Las 2 Orillas – 17th July 2017
Who violates the faith could rape a girl: Pastor Ortiz
“Being able to disagree with religions is a right, so for Oswaldo Ortíz and his colleagues, it is blasphemy. What is very wrong is to reduce the debates with personal offenses ”
By: Ferney Yesyd Rodríguez Vargas | July 17, 2017
In the most recent discussion created by the trill of former President Álvaro Uribe, in which he described the journalist Daniel Sámper as a “child rapist”, the charismatic Pastor Oswaldo Ortíz entered the ranks.
The evangelical leader, who is not only a defender of Protestant doctrine, but of right-wing politics, presented in a couple of tweets his pastoral opinion on the incident between Uribe and his press critic: ” If Daniel Samper is capable of violating our faith and our freedom of conscience is able to dare to violate anything else, ” said Ortiz.
The tweet issued on July 14 shows three worrisome aspects of right-wing evangelical propaganda, which I will present below:
1. Satanization of the non-believer
For Ortiz and dozens of believers like him, non-religious people, whether atheists or agnostics, are lacking in any moral rule and as Pastor Ortiz affirms, “he is capable of daring to violate anything else .” This stigmatization and falsehood is repeated again and again because they need to convince the voters that the religious in politics are better, although the facts show us that being religious does not necessarily make you a better citizen.
It is enough to remember the hundreds of cases of abusive priests of minors and undercover by the ecclesiastical dome. This is how the Diocese of Lebanon, Tolima battle to avoid paying financial compensation for the rape of two children displaced by violence and whose priest Luis Enrique Duque was hiding behind walls of the Church in Ibagué for a year. Add a similar case in Cali, aired this year, and which undoubtedly influenced Pope Francis to avoid visiting this city. The evangelical world is not exempt from cases of sexual abuse, as witnessed by the case of Pastor Álvarez Gámez in 2015 in Nariño, or more recently, just five days, in the city of Huancayo, Peru, where Evangelical pastor Fernando Matos Paucar kidnapped, raped and killed an eight-year-old girl.
It should be noted that before the claims to the Catholic Church to compensate children abused by the priest William Mazo, Pastor Ortiz went to defend his sister church under the weak argument of “Christianophobia.”
On the other hand, it is important to mention that thousands of non-religious people lead their lives with honesty being positive members of their communities.
It is worth noting here some words of the Nobel Prize in Physics Steven Weinberg “With or without religion, good people will do good and bad people will do evil, but for good people to do evil it takes religion.”
2. Confusion about freedom of conscience
Freedom of conscience allows each citizen to act freely according to their convictions without being coerced to the contrary by third parties or the State. So, at what point did the statements of Daniel Samper have forced an evangelical to practice euthanasia, stop attending his worship or deny the divinity of Jesus?
Pastor Ortiz, and the immense majority of the evangelical world and of Catholic clerics confuse the freedom of cults with an immunity to be questioned, and this is where I turn to the third point.
3. Evangelical militancy seeks to limit freedom of expression
The letter of hurt feelings comes out more and more frequently by evangelicals. By means of censorship of opinion columns, cartoons, works of art and others, the aim is to create an aura of invulnerability to criticism. And it is that what can not be defended by reason, but with faith, has found in the invented crime of blasphemy, the best way to silence its critics.
The sacred and forbidden subjects are only for those who have freely accepted those dogmas. In full use of freedom of expression, I can criticize churches, as they criticize political parties, religious dogmas as well as economic theories, pastors as well as any other influential person. A people is not a democracy if there is no freedom to criticize, and even openly mock, those who hold power.
The Hindus may be offended, but I will eat meat. It may bother Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I will continue to say that they have as many false prophecy clusters as any charlatan, and that their rule of prohibiting blood transfusions is ridiculous. They may all be offended, but I will say that the Bible, Torah and the Koran are books like any other, and that clinging to them to create standards is outdated and narrow-minded.
There is no right to not feel offended. Rights are for people, not ideas. The ideas and doctrines can all be analyzed, criticized, reformulated, accepted and rejected. Ideas are not respected or disrespected, they are simply analyzed and debated. If the ideas were respectable, we could never have changed our conception that the Earth was immobile because that idea had to be respected, and even more so without texts from the Bible, like the legend of Joshua ordering to stop the Sun, they teach it.
As long as the religious are not prevented from holding their services or preaching, there is no violation of the freedom of worship.
No one is violating the spaces “of faith, of Christians, of pastors” for freely disagreeing about them, as Pastor Ortíz tweeted. Similar situation was experienced in Argentina where the famous priest Jorge Gómez (called father Pato) interrupted a work of the choral group Lutherieces, called “sex education”, because in his view he insulted his Catholic faith. Days later, and converging in opinion with the recent statements of Pastor Ortiz, he affirmed: “The violation of the faith is worse than a crime, if a society begins to laugh at the faith, that society is already destroyed. The violation of the faith is ten thousand times worse than the violation of a daughter. ”
The Danish journalist Flemming Rose said on the subject “If a believer demands that I, a non-believer, respect his taboos in the pubic domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission, and that is incompatible with a secular democracy”.
Being able to disagree with religions is a right, so for Oswaldo Ortíz and his colleagues, it is blasphemy. What remains very bad is to reduce the debates with personal offenses as does the former president Alvaro Uribe, and how now his supporters of the churches, support and replicate.
* all translations provided on JWBulletin.com are for information purposes only and are sourced from automated translation services. These are not checked for accuracy. To ensure accuracy, please refer to the original language text.