Is the host a biscuit? It depends on what you believe.

Published: April 5, 2008 at 4:00pm

This comic strip came out of the American ‘Intelligent Design’ debate, in which the existence of dinosaurs is questioned by those who take the Old Testament literally. They are insisting that children in schools are taught ‘the two sides of the argument’ – the Intelligent Design side which doesn’t believe in evolution, and the ‘dinosaur’ side, which does.

It has relevance to our own ‘the host is not a biscuit’ society.

Language is a Virus: The war on rationality




69 Comments Comment

  1. Albert Farrugia says:

    So now that the election is out of the way, and mission accomplished, back to the favourite hate subject, religion.
    Keep it up ta!
    As if in Malta anyone teaches creationism. I grew up having a Catholic education in Malta. Never was I made to doubt evolution. For me, the story of the creation is the religious interpretation of the fact that we are what we are.
    And, yes, I also read “The God Delusion”, from cover to cover.

    [Moderator – There is one Creationist school in Mosta actually, and although I don’t think Creationism isn’t as strong a trend here as it is in the US, we do like our magic shoelaces.]

  2. Francis V says:

    I think the favourite hate subject is not religion, but extremism which is normally the result of stupidity and the inablity to balance faith with reason.

    This is also true in politics where people are unable to distance themselves form the blind loyalty that they show towards their party of choice and therefore are unable to see things clearly. They are thus unable to accept criticism and end up with a seige mentality. Sounds familiar?

  3. Carmel Scicluna says:

    Daph, ghid li jien lura kemm trid imma jien nemmen li fl-Ostja hemm il-laham, id-demm, ir-ruh u d-divinita’ ta’ Kristu. Imma, hares, dan mhux Running Commentary General Elections 2008?

  4. RS says:

    Prova ta kemm l-Ostja hi sagra hu il-fatt li minn meta il-Laburisti, fi zmien KMB, kissru il-Kurja u xerdu l-Ostji ma l-art donnhom gabu sahta kbira fuqhom. ‘qern deus vult perdere, prius dementat’ – dawk li Alla irid li jitilfu, l-ewwel igenninhom!

  5. C. Cauchi says:

    Some people believe what they want to believe. Others believe what they are told to believe. The rest of us (probably a minority in this country) try to find out what the truth is.

  6. Joe Martinelli says:

    I notice that when one does not have a valid defence of their ideology, they always resort to ridiculing the issue.

  7. Albert Farrugia says:

    Yes, Mr/Mrs/Ms V…..sounds VERY familiar…a look at some blogs would certainly bean you out.

  8. @ Daph & Moderator says:

    Nissugerilkom biex titkellmu ftit ma’ Fr Anton Abela… nahseb titghallmu ftit fuq l-interpretazzjoni tal-Bibbja….

    Jaghmlilkom tajjeb hafna!!! U nassigurakom li ma tiddejqux titkellmu mieghu ghax qassis veru tal-genn, apparti li hu professur u intelligentissimu….

    Nice weekend

  9. Daphne Caruana Galizia says:

    @Daph & Moderator – I can’t speak for the moderator, but I can speak for myself. The mistake you make is to think that everyone is in search of (1) religion or (2) deeper meaning or (3) both of those.

  10. Ivan M says:

    @ “@ Daph & Moderator” nissugerilek li int tifhem x’qed jghid u tigi tghidilna int :-)

    Mhux ha nghidlek mur tkellem ma Stephen Hawking hux?

  11. Carmel Scicluna says:

    Ma nemminx li min jemmen jemmen ghax irid jemmen. Il-fidi ghandha x’taqsam ma’ dimensjoni sopranaturali mhux mal-hsieb f’mohh il-bniedem jew ma’ l-emozzjoni f’qalbu; hemm xiahag misterjuza li torbot il-fidi ma’ dinja ohra interzjata mad dinja materjali; ir-razzjonalita’ hi xihaga ta’ zmienna; xihaga tad-dinja; jghaddi z-zmien u r-razzjonalita’ possibilment tintesa, bhalma forsi ghad jintesa l-ezistenzjalizmu; trid tkun temmen bhal min jemmen biex tifhem ghalfejn temmen.
    L-iktar haga li taffaxxinani fuq id-duttrina nisranija hija din: fid-duttrina nisranija biss Alla gie fid-dinja bhala bniedem biex jigri wara l-bniedem; f’kull duttrina ohra – bl-akbar rispett lejha – il-bniedem jigri wara Alla.

  12. @ Ivan M @ Daphne says:

    @ Ivan
    Ma rridx nidhol f’polemika pero’, biex titkellem ma’ Stephen Hawking huwa prattikament impossibli imma biex titkellem ma Dun Anton veru facli. Tista ssibu jew l-Universita’ jew iccempel il-parrocca taz-Zejtun!

    @ Daphne,
    If you are not is search of religion or deeper meaning, then why are you writing on it? If something is not important to you, don’t write on it in the public! And by the way I also suggest you to get to know about the Focolare movement.. It’s a community where people having different religions live together in peace. In Malta there is a community of such.

    Nice weekend.

  13. Phaedra Giuliani says:

    “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” John 20:29

  14. Daphne Caruana Galizia says:

    @Carmel Scicluna – kif tispjega inti, Alla qisu xi Lawrence Gonzi f’din il-kampanja elettorali, jigri wara l-eluf ta’ disgruntled voters (din biex inkompli ma’ l-ispirtu elettorali tal-blog).

  15. Michael says:

    I find it offensive that anyone should claim that a host has supernatural powers,I think that anyone who claims that a host has these magical powers is therefore being offensive to my religious faith (or rather lack of it) and should be arrested for offending my morals.

    In any case, I wouldn’t even classify a host as a biscuit, I would classify it more as a crisp. Whoever called it a biscuit was being quite generous to the host in my opinion.

  16. Daphne Caruana Galizia says:

    @IvanM@Daphne – please give yourself a name and stick to it as you are causing confusion with this way of identifying yourself by using the names of the people you wish to address.

    The reason I write about religion is not because I am searching for deeper meaning. I write about it for the same reason I write about politics and social issues – I find human behaviour fascinating. Your idea that those who are not religious shouldn’t write about religion ‘in public’ is a curious one. I find that attitude fascinating too.

  17. Vanni says:

    @ C. Cauchi

    Some people believe what they want to believe. Others believe what they are told to believe. The rest of us (probably a minority in this country) try to find out what the truth is.

    I think that you left a big “rest of us” out, those who couldn’t care less. You see in this modern progressive world, believing is not hip any more, or maybe we are too busy to bother about religion?
    Anyway, I do believe that religion is an essentially private thing. We should forbear from ramming our beliefs (and also lack of them, BTW) down other persons throats.
    Finaly yes, the host is a biscuit, bread or whatever. Sure. Agreed! But it symbolizes something else to many people, and the insult the Libyan gent was not to the Host, but to the very thing that it symbolises.
    To take an example. One may very well argue that the Bible is just a bunch of bound up printed paper. But when one defaces it, one is insulting what it represents, and not the paper on which it has been written.

  18. Meerkat :) says:

    The Vatican Council II document on Divine Revelation (1965)
    The Catholic Church has asked forgiveness many times for her literal interpretation of the Bible especially in the Galileo controversy. without sounding apologetic, one has to take everything in context. It would have been wrong of the Church if she persisted in her position.

    The following are two important documents that are the cornerstone of biblical studies. It is always best to remain open to other people’s ideas regardless on which side one is situated. What is wrong, however, is confusing the US fundamentalists with the Catholic Church or even the Protestant Church. Indeed, it was the Protestant theologians who spearheaded scientific biblical studies that we know today.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
    for those among you who don’t want to read the actual document this is a quick link

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

    The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (1993)
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/catholic-interpretation.html

  19. Fr Anton Gouder says:

    Whether the host is a biscuit, does not depend upon what one believes (or thinks, or writes even without thinking or believing). But, here we are in the sphere of religion and faith. What is against the criminal code is not unbelief but serious disrespect towards the belief of the people. Who expressed himself was not taking part in an ecumenical or religious discussion. He just said what he said out of context. A person or two in this blog succeeded to come very close to him in this respect

  20. Carmel Scicluna says:

    Daph: hemm harira differenza. Il-politici jigru wara n-nies, ghal certu zmien, biex jahtfulhom il-vot. Il-Mulej jigri wara n-nies, sa l-ahhar nifs ta’ hajjithom, biex jaghtihom il-hajja ta’ dejjem. Dik imhabba ta’ veru, eh!

  21. Vanni says:

    @ Fr. Anton Gouder
    You wrote:
    “What is against the criminal code is not unbelief but serious disrespect towards the belief of the people.”

    May I ask if you agree that religion (any religion) should be protected, and if yes, why? I am not agreeing with the foreign gent, just curious on your views on this.

  22. Meerkat :) says:

    @ Fr Gouder

    Yes, you’re right. I read this blog ‘religiously’. I only feel irritated when someone who does not espouse my politicial convictions ‘attacks’ the party I support but in this case, I felt really offended, and may I say, hurt, by some comments bandied about here. There’s a fine line between challenging and ridiculing.

  23. Michael says:

    @ Meerkat :)

    Have you ever considered that every time a church bell rings, every time a religious procession walks the street, every time a house is blessed, we feel the church is ridiculing and offending non-believers?
    Do what you want in your houses, but please keep your god to yourself, we non-believers find your prayers blasphemous, your priests repulsive and your church oppressive.
    Respect us and we will respect you. There is no reason why religious and non-believers cannot live in harmony in Malta, just keep out of our face and stop offending and intimidating us.

    [Moderator – I am not religious, but I don’t share a sense of persecution with you. Are you being purposely hyperbolic, or is this how you really feel?]

  24. Carmel Scicluna says:

    Michael: Yes, the host has supernatural powers. Aqra d-Djarju ta’ Sor Fawstina Kowalska u Mirakli Ewkaristici.

    As far as I’m concerned, I didn’t mention magical powers. Hemm bahar jaqsam bejn il-magija, xihaga tal-bnedmin, u s-setgha tal-Mulej Gesu’ li jfejjaq bit-tqarbin, xihaga sopranaturali.

    The host is neither a biscuit nor a crisp. Nghidlek b’certezza ta’ mija fil-mija li l-Ostja hija, fost l-ohrajn, id-demm ta’ Kristu li jsaffina minn dnubietna – l-aktar haga importanti li nehtiegu fid-dinja. Imma sakemm nibqghu hawn nistghu nikklassifikaw kollox kif irridu, la mmorru fid-dinja l-ohra se nsibu min jikklassifika lilna – ghall-genna jew l-infern. U d-decizjoni ta’ min se jikklassifikana ha tkun irrevokabbli.

    [Moderator – Carmen, the point is moot, because there is no way of scientifically proving that the host is part of Jesus’ body, or that it has supernatural powers. You might as well be arguing that cabbages can talk.]

  25. Fr Anton Gouder says:

    Dear Vanni, I believe in the basic human right of freedom of religion. This is very different from freedom from religion. I don’t know exactly what you mean by protected religion.

  26. andrew borg-cardona says:

    Meta ser nitghalmu illi hadd minnha, inkluz kull qassis, imlahhaq jew mghallem kemm hu mlahhaq jew mghallem, ma jaf il-verita’ dwar il-hajja? U meta ser nitghallmu illi l-fondamentalizmu, kemm dak Kristjan kif ukoll dak Musulman – u kull varjazzjoni bejniethom u barra minnhom – hu ghajb fuq l-umanita’? It-twemmin tieghek mhux tieghi u bil-maqlub u toqghodx tipprova taghmilha ta’ xi oraklu, int min int. Dan ma jfissirx, pero’, illi l-istupitagnijiet tal-krejazzjonisti huma xi haga aktar minn stupitagnijiet.

  27. Tony Pace says:

    Why make a fuss about divergent views. That’s what democracy is all about. Although perhaps a bit of sensitivity to people’s feelings could be in order.

  28. Jason Spiteri says:

    @Fr Anton – In my humble opinion the criminal code does not punish serious direspect of others’ beliefs under any of its articles. The case in question is still in its initial phase, and the Court is yet to express itself as to whether the Inspector’s charges are founded in law or were invented by his good self because he felt offended at any of the insults. Of course the resisting arrest charges seem entirely founded, but the host/biscuit insult is not punishable by law – unless you somehow weave the President into it.

  29. Pierre says:

    @ C. Cauchi
    Right, ‘the host is a biscuit, bread or whatever’, but it does not symbolise something else, IT IS SOMETHING ELSE. Through the eucharistic sacrament, the consecrated host BECOMES something else (transubstance). The consecrated host does not symbolise or represent, it BECOMES the Body of our Lord, and according to St. Thomas Aquinas, through our faith we believe what our senses cannot see.

    [Moderator – Exactly, in the same way that monsters are real to a child that believes they lie beneath the bed.]

  30. freethinker says:

    @ Francis V: how does one “balance faith with reason”? If one has faith, reason is unnecessary; if one can prove by reason the existence of anything outside nature, faith is superfluous – the two are mutually exclusive;

    @RS: your statement is typical of some believers who consider “proof” that which has absolutely no probative value;

    @Carmel Scicluna: hazin jekk tintnesa r-razzjonalita’ ghax imbaghad kollox isir possibbli ghal min mhux razzjonali – is-shahar nisa jistghu jikkopulaw ma’ Satana u jintbaghtu ghall-hruq, per ezempju, kif gara fil-medjuevu;

    @Meerkat: What a consolation that the Church has asked forgiveness in the “Galileo controversy”! It was really not a controversy but the imposition by the Church of its doctrine in the face of scientific proof to the contrary – Copernican astronomy was condemned by the Church which held it as an article of faith that the sun revolves around the earth. I’m sure Galileo was delighted at having been rehabilitated 300 after his death. If the chruch changes her mind in the same way about divorce three centuries after my death, it would give me great satisfaction, I’m sure. Just as the Church is adamant today against divorce, so was She in the 17th century about astronomy.

  31. Michael says:

    @Moderator
    no, thats not how I feel, I just wanted to give them religious a taste of their own medicine and point out how hypocritical their church is.

  32. David Buttigieg says:

    To those who believe no proof is necessary, to those who don’t believe no proof will ever be enough.

  33. freethinker says:

    @ Fr. Anton Gouder wrote “I believe in the basic human right of freedom of religion. This is very different from freedom from religion.” I hope this does not mean that Fr. Gouder does not believe in the right of freedom from religion in the sense that one may choose to have no religion. In this connection, I submit it is high time that the article in the Constitution declaring the Roman, Catholic, Apostolic religion to be “the religion of Malta” should be removed. This is a meaningless article which serves no purpose at all and is just a pious statement which cannot be enforced in any way. The state should be and seen to be secular and areligious. It should not discriminate against any sector of the population such as by denying divorce to non-Catholics or non-believers.

    [Moderator – freethinker, I agree. But here’s Iceland: it is one of the few states in the world that establishes a state religion – Lutheranism – and yet, a few years ago, homosexual unions were legalised.]

  34. Ivan M says:

    When are people going to realise that quoting from the bible to a non-believer as proof, is nothing short of being quaint at best?

    It’s a very cyclic logic, my belief is true, because I believe in the bible, and the bible says so…

    It’s in no way different than saying that Dennis is really a menace, because I believe in the Beano, and the Beano says so…

  35. Ivan M says:

    @ Pierre

    Saying something IS something doesn’t make something become something.

    By saying that the host IS blood and flesh or body it does NOT actually become anything else, except in the imagination. We have dictionary and scientific definitions for wafer, blood, flesh and body; and we have more than ample proof that the wafer remains a wafer after “consecration” and does not transform into blood and/or flesh. And saying it DOES become any of these things, does not change the facts.

  36. Fan says:

    I humbly invite all the commentators especially to read the letter by the newly converted Corriere Della Sera Magdi Allam. Of special interest to you commentators is his reference to the relationship between faith and reason. He declares that the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI on this issue played an important role in his conversion.
    http://www.corriere.it/cronache/08_marzo_23/conversione_magdi_allam_34d0da06-f8ac-11dc-8874-0003ba99c667.shtml

  37. Carmel Scicluna says:

    Il-fidi li l-Ostja hija, kif tabilhaqq hija, il-Gisem, id-Demm, ir-Ruh u d-Divinita’ tal-Mulej Gesu’ m’ghandhiex bzonn il-provi min-naha tax-xjenza – suggett marbut totalment mad-dinja materjali u mhux mad-dimensjoni sopranaturali fejn jghammar Alla, Kristu, l-Ispirtu Qaddis, u l-Madonna bir-ruh u l-gisem. Il-filosofija Aristoteljana f’dan ir-rigward, u dak li qal San Tumas d’Akwinu vis-avis l-Ostja iseddaq il-miraklu, imma l-ebda filosofija mhija mehtiega biex il-wemmiena jilqghu dal-miraklu kbir ta’ l-imhabba t’Alla. Bniedem, fi kliem iehor, jista’ jkun ikkwalifikat sewwa fix-xjenza u l-filosofija u jemmen xorta wahda f’dan il-miraklu ta’ l-Ostja Mqaddsa. L-ghazla hija din: min hu Alla tieghek? Ix-xjenza? Jew Alla tas-Sema? Jekk Alla tieghek hu x-xjenza, l-ebda prova fid-dinja mhija bizzejjed li ggieghlek temmen fil-miraklu ta’ l-Ostja Mqaddsa. Jekk ruhek tikkomunika mad-Divin, ghandek il-fidi, kull prova mix-xjenza jew tisdiq mill-filosofija mhuwiex mehtieg biex temmen.

  38. Fr Anton Gouder says:

    Dear Freethinker, Rest your mind at peace. I fully respect anybody who says that he does not follow any religion. The fact that I respect the basic human right of freedom of religion, and the fact that this is different from freedom from religion, does not logically follow that I don’t respect both. My point was that some writers mix them up.

  39. John Schembri says:

    Daph, l-argument li jmiss tieghek se jkun “Alla ma’ jezistix” ghax m’hemmx provi.
    Ilni insegwi l-kitbiet tieghek ghal ma’ nafx kemm il-sena , u dejjem nafek l-istess : meta ma’ ssibx fuq xiex tikteb taqbada kontra xi religjon , l-iktar dik Kattolika.
    Iktbilna fuq is-sistema ingusta tal-gwardjani lokali , l-ispeed cameras , iz-zwiemel fit-toroq bla insurance policy , fuq it-trasport publiku , il-kmamar tan-nar fl-abitat , it-tnaqqir tad-drittijiet tac-cittadin , il-prezzijiet esagerati ta’ funeral , il-fatt li ma’ tistax tohrog licenzja gdida ta’ taksi jew ta’ mini bus jew ta’karozza tal-mejtin.
    Idhol sa l-isptar Mater Dei u ghandek fejn taghmel xalata .Aqbada ma’ David Casa jew John Attard Montalto u tkixxfilna u ghidilna x’qed jghamlu fl-Ewropa..
    Jien ghamiltha ma’ nies ta’ twemmin differenti , ateji u indifferenti u qatt ma’ smajt lil hadd jattakka twemmini bhall ma’ taghmel int.
    Jekk xi hadd li suppost thobb jew tirrispetta ghandu xi haga ghaziza hafna ghalih , u li ghalik hi ta’ bla valur , ghaliex ghandek tibqa’ ttambarlu , li m’ghandiex valur ? Int x’se tiehu billi tiddisprezzalu twemminu? Jien nammira hafna lil Buddisti ghax dawn qatt ma’ jippruvaw jikkonvertuk ghat -twemmin jew filosofija taghhom , la int thoss li qed taghmel is-sewwa jghidulek li qed taghmel sewwa.Imma jien irrid nirrispetta l-Buddist u allura QATT m’ghandi immiss rasu ghax joffendi ruhu, anke jekk ghalija ma’ tfisser xejn.
    Mur ghamlilna magazine bhal-dak ta’ Caravaggio , u ezaltana b’affarijiet li jpaxxuna bil-pinna tieghek u tibqax tweggghax il-proxxmu tieghek.
    It-talenti tieghek uzhom biex taghmel il-gid .

  40. Vanni says:

    @ Fr. Gouder
    I am sorry I was not clear. I’ll rephrase the question. Should a person, who says something against the Catholic (in this case, but any religion really) belief be liable at law? Should a state be defender of the faith? To set the parameters of my question, I am not asking about freedom of worship, but am asking if you think that the Libyan gent should have been accused of insulting the faith?

  41. Michael says:

    @Ivan M
    You are right , I researched it and found that indeed the host is a wafer and not a pringle, apologies. I was wrong.
    See following link: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/host.html
    @ Fr Anton Gouder
    You claim to “fully respect anybody who says that he does not follow any religion” and yet you also say that my comments about the host “show serious disrespect towards the belief of the people and are close to a criminal act”.
    Practice what you preach Father, if you respect non-believers then you should also respect our right to ridicule men in long dresses who sell wafers to people claiming that have been transformed into some type of magical flesh. Also if you really “fully respect anybody who says that he does not follow any religion” then you would not follow a bible which claims that non-believers will be banished for eternal pain in hell, this is highly offensive to atheist maltese law-abiding families like mine.

  42. Pierre says:

    1. Moderator – Carmen, the point is moot, because there is no way of scientifically proving that the host is part of Jesus’ body, or that it has supernatural powers. You might as well be arguing that cabbages can talk.]
    2. [Moderator – Exactly, in the same way that monsters are real to a child that believes they lie beneath the bed.]
    Monsters under the bed are sheer imagination. God, faith, soul, the Eucharist, afterlife … are not.

    3. Ivan M – Saying something IS something doesn’t make something become something.
    By saying that the host IS blood and flesh or body it does NOT actually become anything else, except in the imagination. We have dictionary and scientific definitions for wafer, blood, flesh and body; and we have more than ample proof that the wafer remains a wafer after “consecration” and does not transform into blood and/or flesh. And saying it DOES become any of these things, does not change the facts.

    http://www.trosch.org/inx/lanciano.html

    [Moderator – That is anecdotal evidence, not scientific proof. If I were to bleed onto a wafer, and later present it to you as the body of Christ, would you believe me?]

  43. freethinker says:

    @Vanni: re your question to Fr. Gouder – yes, the Criminal code makes it an offence to vilify the Catholic religion or any religion tolerated by law (as I already pointed out earlier). If the Libyan broke this law, the police are in duty bound to charge him. Whether this law is just or not is irrelevant. Dura lex sed lex. One cannot expect not to be prosecuted because one thinks the law is unjust. This is the law of the land and when the Libyan landed in Malta he implicitly accepted to abide by our law just as we accept to abide by Libyan law if we go to Libya.

    One must not forget that, in Muslim culture where sanctions for insulting religion are extremely serious and include death, it is considered the gravest of insults to vilify religion. The Libyan’s intention, therefore, seems to have been to hurl the gravest of insults to the Maltese population who he probably considers as all Catholic. Such behaviour should not be tolerated. Added to this was vilification of public officers. As I already stated, this is an offence against the officers as servants of the State and not in their private capacity. The offence may, therefore, be considered as directed at the State. The State is basically there for our protection — ask statelesss persons what it means to be without a State. I do not see why the action of the Police is being questioned. At the end of the day, it will be the courts that will decide – the Libyan is innocent until proven guilty in our country where the rule of law and human rights prevail. This is much more than can be said for the countries from where Muslims hail. Let’s allow the due process of law to take its course.

    [Moderator – freethinker, I don’t think that you can argue that the law isn’t authoritarian. Granted, it is the duty of the police to enforce the law, but it is the duty of citizens to question the law. Is our national pride so fragile that we need to prosecute someone who insults it?]

  44. Alex says:

    I believe that religions exist to sustain control and invoke fear on humanity so that, to a certain extent, stop the mad human mind from destroying each other. Although sometimes it can backfire, see the crusades and today’s extremists as an example!!

    So, I guess atheists are nothing more than people who recognise this kind of thinking, and I assure you they reflect on this subject a lot. On the other hand, all kind of believers feel they are erring if they even think of thinking about these thoughts.

    I met many atheists and on average I would say that they are as ‘good people’ as Catholics, if not better. I go a step further and forecast that if heaven really exist, many atheists would qualify. So I think it is vital in our society that we stop seeing atheists as bad people and equate them to Satanists or some other ‘evil sect’.

    To John Schembri and the rest who think that Daphne is doing a disservice to society, I remind them that non-believers have as many rights as believers in believing not to believe. So I encourage Daphne to come up with more of these pieces and have some intelligent debates about each and every individual’s way of seeing things, without expecting that anyone will be ‘converted’ to anyone’s believes.

    But please all of you stop thinking that those who have a different point of view than yours are evil, because that is not the case.

  45. Carmel Scicluna says:

    Lil John Schembri: habib tieghi, ghalfejn, jahasra, irridu nibdlu dan id-dibattitu f’battalja qalila bejn i-tajbin (ahna li nemmnu) kontra l-hziena (dawk li ma jemmnux jew juru xetticizmu)? Ghaliex, jahasra? Daphne Caruana Galizia mhija toffendi lil hadd billi taghmel mistoqsijiet logici u razzjonali fuq ir-religjon. Ghaliex ghandni nhossni offiz ghax xihadd jghid ezattament x’jahseb fuq ir-religjon nisranija u xejriet ohra taghha? Ghaliex ghandi nhossni mhedded minn xihadd li ma jemminx jew ghandu hafna dubji serji fuq twemmini? Ghaliex nibzghu? Minn xiex qed nibzghu? X’tixhed din il-bizgha jekk mhux nuqqas serju ta’ fidi? Il-Mulej, kollox ma’ kollox, ghandu bzonn lili biex ninzel fl-arena nitqabad ha niddefendiH? Il-Mulej hu l-Mulej u jahdem b’miljun mod differenti. Nghidu ahna, bis-sahha ta’ l-argument u l-comic strip li gabet Daphne Caruana Galizia, min jemmen ghandu c-cans, f’din il-blog, li jevangelizza u jigbed in-nies lejn Kristu. Il-problema f’dal-pajjiz hija li mhawnx bosta gurnalisti tal-kalibru ta’ Daphne; hafna gurnalisti bezziegha hawn li kulma jmur qed jitwarrbu; in-nies qed iduru ghal blogs u jwarrbu l-gazzetti ftit ftit – din l-impressjoni tieghi.
    Ejja nkunu sincieri, habib, ghaliex bizibilju ta’ qarrejja jippreferu lil Daphne mill-ohrajn? Ghaliex? Mhux ghax igggeghelna nahsbu u tipprovokana, fost hwejjeg ohra?
    Ghalfejn, jahasra, irridu l-hin kollu nqattghu lil xulxin anki fejn tidhol xihaga ghaziza bhall-Fidi?
    Il-pedament tal-Kristjanezmu mhuwiex ir-rabja u l-bizgha irrazzjonali minn min m’ghandux fidi imma l-imhabba li rridu nuru anki lejn min ma jemminx jew hu xettiku hafna.

    John, jien ukoll ghandi rispett kbir lejn il-Buddizmu u kull ktieb li jigi f’idi fuq din is-sistema sekulari naqrah.

    ”Evil is lurking in the Internet” qalet Marie Benoit fil-Malta Independent tal-Hadd (6.04.08.); dankollu ghax l-ahwa Vella kitbu xihaga fuqha li ma nizlitilhiex ghasel. Jekk Marie tahseb li Daphne u ohtha Amanda huma nies hziena, veru jahasra ma tafx x’inhu hazen! O Gesu’ jkollok hniena minni!

  46. Michael says:

    @ Pierre
    That’s grotesque.
    You are saying that you believe that you are drinking blood and eating flesh in front of a statue of a bloody corpse hanging by nails on two pieces of wood.
    That’s like eating a hamburger at McDonalds in front of an a freshly slain cow.
    Repulsive to us non-believers if it were true, hillarious if it was a scam.
    There you have it, you think catholics are cannibals.
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm

    [Moderator – Michael, when analysing religious rituals I think that the best question to ask is, ‘How does this function?’, whereas you are asking, ‘What are they doing on literal level?’]

  47. Ivan M says:

    @ Pierre so the “proof” you have is from 800AD?

    If the so called “miracle of transformation” happens every time, why don’t you find proof from the countless times it happened today in Malta?

    Does it happen every time or every 800-1000 years?

    If it really becomes human flesh, isn’t that cannibalism in any case?

    And if it’s really flesh, would we see cells under the microscope?

    You can talk about faith, and I’ll never argue with that, because faith is a choice to believe something whether it’s true or not. But if you are going to start trying to find scientific proof, then you’re in a whole lot of trouble. Science has rules which one has to abide too. Consistency is one of them.

  48. Vanni says:

    @ Feethinker

    Many thanks for your intervention. However my question was directed at Fr. Gouder as I wanted to know what he, and also the Church, think about the need that a faith requires state defence when it is insulted. I am aware of what the law says, but was wondering if the Church wants this law to stay in place or not. And if yes, why.

  49. Michael says:

    @ John Schembri
    Ghaliex taghtek f’ghajnek Daphne titkellem fuq ir-religjon? Jekk hadt ghalik mela x’int tahbi jew minn xiex qed tisthi? Sinjal ghandek xi-dubji fuq ir-religjon, kieku ma kontx tkun daqshekk sensittiv fuq dan is-sugett.

  50. Pinkerton says:

    Just go in any muslim country, not just a fundamentalist one, and see what happens if you dare utter something remotely critical or sarcastic of Islam or what is written in Islams holy books to anyone in authority., not just the police as was the case here. It does not matter If you are a muslim or not either. Anyone heard of Salman Rushdie for example?
    That this Arab , who happens to be a muslim, says what he said re the Host is bad taste, exremly rude, highly offensive and sagrilegous.There is also a law in Malta re blasphemy as well.

    [Moderator – That is probably the worst defence of this action by the police that you can make. This is not a theocracy and we are not a nation of religious fundamentalists, so let’s not behave like one.]

  51. Fr Anton Gouder says:

    Dear Vanni, there is a difference between saying something against the catholic faith and villifying (or ridiculing)it. A lot of Catholics in Malta write and broadcast against the catholic faith. None of them are prosecuted, and rightly so. Ridiculing is another matter. It should be done to nobody. We all know that anybody can sue by libel against ridicule. Am I wrong? Then, there is nothing or very little special about the Catholic religion.

    Dear Michael, I sincerely hope that you were joking (or else there is something much more serious)when you claimed to yourself the right to ridicule. Check a bit what really constitutes a right. By the way, this has nothing to do with religion.

  52. freethinker says:

    @Moderator: thank you for your comment. I agree, of course, that every citizen has the right to question any law. That’s what democracy is all about. In the meantime, as you no doubt agree, the law must be obeyed. In my opinion, it is not a question of the fragility of our national pride. As far as vilifying public officers is concerned, it is a matter of protecting the State which cannot function except through its human agents. If the capacity of these agents to function is impaired, the State cannot function. Public officers are not only protected in their official capacity but they also have an extra burden of responsibility – so much so that, if they commit certain offences, they are liable to penalties higher than other citizens are liable for and precisely because they abuse the special trust which the State has placed in them. When it comes to religion, one must remember that historically the division between Church and State was not all that distinct. Rulers felt that they were in duty bound to protect the dominant religion either because of religious conviction or out of fear of the Church. Crossing swords with the Church could produce dire consequences (Henry IV had to go to Canossa). It seems that the law was later justified as protecting the sentiments of the faithful. In any case, it is, to say the least, bad manners to insult religion and offend the faithful. Expressing doubts and disbelief or discussing articles of faith is one thing, hurling insults in a context of rage is another.

    Furthermore, if today we have strict laws against inciting racism (even if by words only)which we have seen applied in practice in a recent case, is it very different to insult or express hatred towards someone because of his religion rather than because of his race? I defend everyone’s right to practice one’s religion without any form of harassment just as I protest most vehemently against anyone who tries to impose his religious values on me.

    [Moderator – Keep in mind that Malta is a very xenophobic nation (in a survey carried out a couple of years ago, something like 99% of the population said they wouldn’t like to live next an African or a Jew). Because of that social climate the law under which Norman Lowell was convicted is necessary. I can’t remember the last time a priest had his house set ablaze by an atheist/wafer-hating Libyan.]

  53. Michael says:

    @Pinkerton
    Let’s reverse the argument.
    You say “this Arab , who happens to be a muslim, says what he said re the Host is bad taste, extremely rude, highly offensive and sagrilegous.There is also a law in Malta re blasphemy as well”
    I am maltese and atheist and personally find that your claim on the supernatural powers of the Host is in bad taste, extremely rude, highly offensive and sagrilegous to my “non-belief”.
    Does this law in Malta re blasphemy not apply to you as well and should , therefore , proests not be taken to court every time they make such claims about the host in my presence?
    if we are both maltese , why should your rights to believe in the host over-ride my own rights to not-believe. Our rights should be equal, I find your beliefs as offensive as you find mine, the law should apply to everyone equally, otherwise Malta would be no better to the fundamentalist Muslim countries you mentioned above.

  54. John Schembri says:

    Lil-hbieb tieghi li jiktbu fuq dan il-blog, jien lil-Daphne ili naqraha nahseb mil-bidu li bdiet tikteb , u gieli xtrajt gazzetti ghax ikun hemm l-artikli taghha.Jidher car li li fuq il-gazzetti jkun hemm min izommilha l-brejkijiet biex ma’ tiktibx dat-tip t’artikli.
    Issa ma’ nafx jekk hux se niktibha tajjeb bil-Latin imma jghid xi haga hekk” De gustibus et coloribus non dispudendum est” (fuq gosti u kuluri tqanqalx diskussjonijiet).Mal-gosti u kuluri jien indahhal ukoll ir-religjon.Inutli niddiskutu ir-religjon u t-twemmin ikun xi jkun.
    Rigward dak li kiteb fuq l-ateji u li sabhom OK , jien nahsibha mod iehor fuq l-ateji li naf jien , u li hdimt maghhom. Il-bicca l-kbira sibthom li m’ghandhomx kuxjenza u trid toqoghod b’sebgha ghajnen ghalihom sa l-ahhar ghax malajr iwahhluhulek. Biex inkunu ghidna kollox anke dawk li suppost huma nsara jew musulmani tajbin , issib minnhom li jkunu lesti jwahhluhulek.
    L-argument tieghi hu li wiehed ghandu dritt jghid li jrid sakemm ma’ jirfisx id-drittijiet ta’ haddiehor.Nahseb meta xi hadd jipprova jiddiskuti it-twemmin , ikun xi jkun it-twemmin , m’hu se jasal imkien ma’ hadd.
    Ir-religjon m’hix xjenza hija twemmin , jekk Kristu qam mil-mewt mhix bijologikament plawsibli , l-anqas li twieled minn vergni m’hi , li Kristu telgha s-sema hija fizikament impossibli , li bniedem jirrinkarna ruhu f’annimal iehor ma’ tistax tigi spjegata xjentifikament , l-anqas ma’ jista’ jigi ppruvat li jezistu l-genna jew l-infern , ma’ nafx li hemm provi xjentifici li jezistu l-ispirti , nistghu nibqghu sejrin hekk ghal dejjem U MA NASLU MKIEN. Meta kont Ferrara kont zort knisja tal-Prezziosissimo Sangue , ghax jghidu li mill-ostja hareg id-demm waqt il-konsagrazzjoni, jekk nemminx l-istorja jew le jiddependi minni , avolja hemm ma’ nafx kemm il-dokument bil-boll hemm.
    Ghal min jemmen kollox huwa possibli u ghal min ma’ jemminx ghandu dritt li ma’ jemminx , jien ma’ nhossnix li nkun qed naghmel sewwa jekk nipprova b’xi mod nirredikola it-twemmin ta’ haddiehor.Kelli kollegi Musulmani li ikoregejthom meta ma’ rrispettawx il-ligijiet ta’ l-ikel u x-xorb taghhom u ghax ghamilt hekk ghadhom jirrispettawni sal-lum.

  55. Michael says:

    @Fr Anton Gouder
    There is a clear difference between criticism of a religion and the act of inciting hatred against members of a group, I would consider my comments as a criticism of the Church, and therefore within the law, but would consider some quotes in the Bible and Quran as “inciting hatred against members of my belief group” , in my case, the atheist group, which is a type of legitimate belief as well after all.
    Therefore I cannot understand why the police don’t take steps to ban the Bible and Quran from the maltese islands, or at least to edit out those quotes that are inciting hatred against certain belief groups.
    Fr Anton Gouder I think you are constantly falling into the same trap, you fail to see that you are preaching one thing and practising another. Your words are measured and clever but have a sinister tinge that gives your ulterior intentions away.
    I will show respect to the Church on the day it starts to respect people like myself, when it removes its offensive quotes from its bible, when it stops preaching intolerance, when it stops imposing its beliefs on others, and , as clearly seen in this forum, when people like Fr Anton Gouder stop using thinly-veiled threats against people like myself, I am a very well-respected and valuable member of maltese society and I find the views of priests such as Fr Anton Gouder very intimidating and menacing.

  56. Ivan M says:

    @ John Schembri la kemm l-ateisti u l-kattoloci jahdmu mieghek lesti li jwahuluhulek daqs tazza ilma…ma jigikx f’mohhok li l-problema hija l-kulura tal-post tax-xoghol tieghek u mhux il-fatt li huma ateijisti?

  57. Ronnie says:

    @ John Schembri

    Nahseb ukoll li nsejt tghid li l-ateji li ltqajt maghhom kellhom il-qrun u xi whud minnhom forsi ukoll xi denb!

  58. Ronnie says:

    All of you who are so certain about what the catholic teaching and the contents of the bible would be equally convinced about islam and the contents of the quran had you been brought up in a muslim country. What that tells me is that religion depends very much on what we are fed at a young age rather than certain intrinsic truths contained in any particular religion.

    With respect to the belief that the host is indeed the body of Christ … at a young age i was equally sure of the existence of father christmas and tooth fairy until i saw my mother sneaking into my room in the middle of the night with a fiver in hand!

  59. Ivan M says:

    @ ronnie..lol

    u li jlbsu l-faldar u johorgu jtiru bil-lejl! Stenn, dawk il-Mazuni bil-haqq. U ijja! mhux xorta? la mhux maghna kontra taghna hux ;)

    Mazuni, atejisti, musulmani, protestanti..la l-Hadd ma narawhomx il-quddies kollha ghal infern :)

  60. John Schembri says:

    @ Ronnie : It-tip ta’ ateji li ltqajt maghhom kienu ghajnejhom imgebbdin u jieklu r-ross , u ma’ nafx li l-mara kienet taqlibielhom , qed niccajta , kienu mic-Cina u mir-Russja (Komunisti jew ex- komunisti) ma’ kienux ex-insara bi trobbija f’kultura nisranija. Ma’ nghid xejn kontra min hu ateju , ghandu kull dritt ikun hekk.
    @Ivan M :Habib , assumejt hafna affarijiet , meta wiehed ikun hadem f’hafna postijiet ikun ghamilha ma’ hafna nies , ta’ hafna kulturi differenti , bhal kullimkien issib nies li attaparsi jemmnu f’religjon li jghidu li jemmnu fiha. Ma’ tridx tmur il-boghod hafna , min jidghi tahseb li jemmen kemm jekk hu Nisrani kif ukoll Mislem?

  61. Ivan M says:

    @ Ronnie I don’t agree.

    I think it’s a pure coincidence that 98% (or so the claim is) of the population of this country are RC and that RC happens to be the declared official religion of the country. I sincerely believe that all 98% really understand what their, and other religions, are about, and after a lot of studying and soul searching, they all happen to choose the same religion. Then again, most probably not ;)

  62. Ronnie says:

    @ John Schembri

    Naqseb li qieghed tkun ftit arroganti billi lil Daphne tipprova tiddettalha fuq xiex tikteb! L-ghazla hija semplici hafna; jekk dak li qed taqra fuq dan il-blog joffendik jew ma jdoqqx ghal widnejk taqrahx. Li qed tipproponi int hija forma ta’ censura.

  63. John Schembri says:

    Non-believers are not believers.They cannot be offended about something they don’t believe in , unlike believers they have nothing to ‘defend’.
    If I were an atheist and was told by a priest that I will go to hell after I die , I just lol @ him!

  64. Ronnie says:

    @ John Schembri

    did it ever cross your mind then that maybe it was communism and the totalitarian regime in which the atheists you have met were brought up, which screwed them up so badly and not their lack of beleif in a god!

  65. eyesonlymalta says:

    I don’t believe in Intelligent Design. Scientifically it’s flawed.
    I believe in Evolution which the evidence backs up mostly.

    I believe in God and that He is behind Evolution, which is just the “process” as we see it.
    St Augustine was not a creationist by the way and believed in Evolution too. That’s an eyeopener for many I think.

  66. Fr Anton Gouder says:

    Dear Michael, if you are feeling my contribution “intimidating and menacing”, I apologise. I have no such intention.

  67. Etienne Caruana says:

    I have come to see an act of ‘faith’ (easily interchangeable with ‘trust’ or ‘belief’) as ultimately relational by nature. Thus if, for example, I say “I believe in you” (and ‘you’ may be an individual or a group of persons or an entity) I will implicitly be saying that I take what you are saying as being the truth, or I consider your actions to be congruent with your words. Taken in this sense, faith doesn’t only apply to the sphere of religion, but equally to other areas of human activity (politics, for example). Secondly, faith does not exclude reason in this sense. In other words, reason has its own rules by which to judge whether or not ‘you’ are to be believed, trusted, i.e., do I have good reasons for or against putting my faith in you? Re the issue of the host, in reality my act of faith is placed in an ongoing practice of the Church going back to the first disciples, and is based on a command they received from Jesus Christ. There are two intertwined words “Take and eat, this is my body” and “Do this in memory of me.” Supposing I had to question myself about my belief: Don’t I believe the Apostles words? Was Jesus Christ lying when he said these words? Is Scripture not conveying the truth in this regard? Is the Church under a delusion? Was Jesus being delusional? One can begin to appreciate how difficult the issue of faith is, whether or not one decides to believe in x, y, or z.
    There would be those who support their belief or unbelief through emotive arguments, whilst others will attempt to give scientific grounds. There is little I can say about an appeal to emotions because I don’t think that it helps in arguing for or against. With regard to scientific grounds, I have to say this. Much as the scientific method has been helpful in so many fields of knowledge, I cannot let myself be straitjacketed by it. I don’t think that reality can only be described in scientific terms. If such were to become the case, life would be very dry and meaningless — impoverished, to say the least. What place will I give to love, or beauty? What about music, poetry, literature, and the countless other products of artistic endeavour? What about fun, and play? Should I pooh-pooh the gift of a box of chocolates? A beautifully presented meal? The taste of good wine? I’ve just given a few examples, hopefully enough to show how ‘robotic’ our language and activities may become. The empirical sciences have contributed greatly to our understanding of reality, but I’m not too keen on seeing them arrogate to themselves the task of explaining all of reality. Logically put, to say that science cannot prove the existence of something is not thereby to say that something does not exist, just that it cannot be proved or disproved scientifically.

  68. Corinne Vella says:

    Salman Rushdie is not an Arab.

  69. Alexander the not so Great says:

    @ Daphne

    Hi.. Do you like my nick? Hope this distinguish me from the other Alex’s he he he.. For ease of reference, I’m the one whom you found my attitude as fascinating (@IvanM@Daphne) Wow…. Thanks :) Nice to hear that from a woman, me being a male :) … u dan ghadek ma ltqajtx mieghi personali!!! … though this was not the first time I impressed you. Once I won something from your interesting magazine on which I managed to impress you with my humble contribution… :) so that makes my second ‘good’ impression…

    Now onto something more serious!
    Some people in here are really trying hard to insult Catholics and their beliefs.. why are they trying so hard to hurt people’s sentiment? All this tit-for-tat comments, many a times trying to ridicule other person’s beliefs… i’m finding a bit difficult to understand why some are using certain type of language and idioms. Reading through them, one can notice that instead of trying to discuss, many a times are more intentioned to hurt Catholics by insulting their beliefs.

    Maybe it’s my ‘fascinating attitude’ which might seem ‘not normal’… maybe i’m strange… however please do respect one another. If I believe in that and you believe in something else, or for that matter in nothing, we can still live together in peace.

    I suggest anyone to have a look about the Focolare movement, which were a pioneer in establishing realtionships between the various religions and agnostics. You can also look at the Lopiano example which worked out perfectly.

    Some of the economic ideologies introduced by this movement, although criticised by the capitalistic world has worked and is evolving well. Maybe one can start discussing such issues instead of insulting each other. This means of communication can serve other good purposes except from making us laugh and discuss politics in general.

    Thanks to all for reading my contribution, and to the moderator who has to monitor everything! Naghdrek siehbi/siehba!!

Leave a Comment