(a) R. Fernandes (while agreeing that Child Abuse is a serious crime) wrote: .. we should NOT ridicule our Religion or The head of our Religion on a public forum. It will only provide fuel for the Atheists, non-church-goers and those who are just plain negative.
(b) Roland Francis (after 'misquoting me in jest') wrote: For the record, JC meant he supported JP II's beatification but that other candidates are EQUALLY deserving. COMMENT: 1: I do not believe that anybody ridiculed either Catholicism or the Pope - in this thread. Criticism is not the same as ridicule. Criticism, however difficult to face, is always beneficial. Many progressive actions have resulted from criticism. 2: "Atheists, non-church-goers and those who are just plain negative" do not need fuel to be hyper-critical of the church or anything else. They have in-built (possibly) GAS batteries which do not need external recharging. 3: Roland Francis has mis-represented my position. I did not use the word "EQUALLY" in my previous post. To have done that, I would have had to evaluate the candidature of the other nominees. I have not done so. I'd say this (possibly again): Anytime one finds an obsessive and unreasonably virulent antagonism against (say) the Church, a particular priest or (as the case may be) Portugal or India, Try ask this question - even to one's own self: WHY is this person this obsessively virulent? Is there an antecedant issue (precursor) to this obsession? Did the person miss out on any personal benefit? practical examples: IF he was incarcerated by the Portuguese, was it because he was a conscientious objector or was it because he was a dacoit or a dangerous vandal ? If it is the case of an ex-priest, was it because he felt that the vows were too onerous or was it because he did not get his way to the top? If a specific priest is being targeted, was it because the priest was plain wrong or was it because the priest did not give a 'financial contract' to the friend? If the person claims to be an atheist, that is what he/she is. What makes his anti-religion tirade suspect is IF he selectively and obsessively slams a particular religion, and yet attends 'church services' (say) for 'social reasons'. I believe that it is a personal right to be whatever one wants to be.....as long as one allows others their right to be what they want to be and do (provided, of course, that NO ONE ELSE is physically or otherwise endangered or harmed in the process). jc
