If you're not a Catholic, you don't have values

Published: September 8, 2008 at 6:53pm

That’s the message the archbishop worked so hard to get across in a most appropriate forum: a pontifical mass to celebrate the victory of the Catholic Knights of St John over the navy of that heathen Ottoman Empire almost four and a half centuries ago. The irony appears not to have struck home.

The general gist of the archbishop’s sermon is that you’ve got to be Catholic to have values. The natural conclusion is that I have far fewer positive values than the apocryphal man down the street, who goes to mass on Sunday morning and beats his wife on Sunday evening, fitting in a bit of lying and cheating in between picking up the kids, who may or may not be his given that his wife was shagging her tennis partner at the time, from duttrina.

I have often written about the sheer lack of wisdom in bringing up children to view their values within the context of their religion. They invariably grow up to either ditch those values along with their religion or to struggle to rationalise them. And that is why the greatest sinners, so to speak, so often turn out to be the ones with the most Catholic of upbringings. I’m not saying that no child should be raised a Catholic. I’m just saying that it’s for the best if, when children tell a whopper, they’re not told to stop doing that because it will upset Jesus. They should be told not to do it because it’s just plain wrong. It’s not Jesus who’s hurt by lies, but other human beings.

I know several people around my age who are quite unable to distinguish between the wrong course of action and the right course of action, and this has led them to take some disastrously unhappy decisions. When you’re 10 years old, sorting out wrong from right is quite straightforward: stealing that pencil-case is wrong; returning that coin to the girl who dropped it and didn’t notice is right. When you’re a grown-up, the moral morass gets a little bit more complicated. Should I introduce my new man-friend to the family home when my teenage children have only fairly recently lost their father to his mistress? When my children spend the weekend with me, should I let them see me emerging from the bedroom where my girlfriend has spent the night?

In case you’re wondering what the answer to those two mere examples might be, it’s No and No. When you have children, you have to put them before yourself and your sex life, even if it means that the one chance of sex and companionship that you might have will walk out of the door in annoyance and take up with somebody more accommodating. Children of whatever age – 14, 24, 34, 44, 54 – are horrified by the idea of their parents having sex, even with their other parent and legal spouse. When they’re 24, 34, 44 and 54, they just have to come to terms with it. When they’re 14, they don’t. It is absolutely disgusting and distasteful and in no circumstances do they want it intimated in any manner, so it shouldn’t be. The marital bed is just about tolerated, but it must be presented as chaste.

Imagine then, the reaction of a teenage boy who must confront head-on the fact that his mother is actually having sex with a man who is not his father, a man who has penetrated not just his mother but the integrity of the family living-room where only recently his father watched television. A person raised to frame his or her differentiation between wrong and right in the context of religion will rationalise the situation by saying ‘in for a penny, in for a pound – might as well jump right in’, and then get angry at what is seen to be the children’s unreasonable behaviour in vetoing even the most innocuous physical contact and the presence of the new man in the living-room when they want to relax without him. If it means a couple of years of going to his bachelor-pad instead of to the family home, and going out on rather a lot of dates to the same coffee-shop down the road, then tough. That’s how it is, the price you pay for bringing other people into the world.

There’s much value in discretion, but they don’t teach that in religious classes. Instead, what children get is a set of rigid Wrongs and Rights, all of them tied into Catholicism, and they grow up without the tools to sort out the complicated problems of adult life. We all know by now that you shouldn’t covet your neighbour’s wife because no good can come of it, but what happens if, after you have coveted her, your own wife leaves, your neighbour’s wife is in your bed, and that’s the way it’s going to stay for now? What are the wrongs and rights from here on in?

The archbishop has let go of the reasonable ‘God and Caesar’ approach with which he began, and is now seeking to lead the chorus against divorce. He has warned that it would be difficult for young people to build a stable marriage if that marriage is seen as being built on weak wedding vows. What, Your Grace, more difficult than now, when we have no divorce and people are slamming the door on each other after weeks, months or just a few years?

The archbishop and his chorus miss the point – they can’t possibly be thinking clearly – that it is much easier to dump a spouse without divorce legislation than it is with. Without divorce legislation, what we have is a free-for-all in which the dumped suffer far greater privation and indignity than they would do with a clear-cut divorce, while the dumper gets away with all sorts of bad behaviour.

The archbishop is against the secularisation of society. He thinks that a secular society has no values. Oh, how wrong he is. It is in societies rooted in religious values and theocratic thinking that people suffer most, whatever the religion, and it is in secular societies that they suffer least. The archbishop also seems to think that respect for others begins and ends with Catholicism and is non-existent in those secular societies of which he so disapproves. Facts and reality prove the contrary. Life in Malta is the perfect example: intolerant and increasingly intolerable.




83 Comments Comment

  1. Marku says:

    Daphne: as you rightly point out, life in Malta is increasingly intolerant and intolerable. Political parties today have less and less control over what and how people think (and about time too!) compared to 20 years ago. This allows public opinion to fragment into many different directions. But plurality of opinions does not necessarily breed tolerance. You have no doubt seen the letter by one Tony Mifsud in today’s Times regarding “abduction of unborn Maltese children” advocating some kind of body check on Maltese women before they travel abroad just in case they might be pregnant and intend to have an abortion.

    (Daphne – Oh, I read it. I’m saving it for Thursday.)

  2. Amanda Mallia says:

    Another thing I really can’t stand is the “holy” people who never miss Sunday mass, and yet are racist to the core.

    What about those people regularly posting comments on The Times’ online each time another boatload of immigrants is rescued? They too probably never miss Sunday mass.

    I think that it would be far better for the church to address issues such as racism which, in my opinion, is far more worrying. It is far more important for people to be compassionate and caring than to simply be a Sunday Catholic.

    My children – though still aged 6 and 8 – are already aware of people’s attitude towards what they call “brown people”. (They refers to most others as “peach”, taking colour literally). Last week, one of them asked why people “don’t mind” having “peach people from other countries” here, and yet don’t like “brown grown-ups”. (Presumably the emphasis on “grown-ups” being due to the fact that they know of many adopted Pakistani and African children.)

    If even young children can pick up such racist vibes around them (certainly not from home, in this case), then I find it hard to believe that the church cannot, and can so willingly ignore such issues.

  3. A Camilleri says:

    @Marku “Life in Malta is increasingly intolerant and intolerable” I beg to differ. Quite the opposite. Rightfully, no one cares what the neighbours will say on various issues, at least not in priority of living one’s life. We’re closer to the Dutch “Live and Let Live” philosophy than ever before. It’s demonstrated by the record number of separations, children born out of wedlock, same-sex couples etc. Life was intorlerant when such things happened but were kept out of public view, or when people lived a suppressed life for fear of social repercussions. Changes in the last 30 years have been remarkable and dramatic. The possibility of divorce was seen as remote in this lifetime 10 years ago. Today it looks its on the agenda. Of course, there are downsides and the implications are not exclusively positive but I definately can’t see Malta becoming increasingly intolerant and intolerable.

  4. my name is Leonard but my son calls me Joey says:

    Marku: it should be tolerance, and gender equality (no fault of yours). The size and shape of not a few of Malta’s men will no doubt complicate Tony Mifsud’s task.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4265368.ece

  5. Zizzu says:

    QUOTE
    We all know by now that you shouldn’t covet your neighbour’s wife because no good can come of it, but what happens if, after you have coveted her, your own wife leaves, your neighbour’s wife is in your bed, and that’s the way it’s going to stay for now? What are the wrongs and rights from here on in?
    UNQUOTE

    without dragging religion into this, the answer is blindingly obvious: as you make your bed you shall lie in it. There’s a consequence to every action.
    If I didn’t study and failed my exams I can hardly blame the examiner… (If I did study and failed, then perhaps I’m not cut out for an “academic” life… and I should find someone man enough to tell me as much. Although it would hurt to hear it, once I get over the shock I can move on with my life and stop barking up the wrong tree.)
    We are becoming a generation of softies who seems to think that “No pain no gain” is only an adage fit for the gym.

    (Daphne – You misunderstand the point, which is that there are different ways of dealing with the consequences of one’s actions. Some of them are the right ways, some of them are the wrong ways. The fact that, in biblical terms, committing adultery is wrong does not mean you can’t conduct yourself with dignity and discretion when your marriage fails and you form another relationship. Your thinking is actually an example of the ‘wrong’ thinking of those whose values are formed within a religious context: if you are adulterous, then by definition you can do nothing right, so you might as well behave as you please and upset as many people as possible.)

  6. Zizzu says:

    QUOTE
    The natural conclusion is that I have far fewer positive values than the apocryphal man down the street, who goes to mass on Sunday morning and beats his wife on Sunday evening, fitting in a bit of lying and cheating in between picking up the kids, who may or may not be his given that his wife was shagging her tennis partner at the time, from duttrina
    UNQUOTE

    The apocryphal(!!) man down the street is not a practising Catholic, despite the fact that he attends Mass on Sunday. A practising Catholic goes to Mass on Sunday and tries his (or her) best to live according to the teachings of Christ as interpreted (and/or clarified) by the Catholic Church.
    He is, I would imagine, worse off than you (as you depict yourself in this little scenario) because he knows what he should be doing and openly flouts the rules, whereas you are left to your own devices without a moral compass other than an rudimentarily educated conscience.

    Scenario aside, your mistaken impression of the inadequacy of the moral (and ethical) compass afforded by the teachings of the Church betrays perfect and absolute unfamiliarity with the contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am no expert myself, but I have frequently leafed through the volume and I was always impressed with the broadness of scope and at the same time attention to detail of the work.

    Also, bear in mind that the only “product” that the Catholic Church is selling is love. All “official” pronouncements coming from the Church have to be taken in that context.

  7. With all due respect to A Camilleri and whoever persists in the error… but why do people insist on writing “definately”? I cannot tolerate it any longer.

  8. Corinne Vella says:

    Zizzu: There may be many merits to the Catechism of the Catholic Church but it is mistaken to believe that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on morality and the rules of good behaviour. To tie one belief system inextricably to the other leads to other errors: that all non-Catholics are immoral and that all Catholic practices are moral. Morality and Catholicism may not be mutually exclusive, but they are not synonymous.

  9. David Buttigieg says:

    Now hang on everyone, just because a person goes to church etc does not make him/her a Catholic, a true one at least. Preaching is one thing and practising is an entirely different matter.

    As Amanda rightly pointed out ““holy” people who never miss Sunday mass, and yet are racist to the core. ” are not Catholic, or rather are so only in name, which is so easy to do!

    As to a secular state I agree with you completely!

    Also as you said, there is much more value in doing something right because it’s right and not doing something wrong because it’s wrong rather then because you fear punishment! That is also a Catholic teaching!

    (Daphne – Yes, but you’re a rare specimen, David.)

  10. Zizzu says:

    @ Daphne

    perhaps I was not very clear. Religion is irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make. There’s always a good and a bad way of doing the same thing (or right or wrong … whatever).
    LEt’s say somebody made a mistake (any mistake). There are two ways of dealing with it … compound the mistake or take steps to rectify.
    Neither of the “second-level” action will eradicate the original mistake, but depending on the path chosen, the mistake could have been compounded or mitigated.
    This is what I meant by “As you make your bed you shall lie in it”.
    If you’re rash and don’t think before you leap you can expect one set of consequences and if you think hard before taking the next step you can expect an entirely diferent set of consequences. This is not to say that we can exclude all unforeseen circumstances, but “contingency planning” is a proven method of going about things.
    I don’t see why religion has to be constantly dragged in and depicted as a shackle. I dare say you have a bit of a microscopic chip on your shoulder for ‘im upstairs and his brigade on earth :)

    (Daphne – Not at all. My point is that when children are taught the difference between wrong and right only within the context of religion, they grow up without the tools to handle the sort of dilemmas thrown up by adult life in the contemporary world. Though I can see what you are trying to say, your reference to ‘rectifying a mistake’ is a case in point. When a marriage fails and you form a new relationship, and this new relationship causes problems with your kids – for example – the solution is not to ‘rectify’ the original ‘mistake’ by ending the relationship and going back to your spouse, as presumably the reasons you left are still present. It is to handle your new relationship differently and more discreetly. Catholic morality says go back and suffer. Secular morality says don’t shove your new boyfriend in your teenage son’s face.)

  11. cikki says:

    When I went to work in London almost 40 years ago, I honestly believed that only Catholics went to heaven.
    I had the most wonderful boss,he was good at his job
    but also great fun and very kind. He spent every Wednesday
    night ( all night) working voluntarily as a Samaritan
    and was a C of E church warden. That really set me thinking….

    (Daphne – Things had begun to change already by the time I was in secondary school. By then, our religion teachers were forced to address the question of whether good people who are not Catholics go to heaven, which follows on from the other questions of whether it is possible to be good and not Catholic, and whether heaven is for Catholics or for good people. The answer, of course, had to be Yes – there was no way around it. And so the next question followed on naturally: so what’s the point of being a Catholic and going through all that boring nuisance ritual, if you can still go to heaven? Why not cease to bother with it and just be a good person? That’s roughly when I stopped bothering. I was amazed that more people didn’t do the same. Only now, of course, I don’t think in terms of doing the right thing to get to heaven, but of doing the right thing for peace of mind on earth.)

  12. Gerald says:

    Amanda, you are a racist against Labour Party supporters. Does that make you holier-than-though?

    (Daphne – Labour Party supporters are not a race apart, though sometimes I have reason to doubt that.)

  13. Amanda Mallia says:

    Gerald – Even you would know that Labourites are not a “race”, so please stop being silly.

    I suppose you mean is that I am biased against them, which I am not. Against their principles, maybe, but not necessarily against the people. I know many Labourites for whom I have greater respect than “pseudo-Nationalsts”, whom I would rather refer to as opportunists.

  14. David Buttigieg says:

    “so what’s the point of being a Catholic and going through all that boring nuisance ritual, if you can still go to heaven?”

    If you believe it’s boring or even useless then ofcourse you should not do it! It doesn’t follow, however that all Catholics are wasting their time.

    If as a Catholic I believe Christ is the son of God and he said follow me, I personally believe that being a Catholic is the way I can follow him best. Now follow me does NOT necessarily mean be a Catholic (obviously) but means follow his example (Can you imagine Christ complaining about the number of poor refugees desperately trying for a better life). Even an atheist can follow Christ, even though unknowingly and for no reward. For example, I personally believe Mahatma Gandhi , a devout hindu also followed Christ.

    I honestly believe the best way I can follow Christ is to be as good a Catholic as I can (and I am not claiming to be good at it by the way) but that does NOT mean that non-catholics or even complete atheists are any less followers of Christ than I am. But to me it makes a difference “going through all that boring nuisance ritual” or not, a difference FOR ME that is!

  15. David Buttigieg says:

    @Daphne
    “Labour Party supporters are not a race apart, though sometimes I have reason to doubt that.”

    Well, they often give the impression they live on a different planet!

  16. Zizzu says:

    I do not agree that “rectifying a mistake” in the case you mention necessarily means that one goes back to the marital home. Far from it – especially if children are involved. How would the children be affected by all the arguing and generally tense atmosphere?

    On the other hand, a practising Catholic, having made this particular mistake would ask his/her spouse for forgiveness, go to confession and generally try to make amends … including that s/he try to regain his/her spouse’s trust. Of course, all this is easier said than done.

    A non-Catholic will devise his or her own way of dealing with the problem. How effective that is greatly depends on the person’s willingness to admit the mistake.

    A believer will look to God for guidance whereas a non-believer will look to himself for a solution.

    An impression I get from reading various crusaders’ correspondence (on the internet and in the papers) is that these people are very quick to say that we should do this, that and the other while conveniently forgetting to ask the question “How would I feel if i were in that person’s shoes?” And I can understand that such smugness can be very irritating… why?! it irritates me and we’re on the same side. Condemn the action as much as you like, but do not condemn the person. What’s the point of being Catholic if you can’t love?

    It’s true that as Catholics we have to follow certain “rules”, and it is also true that we are brought up to think of what is right and wrong in the light of these rules. But it is not true that the rules are inadequate, or that they can’t be applied to real life. To keep to the same “scenario” you mentioned that a marriage fails and either or both of the ex-partners form a new relationship. That idea is out of bounds to a Catholic. So s/he wouldn’t have to deal with that set of circumstances. Anyone who enters a romantic relationship with anyone who is not his/her spouse is guilty of committing adultery – according to Christ (I forget which Gospel). But no one is forcing anyone to not embark on such a relationship. Live and let live, sort of thing. However a Catholic can never say that the situation is acceptable and, when and if the occasion arises, it is the Catholic’s duty to TACTFULLY point out the “error”, but a Catholic will not love the person any less because of the mistake. It could have been him.

    Catholic values are there for anybody and everybody to embrace. No one ever said they were convenient … on the contrary. In one of the gospels Jesus himself said that he came to this world to pit son against father, mother against daughter etc etc … meaning that to follow his teachings will incur ridicule and anger. But that’s a risk many of us are willing to take.

    (Daphne – You just proving my point, and you don’t even realise it.)

  17. cikki says:

    I hope that the days of telling off a mischievous child
    with the words: Jesus doesn’t love you or You are making
    Our Lady cry or you won’t go to heaven have long gone!!

  18. Stanley J A Clews says:

    To Amanda Mallia I say
    Not everyone who writes about illegal immigrants is a racist. I have written a great deal about this matter but during World War II I served with, under and commanded black, white and inbetween coloured troops and they were all brave, bright men (and women)and we worked together in a supportive manner. But in the present circumstances I do feel for our own soldiers and police and for the manner in which we are being overloaded with more of these immigrants than we can cope with. Let us look after those we have as well as possible but surely the time has come to say “enough is enough”.

  19. my name is Leonard but my son calls me Joey says:

    Humanitarian aspects aside, why can’t some people see anything positive in this refugee business. For example I can see Malta making it to the World Cup finals in 20 years time or so with a line-up looking something like this: Atangana, Okello, Bangoura, Diarra, Boumsong, Sissoko, Boateng, Yakubu, Bakayoko, Aboubakar, Mifsud. (Sorry, but it’s turning out to be a rather boring holiday).

  20. Gerald says:

    Some of the things said to describe Labour supporters here do border on the racist and you very well know it.

    (Daphne – Have it your way, Gerald. Racist comments depend on there being a racial difference between the insulter and the insulted.)

  21. Amanda Mallia says:

    Stanley J Clews – You said “but surely the time has come to say “enough is enough””

    So what is your solution? Shoot them on the way in? Let them drown? Let them die of hunger or thirst? We all know that there is no true solution to what is, yes, a huge problem – Short of getting Libya to man the whole of its coast, that is, which would be impossible and ridiculous to even suggest, anyway.

    The right thing to do, then, is to at least rescue these people as and when necessary, and not treat them like dirt. It is the reactions of people such as the ones commenting on the attached link which never fail to shock me (bearing in mind that most of them were posted at the time when 120 immigrants (amongst them very young children) were in danger of drowning or dying of hunger and thirst):

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080807/local/120-migrants-stranded-on-drifting-boat

  22. A Camilleri says:

    @ Jacques René Zammit. Apologies for misspelling ‘definitely’. However while I don’t expect to write in SMS language, I do hope that I don’t have to rigorously check my grammar / spelling before pressing the ‘Add your comment’ button.

  23. Marku says:

    Stanley Clews: I don’t know how many times this point must be repeated. Malta, like many other countries, is a signatory to international agreements that prevent forced expatriation of immigrants to countries where their human rights might be infringed. As an independent sovereign nation, Malta signed up to these agreements freely and willingly because they are consistent with the values of a modern, civilized society. Therefore calling out “ma irriduhomx” and “enough is enough” is not a practical solution. Other “solutions” for “getting rid” of illegal immigrants that people should stop repeating like idiots include: issuing then with a Maltese passport upon their arrival, a blockade against Libya, forcing a boatload of immigrants to turn back when sailing in international waters, eliminating “do-gooders” (who are they? where do they live?) and NGOs, and getting rid of our traitorous political class which has a collective agenda to encourage illegal immigration to Malta because this same political class is controlled by construction magnates who wish to drive down wages.

  24. David Buttigieg says:

    When it comes to irregular immigrants what we must always bear in mind is that they are human beings first and foremost, and if any human being’s life is in danger then we have a duty to do all we can to rescue them. End of story.

    Once rescued we cannot send them back if their lives are in danger. Imagine one of them was your son or daughter!

    As to economic refugees I suppose one may repatriate them even though it is (in my opinion) potentially short sighted for we are losing people who have shown that they have the will to better their lot in life and so are the kind of people we do want in our workforce, especially with a pension crisis looming.

    Let’s be 100% honest, nobody would complain if it were blonde swedes coming over in hordes, it is all a race issue.

    I can’t understand some (well many) people. We should all be thanking God that we are in a position that people come to us and it’s not us who have to flee our land to meet a bunch of racists posing as religious patriots.

  25. @David Buttigieg says:

    David Buttigieg – “Let’s be 100% honest, nobody would complain if it were blonde swedes coming over in hordes, it is all a race issue.” Well said!

    Nobody – except for the occasional woman, maybe – seemed to complain about the numerous Eastern European women here under the pretext of being students (and this in pre-EU accession days), though many spoke of “Russian whores”. Likewise, nobody seems to complain (again, except for the occasional woman) about the hordes of Asian women coming here to “study English” and remaining here ad eternum, often hooking up with some previously confirmed batchelor in his mid-40s/50s/60s, usually at least a generation or two older than they are, under the pretext of love. Oh yes, and then there are the Chinese and Thai “massage parlours” sprouting up even in obscure villages, though those, of course, don’t seem to bother the typical anti-African men commenting on The Times online.

  26. Pat says:

    “Let’s be 100% honest, nobody would complain if it were blonde swedes coming over in hordes, it is all a race issue.”

    Well thank you my friend, that is very touching… Although I do suspect you were referring to the female kind.

  27. David Buttigieg says:

    @Pat,

    It was just an example for the sake of the argument my friend,and no, not necessarily the female kind – my point was that if not black (or arab) then they would not be so unwelcome by so many people!

    Anyway Swedes have all the right in the world to come here after all!

  28. John Schembri says:

    @ David : “Let’s be 100% honest, nobody would complain if it were blonde swedes coming over in hordes, it is all a race issue” That is because you like blondes.
    If a blonde would start taking a lot from your possessions you will be the first to complain.I don’t think that we are racists.
    I am not advocating to leave the boat people to drown or not to help them. But I think we are encouraging crime with our attitude.
    Addressing the root cause is the way to eliminate this problem , or turning the problem into an opportunity.

  29. John Schembri says:

    See how this “Island continent” tackles the big problem of 85 migrants.
    http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/13/

  30. kagemusha says:

    Yes..so said the Pope “non ce salvezza fuori della chiesa Cattolica”

    bene…in that case I prefer the company of Ghandi in hell.

  31. John Schembri says:

    @ Kagemusha : I checked out who said that : Acts 4 ,8-12.
    Ghandi’s deeds were very Christian, I don’t think he is in hell.
    God judges you by your deeds , there are many so called Christians who don’t follow Christ’s teachings. And there are many non-Christians who do what Christ preached.
    It doesn’t follow that all non-Christians are living an exemplary life.

    (Daphne – So might as well not bother with the rhythm method and Sunday mass, then.)

  32. David Buttigieg says:

    “So might as well not bother with the rhythm method and Sunday mass, then”

    That a non argument.

    If you believe something is wrong but do it anyway then you still did wrong, whether it was really wrong or not.

    Likewise IF I honestly believe being a Catholic is right but don’t do it because it’s inconvenient then I do wrong.

    Ofcourse if you don’t believe it then that’s a different matter.

    (Daphne – No, actually it’s a very good argument. If sticking to the rules is no different to not sticking to the rules, then the only reason to stick to them is for kicks.)

  33. David Buttigieg says:

    @John,

    Can you tell me what any immigrant took from you? I’m curious!

  34. David Buttigieg says:

    “If sticking to the rules is no different to not sticking to the rules, then the only reason to stick to them is for kicks”

    If you believe so then agreed, but I don’t feel it’s no different whether I follow the rules or not!

    Following the rules for the sake of following the rules is silly at best, BUT following the rules because you honestly believe them to be relevant to you IS a different matter.

    (Daphne – Fine by me.)

  35. Tim Ripard says:

    Can we honestly answer the questions ‘Does God exist?’ ‘Who, or what is God?’ ‘What – if anything – does he or she have to say to me/us?’ Many many people are happy to do so on the basis of their upbringing. e.g. I was raised a Moslem, so I’ll answer based on that, whilst a Catholic (or a Jew or a Protestant or a Hindu) will have a different understanding of God and His message and consequently different values.

    I think it is pretentious in the extreme for humans to try and understand God – it’s like crediting bacteria with the capability of understanding humans. I believe there is (a) God but it (God is way way above gender issues and ‘it’ is anything but derogatory here) is light years beyond human comprehension. Any religion is therefore man-made and thus a con. Religious values are in fact the values adopted and adapted by groups of people for their own purposes.

    Non-thinking people are happy to take on these values wholesale. However, almost everyone, even the staunchest Moslem or Catholic will have his own personal variation of these values (otherwise condoms wouldn’t be sold in Catholic countries). After all, almost everyone can think.

    Ultimately, values are a personal, human thing, independent of religion and if the Archbishop implied that only Catholics have values I feel he was way out of line.

    (Daphne – Yes, but then the idea of an anthropomorphic God has always been ridiculous, rooted as it is in a misinterpretation of the words that God made man in his own image. Even sillier is the notion that God is male (or for that matter, female). Why would a god need primary or secondary sexual characteristics and reproductive organs?)

  36. kagemusha says:

    @ John Schembri .let’s not indulge into the age old exasperating exercise of quoting Holy Books…to “prove our righteousness” It’s worth digging into our history books to realize what was committed in the name of those Holy Books and that goes for all the three monotheistic religions.
    Incidentally please don’t quote the acts especially 1 Th 2, 13-17 loaded with terribly heavy words, to the extent that some Jewish scholars look on St Paul as the initiator of anti-Semitism

  37. John Schembri says:

    Blonde emigrants and dark emigrants are running our five star hotel industry : room service , maintenance , banqueting , management etc . And I can tell you that the service level has gone down , I know from first hand experience.
    Tourism is one of the pillars of the economy.
    Don’t misunderstand me , I have friends who who came to Malta illegally , they need help, but I think that in the long run our economy is losing .
    This is like bringing a friend to stay with you at home , like the Italian saying goes “sono come i pesci : dopo tre giorni cominciano a puzzare”.

    (Daphne – Of course, sullen Maltese with no clue about manners are best in the service industry…..)

  38. John Schembri says:

    @ Kagemusha : I tried to find when the pope said that , I found something near what you said on the Bible.
    Can you tell us where and when did he say that?

    (Daphne – Come on, John, don’t get so het up and defensive. The Pope is a big boy and he can take care of himself, though I’ll admit he’ll have a tough time having Kagemusha burned alive for saying it.)

  39. Pat says:

    “The Pope is a big boy and he can take care of himself”

    Don’t be too sure about it:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4732048.ece

    Not to mention the poor bastard who got fined for calling the host “just a biscuit” here in Malta.

    As well as the student walking out of church with a host and received death threats from catholics in the United States.
    …and of course PZ Myers planned desecration of a host in support of said student (and for fairness he did dessecrate a Quran and The God Delusion as well).

    Good thing God has “the righteous” to stick up for him when he is being bullied.

    (Daphne – I saw that story. I think it’s outrageous. Shades of Islam.)

  40. cikki says:

    @ John Schembri and Daphne

    I’ve just spent several days working in as 5 star hotel
    and ALL the blonde and dark workers said good morning.
    Apart from a couple of friendly ones, the Maltese workers
    ignored me!

    (Daphne – That’s always been my experience, too. I’ve come to the conclusion that a certain kind of Maltese person thinks that eye contact is a criminal offence.)

  41. John Schembri says:

    @ Daphne : I just wanted to know where this statement was said by Benedict. , you know he gets ‘misunderstood’ a lot by some journalists.I searched that specific phrase and found the quote from Acts. No such phrase from the big boy on google, at least.I didn’t know that he reads this commentary!
    @ Cikki : every morning there is a briefing in a ‘good’ hotel in it one hears what is exactly going on in the Hotel and wether the GSI is going up or down.
    @ Pat : I cannot understand why certain people try to ridicule or desecrate Religion.
    I like the humour of Dave Allen or Dario Fo’ but I think this Italian comedienne went one too far.
    Freedom of religion is one of the human rights , so live and let live , for example : don’t draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed because Muslims feel insulted , after all what difference would it make for non-Muslims.

    (Daphne – You’re joking, right? Or perhaps you haven’t noticed the similarity between the attitudes of extreme Catholics and extreme Muslims, and their leaders. You don’t seem to realise the danger, and the backward-looking risks, of implementing laws, in Europe, against anything which might cause offence to the fundamentalists of Catholicism, Islam or any other religion which attracts extremists. Are you honestly saying that Denmark, or Britain, which both have a very long tradition of satire and free speech, should now change all that because of some crazy imam half a world away and his ignorant, unwashed and uneducated rabble of blind followers? And are you saying that anyone who cracks a rude joke about the Pope should face imprisonment? Maybe you’d have been happier with the certainties of life during the Inquisition. The Inquisitor’s principles were rather similar to your own, just more extreme.)

  42. John Schembri says:

    @ Daphne: I am against people getting imprisoned or hunted down for such behavior. But if Muslims feel insulted when someone draws a picture of the Prophet I would say that other people should respect the Muslims’ feelings , after all the Prophet is their founder.
    Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that one can insult a Religion on something which is considered sacred by that religion. Remember that your freedom stops where my rights start.We are not talking about a pork steak and cold beer , I have a right to eat what I like , it affects my way of life.
    The British have a long tradition of satire but I think that you would agree with me that their Political Correctness is accommodating minorities and forgetting the rights of the common British citizen. I stand to be corrected but I think that after the Denmark cartoon incident it is no longer PC to draw an image of Mohammed in Britain.
    Back to work now.

    (Daphne – You seem unaware of the inherent contradiction in your last point. It is the unnecessary accommodation of minorities who come from a culture of intolerance that is eroding civil liberties in Britain. Yet you are for more of this (don’t draw Mohammed in case it upsets somebody enough to put a bomb in a tube station). Define insult, anyway – we all look at things differently. I remember the outrage some years ago when in the play The Duchess of Malfi, at the Manoel Theatre, an actor kicked a wooden cross – not even a crucifix – across the stage. Even the minister of culture thought fit to intervene and condemn it. The whole thing was utterly ridiculous.)

  43. Pat says:

    Bad humour or not, how can you even try to defend such dictatorial legislation. Every man is free to practice, or not practice, any bloody religion they choose, but they have no right to demand them to be taken seriously.

    In a democratic society I can choose to ridicule political ideas, music tastes, literary choices, but somehow I should not be allowed to criticise peoples imaginary friends, or their pointy hat leaders, or else I risk jail time?

    You and the likes of you, sir, is a threat to democracy and liberty.

    And in regards to the Danish cartoons, can’t you, behind those blind eyes of yours, at least see that those cartoons were drawn as a critique of the attrocities made in the name of Mohammed and the following blood shed was a proof that the last thing they need is more respect. It’s up to us to show the joy of living in a democratic society, with all the freedom it gives the people inside it, rather than succumbing to their barbaric threats and change our ways due to some meniacal followers.

    Wishing the pope to hell, drawing a bomb clad mohammed and deeming a cracker to be, you guessed it, a cracker, is within our rights.

  44. John Schembri says:

    Daphne , I am not for legislation , we have more than enough of that. But I think we have to draw the line somewhere where insulting/or the feeling of being insulted can be taken seriously.
    Lets take for example the burning of the American flag , we have seen a lot of this on TV. If for argument’s sake I burn the Stars and Stripes in the US I will get arrested and probably imprisoned . Your argument would be that I was imprisoned for burning a piece of cloth.
    @ Pat : don’t get hot under the collar , and no bloody swerin :)
    I can tell you that probably I experienced and put up with the way Muslims treat their visitors more than you did. I don’t feel that my rights are being eroded if an editor would not let me draw a figure of Mohammed.

    (Daphne – That burning the flag is a crime is not America’s strength but its weakness. The US may be the land of the free, but there are fascistic elements in its culture. It is not a crime to burn the flag in Britain. There is only one reason why an editor in a free country should ‘disallow’ something – editing, not censorship.)

  45. Daphne Caruana Galizia says:

    “The fact that you can call your prime minister a liar and a criminal is not (an attack on) his virtue, it is your virtue.” – the British playwright Tom Stoppard, 2005, quoting a Belarussian filmaker who had been beaten up by state security a short while before “for all the usual reasons”.

  46. John Schembri says:

    @ Daphne : So according to you Austria , Germany and Italy still have ” fascistic elements” in their legislation:

    Austria

    Penal Code (StB), Besonderer Teil (Special Part), Vierzehnter Abschnitt (Fourteenth Section), Hochverrat und andere Angriffe gegen den Staat (High treason and other Attacks against the State)

    § 248 Herabwürdigung des Staates und seiner Symbole (The denigration of the State and its symbols)

    (1) Wer auf ……. einem Jahr zu bestrafen. (Whosoever, in such a manner that the act becomes known to the general public, in a malicious way, insults and brings into contempt the Austrian Republic and its States, is liable for imprisonment for up to one year.)

    (2) Wer in der im Abs. 1……….. zu bestrafen. (Whosoever, in the manner described in Paragraph 1, in a malicious manner and at a public occasion or a function open to the public, insults, brings into contempt or belittles the flag displayed for official purposes or the national or state anthems of the Austrian Republic or its States, is liable for imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine of up to 360 times the fixed daily rate.)

    Germany

    Section 90(a) of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) states as follows:

    (2) Whoever removes, destroys, damages, renders unusable or unrecognizable, or commits insulting mischief upon a publicly displayed flag of the Federal Republic of Germany or one of its Lands or a national emblem installed by a public authority of the Federal Republic of Germany or one of its Lands shall be similarly punished. An attempt shall be punishable.

    (3) The punishment shall be imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine if the perpetrator by the act intentionally gives support to efforts against the continued existence of the Federal Republic of Germany or against its constitutional principles.(65)
    Art. 292 – Vilipendio alla bandiera o ad altro emblema dello Stato (Publicly insult or vilify the flag or any other emblem of the State)

    Italy

    Chiunque vilipende la bandiera nazionale o un altro emblema dello Stato è punito con la reclusione da uno a tre anni. Agli effetti della legge penale, per “bandiera nazionale” s’intende la bandiera ufficiale dello Stato e ogni altra bandiera portante i colori nazionali. Le disposizioni di questo articolo si applicano anche a chi vilipende i colori nazionali raffigurati su cosa diversa da una bandiera.

    Six months or even three years imprisonment for showing disrespect to a piece of cloth !

    (Daphne – John, instead of disproving my point, you’ve helped back it up. What do Italy, Austria and Germany have in common? Come on, it’s an easy one…..)

  47. John Schembri says:

    @ Daphne:That was easy I thought you knew that they were cleaned up from fascism !
    But just in case you are not convinced:

    Norway (no fascist tradition) , & Scandinavian.

    There is no law relating to the desecration of Norway’s own flag but there is a law protecting the flag or national coat of arms of a foreign country.

    The General Civil Penal Code with amendments to 1 July 1994 provides:

    § 95. Any person who in the realm publicly insults the flag or national coat of arms of a foreign State, or who is accessory thereto, shall be liable to fines or to detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. The same penalty shall apply to any person who in the realm offends a foreign State by committing violence against or by threatening or offensive behaviour towards any representative of that State, or by intruding into, causing damage to, or soiling any building or room used by any such representative, or who is accessory thereto.(73)

    In the list there are also France , Portugal , and India .

    Check mate !

    Now there is a ‘cow show’ on Rai Uno , we are supporting Number 78.

    (Daphne – Not checkmate at all, I’m afraid. What next, Spain?)

  48. Pat says:

    “don’t get hot under the collar , and no bloody swerin :)”

    My apologies, but it’s a subject I do take very seriously and to me this oppresion is an insult to humanity and have to stop.

    “I can tell you that probably I experienced and put up with the way Muslims treat their visitors more than you did.”

    I’m not sure of the relevance of this.

    “I don’t feel that my rights are being eroded if an editor would not let me draw a figure of Mohammed.”

    If I, as a cartoonist, had been commisioned to draw a series of cartoons and then, after publishing them, people start rioting, killing people and publicly threaten people, I would count on the support of my fellow westerners to stand behind me and support my democratic rights. It was the same in the case of Salman Rushdie, after publishing the Satanic Verses. Instead of showing support of his right to publish a book, which simply took a concept already existant in some muslim teachings and turned into a literary project, they sided with emminent protectors of civil rights such as the ayatollah of Iran.

    Concerning your list of legislation against flag desecration, what are they meant to prove? That since they have some unfair laws, they should introduce more unfair laws?

  49. John Schembri says:

    @ Pat : I think the difference in our opinion can be summarised in a few words : I tend to respect people’s feelings without questioning as long as they do not trample on my basic rights and freedoms. Your opinion is “don’t allow them anything , because in no time they will trample on our rights”.
    As for flag burning , I just want to ask one simple question ,: “why should anyone burn a flag in a demonstration?”
    You consider a flag as piece of cloth , I consider it as a symbol of a nation.
    And finally , I know that in their countries Muslims condition you to their religious laws , they even have religious police! So I know the ‘dangers’ we may be risking.

    (Daphne – I know you addressed Pat, but I can’t resist responding to this. You speak of the dangers inherent in a Muslim theocracy, and yet you see no such inherent danger in a Catholic theocracy. Muslim rules for all are dangerous. Catholic rules for all are not. If anyone wants to burn a flag, he should be left at liberty to do so. If anyone wants to burn a cross or defile a picture of Mohammed, he should be at liberty to do so too. Yes, it would be ill-mannered and in poor taste, but laws are not there to teach us good manners.)

  50. Pat says:

    “Your opinion is “don’t allow them anything , because in no time they will trample on our rights”.”

    This is so the opposite of the opinion I’m expressing. My opinion is that all people have the same liberties and rights. Just like you, I do respect other people feelings and rights, as long as basic fundamental democratic rights are given their proper space.

    And no, I do not consider a flag as just a piece of cloth. To me a flag is a symbol of a nation. That doesn’t mean I want to jail people for being of the bad taste of burning, or desecrating one.

    Having bad taste should not be illegal. In these cases people are given above normal rights, for the simple fact that they happen to be religious. I can make fun and joke about a prime minister, but not the pope? I can drive a rusty nail through a Richard Dawkins book, but not the eucharist? I can draw a mocking picture of basically any other personality on earth, but not Mohammed? I can criticise any political, ideological, or philosophical idea, but not someones religious views?

    I’m sure you see where I am going.

  51. John Schembri says:

    @ Pat & Daphne : you did not answer to my question , “why would one burn a flag, or drive a rusty nail in a eucharist? ” People do not have a right to insult other people.You don’t have a right to call the PM , “pufta”.

    (Daphne – Why would anyone burn a flag or drive a rusty nail into the eucharist? Because they might want to do so, and who are we to interfere or to try and stop them? Some people I know spend all night awake praying at vigils while their daughters roll around vomiting in the Paceville gutter and having sex with whoever picks them up. Who am I to say the parents should be at home addressing their domestic problems instead of going into denial? I think they should, but it’s not up to me to interfere. Yes, actually people do have a right to insult other people, and they do so all the time. What they do not have a right to do, on the other hand, is slander or libel the person, or break the public peace while shouting those insults instead of muttering them within earshot. You are confusing good manners and appropriate behaviour with rights and the law. I would never dream of calling anyone ‘pufta’ and have never done so in my life – not because I consider it an insult, but rather the opposite. Only a certain kind of person thinks that calling somebody gay is an insult, and he is usually wearing a black shirt, jack-boots and a shaven head, while listening to the most recent rants from the leaders of our Far Right political groupings. If I recall correctly, the last person I heard using the word ‘pufta’ on the public stage was Josie Muscat, while representing his political party. But should I have been the sort to go around calling people ‘pufta’, then yes, of course I would have had the right to address the prime minister in that fashion. Manners are another thing altogether.)

  52. Pat says:

    “Why” is not of the issue. Obviously both acts you mentioned would, most likely, be made to make a point.

    In the case of flag burning, I would gladly have joined the ranks burning a swastika clad red banner at the end of World War 2. I would gladly burn the North Korean flag, in case of Kim Jong Il being wrapped inside of it.

    The nail through the eucharist was a sign in support of a poor student who was threatened to death by American Catholics and harassed endlessly by the Catholic League. It is all covered online at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula. It was a political statement in support of someones civil rights.

  53. John Schembri says:

    Pat, a swastika flag is a political party’s flag.
    You think you have a right to insult people or their feelings , just to make a political statement.
    I’m sorry , but I think on this one we can never agree.
    BTW : What did the”poor student” do ?

  54. Pat says:

    John:
    No, we probably never will.

    The student in question walked out with a blessed eucharyst from the church (which he actually later returned). This was enough to earn him several death threats and for crazy Bill Donahue of the Catholic League to campaign for his suspension.

    And when it comes to people being offended, there are plenty of things I’m offended by, but it does not mean I want them outlawed, why should religion have that privilegue?

    And I still want to know your opinion on the actual legislation. Do you really think that these “offences” should be punishable by jail?

  55. Pat says:

    Also, to add more fuel to the fire…
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/harry_de_quetteville/blog/2008/09/15/german_priest_gets_police_protection_for_insulting_pope

    Yeah, a real religion of tolerance and priest. Again, do you really think he deserves death threats and lawsuits? He simply criticised the pope and for this he has to live under constant fear.

    No, I’m sorry sir, I have no need to respect that.

  56. David Buttigieg says:

    Burning the flag in the U.S. has been declared legal since 1989.

    “Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).”

    “Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself”

    (Daphne – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States. Thanks for the link, David. For some reason, it kept going into spam, which is why I’m posting is separately. Must be one of Kevin’s US conspiracies.)

  57. John Schembri says:

    @ Pat : “Should this be punishable by jail ?” . To tell you the truth I have mixed feelings. Probably I would check the motive behind the action. A jail sentence is for a criminal offense . It depends a lot on the way the affected people look at the insult. Personally rather than sending the offender to jail I would oblige him to do something fruitful to the group of people he offended.

    @ Daphne : there are quite a lot of countries with “fascistic elements” !

    (Daphne – Yes, but only a few with a history of fascism, and hey-ho, all but one were predominantly Catholic: Italy, Spain and Austria. The ‘one’, of course, is Germany. Those raised as Catholics are naturally predisposed to the extremes of right-wing thinking.)

  58. Pat says:

    John:
    What if the boot is on the other foot. What if PZ Myers, who nailed the eucharist, felt offended by the Catholic Leagues action against these students (which he did)? He was offended, so they should be punished, right?

    You must see how impossible it is to punish someone every time someone is offended by something. I feel offended when Jesus says someone like me should have a millstone hung around my neck and drowned. Some jews feel offended by the implications of them as Christ-killers. Would you join me and them in campaigning agains the bible?

    Some muslims across Europe have been campaigning against havin “The Three Little Pigs” read in kindergarden, as pigs are unclean animals. Would you join them as well?

    I take offense when a man have his trousers two inches too far down, removing my appetite. Should we outlaw that too?

    Some muslims take offense of the way “our women” dresses, perhaps you should drive around in a van handing out burqas.

    You must see my point here, people can take offense to pretty much anything, but it does not mean we should penalise every action taken, it would result in a complete police state, where any liberal expression taken could be seen as an offense.

    (Daphne – Matthew 18:6 ‘But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea’. I know that the strict interpretation of ‘little ones’ is as in Leonard Helmsley infamous statement that only the little people pay taxes – http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/08/21/we-dont-pay-taxes-only-little-people-pay-taxes. But most sensible people prefer to see it as a reference to children, and the corruption of children.)

  59. Pat says:

    Daphne:
    I’m aware of Matthew 18:6 being interpreted as either children, or followers of Christ, who are like children (in more than one sense I would say), but what that passage would have to do with taxes is beyond me.

    18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
    18:2 He called a child, had him stand among them,
    18:3 and said, “I tell you the truth, 1 unless you turn around and become like little children, 2 you will never 3 enter the kingdom of heaven!
    18:4 Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
    18:5 And whoever welcomes 4 a child like this in my name welcomes me.
    18:6 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, 5 it would be better for him to have a huge millstone 6 hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea. 7

  60. John Schembri says:

    @ Pat : I hope you never scandalised children , the millstone argument is meant for people who scandalise children.

  61. Pat says:

    John:
    Scandalise? If I were to influence a child to disbelieve, I have caused him to sin and should have a millstone around my neck. The King James version says it’s applied to those who “offend” one of the little ones. Yeah, the king of kings really knew how to handle out proper punishment. Not to mention that it was the fellows teachings that introduced the concept of hell. Hell is another concept I find extremely offensive, so again, want to join me in a campaign against the bible?

  62. John Schembri says:

    Scandalise for me means when a responsible adult gives a bad example like teaching children how to steal or how to tell lies.
    If you don’t believe in hell, then what keeps you from cheating or backstabbing other people?
    If I don’t believe in something I just disregard it, I won’t go ranting about that it does not exist , I simply ignore it , especially if it does not interfere with my life.
    Lately I read that Erich Von Daniken was here in Malta , I don’t believe what he says about our ‘cart ruts’ . Why should I go writing that what he wrote is to be regarded as fiction?

    (Daphne – http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html)

  63. Pat says:

    John:
    It never says scandalise, that’s an interpretation. I prefer to read what it says, rather than make things up.

    “If you don’t believe in hell, then what keeps you from cheating or backstabbing other people?”

    If you are telling me you didn’t believe in hell, you would cheat and backstab people, you’re pretty much morally bankrupt. In fact, I dare say that based on that statement I would consider myself a vastly more moral person than you, as I don’t believe in hell and still don’t do these things. It’s an argument that is way past its due date and I find it quite peculiar that people still use it.

    “If I don’t believe in something I just disregard it, I won’t go ranting about that it does not exist , I simply ignore it , especially if it does not interfere with my life.”

    The last part is the key to it “if it does not interfere with my life”. Putting that in context to your last sentence:
    “Lately I read that Erich Von Daniken was here in Malta , I don’t believe what he says about our ‘cart ruts’ . Why should I go writing that what he wrote is to be regarded as fiction?”

    Did Mr. Von Daniken ever tell people that they need to live their life a certain way due to the extraterrestrials? Did he ever tell people that if they don’t behave like the extraterrestrials want, they will face eternal torment? More importantly than anything, did he ever use these teachings to scare children and ensure they believe certain things, as otherwise they would end up in hell?

    I have never told people what to believe, or that they shouldn’t believe in God. The only thing I ask is that they return that favour, both to me, my future children and to other human beings. Preaching to a child that there is a God and if you don’t believe in him you will face eternal torment is wrong for the following reasons:
    1. You will build a moral system which is based on fear of punishment, not one based on being a good person (please note how it’s different to teach him the good values taught by Christ, rather than about hell, in which case this does not apply)
    2. You are forcing him/her to believe something for which you cannot know for sure, removing rational thinking
    3. You will make him/her face the problem of relating their unfounded beliefs with someone else’s unfounded beliefs
    4. You have not left the option open to actually explore different beliefs first and then see which one correlates best with their own world view

    So non-literal bible passages aside, aliens aside and indoctrination of children aside, you still did not provide a single argument to why we are not free to perform acts that might be offensive to other people, when these acts in reality should not affect them at all.

    (Daphne – “If you don’t believe in hell, then what keeps you from cheating or backstabbing other people?”. John, I missed that comment of yours. So I was right after all, despite your many protestations: you are the perfect illustration of what happens when Maltese children are taught the difference between right and wrong only within the context of old-fashioned religiosity (don’t do that because you hurt Jesus, don’t do that because you’ll go to hell): they grow up to become adults with no morality outside religion. So if they ditch their religion, as lots of Maltese do, they end up completely amoral – hence so much of what we see around us. What you’re saying here is that the main reason you don’t murder your maddening neighbour is fear of hell, though it might also be fear of the law.)

  64. Pat says:

    I can’t remember who said it, but it’s always so accurate: “When people say we need religion to be good, they generally mean we need more police”.

  65. John Schembri says:

    Pat you wrote this ” Yeah, the king of kings really knew how to handle out proper punishment. Not to mention that it was the fellows teachings that introduced the concept of hell. Hell is another concept I find extremely offensive, so again, want to join me in a campaign against the bible?”
    I asked you what keeps you from doing ‘bad’ things; I worked with atheists/communists and found that they wouldn’t think twice to back stab anyone, their philosophy-if they have one- is : “grab now ruthlessly”.You mentioned hell and I asked you a question , I did not say that I do what I do because of the fear that I will go to hell. I raised my children as best I could, among other things I always “preached” to them that “the King of Kings” loves them(God is love). I raise my children on a positivity.

    Daphne I can never fit into the “illustrations” you want me .If you may recall I once wrote in your blog that I am against the teaching of religion at public schools religion is not a school subject it is a way of life. I prefer that children are thought logic and philosophy at school, and let their parents teach their beliefs to their children.So, Daphne you are not right about my way of thinking .

    Pat, one cannot say that he stands on a high moral ground and in the same breath states that he has a right to hurt other people’s feelings.
    I have a friend from Singapore who was not raised in a religion or philosophy, he calls himself ‘a freethinker’, he just lives and lets live, he never went around annoying people about their religion. When once we happened to be in front of a church in Shanghai on a Sunday, he wanted to come with me inside the church to satisfy his curiosity . He didn’t try to ridicule me or laugh at me during mass.(BTW later we found out that the ‘church’ was the communist controlled type!) His behavior was what is expected from a ‘freethinker’ .
    Finally , if a little child starts talking to a doll and is really happy with her new found friend , with your way of thinking I should tear apart the doll to prove to the child that her friend is not real.

    Live and let live, Pat.

  66. Pat says:

    John:
    “I asked you what keeps you from doing ‘bad’ things; I worked with atheists/communists and found that they wouldn’t think twice to back stab anyone, their philosophy-if they have one- is : “grab now ruthlessly”.”

    How on earth did you lump atheists and communists together? Even though you might have had a bad experience of certain people, who happened to be atheists, what gives you the right to say all atheists are like that?

    You mentioned hell and I asked you a question , I did not say that I do what I do because of the fear that I will go to hell. I raised my children as best I could, among other things I always “preached” to them that “the King of Kings” loves them(God is love). I raise my children on a positivity.”

    As I said, that part of the Christian teachings is all well and fine, but you also said:
    ““If you don’t believe in hell, then what keeps you from cheating or backstabbing other people?””
    Which I find remarkable. Either you did not read my post properly, or you deliberately misinterpret it.

    “Pat, one cannot say that he stands on a high moral ground and in the same breath states that he has a right to hurt other people’s feelings.”

    I gave you a whole series of examples where people might be offended due to other peoples actions and this is your response? Whether they stand on a high moral ground or not (which in some of the cases I still think they do) is irrelevant. What is relevant is if they have the right to, which they do.

    “I have a friend from Singapore who was not raised in a religion or philosophy, he calls himself ‘a freethinker’, he just lives and lets live, he never went around annoying people about their religion. When once we happened to be in front of a church in Shanghai on a Sunday, he wanted to come with me inside the church to satisfy his curiosity . He didn’t try to ridicule me or laugh at me during mass.(BTW later we found out that the ‘church’ was the communist controlled type!) His behavior was what is expected from a ‘freethinker’ .”

    Oh, weren’t communist the same as atheists to you a few sentences before, now they own churches. Interesting.

    So what you are saying is that if you are an atheist you should just shut up, to any injustice you see. As I clearly said in my last post, I have no intention of “preaching” to people, or deconvert them. That is never my purpose, so what is your problem?

    “Finally , if a little child starts talking to a doll and is really happy with her new found friend , with your way of thinking I should tear apart the doll to prove to the child that her friend is not real.”

    Talk about a strawman argument. No, with my way of thinking you would not tear away the doll and if you want to continue this discussion by making up things about me, or my way of thinking, your whole argument is pretty bankrupt.

    This was a discussion about peoples right to express themselves freely, a right which you time after time have insisted on them not having, for the simple reason that the things they “offend” is religious. Then you somehow mix in communists into the debate, which is hilarious, as your way of limiting liberties and to restrains peoples liberal rights, tally perfectly with their past actions.

    [Daphne – Straw man argument: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments.html%5D

  67. David Buttigieg says:

    @John,

    Excuse me but if you don’t do something wrong just because you fear punishment you are hardy being a good Catholic. One should be a “good Catholic” because they believe it is right, not to avoid “going to hell”. Unfortunately overzealous “religious types” such as the GOL clan do so much more damage to the Catholic/Christian faith and turn so many people away! That is one of the reasons why my kids will go to MUSEUM over my dead body! I never went after all, and without meaning to sing my own praises, did not turn into a child raping mass murderer.

    It’s the same with divorce for example. If you ask me, divorce legislation STRENGTHENS marriage! A marriage has more value if it stays strong despite divorce being available, then if it “survives” because there is no other choice!

    Again with the touchier case like abortion.

    I happen to agree with GOL about abortion EXCEPT I don’t think it should be stopped at gun point so to speak. Despite my personal views on abortion, I believe that the best way to fight it is from the pulpits, so to speak! Also, by offering support and not making single mothers feel ashamed, and also backing them up rather then condemning them.

    I actually feel that allowing abortion (with certain limitations) by consenting doctors on consenting patients, one will actually decrease abortions by Maltese women!

  68. Pat says:

    Out of curiosity, what exactly is MUSEUM?

    [Daphne – It’s a religious organisation set up by a priest called Dun Gorg Preca, who was declared a saint a couple of years ago. Its members take a vow of chastity and used to go around wearing hideous black clothes, the women with scrubbed faces and moustaches and with their hair scraped back in a greasy bun. The men wore their collars done right up to the top button, but without a tie (too much embellishment) and a little badge pinned on their breast-pocket. I imagine they are less off-putting now. MUSEUM started off as a way of giving religious instruction to illiterate villagers, but somewhere along the line, fairly recently, it gained a stranglehold on all religious instruction that leads to children receiving holy communion for the first time and being confirmed in the Catholic faith. They don’t trust the schools to do it, which was the system when I was a child, and instead insist on all children being dragged to the local MUSEUM hall to be subjected to an hour or two of this madness several times a week, after school, when children and parents are exhausted and need to relax at home. If children don’t go to these doctrine classes, they are not ‘allowed’ to ‘do’ their first holy communion with all the other children in their white dresses. The MUSEUM and the church trade on the fiction that a child needs permission to walk up the church aisle and receive holy communion for the first time, which isn’t true. The white dress bit is just a rite-of-passage ceremony. Any child can receive holy communion for the first time at any church any time he or she wants to do so. Sadly, not enough parents know this. Or they don’t want their little girls to be left out of the white dress prepubescent virgin parade, which I think is awful for a variety of reasons.]

  69. David Buttigieg says:

    @John

    “I worked with atheists/communists and found that they wouldn’t think twice to back stab anyone, their philosophy-if they have one- is : “grab now ruthlessly”.”

    Sorry John, but that’s a load of bullwinkle! I personally respect an atheist who “is good” because he/she feels it’s right much more then someone who does so to because he/she is scared of punishment! Surely you can see the difference!

  70. David Buttigieg says:

    Come to think of it I did my holy communion at school, in school uniform. It was great, no costumes or anything. The only difference was our parents were invited to the mass!

    As if I would force my kids to go to those ghastly people after a day at school! Thanks but no thanks!

    MUSEUM started with the right intentions, at a time when not everyone went to school, but I think religion lessons at school today more then suffice!

    If my children are not allowed to be confirmed (when they choose to be by the way – I did my confirmation when I was 9 and didn’t have a clue as to what it meant) then that’s on their (the powers that be) conscience!

  71. David Buttigieg says:

    Pat,

    Just so you know Mark Vella Gera taught at museum!

    Those people all give me the creeps!

  72. John Schembri says:

    @David : I don’t know where you live , but here in Zurrieq there are dedicated lay people who voluntarily teach the Catholic teachings of the church at il-Muzew. There were/are priests like MVG , what should you do?
    I specifically said atheists/ communists because they were Chinese and Russians and Vietnamese. My friend from Singapore is different.
    @ Pat : What Daphne said about the members of the Museum is partly true. They moved with the times , many of them are well educated (tertiary level) here in Zurrieq one can find two qualified teachers , an engineer ,an accounts clerk , an accountant and a printer .MVG was the exception not the rule.
    As usual Daphne exaggerates , I don’t know what they do at Bidnija but here in Zurrieq our kids go to play some football for half an hour in the evening and then they gather in their class room to learn about the scriptures for not more than half an hour , after that they linger around a bit and by half past eight in summer they are home.The lessons are on Mondays , Tuesdays , Thursdays and Fridays . On Saturdays they can stay in the games room or playing football from half six until nine in the evening , they also have the half hour lesson in between.On Sunday morning they have the same as on Saturday evening and on Sunday afternoon they go out to swim in summer or for a walk or a football game in winter .
    @ David : just to let you know , the MEPA auditor is a member of this society.
    With Pat’s line of reasoning about my experience with commy atheists , you cannot put all the members of this society in one basket , just because one in a thousand did what he did.
    Just in case you did not understand me I do good because it makes me feel good, Pat said that he hates the concept of hell and I asked him what keeps him from doing bad things. If he said he doesn’t believe in heaven I would have told him that if he loves his enemies he would end up there just the same {;=).

    [Daphne – There’s no MUZEW in Bidnija because it isn’t a parish. Bidnija children go to Mosta. Mine didn’t go at all because I consider it a form of child abuse to send children to doctrine classes four afternoons a week after they have been at school until 3.30pm and have returned home exhausted at 4pm with homework still to do – and that’s quite apart from the rubbish they’re taught. Do children have to be regimented into organised activities all the hours God sends? I read your Zurrieq MUZEW schedule and almost passed out with horror. Honestly.]

  73. David Buttigieg says:

    @John,

    “the MEPA auditor is a member of this society”

    errr so?

    “here in Zurrieq our kids go to play some football for half an hour in the evening and then they gather in their class room to learn about the scriptures for not more than half an hour , after that they linger around a bit and by half past eight in summer they are home.The lessons are on Mondays , Tuesdays , Thursdays and Fridays . On Saturdays they can stay in the games room or playing football from half six until nine in the evening , they also have the half hour lesson in between.On Sunday morning they have the same as on Saturday evening and on Sunday afternoon they go out to swim in summer or for a walk or a football game in winter .”

    My God!!! It’s even worse then I thought! Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday AND Sunday?

    Do you ever get to enjoy time with your kids? Or is that limited to Wednesday? In my time, when I finished my homework I was out with my friends on the front on the bike, especially on Saturday or Sunday, or at a picnic with my parents on weekends. We had religion twice a week at school. I think that is quite enough for a child thank you very much!

    No wonder so many teenagers turn away from religion, after being force-fed long enough one tends to turn off it!

    Isn’t there any EU regulation against too many lessons for kids? They should make one!

  74. Pat says:

    Thanks all for the info. When I drive through Naxxar there is a big building saying something Museum Christinae Doctrinae (no idea if spelling is close) and I always thought it was some Christian Museum. Good thing I never went :)

    What is the norm in number of days kids attend these things here? According to John it seems to be every day. My wife seemed to remember something like once or twice a day.

    Both my sister and brother went through holy communion, but in Sweden it’s some they go to once a week for a few months, then attends church to eat a cracker, gets some presents and then forgets all about it.

  75. Pat says:

    John:
    One more thing, I do good because it makes me feel better, just like most people. People who don’t get this feeling are unfortunately a problem, but threats of hell is not really a solution. The second I hear someone mentioning the problem of people doing good only due to fear of hell, I twitch.

  76. John Schembri says:

    My youngest child goes to Muzew whenever he likes and whenever he can , the door is always open.
    So now Daphne you know more about “tall-Muzew” , it seems you were not informed. He is free to choose, probably he likes it.
    BTW I forgot to tell you that my kid had his confirmation some years ago.If you have any doubts about his performance at school, I can assure you that he is a high flier. We do not pay any fees , parents give a donation if they want to.
    @ Pat : Societas Doctrinae Christianae , http://www.sdcmuseum.org/.
    “The second I hear someone mentioning the problem of people doing good only due to fear of hell, I twitch” . I agree.
    I also twitch when someone thinks that s/he has a right to insult or hurt other people’s feelings just to drive home a point.

    [Daphne – John, I can’t understand why you’re still trying to sell tal-MUZEW’s doctrine classes. I’m not in the market. And if your son was confirmed years ago, why is he still voluntarily going to tal-Muzew instead of to Paceville or somewhere more thrilling?]

  77. John Schembri says:

    @ Daphne : Probably he likes the place . Should I send a fifteen year old to Paceville? Am I more old fashioned than the Bidnin?

    On a lighter note:
    A new monk arrived at the monastery. He was assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He noticed, however, that they were copying copies, not the original books. The new monk went to the head monk to ask him about this. He pointed out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.

    The head monk said, ‘We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.’ The head monk went down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.

    Hours later, nobody had seen him, so one of the monks went downstairs to look for him. He heard a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and found the old monk leaning over one of the original books, crying.

    He asked what was wrong.

    ‘The word is ‘celebrate,’ not ‘celibate’!’ sobbed the head monk.

    Good night :)

    [Daphne – John, in my experience you can’t send 15-year-old boys anywhere. They go. But seriously, if he’s still going to tal-Muzew by the time he’s 16, get worried. Your joke: hard to take seriously, given that the first is a verb and the second an adjective, so it would have been rather difficult to confuse them in context. Also, it’s how all the strange interpretations of the New Testament got in there – including, so it’s said, the meaning of ‘virgin birth’. But nobody is going to look too hard at that one, as it undermines the core foundation of belief.]

  78. Pat says:

    John:
    “I also twitch when someone thinks that s/he has a right to insult or hurt other people’s feelings just to drive home a point.”

    Well, looks like we are back to square zero, but ah well. What points can be driven home, without hurting anyone? Lets stick to the student/cracker case. Even if we hypothetically agree that he was wrong in taking that cracker from the church, it was the people sending him death threats that opened the real can of worms. PZ Myers desecrated his host in protest to those people and the people who called for the suspension of this student. Yeah, perhaps this hurt other people too, but do you have a better idea of how to achieve it? Talking to Crazy Bill Donahue, of the Catholic League, didn’t help. The Catholic church themselves stayed very quiet, not urging its members to cease the death threats.

    The cartoons the same. The cartoons were printed as a protest for an increasingly violent group of people, posing a threat to civilisation as we know it. It’s true that it, again, hurt other peoples feelins too, but if they are hurt by it, perhaps they should see the message behind it and actually stand up to the real offenders.

    Your joke was hilarious though. Daphne, don’t let your devotion to grammar numb your sense of humour.

    Another of my personal favourites, not on a totally different line:
    As Moses descended the mountain, his followers stood in awe and expectation. Moses spake:
    – People, people, gather around me. I have some good news, but I also have some bad news.
    – Oh Moses, said the people, tell us the good news.
    – I finally got him down ten
    – Oh Moses, said the people, then what are the bad news?
    – Adultery is still in

  79. John Schembri says:

    @ Pat: so you can be a bit more reasonable. I liked the Moses joke .
    Ms Daphne is posing as a teacher of English. It was meant to make us laugh.
    No need to worry about adults going to Muzew , they are in good company.Wether they want to celebrate or be celibate it is up to them {;-) . When they go out at night I also should worry , my kids are the same age as yours, you know what I mean when one comes home at three in the morning.

  80. David Buttigieg says:

    I liked the joke too, but to clear things up,

    Celibacy for priests is a discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, not a doctrine: in other words, a church regulation, but not an integral part of Church teaching. It is based upon the life of Christ and his celibate way of life. However the first pope, St. Peter, as well as many subsequent popes, bishops, and priests during the church’s first 270 years were in fact married men, and often fathers!

    Some priests today are married, especially those who were formally Anglican priests!

  81. John Schembri says:

    @ David : a friend priest of mine told me that he would get married , but on second thoughts he told me better not “what if my daughter gets pregnant!”
    Can you imagine the situation?
    I am in favour of priests getting married so that they can feel the real problems people face daily.

Leave a Comment