (not just The God Delusion).
“The debate as to how it was created rages on – but even if we admit that the universe created itself in a Big Bang, you cannot escape the fact thatthe laws of nature were such that they allowed the event to happen… You might find Martin Rees’ Six Numbers intriguing, in this respect.”
I really have no problem with your view of it and even find the deist view highly enlightened, although to me not very satisfactory. What troubles me is that the theory seems to suggest that the laws of psychics are highly tuned to life as we know it, while every evidence seems to me show the opposite. In fact, the amount of space that is actually non hostile to life, compared to the amount of space that is hostile is so unbelievably small in comparison. On top of it there are several physicists, most notably among them Victor Stenger, that have proposed models having several of Rees’ numbers altered and still generates very interesting chemistry, which suggest that life under very different circumstances could still be possible. It’s true we live on a planet, with just the right chemistry, with the exact distance to the sun allowing this to happen and to top it all off there is a gigantic body in space (Jupiter) deflecting asteroids, whose impact could wipe out life overnight, but in contrast to this stands all the billions of galaxies, containing billions of stars, each containing a multitude of planets, which doesn’t (as far as we know) support life. There is the fact that the second we leave our own atmosphere we have to put in a tremendous effort to even stay alive and even with our best minds and our best technology, the distance we can actually travel is only worthy of ridicule.
The thing is, to make a leap from the deists view, to an intervening god who cares about our quarrels, which symbols we pray to, who we sleep with (and how), what we eat and what words we are using, your suddenly not even in the same ballpark.
@ josette pace
“……imma nimmagina lil alan montanaro jimitak. now that was funny.”
At least now Labour party supporters are going to the Manoel and appreciate satire cause I remember when during a Christmas panto (when Labour was in government) some Labour supporters wanted to go backstage to beat the actors because as happens during MADC’s pantos they were taking the mickey out of some governemtn minister or other!
[Daphne – I don’t think Josette Pace is necessarily a Labour supporter. I think she’s one of those women who resent me on principle.]
Me antipatka? Mela ma tafx kemm int antipatka int jew. btw qed ninnota ma tantx tiehu gost min jikkritak’esagerajt ( i dont care about muscat ) i m no prude but just loathed the “frenching”.That s what i meant by too much. As if for one moment i didnt think that Alan is your friend. I m no elf . minix cuc bhal ma qed tahsibni. But Defsa s sketch was maybe one of the two or three good sketches out of seventeen that everyone laughed at.
[Daphne – Sanctimonious women, the worst. Now that they can no longer report other women to the Witch Police of the Inquisition, they’re at a loss. Actually, Josette, I’m hugely tolerant of, and largely oblivious to, any criticism in my regard. If that weren’t the case, I wouldn’t still be here two decades later. And I wouldn’t publish your comments. I would delete them. ‘I’m no prude but just loathed the ‘frenching’ – don’t tell me about it, honey. I’m not about to french you any time soon. Of course mine was just three sketches that everyone laughed at: I have far more entertainment value than the average politician, which is why you’re still stuck here instead of going away to chat to your prayer-group friends.]
Hundreds of years after Luther, Profs Saydon translated the Bible in Maltese. The political and religious opposition he faced is proof enough that the local Church was not too happy about it.
People reading the Bible in their own language. Whatever next?
“Daphne – I don’t think Josette Pace is necessarily a Labour supporter. I think she’s one of those women who resent me on principle.”
IC that is one of those women who resent any other woman who is successful in life.
[Daphne – I didn’t want to spell it out myself, but yes. Their line of argument is always the same: that it is not a good thing to be me, and therefore they can console themselves that they made the right choices in life. If they begin to feel for a moment that it is actually quite a good thing to be me, they go nuts. However, I went to a convent school between the ages of 4 and 15, so I’m more than equipped to deal with bitchiness.]
I got lost somewhere around the twentieth post. Cosmology? Templars?
[Daphne – I know. Why are some men fatally magnetised by these things? I have yet to meet a woman who doesn’t run a mile when she hears the word Templars. If somebody comes up with a computer-game based on the Templars it will be a sell-out. But maybe they have already.]
“If somebody comes up with a computer-game based on the Templars it will be a sell-out. But maybe they have already.”
– Assasins Creed
– Da Vinci Code (the video game)
– Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templar
– Starcraft (futuristic game, containing templars)
Thats just from the top of my head. I suppose it’s a guy thing…
[Daphne – Spare me. You would think that in a ‘guy’ household I would know about these things, but they’re not into them either.]
Daphne,you re right about one thing only. I m not a labour supporter. but then again i m neither sanctimonious nor attend any prayer groups many of which i hate with a passion. and again dont resent you either, anzi if i m here it s just that i like your columns. As for being envious of successful women? shut up dear edward.you dont know me. i m not the ambtious type.. quite happy to be myself…and if im here so are all of you it seems.
[Daphne – You don’t have to be ambitious to be successful. You just have to do something you’re good at, to the best of your ability. It’s that old Protestant work ethic….]
The strong reaction to this supposed offence against Catholicism sits oddly with the attitude towards immigrants from Africa, which is a real (as opposed to perceived) offence against “our Catholic identity”.
[Daphne – Ah, but religion isn’t a way of life. It’s a badge of national identity. Christian since St Paul, remember?]
Daphne – “I don’t think anyone is taught to touch-type anymore”
Surprisingly, my 8-year-old’s IT teacher is patiently including a section about touch-typing during her lessons. Not that it’s of much use, mind you, seeing that most of them have probably been playing around with internet for a couple of years already, and have thus mastered their own (slower, but still functional) method of typing.
I am not surprised at all with the defensive & aggressive reaction from “religious altese people”, I know people like that at work and in my personal life.
The problem with these people is that they do not tolerate that others are sceptic or non-believers and that makes them fundamentalists and extremists.
I once read that religion starts where reason ENDS. I think that this quote makes a lot of sense.