Can of Worms: Mufti Wants Moratorium on French Law Separating Church and State
From the desk of Tiberge on Fri, 2008-02-01 12:06
The mufti of the Paris mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, has dropped what amounts to a political and religious bomb. He proposes a moratorium on the French law of 1905 separating Church and State, because not enough mosques are being built in France.
Besides his position as mufti, he is the president of the CFCM (French Council of the Muslim Faith), an association officially established in 2003 thanks to the efforts of Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy.
Questioned by Le Monde, Mr. Boubakeur set forth the idea of a “moratorium of 10 to 20 years” on the 1905 law, which forbids all public funding of places of worship, so that Islam can “catch up” on its needs. “The associations that administer houses of worship need to be given air to breathe,” he says.
This has to be one of the most daring statements made yet by a Muslim leader in France. There are at least 1500 mosques and prayer rooms in France, 75 in Paris alone.
Dalil Boubakeur’s proposal to suspend the 1905 law has incensed France’s radical secularists, the advocates of “laïcité,” who see in his words a predictable maneuver, welcomed by the State and Churches alike, for the purpose of restoring the power of religion to all spheres of French life.
Militants of “laïcité” are convinced that Nicolas Sarkozy intends, through modifications to the existing law, to impose his view of the equality of all religions onto the French people, instead of maintaining the strict separation that has been enforced until recently when Islam came into the picture.
The blog Riposte Laïque writes:
Sarkozy, through his speeches in Rome and then in Ryadh rolled out the red carpet to the Churches, and someone had to go into the breach. This role fell to the freedom-destroying mufti of the Paris mosque, since Islam is the spear-head of this offensive.
Their fear, despite what they say about Islam, is of the return of Christianity, especially Catholicism, to the decision-making process of the government, as the following statements attest:
Furthermore, in Europe, 20 countries out of 25 are signatories of concordats with the Catholic Church. Now they want all of France to be aligned with those countries.
Riposte Laïque calls for a massive protest, first at the local level, then a march towards Paris. Among the organizations cited as participants in this protest are the Grand Orient of France (Freemasons) and the Ligue de l'Enseignement (League of Teachers).
Sarkozy has (knowingly?) opened a can of worms with his initiatives on religion. But the essential problem remains Islam. The advocates of “laïcité” seem to forget that there can be no separation of Church and State in Islam and that if Islam is going to be given privileges, it automatically means the end of the law of 1905. Sarkozy is banking on the fallacious notion of “equality” of religions and is throwing all religions together in the same arena to find a way of co-existing.
(those pesky) Indians,again
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-02-09 00:17.
Before you (once again,fail to) answer this question,please bear in mind that Robinson's character originally wrestled his land from the Indians (who fought him - unsuccessfully- in an effort to retain the land ultimately seized by this paleface).
Were the Inidans justified in their decision to fight to retain their land,or should they have adopted a policy of total pacifism?
When the cattle baron (Robinson's character), who,if you recall took the Indians land,attempts to take John Parrish's land also,was John Parrish(Glenn Ford's character) justified in his decision to fight to retain his land,or should he have adopted a policy of total pacifism?
What would kappert have done?
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-02-08 17:38.
Recommendation to kappert:
Rent the movie," The Violent Men"...
Dramatic western starring Edward G Robinson,Barbara Stanwyck and Glenn Ford,1955.Story about a soldier turned pacifist who is forced into a confrontation against a bullying cattle baron.
then tell me,if you were John Parrish (Ford's character),how would you have handled the situation?
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-02-07 18:03.
You are welcome.
Why do you need to read those websites BEFORE answering MY question?
re: first some questions (epilogue)
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-02-07 02:36.
Patriotism,Nationhood,and the American Indian.
re: first some questions #2
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-02-07 01:40.
Here's a thought:
I am not an Indian,and neither are you.Perhaps you'd care to address your list of questions to somebody who is.
Contact: [email protected]
Please be sure to let me know the answers you receive.Meanwhile, YOU try answering MY question, then take a look at this.
re: first some questions
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-02-07 00:14.
Those are fair and legitimate questions.Indeed,had a descendant of Crazy Horse, Tatanka Iyotaka or Geronimo put those questions to me,in defense of their ancestors bellicose response to the actions of the palefaces,I could respect them for it.Alas,this does NOT apply in your case for obvious reasons.(Do not misunderstand me,I'd be delighted to have that debate with you at some future date,but it is a different debate from the one currently in progress).
The Current Debate:
Basically,I wish to know if I am debating:
1 A person whose sympathies are exclusively with the Indian and against the palefaces. (NB We have already established the fact that I am).
2 A person who argues that the Indians had both the right and the moral obligation to meet violence (committed against them) with violence.(NB Your view on THIS is the component which is currently missing from your responses to my questioning of your position to date).
To you 'right' and 'wrong' do not exist; 'good' and 'evil' do not exist; patriotism is ALWAYS bad; 'dialogue' is ALWAYS the solution to problems and war is NEVER a legitimate response to (even) unprovoked aggression.
[btw: Although I suspect that it wasn't intended as such,KA's comment would appear to endorse my argument.Threaten a cat with violence and he will first try to avoid confrontation.If that doesn't work he's liable to fight back "tooth and claw",thus proving that in the final analysis,even cats aren't pussies].
Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2008-02-07 13:27.
Thanks for the interesting links. I'm sure, we will come back to this issue, meanwhile I'm going to study these websites.
In Reply to kappert
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2008-02-06 16:11.
kappert: My cat's sleeping right now, I won't disturb it.
Sound advice. Those creatures can get prickly when they're deprived of shut-eye and can be liable to dole out some fang and claw marks if prematurely jolted from their slumber.
defend yourself (again n again)
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-02-06 15:19.
"if you were a fish I believe you'd choose to live in a barrel"
I think the 'hide in your shell' symptom lies with you.
kappert's answer? # 2
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-02-06 13:54.
"My cat's sleeping right now.I won't disturb it".
What does it say about the sanity of a 47 year old teacher who preaches pacifism to the world,supports the America Indian cause,but cannot answer a simple question regarding the modus operandi used by said American Indians to save themselves from what he would consider possible annihilation*** at the hands of the palefaces?
Kappert,if you were a fish I believe you'd choose to live in a barrel.Now,answer the damned question !!!
First some Questions
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-02-06 15:15.
1) American Indians conquered Europe, or Europeans conquered America?
2) Did American Indians welcome the palefaces in friendly way?
3) Wasn't it European diseases which decimated Indian population?
4) Wasn't it the thrive to occupy new lands which expelled American Indians from their homes, leading them to a migration over the continent?
5) Didn't the Europeans had better weapons than the Indians?
6) Tell me the story of Texas in 1838, and the Cherokee prison camp in Florida, and explain the white benevolence towards their red neighbours.
7) Explain me why the Homestead act passed without Indian consent.
8) Explain me the idea of 'reservations'.
With your answers, we may start a discussion.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-02-06 13:16.
Answer the question.
Fur and Loathing
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-02-06 00:08.
a.k.a. more spurious argumentation
You are WRONG on TWO counts.
1 My dog vs cat example remains sound.Remember,we were NOT discussing how your cat gets on with your neighbours dogs,we were discussing a specific theoretical,namely,how MY dog would respond to YOUR cat.So,I'll ask you again (and knowing my dog's opinion of cats in general),how would your cat's pretty purring prevent my dog from ripping out your cat's throat? Answer,it wouldn't.
2 No,we haven't had that discussion.Just like the dog vs cat issue,you attempted to evade that debate as well,hoping that people in the real world wouldn't notice.Well,they have,and I'm still waiting, here in the real world,for your answer.
Were the American Indians justified in what they considered to be their patriotic duty to go to war with the palefaces,in defence of their 'nations'?
Yes/No/ Leave me alone,I just want to put my hands over my ears and chant OMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So,Kappert,which is it?
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-02-06 13:12.
My cat's sleeping right now, I won't disturb it.
We shall discuss the Indian question, when Lakota likes to seek independence from the U.S. of A.
Der Entzug of (der, des, dem, den.....?) Kappert # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2008-02-05 18:08.
"Patriotism" is love of one's nation and/or country. 'Good' forms of patriotism manifest that 'love' through willingness to sacrifice for one's country and acts that TRULY aim to further its general welfare and survival. Bad forms of patriotism would be acts that presume or purport to promote the welfare of one's country and its people, but that in fact are morally reprehensible and will further its demise. However, since Kappert does not believe in 'good and bad', but rather adheres to moral relativism, he is unlikely going to be able to separate good forms of patriotism from bad ones. For the ability to recognise 'good' forms is premised on the ability to make clear moral judgments. Needlessly to say, this has nothing to do with unanimity of viewpoints, but everything with (moral) honesty with oneself.
Examples of 'good' forms of patriotism are easy to come by, such as: paying one's taxes fully (assuming they are imposed by the parliament of a genuinely 'democratic' political system) in order to fund the common governance, willingness to fulfil a variety of 'civic' duties (e.g. jury service in the service of the judiciary, generally promoting adherence to the law by others when the state's functionaries are 'overwhelmed' in for example natural 'disasters', readiness to serve in the armed and/or security forces to defend the country against external enemies, etc....
Examples of 'bad' forms of patriotism are not so easy to discern because patriotism (love of country, or of one's own political community) is generally a 'good' thing in itself. Without it, no political community can survive over time and function well for its citizens By contrast, actions that are undertaken in the name of one's nation, but that in fact undermine its democratic 'values', may be seen as 'bad' forms: e.g. condoning wrongful actions by public bodies (e.g. parliament passing laws that violate the constitutional right of individual free political speech) under false pretenses (e.g. to combat 'racism' or some other such arbitrary slogan abused for partisan purposes), claiming to treat all citizens equally before the law while in fact favoring-in-law some over others, failure to make relevant distinctions between citizens and noncitizens in the name of some ideological goal that undermines the survival of one's own country, etc....
I'm not convinced
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-02-06 13:07.
What you call 'patriotism' is in your first paragraph the collection of duties for any citizen, I would call it citizenship. That patriotism 'acts that TRULY aim to further its general welfare and survival', is wishful thinking.
Then you begin to disqualify the addressee, that he cannot differentiate between 'good'n'bad' and is amoral. That is a very easy escape in order to not continue your clarifications. You just stop and say the other will not understand me. I'm not convinced ...
Furthermore you say 'bad' patriotism is when patriotism is undermined by non-patriotic values, and you end with the clear statement that there are citizens and non-citizens, giving fuel to my segregation argument.
Book recommendation: Wolfgang Zank: The Power of Nationalist Mythology. Aalborg University. http://www2.ihis.aau.dk/spirit/pub/index.html
The Reality of Unrequited Peace # 2
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-02-04 22:44.
p.s. It can be extremely bad for your health.
The Reality of Unrequited Peace
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-02-04 22:12.
Look,if your cat fell in love with my dog,your cat's love would be rejected because my dog HATES cats,ALL cats;big cats,small cats,Persian cats,Manx cats,live cats,stuffed cats,and no amount of pretty purring (i.e. attempt at dialogue) on the part of your cat would save it from humiliating rejection,not to mention my dog's bark and bite.This is an example of what is known as 'Unrequited Love'.Other examples:
Similarly,if one (person,group of persons) ideology seeks peace,but the other (person,group of persons) ideology displays sufficient animosity towards the other (person,group of persons) ideology, then no amount of dialogue (i.e. pretty purring) is going to change that reality.This is an example of what one might call,'Unrequited Peace'.
You asked for an example of 'good' patriotism.Well,I suppose,according to your line of thinking,one example of 'good' patriotism would be:
Red Indian patriotism = GOOD Paleface =BAD.
Other examples might include:
Zionist patriotism = BAD patriotism Palestinian patriotism = GOOD patriotism.
Aztlan patriotism = GOOD patriotism etc.,
I think you catch my drift.
still no 'good' in sight
Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-02-05 15:05.
Unfortunately, the dog/cat example does not work. My neighbours have dogs and my cat deals very well with them. Still, I have no idea what might be 'good patriotism' - you suggest some kind of self-defense (we already had that discussion), but I insist that nationalism/patriotism is in first line an invented mark of distinction and separation towards others. And obviously 'we' are better than 'the others'. I cannot find any 'good' herein.
'Der Entzug' ('Die Entlaubing') of Kappert
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2008-02-04 18:31.
1) So you think that the Cold War was an "assumption", not a reality? Well, I guess that says it all......
2) You even seem to think that there was "no dialogue"? In fact, there was constant "dialogue" and negotiation. On both sides there was even a permanent bureaucracy designed to conduct that dialogue. Needless to say, the dialogue was very difficult, given the goals of the soviet side (which was to bury 'democracy'). And Stalin's armies were not stopped by "dialogue" either.
3) You also seem to think that there was no moral difference between both systems, i.e. the capitalist and the communist one. It is true that no one is 'perfect', but that does not mean that there is no moral difference. Even at a legalistic level (as opposed to a moral one), I hope that you realise that there is a difference, say, between the Italian (elected) government and the Italian mafia. Or, that when a contemporary German judge sends a German criminal to jail, that the judge is not 'perfect' nor 'pure' himself. But, you seem inclined to think that they are just 'different' and should "dialogue".
4) Do you really need examples of good and bad forms of "patriotism"? I would be happy to oblige you, if I knew I was dealing with a sensible person? But, someone who thinks that the Cold War was an "assumption", and that there are no moral distinctions.....Let's get real!
2) Cold War: I say 'no
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-02-04 18:56.
2) Cold War: I say 'no dialogue' you say 'difficult dialogue', however, the results were poor.
3) Legally, a dialogue is taking place in every courtroom.
4) At least, give me examples of 'good' patriotism!
Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2008-02-04 19:10.
The only dialogue possible was with a sledgehammer against their heads.
You want to hear Breznjev about Nixon when he resigned:
"Those americans are crazy, Nixon had us all by the balls, he could dictate his conditions and those idiots kicked him out because of a minor burglary which he only knew about after the act."
Dialogue you say???
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-02-04 20:03.
Thanks for your clarification.
Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2008-02-04 19:05.
Good patriotism was the US patriotism before Kennedy went the loony left way.
Today the US faces a serious immigrant problem because they became more "europeanized" in their patriotism and started finding anti-american attitudes to be politically correct and "cool".
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2008-02-04 16:46.
Kappert wrote: "the we vs Evil empire remarks miss reality". What could such an assertion possibly mean?
1) Could it mean that Kappert denies the (past) reality of the Cold War? If so, he is the one "missing reality", because of his refusal to make consistent historical observations.
2) More likely he means to say that he denies the characterisation of the Soviet Union as "evil"? That would reflect his destructive moral relativism, i.e. his well-known refusal (rather inability) to make moral distinctions. In short he seems only able to operate exclusively in an a-moral 'reality'. Which is of course, a kind of perceived 'reality', but one that inevitably will lead to disaster. After all, contrary to what he asserts foolishly elsewhere - that it was patriotism that led to world wars - it is precisely the inability (by many people) to make necessary moral distinctions (e.g. in casu between 'good' forms and 'bad' forms of patriotism) that inevitably led to great disasters. The same will happen in the future.
As always, what ails Kappert (and similar products of contemporary naive-left education systems), is the unwillingness to make honest (but often unpleasant) empirical observations, and the preference for clinging to 'acquired' dogmas. Thus, he is incapable to make observations about the 'nature' of the Soviet Union (e.g. power concentration and monopoly, nomenclatura, gulags, etc...) and its publicly-declared goals etc...., and thus he refuses to make any moral characterisation of the Soviet Union. In true "reality", that is the equivalent of a babe walking in the woods.....
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-02-04 17:10.
1)The Cold War was the assumption that either the capitalist or the communist community is better; 'right' against 'wrong' - no dialogue.
2)'After all, contrary to what he asserts foolishly elsewhere - that it was patriotism that led to world wars - it is precisely the inability (by many people) to make necessary moral distinctions (e.g. in casu between 'good' forms and 'bad' forms of patriotism) that inevitably led to great disasters. The same will happen in the future.'
You'll have to explain what you understand under 'good' and 'bad' forms of patriotism, and which patriotism will lead to disaster.
The moral 'reality': gulags, napalm, concentration camps, exploitation, famine, persecutions?
Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2008-02-04 19:01.
Did you ever visit communist countries in the 60's, 70's, 80's???
Did you ever try to go into a normal standard communist appartment building while trying not to vomit from the stench of the leaking sanitary system? All appartment buildings were like that, except the dacha's of the happy few.
Did you ever stand in line a whole month, every day, for a pair of shoes and find out in the end that the stocks are finished?
What exactly is the assumption you are talking about?
re: islam critics
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-02-04 01:24.
"You may call it wishful thinking,naive,or out of this world,but I stick to my path".
Of course you do,kappert,of course you do.Now,where have I heard this sort of balderdash before? Ah, I remember now,it was the CND ers (and Peter Hitchens describes it best when he writes in today's M-o-S):
"...the swivel-eyed movement of pacifist dupes sprinkled with communist fellow-travellers,who preached panic and fear when we needed calm resolve.
They worked hard to make the Evil Empire the only nuclear power in Europe.They were proved totally wrong by our bloodless victory in the Cold War,but have never had the grace to say sorry...".
"Remembering Muslim workmates,I might say that they were rather sloppy with Islam".
So,your only hope is that the majority of Muslims in the world will become "rather sloppy" with Islam.Let's see,just how realistic is that? Well,one indicator would be to imagine that we are not talking about Muslims,but Taoists,in which case we would be expecting them to transform themselves from pacifists into latter day Genghis Khans.Kappert,tell me and be honest with me,just how likely is that?
btw; I too have a number of wonderful Muslim friends.That fact is irrelevant.
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-02-04 14:16.
"I remember now,it was the CND ers (and Peter Hitchens describes it best when he writes in today's M-o-S)"
No idea about that fellow; the 'we vs Evil Empire' remarks miss reality.
Most Muslims are as easy goin' with Islam as Christians are with their religion. I do not see any link of taoism and Genghis Khan. Glad to hear that you have Muslim friends.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-02-03 14:36.
Welcome to Utopia,kappert-style: The pop singer,the fox and the taoist.
re: Islam critics
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-02-03 14:17.
"I do not think that hasty dismissing of possible Qur'an critique contributes to the path of a more liberal Islamic view".
Who are the people doing the "hasty dismissing" here,marcfrans,myself,other non Muslims or (in the majority) the Muslims themselves?
The fact remains that,in the words of marcfrans,your world is "a world of wishful thinking as opposed to one of empirical observation".
If you doubt this,then take the following ' Empirical' test:
You try telling a group of Muslims,selected by yourself at random,that you believe they should accept that the Qur'an is a book written by man,and that just like "any other" spiritual book,they need to accept that it contains errors,tales and fantasies.Do that,then get back to me with the empirical results.
Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-02-03 21:15.
"You try telling a group of Muslims,selected by yourself at random,that you believe they should accept that the Qur'an is a book written by man,and that just like "any other" spiritual book,they need to accept that it contains errors,tales and fantasies.Do that,then get back to me with the empirical results."
Sounds like a suicide mission, but ... remembering Muslim workmates, I might say that they were rather sloppy with Islam. So I might have had an interesting and peaceful discussion with them. As I said before, less doctrine and more tolerance, and we can talk about these things. You may call it wishful thinking, naïve, or out of this world, but I stick to my path.
re: kappert's world # 2
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-02-03 11:49.
@ marcfrans: Let's attempt to conduct a little experiment shall we?
@ kappert: This,from The Daily Telegraph, Saturday,February 2,2008
Title: 'Crucifixion? It wasn't that bad,says professor' by Jonathan Petre,
Quote: The Crucifixion of Christ "wasn't as bad as it's been painted",an outspoken Marxist academic will claim on the BBC this month.
Terry Eagleton,Professor of Cultural Theory at the University of Manchester,will say in Radio 4's Lent Talks that Jesus "got off pretty lightly" because it only took him three hours to die...
He adds that Jesus's scourging was a "blessing in disguise" because it hastened his death.He also attacks modern Christianity for siding with the rich and abandoning the poor...
Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-02-03 13:39.
Links to Islams critics:
Book recommendation: Yasar N. Öztürk: Der verfälschte Islam. Eine Kritik der Geschichte islamischen Denkens.
U Samarkand: There will be a follow-up seminar in Kazan (Russia) later this year. As soon as I get more info on that I'll inform you.
The Aga Khan Foundation finances education centres in general.
The Qu'ran contains as many 'errors', 'tales' and 'fantasies' as any other spiritual book written by man. As Islam is pretended to be a submission before Allah, the acceptance of 'the notion of freedom of individual conscience' is a difficult puzzle. But as I said before, these discussions take place very cautiously and will take an awful amount of time. For the rest I agree with marcfrans, but I do not think that a hasty dismissing of possible Qu'ran critique contributes to the path of a more liberal Islamic view.
Kappert's world # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2008-02-03 03:01.
Your foxy questioning has exposed the reality of Kappert's world: it is a world of wishful thinking as opposed to one of empirical observation.
I think that the important question is not whether the Quran contains "errors", but rather whether muslims, and especially muslim leaders, can accept the notion of freedom of individual conscience. That would be essentially the same as separation of mosque and state, or acceptance of different interpretations about the meaning of the Quran, both of the text as a whole and of specific passages in the text. The Quran does not have to contain "errors" if people can interpret its meaning in very different ways.
I also think that there is no essential difference between: (a) some Europeans today who are in jail for expressing thoughts that transgress so-called anti-racism and negationism legislation, and (b) some muslims who are in jail for expressing thoughts that are declared "unislamic" by various bodies in the muslim world. In both cases it is a reflection of intolerance of freedom of speech and expression. However, for the moment there often are still significant differences in the type of punishment meeted out. An Afghan 'court' recently convicted a man to death for downloading an "unislamic" page from the internet (obviously the goal is to silence Afghan journalists). And, a while back, another Afghan court sentenced another one to death for declaring himself to be a 'christian'. For the moment, the punishments are less severe in Europe, but the same 'intolerance' (for unorthodox ideas) rules.
Kappert's World #1
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-02-03 01:30.
Not for the first time have you tried this evasion tactic and not for the last time do I intend getting you back on track.Let's recap:
Atlanticist: "ALL Muslims believe the Qur'an to be error-free:.
Kappert:"I do not think that scholars regard the book as error-free".
Atlanticist: "Non-Islamic sources do NOT count".
Kappert: "Presently...the Qur'an is discussed vividly (University of Samarkand)"
Atlanticist: "Are you now claiming that these non Arab Muslims are toying with the possibility that the Qur'an DOES contain errors?"
Kappert: "Discussions are being held very 'cautiously' ".
Atlanticist: "Who is this enlightened oil sheikh...is he the same benefactor funding that "Study into possibility of errors in the Holy Qur'an" currently taking place at the University of Samarkand you were telling me about?"
Kappert: "Indeed,who is the guy? There are very few ones,maybe the Aga Khan (foundation) is best known...Besides,sponsoring critical Islam is far too dangerous for them".
Kappert,it is completely dishonest of you to suggest that the Aga Khan (foundation) funds studies into possible errors in the Qur'an.So,I'll ask you again,where are these Muslim scholars who believe that the Qur'an is not error-free?
Destruction of eastern christianity
Submitted by Paganini on Sat, 2008-02-02 15:48.
"Arab Christians have their churches (exception Saudi-Arabia), bigger communities live in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon. Saudi-Arabia, as protector of Mecca, prohibits the cult of other religions (just as within the Vatican)."
There's a difference between Rome and 'vatican city': there are mosques in Rome, as in every european city, even a big one built for 50 million dollars. King Fahd from SA visited it in november last year. Ratzinger will see no church in SA, he will not be allowed to wear a cross around his neck, he would even not be allowed to mention Jesus name there. And ofcourse he wouldn't be allowed to enter Mekka (only the city) while everyone is free to visit the vatican (the holy place).
Eastern christianity is conquered by jihad and destroyed under dhimmitude, a dehumanizing and exploitive institution which has given rise to expropriation, slavery, and the deportation of majority-populations whose cultural and historic heritage has been totally demolished.
And there are no christians anymore in Morocco and Tunisia, their annihilation was completed during the 11 century in 2-3 generations.
Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-02-02 20:35.
Your remarks on Rome, the Vatican and Mecca are right.
The catholic community of Morocco counts about 10.000 people. To count churches in Tunisia please see: Lieux de culte chrétiens en Tunisie: http://geneom.free.fr/gomol/envrac15.php
Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-02-02 14:57.
Please notice that you have chosen a book dated 1958 (Sam Welles) and a citation within that book (Soper).
@ kappert # 2
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-02-02 13:23.
"As for what has become of Taoism,with its hordes of nearly illiterate,rapacious priests,one can hardly improve on the summary of Edmund Davidson Soper."Taoism today...is a mass of puerile superstitions.It is the worst side of Chinese religion...Theoretically,the business of the ignorant priests is to help the people live in accord with Tao i.e. the Way,but practically it is magic run mad.Soothsaying in every imaginable form...is carried on by a priesthood which has become skillful in working on the superstitious fears of the people".
* Are you offended by that statement?
* How many other Taoists around the world would be offended by it?
* How many Taoists could possibly agree with it?
* How many Taoists would seek revenge?
* How would you suggest fellow Taoists respond to statements such as
Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-02-02 14:27.
The 'virtual church' is a gadget, a spiritual person wouldn't join such a site. Arab Christians have their churches (exception Saudi-Arabia), bigger communities live in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon. Saudi-Arabia, as protector of Mecca, prohibits the cult of other religions (just as within the Vatican). All in all, less doctrine and more tolerance are desireable.
I never heard of Mr Super and for what he writes, he has no idea of Chinese philosophy. Probably he is an European, still gloryfied by the British Empire and dismissing everything he doesn't understand as supersticious. Priests are not illiterate, their wisdom results from the openness of their minds, on contrary to Mr Soper's. I think, no taoist would feel offended, nor would any agree with that nonsense, the word 'revenge' is not in the taoist dictionary.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-02-02 01:26.
If I understand it correctly,that last post of yours was a very touching one but it completely failed to address the real issue.
* Why should Arab Christians have to live in the 'virtual' world?
* Why should Arab Christians be denied the same religious freedoms enjoyed
by Muslims in the West?
* Indeed,why should Arabs not be permitted to openly preach and practice
Taoism,just like you do here in the West?
These are just a few of the basic questions you need to think about and those same questions are the kind of questions the Mufti of Paris needs to address.But neither of you will.Am I wrong? I appreciate that you can't answer on behalf of the Mufti but you can answer for yourself.So,how about it,kappert? Are you brave enough to try?
in dreams possible
Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-02-01 17:28.
If you are an Arabic Christian, you virtually may try here:
Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-02-01 17:25.
Indeed, who may be the guy? There are very few ones, maybe the Aga Khan (Foundation) is best known. The others are more interested in yachts, Bentleys and artificial islands. Besides, sponsoring critical Islam studies is far too dangerous for them, they take it as easy as it comes.
Must be Bush's fault
Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Fri, 2008-02-01 17:21.
...and it must have to be somehow because of the war in Iraq.
Typical French reasoning...
The French should change this law when Pigs fly over Mecca
Submitted by Zen Master on Fri, 2008-02-01 16:04.
The mufti’s nerve is mind numbing.
The French should allow as many mosques to be built as the Christians are allowed to build churches in Mecca. They should allow the French Muslims to have as many Qurans as bibles are allowed for the Christians in Mecca. Bringing a bible into Saudi Arabia is worth jail and a few lashes. It is odd how Muslims don't understand the irony of this situation.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-02-01 15:03.
Kappert,perhaps you shouldn't miss out on the gravy train (pork barrels?)here.Get in there,son.That oil sheikh might even be persuaded to finance the construction of a Gongguan at Gitmo'.You know,just in case...
So the Muslims have lost
Submitted by maigemu on Fri, 2008-02-01 14:37.
So the Muslims have lost their Saudi oil funding and want subsidy from the French tax payers?
10201 quotes 654 topics 2452 authors indexed 903 links
http://www.ipc-ealing.co.uk/ Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-02-01 14:14.
Who is this enlightened oil sheikh who will supposedly fund the building of Churches and Synagogues in the heart of Araby? Personally, I've never heard of him.Is he the same benefactor funding that "Study into possibility of errors in the Holy Qur'an" currently taking place at the University of Samarkand you were telling me about?
Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-02-01 13:58.
Maybe a rich sheik gives him money to build the mosques he wants. Pragmatic money talks would be more appropriate than changing the law.
Christians Must Stop Discriminating Against the Muslims in Mecca
Submitted by realitydenied on Fri, 2008-02-01 13:55.
I agree. The Mufti should call for a summit in Mecca with the Chief Rabbis of Mecca and Medina, the Bishops of Mecca and Medina, and all the other leaders of all Christian sects in Mecca and Medina. They should hold the meeting at the Cathedral of Mecca Center for World Understanding and Love and Tolerance. Puhleeze. How barbaric and racist those Christians are for not understanding the needs of the Mufti of Paris. The Christians have dominated Mecca and discriminated against Muslims there for so long, it's only fair to give the poor Mufti of Paris a break.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-02-01 12:33.
I believe kappert would agree with me when I propose that:The mufti of Paris should be encouraged to seek a dialogue with the chief rabbi of Riyadh and the Archbishop of Medina to learn lessons on how this problem has already been successfully addressed in the Muslim world. Europe is SO behind the curve on this issue it's untrue.