Re: OT: Madonna and the Crucifixion and the Germans

Christine W. Meyer wrote:

Scott Golden wrote:

Christine W. Meyer wrote:


Not so much in historical times, either. I'm not saying that the above
list makes Christians innocent or that they weren't reprehensible acts.
John Paul II admitted to it and made the appropriate confession, as he
should have. However, a friend of mine calls the above list "cartoon
history"

>
I'm not sure what "cartoon history" means. My list was culled from three
sources: the Wikipedia entries on religious wars, the historical
headlines section of the Time Magazine Almanac, and the book "The
Timetables of History" by Bernard Grun; I paid particular attention to
the causes, intentions of participants, and main events of the wars
listed. I claim no expertise in this field, but I feel reasonably sure
that one religion's intolerance of other faiths was a root cause (if not
THE root cause) in all of these conflicts.



"Cartoon history" means a simplistic viewpoint of history. The
below-mentioned article defines it well, but my understanding is that
it's a view of history that can be described in a soundbite paragraph.
I recommend "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the
Crusades)" by Robert Spencer for a different take on it.

This branching off from the main thread was prompted by your remarks: "As an American, I think it's unfortunate, since freedom of speech is
such an importance value in our society. As a Catholic, though, I'm
glad because there's been so much touchiness about this kind of speech
against Muslims but not against Christians. Probably because
Christians don't tend to riot and kill people when it happens." That is the only reason I made the list of past military-style conflicts involving Catholics in confrontation with those of other faiths. Maybe we can agree that throughout history there have been incidents of intolerance and outright hostility on all sides . . . but, again, the focus of this thread is the definition of what constitutes "hate speech".

(http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/02/crusades-and-world-war-ii-instructive.html).
For a more complete reading of history, this is a good place to start:

http://www.archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=379&s=2&a=7992

Be warned: Catholic content! Which may turn people off in and of
itself.


By all means, I hope everyone interested in this subject checks out the
sites you listed. I hope that everyone keeps an open mind to the
opinions of others . . . including that of Madonna. You don't have to
listen to what she has to say, and if you do listen you may choose to
disagree with every aspect of it; but, I plead with you, don't label her
speech as a crime. Call it blasphemous, sacrilegious, ugly,
disrepectful, naive, offensive, or any other adjective you wish to use;
don't call it a malicious criminal act.


Well, I'm not calling it a criminal act. Fortunately, here in America,
we don't. Which is the whole point of this thread, isn't it?

Christine "free speech" Meyer

My response was based on two statements you made: "I'm happy that she's finally getting some trouble for it."; and, "It's disrespectful of the original meanings of the Cross and the crown of thorns. So yes, it's hate speech." The point of my OP was that maybe we should be worried about a government official in the country of Germany, which is probably our greatest ally on the European continent, threatening to apply a law meant to curb religious intolerance in such a way that it actually persecutes someone who is merely excercising free speech (not hate speech). Our allies don't have to be exactly like us, but doesn't there need to be a minimum set of standards (common ground regarding certain rights and liberties) by which we declare other nations to be our friends?
.

Relevant Pages