Monday 27 June 2011

This Is What Goes For Religious "Tolerance" In A "Pluralistic" Society?

 “UCC should be at the forefront of promoting religious tolerance in a pluralist society. Those in charge of UCC should reconsider whether or not it is appropriate to permit this exhibition to take place on its campus without affording others the opportunity to present an alternative and balanced point of view.”


http://www.corkstudentnews.com/news/controversial-exhibit-to-open-in-ucc-tomorrow-21261

The saying "noting is sacred" really does apply. Whereas reasonable people say this as a lament, cultural revolutionaries see it as a badge of honour justifying any action as "progressive". We Catholics are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, radical feminists and pornographers; yet this is what we are to tolerate and accept as expressions of diversity.

You see, we are not to express our deep and fundamental objections to the immoral and counter-cultural activities and beliefs of the above mentioned with sarcasm or disgust. Those values and activities are considered sacrosanct and too deeply personal to offend. However, our most sacred and deeply held beliefs are to be "deconstructed", "reinvisioned" and "subverted" in the name of diversity and sexual "equity". Which basically means social degeneracy. These are all things we know already. But I just figured I'd share what I feel is a relevant, extended, quote from Joseph Addison's contribution to the 18th century 'Spectator'.

"No. 23
Tuesday, March 27 (1711)

There is nothing that more betrays a base ungenerous Spirit than the giving of secret Stabs to a Man's Reputation. Lampoons and Satyrs, that are written with Wit and Spirit, are like poisoned Darts, which not only inflict a Wound, but but make it incurable. For this reason I am very much troubled when I see Talents of Humour and Ridicule in the Possession of an ill-natured Man. There cannot be a greater Gratification to a barbarous and inhuman Wit, than to stir up Sorrow in the Heart of a private Person, to raise Uneasiness among near Relations, and to expose whole Families to Derision, at the same time that he remains unseen and undiscovered. If, besides being witty and ill-natured, a Man is vicious into the bargain, he is one of the most mischievous Creatures that can enter Civil Society. His Satyr will then chiefly fall upon those who ought to be the most exempt from it. Virtue, Merit, and every thing that is Praiseworthy, will be made the Subject of Ridicule and Buffoonry. It is impossible to enumerate the Evils which arise from these Arrows that fly in the dark, and I know no other Excuse that is or can be made for them, than the Wounds they give are only imaginary, and produce nothing more than a secret Shame or Sorrow in the Mind of the Suffering Person. It must indeed be confess'd, that a Lampoon or Satyr do not carry in them Robbery or Murder; but at the same time, how many are there that would not rather lose a considerable Sum of Mony, or even Life it self, than be set up as a Mark of Infamy and Derision? And in this Case a Man should consider, that an Injury is not to be measured by the Notions of him that gives, but him that receives it." (the Spectator reprinted 1964, p. 69-70)

Granted, he was decrying the theatre of his day, but I feel the sentiment can be applied to all derogatory art that is expressed to insult rather than inspire.What more and apt commentary is needed. The contribution of this image is supposedly considered "promoting religious tolerance in a pluralist society" and "an alternative and balanced point of view"? Does anyone of good will really see this image as a genuinely reasonable reflection of those words over those of Mr. Addison above?

The image of the Immaculate Mother of Christ, known as our Lady of Guadeloupe, is the model of Chastity, Modesty and Virginity is here maliciously turned into an image of perversity, licentiousness and lust that is designed to illicit a sexual response from any man who looks upon it. In any other instance this would be decried as unacceptable and mean-spirited. This can only be seen as an attack upon another's deeply held religious and cultural beliefs; AKA the OPPOSITE of religious tolerance and BALANCE! But as with all Ethnic Cleansing, the victims are deemed unfit for the dignity of public respect for their cherished cultural beliefs.
Yet if one even respectfully criticizes the actions of the very people that make this kind of cultural terrorism, there is a visceral outcry. I submit the following video commentary upon the immediate action taken by such victimized cultural vanguard. The question is... Why is our Catholic outrage completely dismissed under the same regime of pluralism and tolerance? To simply ask the question is to answer it...


http://www.youtube.com/user/pinegrove33#p/u/1/zD_R9sFmfc8

No comments:

Post a Comment