In a society where–horrifingly enough–polled high school students express little appreciation for the First Amendment, and see nothing wrong with the government curtailing freedom of expression, I notice that comics fans who knock the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund do so from two angles.
The first is a cavalier, “Well, they don’t win any cases.” I refer you to our latest endeavor, a case in which South Carolina customs officials embargoed comic books that lampooned George W. Bush. I am pleased to announce that, thanks to the CBLDF’s quick intervention, the books have been shaken loose from customs and are proceeding, none the worse for wear, to their proper destination. So that was a slam dunk against governmental abuse of power. More can be found on that over at www.cbldf.org.
The second knock is the false perception that the only comics which run into trouble are hard core pørņ, and why should people support the CBLDF when we “only” come to the aid of accused pornographers. To that I am now saying, Watch this space. Come Monday, we will be announcing a new case the CBLDF is going to be taking on. It is going to be a major undertaking, and it challenges laws that–if allowed to stand–would leave retailers open to obscenity prosecution for selling certain titles that are considered comics masterworks and are on the shelves of just about every serious comics collector in the country.
PAD
• 
Here’s info regarding Alternative Comics #2
Fred asked:
While this is technically true, in the 10 years I spent doing retreat work and meeting 10’s of thousands of people, I’d honestly need to sit and seriously reflect in order to come up with a small handful who ascribed to all of the church’s teachings.
No one’s perfect, obviously, but if one is a member of a Church that has a big ol’ catechism that says “this is what we believe”, then I think to belong to that religion requires a certain amount of faith that the religion one belongs to is right.
Sasha asked:
So would you then agree that Justice Scalia should be denied Communion due to his support for the death penalty? As well as those Catholic policians who supported the war?
If one honestly believed that Iraq was a just war, there would be no contradition in Church doctrine, only a conflict with the Pope’s interpretation of that doctrine. People disagree with the Pope all the time. (Though I’d be impressed if they honestly believed that.)
The former? Yes, I do. If you’re going to belong to a religion, belong to the religion. If you don’t want to believe the stuff that makes up the Catholic church, there are a million other kinds of Christianity out there.
Hey Bladestar, cut out the insulting crap. If people disagree with you and you have no counterargument, calling them names won’t compensate to any degree.
Del, the Papal Bull states that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, for a practicing Catholic by your definition, if the Pope says that a given war is immoral (which he did), he must be correct, and any disagreement with him makes you a bad, Hëll-bound Catholic. Therefore, all of the Catholic Congressmen should be denied Communion. As should any Catholic Supreme Court Justice, due to their support of the death penalty (which the Pope has also called immoral).
Sometimes I’m really glad I’m not Catholic… 🙂
“Del, the Papal Bull states that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.”
My understanding (and I am by no means The Amazing Catholic Man, fountain of theological knowledge) is that papal Infallibility is something that is only invoked in specific matters of dogma, not every word or idea that comes out of the Pope’s mouth. So, for example, the Immaculate Conception (which is not the same as the Virgin Birth but that’s another matter) may have the weight of Papal Infallibility behind it but the Pope’s teachings on. say, birth control, do not. Later Popes may change it at their will.
Now genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
Really hdefined?
Read closer, there’s messages in everyone.
You don’t like it, the names are at the top each post, skip it…
Jonathan mentioned:
Del, the Papal Bull states that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
Which Papal Bull are you referring to? There is no “the Papal Bull”. But I can tell you that the Pope’s words are only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. That’s a very specific and somewhat unusual circumstance.
Therefore, for a practicing Catholic by your definition, if the Pope says that a given war is immoral (which he did), he must be correct, and any disagreement with him makes you a bad, Hëll-bound Catholic.
If he had been speaking infallibly when he said that, that would be true. Or I would be Purgatory-bound, at least. =P
Therefore, all of the Catholic Congressmen should be denied Communion.
Really? All Catholic Congressmen voted in favor of the war?
And Bill, all debates about Catholicism should involve quoting the Vatican Rag. Thanks. ^_^
girls
“Infringement is theft.”
No, it is infringement, illegal copying, nothing mroe, nothing less. This is legal fact.
I am one of possibly few left growing up being taught that stealing (or theft if talking legal terminology) requires loss. That in order for something to be stolen somebody has something, but somebody else took it away from you, depriving you of it, while gaining him/her possession of said item. Slowly this concept is being replaced rapidly every day with a different, easier to use concept. Now people are growing accustomed to the idea that theft/stealing doesn’t require the “owner” to loose things they had “stolen,” or that loosing something you don