Bishop accused of incitement to hatred in homily
Humanist says 'godless culture' sermon was hostile to those who do not share church's aims
A HOMILY delivered at Knock shrine by the Bishop of Raphoe, Philip Boyce, is being investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions following a formal complaint by a leading humanist who claims the sermon was an incitement to hatred.
The offended atheist might want to check out sermons delivered at area mosques. I doubt they would be very tolerant, to say the least. And yes, Ireland does, like every Western European country, have its supply of mosques.
Yes they do, and he's welcome to attend any Friday prayer;)
Why are almost all "secular-humanists" or atheists such thin-skinned whiny vindictively opportunistic and predatory twits? They really need to be shamed and mocked at every opportunity.
I say about time Christian leaders started opening their mouths about the current evils.
Instead of siding with the abominations being perpetrated today.
Hitchens said it best. "Athiests believe there is no God, and they hate him".
The priest was discribing the attacks on Christianity by athiests, and this athiest attacks him, seems like the athiest proved the priests point perfectly!
And the "we don't believe in God but we hate him" shows that militant athiesm is an illogical ideology which very quickly becomes the nazi or communist parties.
But the absolute best line from a militant athiest I have ever heard is " I don't care what the evidence proves, I just refuse to bow down to God, thats why I chose athiesm".
I simply laugh at athiests when they tell me and tell them to have fun with that.
He's found a way, through a corrupt system, to get free publicity. Hard to believe the prosecutor would even investigate... I guess noone has better uses for his time? ( Hope the church finds someone to send their bill to.)
Love that this guy was part of a 'separation of church and state' campaign. No irony there.
This is just vanilla freedom of speech stuff, surely?
Unless someone is trying to make a principled point by appealing to the absurdum of an unintended consequence.
The Irish law with respect to hate speech sends chills up my spine. It makes it a crime for one to simply create the circumstances in which it might reasonably be considered that hate would be incited.
No actual hate necessary. Just someone's judgement that it would be reasonable to consider that the circumstances are likely to lead to hate.
If your talking mohammed cartoons, then I find their law chilling. (ie you would be criminally responsible for inciting a hateful reaction in muslims, because we all know what muslims are likely to do in even the most trifling of circumstances).
If your talking pulpit sermons and athiest retorts, then I don't find their law chilling. But then of course I, and you, and the supposedly "reasonable" people aren't the ones being given the authority to apply the "judgement".
Irish blasphemy and hate laws are chilling. They have come to the forefront because a couple of years ago their use was threatened to curb investigation and discussion about priest abuses. Freedom of speech versus constitutionalized blashpemy law
and its repeal, have been mainstream concerns is Ireland, and this particular incident should be viewed within this context.
This is just vanilla freedom of speech stuff, surely?
Unless someone is trying to make a principled point by appealing to the absurdum of an unintended consequence.
The Irish law with respect to hate speech sends chills up my spine. It makes it a crime for one to simply create the circumstances in which it might reasonably be considered that hate would be incited.
No actual hate necessary. Just someone's judgement that it would be reasonable to consider that the circumstances are likely to lead to hate.
If your talking mohammed cartoons, then I find their law chilling. (ie you would be criminally responsible for inciting a hateful reaction in muslims, because we all know what muslims are likely to do in even the most trifling of circumstances).
If your talking pulpit sermons and athiest retorts, then I don't find their law chilling. But then of course I, and you, and the supposedly "reasonable" people aren't the ones being given the authority to apply the "judgement".
Irish blasphemy and hate laws are chilling. They have come to the forefront because a couple of years ago their use was threatened to curb investigation and discussion about priest abuses. Freedom of speech versus constitutionalized blashpemy law
and its repeal, have been mainstream concerns is Ireland, and this particular incident should be viewed within this context.
Yes, but Hitch would never have dreamed (drempt?) of lowering himself to something like this. Colgan is just a sad little curtain-twitcher. A culture that indulges him is the problem.
This is true.
Good point;)
Well said BatB.
Heh;)
That is a keeper.
How long before Christians tactically retreat from the wider culture and leave the secularists as a problem for Muslims to deal with?
If someone wants to piss on Christianity, I have no qualms calling him a 'pissant'.
Cheers
>>