Not necessarily, according to this discussion on a Catholic blog. Very chilling stuff. You really ought to read it.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some of the Blogs I Read
-
-
-
-
Another Look at Genesis 3:13-151 month ago
-
Shrouded Meadow3 months ago
-
A Modern ‘Sinful Woman’1 year ago
-
Keto Simple4 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Come and See … CHRIST in our midst10 years ago
-
How to Do Shameless?10 years ago
-
And then there were none…10 years ago
-
My blog has moved!10 years ago
-
Once a Month Cooking Newbie10 years ago
-
Second Born11 years ago
-
Temporarily – No Comment12 years ago
-
-
New story bit12 years ago
-
4 comments:
:-0 indeed.
Several points here:
1. I happen to support the current blasphemy laws being proposed in Russia. The West used to have such laws. As for the First Amendment, the text reads that "Congress shall make no law," meaning that the Federal Government is prohibited from having a Federal statute concerning religion. At the time of the ratification, several states had established churches, although all those were disestablished by 1830. So, I don't see any reason why "nuisance" laws against public blasphemy, on a state-by-state basis, should be a problem, either for civil liberties or Constitutionally.
2. The chances of any Catholic integralist regime taking over any part of North America is so infinitesimally small that it may as well be zero. The lunatic ravings of keyboard commandos on the Internet do not constitute a realistic political movement. Besides, I am less worried about the second coming of the Ustashas, than I am about the real police state that has already put the U.S. in lock-down. I say, focus on real threats, not imaginary ones.
3. As for the individuals involved, I think that "Modestinus" is a fanatical "true believer" of the type described by Eric Hoffer. Apparently, he was a fanatical Orthodox who is now a fanatical Catholic, in much the same way as many fanatical German Communists later became fanatical Brownshirts. His sidekick, Diane Kamer, is a troll of the worst sort, who needs conflict like others need oxygen. My advice, is to ignore both of them, and to ban them if they start trolling on your website (as they might).
All in all, I think there is less here than meets the eye.
Michael,
First, it's ironic that you would attack me for my supposedly "integralist" views while nodding with approval at the largest non-Muslim integralist state in the world's blasphemy laws. Such laws are part of the same species of laws an integralist state would have the right to pass on behalf of the true religion, that is, laws which curtailed the public spread of error. Granted, you're Orthodox and I am Catholic; you obviously believe your confession warrants that sort of special privilege whereas I believe the same of mine. But in the abstract, there is no disagreement on principles here (even if you do strangely conflate a point of principle with a matter of legal positivism).
Second, I have never advocated for a Catholic integralist regime and none of my posts dealing with religious liberty have denied that integralism is dead as far as political options goes. Those posts, like the post this blog author has linked, are rather "academic" discussions at this point. So calm yourself.
Third, your use of the word "apparently" implies you do not know. Do you have any evidence to support your claim or are you just intent on spreading gossip? Not that it's the sort of gossip I care much about, but all the same, you should at least be able to build-up a thorough argument on that point.
You may be interested in the official RC position, which I have analyzed here: http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/religious-liberty-and-pope.html
Post a Comment