The Curia is a Big Girl and can look after itself
The prime minister on Radio 101 this morning:
“I am not here to defend the Catholic Church, but to stand up for democracy. Just as I defend the atheist, I also must defend the Catholic, the Protestant and the Buddhist.”
The major flaw in this argument is that it is not RELIGIONS which are defended in the upholding of democracy, but all minorities. In a democracy, where there is freedom of worship, religions require protection not by virtue of being religions but by virtue of being a minority under threat.
The Catholic Church in Malta can in no way be described as a threatened and vulnerable minority and it certainly does not need the prime minister’s protection or defence.
It is a big girl and can stand up for itself. God knows it has the resources to do so.
To put Roman Catholics in Malta in the same ‘keffa’ as Protestants, Buddhists and atheists is fatuous.
Sticking up for the right of Muslims to pray on the Sliema promenade when they were besieged by fearful and disapproving xenophones – on the internet, at least – is not the same thing as siding with, rather than sticking up for, the Curia of the Roman Catholic Church.
And the prime minister didn’t do the former, but he is very keen on repeating the latter.
21 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I think I speak for all atheists when I say I don’t need the Prime Minister’s “defence”. All I ask is for all forms of discrimination to end. Of course, that might mean ending centuries-old privileges. A tough call for a nation that has discrimination enshrined in its constitution.
My heart bleeds when I witness the daily sufferings atheists in Malta have to go through. Hearing of some local atheist being lynched, his toe-nails pulled off and left to run naked in the village square is almost a daily occurence.
Reports of atheists being denied hospital services are so common, it’s even not news any more.
And no atheist dare visit Paceville, as the bouncers will make sure no godless creature will step on any club’s doorstep. This not to mention the social boycotts, denial of education and a limit on what books they can read and what websites they can access.
Oh, and the worst part of it, horror of horrors, atheists are even being denied communion!
Very famous saying.
“My father was an atheist, I lived all my life as an atheist and with God’s help I will die an atheist.”
There was no need for your sarcasm, Albert Farrugia. How about addressing my comment instead of trying to ridicule. Or is that beyond your rational capabilities?
Albert Farrugia, Maltese atheists don’t have their equivalent of Joe Zammit and Adrian Vassallo, not to mention Angelik and Tonio Fenech.
And why is it that when someone mentions the removal of privileges, Christian fundamentalists suddenly feel threatened?
Oh, and I nearly forgot the most important thing. Did I, anywhere, say that it is atheists in particular who are being discriminated against?
My last comment for today.
Dear Albert, may I remind you that we are not the ones shouting “persecution” because someone suggests that a wooden symbol be removed from public schools.
Neither are we the ones crying “religious persecution” while demanding to wear jewelry even though it’s against company regulations.
Neither are we the ones who – wait for it – shout “religious discrimination” because, being hotel owners, we are not permitted by law to refuse admission to gay people.
My heart really bleeds for such people. I sincerely hope you’re not similarly persecuted.
What’s your point? Are you suggesting that our whole system does NOT privilege Roman Catholics?
How does Article Two of our Constitution (below) NOT constitute institutionalised discrimination?
(1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.
(3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.
How many atheists do you know?
How many of our politicians declare themselves to be atheists? How many teachers? Do you wonder why, living in Catholic Iran?
Have you ever been in a room with a bunch of rabid Catholics telling you that as an atheist you can’t possibly have any values and should not be allowed to be in contact with children/have children/hold political office etc etc, simply because you don’t believe in their imaginary friend?
Most atheists don’t declare their atheism in public because they’d rather avoid conversations like the one above.
I assure you that it is quite sobering to walk the streets in the knowledge that there is a substantial majority of your co-nationals who actually believe in a dogma, part of which is that you should suffer the torment of hell for all eternity, as prescribed in their hate manual.
“…atheists are even being denied communion!”
Well, it’s more of a dietary choice.
Because it’s one thing calling for a secular state, and another thing talking about “discrimination”. Atheists dont believe in fairy stories, which is fine. But they seem to believe the fairy stories they themselves spin. Like that in Malta they are suffering “discrimination”.
This is, simply, not true. What they are suffering from is their lack of ability to understand history.
Malta has been a Catholic country for centuries, and its structure and institutions bear that mark. Now, however, that is slowly changing. But it cannot change overnight.
It’s a process, an evolution.
Of course, I can understand that proclaiming oneself as a martyr has its “cool” factor. But I would not suggest that road. Just as it’s so, so “cool” to call anyone who has a spiritual belief to be a “fundamentalist”.
[Albert Farrugia – Because it’s one thing calling for a secular state, and another thing talking about “discrimination”].
Straw man. Who exactly is talking about “discrimination”? Names and a reference link, please.
[Albert Farrugia – Atheists dont believe in fairy stories, which is fine. But they seem to believe the fairy stories they themselves spin. Like that in Malta they are suffering “discrimination”].
Straw man. Again, who is this atheist that is saying he is discriminated because of atheism? Names please.
[Albert Farrugia – This is, simply, not true].
We would be in a position to judge, if only you tell us what you are talking about. Or is it just another fairy story of yours?
[Albert Farrugia – What they are suffering from is their lack of ability to understand history].
Sure. That must be it.
[Albert Farrugia – Malta has been a Catholic country for centuries, and its structure and institutions bear that mark].
False. There have always been people of different beliefs in Malta, even when people of different beliefs were actually persecuted (literally) by Christians.
[Albert Farrugia – Now, however, that is slowly changing. But it cannot change overnight. It’s a process, an evolution].
You do know that religion is personal, and shouldn’t be imposed, do you?
[Albert Farrugia – Of course, I can understand that proclaiming oneself as a martyr has its “cool” factor].
Yes, except that it is usually Christians who think of themselves as martyrs, not atheists. Like when some Christian insists on breaking the law and not allowing gay people in his hotel, and then shouting “discrimination”.
[Albert Farrugia – But I would not suggest that road. Just as it’s so, so “cool” to call anyone who has a spiritual belief to be a “fundamentalist”].
Someone who tries to impose religious belief, even through legislation if possible, IS a fundamentalist. So is someone who believes Malta is Catholic, just because he wishes it were so.
Mr. Prime Minster, please do us, party supporters, a favour and get the vote over with. It is doing us too much harm. Until it’s time to take the vote, please keep quiet, go on holiday, but stop it, I mean stop talking about it.
It’s time for the PN to pull up its socks. There are young people (some well involved in its high ranks) who are liberal and open minded. It’s time for them to speak out – time is running out fast.
It better be! If you get a chance, please read Maureen Dowd’s piece in The New York Times today. The Church’s hypocracy is unbelievable and sick.
Sorry, I meant hypocrisy. When I refer to the Church I usually get hypocrisy mixed up with ‘democracy’. The rock is an excellent example at the moment.
While I agree with your article, there’s a little snag.
I do not accept the ‘big GIRL’ label, simply because the Church treats women in a very paternalistic way.
Not when just a few years ago the former archbishop intimated, if I am not mistaken during the Christmas period, that women who work are bad mothers.
Not when such an important matter as divorce is labelled as a sin in ANY circumstance.
Female emancipation it seems, is something that the Catholic Church in Malta has conveniently ignored in its views in what concerns society in general and families in particular.
Therefore, I propose that the Catholic Church is a big LAD and can handle itself… sometimes employing thug strategies.
It was really nice to see on the Italian news a couple of children from Libya recovering at the Catholic Hospital Bambin Gesu of Rome, where they are being treated for the conditions they suffer from.
Atheist is a label given by ‘believers’ to people who do not share their ‘faith’ in a supernatural being for which there is no evidence.
Clause 2 of our Constitution needs some clarification.
As it is divided into three sub-articles, do all the three require a two-thirds majority to be removed? Or sub-articles 1 and 3 can be removed by a simple majority?
[Daphne – The Constitution can only be amended by two-thirds vote in the house.]
Here’s a little obscure gem of a book:
“Marriage Advice for a Pope: John XXII and the Power to Dissolve”,
by Patrick Nold, D.Phil. (Oxford, 1999) is Assistant Professor of History at the State University of New York at Albany.
The Medieval Church taught that marriage was indissoluble and that consent was the key. Why then could a marriage be dissolved by one spouse joining a religious order after an exchange of consent but before consummation?
This question vexed Thirteenth-century academics and, in the fourteenth century, Pope John XXII asked a group of leading theologians and lawyers to study the issue. Position-papers were produced to explain the exception to the rule of indissolubility for chaste monks and nuns, and to explore whether the pope had the power to extend it to celibate priests and deacons.
These texts, edited here, were used by John XXII to draft his bull Antique Concertationi (1322). This study reconstructs the story behind the constitution, providing a unique insight into the decision-making process at the Roman curia in Avignon under a controversial pope.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marriage-Advice-Pope-Dissolve-Medieval/dp/9004171118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307477588&sr=1-1