Spain Cathedral Shuns Muslim Plea

[Gaius Octavius]

I cannot stand too much certainty in religion thats why I avoid America's Bible Belt. [This sadness is not by law.] The polarising of viewpoints is the beginning of extremism and I have had much kindness shown me by muslims in their country's and mine (which is secular, lest we forget).

 

Much of the Mid East trouble is more Oil/Economic based than religious and using the Afghans as an example of typical islam???? [Who said that?]

 

My two favourite buildings are Islamic structures in non-Islamic countries. The Alhambra in Granada (I love Andalucia) and the Taj Mahal.

 

Like Norhern Neil I'm from the North of England and have grown up with many muslims that I am proud to call friends. They don't care about religion but attend the Mosque to respect their parents wishes. Give it another generation and they'll be as religion free as myself [ Just as in France and Germany.]

[Rameses the Great]

In many Middle East countries Christians are just barely tolerate and treated as second class citizens. Everyday in Egypt Muslim militants attack Egypt, and the government reamains quiet.Free Christians? Muslims have the right to feel 'offended,' while Copts are threatened and killed. Just to get a job as a Christian the standards are very high. My mom who worked at the Marriot was not allowed to work there anymore because there were only 4% of Christians allowed. We're talking about a Western hotel that has Bibles in each room! You think this just happens in the Middle East?

 

Muslims torchered Sikhs in Northern India in many dispicable ways. They smashed Hindu and Budhists temples. They kill Christian children going to school in Indonesia. Shariah law is now beein imposed on a half Christian nation in Nigeria. Churches are being burned in Albania and Bosnia.

 

Israel defeated the Arab states in 4 count them 4 wars. In which one was an illadvised attack by Syria and Egypt during the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. Now the Muslims have resorted to terror tactics kidnapping Israelis and chopping off heads.

 

You say the Christian population in the Middle East is not in danger? Consider this, when the Shah was overthrown in Iran the Christians were treated officially as second class citizens. Now there are decrees restricting church worship, the closing of churches, and the confiscation of the Bible and forbidden Christian literature. If the Muslim Brotherhood take over will the Christians in Egypt be safe? If there are any indication from the past the answer is no. Like Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, and maybe one day the Christian nation of Lebanon, they are most likely no longer safe.

 

So why don't you return the Hagia Sophia, the Temple of Solomon, and many Budhists and Hindu temples? Ask that question and you'll realise a certain party just got quieter.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[spittle]

If you want to discuss the Iranians treatment of non-Muslims, fine.

 

If you want to discuss the Taliban blowing up the pre-Mohammed Buddha's, fine. (The International Council of Islam, based in Cairo, condemned that action as did most Muslims).

 

But lets not group EVERY MUSLIM together under the heading of THEM as opposed to US.

 

I never said that Christians in the Mid-East were not under threat but I believe that most are not.

 

And mosques that started life as churches seem about as numerous as churches that started life as mosques.

 

Partition in India was not a one way street. Muslims were victims as well as perps.

 

And did you say that the Marriot in Egypt had Bibles in the rooms?

 

Personally I believe the world would be a better place with no religion. Suicide bombers believe in an afterlife.

[Northern Neil]

Personally I believe the world would be a better place with no religion. Suicide bombers believe in an afterlife.

 

Absolutely. The them-and-us thing is tiresome, especially as we have only just come out of one vis-a-vis the communists. There are always two sides to a tale and myself and spittle are just trying to provide a balanced view here. Octavius, I agree you are aware of the current status of Haghia Sofia - but other posters on this thread are not, hence statements to the effect that it should be 'given back'. That is why I redressed the issue. I also agree you do not see Muslims as insane enemies - despite references to them banging their heads in Guantanamo - but many people do, and mainly due to adverse news reports from media with a vested interest in 'them and us' situations everywhere. Personally, I have BBC Radio 4 switched on constantly, read the Independent (neutral British newspaper), the very American but also very scrupulous National Geographic, and the International Herald Tribune when I am lucky enough to get it, and many of my views are as a result of using these very level headed media.

 

Michael Moore may express views many people dont like, but I would say that if he was wrong, he would have been sued by now for mis - information and defamation of character. This has not as far as I am aware happened. Badly presented his findings may be, but insane? Perhaps not. Unpalatable, yes.

 

Some of the views some Muslims put forward are at best infantile and at worst murderous - there is no denying that. Some actions of some Muslims are indeed barbaric and I will not for now go into the long list of such instances, as Octavious has already done this to a degree. However, if someone expresses a view on this site that appears to support such barbarity, and talks in a prejudicial and unsympathetic way about Christians and Westerners, I will also give the balanced view to them.

 

In the meantime, I agree utterly with Virgil that exposure to westerners may have something to do with the civilised and accommodating views of British Muslims - indeed, proximity to Europe may have had a similar effect on the Turks. Therefore, surely the rerquest by Spanish Muslims to worship together with Christians may be considered a good thing, and a move to stop the division between Christians and Muslims.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Gaius Octavius]

N.N.

 

"Fair & Balanced". News is not 'Fair', therefore it should not be reported in a 'Balanced' fashion. News is facts and should be reported without prejudice, a most difficult chore. "We report; you decide." How can one come to a 'correct' decision if the report is tainted?

 

Capitalism, and alleged capitalists, have justly earned a bad name. Some of my best friends are capitalists; I am one. The latter does not relieve the former of odium.

[Rameses the Great]

If you want to discuss the Iranians treatment of non-Muslims, fine.

 

If you want to discuss the Taliban blowing up the pre-Mohammed Buddha's, fine. (The International Council of Islam, based in Cairo, condemned that action as did most Muslims).

 

But lets not group EVERY MUSLIM together under the heading of THEM as opposed to US.

 

I never said that Christians in the Mid-East were not under threat but I believe that most are not.

 

And mosques that started life as churches seem about as numerous as churches that started life as mosques.

 

Partition in India was not a one way street. Muslims were victims as well as perps.

 

And did you say that the Marriot in Egypt had Bibles in the rooms?

 

Personally I believe the world would be a better place with no religion. Suicide bombers believe in an afterlife.

 

You CLEARLY missed the entire point of my post. Most Chrtistians ARE underfire and many Muslims ARE the root cause of it. The region with the MOST instability and the MOST hostility is from the Middle East impacting Christians and Jews.

 

(The International Council of Islam, based in Cairo, condemned that action as did most Muslims).

 

Yes, and they also waged a halal on the Patriarchate of Alexandria. That means a right to kill. Tell me, how come they are not quick to punish Muslims who attack churches...

 

And did you say that the Marriot in Egypt had Bibles in the rooms?

 

Yes, if I must repeat myself it is a Western company therefore there were bibles there. My family were Middle East Christians.

[spittle]

Didn't you say your family were Coptic Christians?

I'm surprized you cannot trace your family tree through the Coptic Churches/community you originate from?

 

If a hotel in Nepal put Bibles in the rooms it would be illegal (State religion is Hindu) and I find it insensitive to do such a thing in a Muslim country, whether its owned by Western firms or not.

 

Didn't you say your family were Coptic Christians?

I'm surprized you cannot trace your family tree through the Coptic Churches/community you originate from?

 

If a hotel in Nepal put Bibles in the rooms it would be illegal (State religion is Hindu) and I find it insensitive to do such a thing in a Muslim country, whether its owned by Western firms or not.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Didn't you say your family were Coptic Christians?

I'm surprized you cannot trace your family tree through the Coptic Churches/community you originate from?

 

If a hotel in Nepal put Bibles in the rooms it would be illegal (State religion is Hindu) and I find it insensitive to do such a thing in a Muslim country, whether its owned by Western firms or not.

 

Didn't you say your family were Coptic Christians?

I'm surprized you cannot trace your family tree through the Coptic Churches/community you originate from?

 

If a hotel in Nepal put Bibles in the rooms it would be illegal (State religion is Hindu) and I find it insensitive to do such a thing in a Muslim country, whether its owned by Western firms or not.

 

I suggest you retract that first statement.

The specific issue here is Egypt, not Nepal. Also, the state religion doesn't ensure anything.

And if you find insensitive to have a Bible in a muslim country, then you are insensitive to the plight of the native Christian gens who have sided for centuries or milleniums in those countries. Is it wrong for them to bear a Bible in the country of their births.

Edited December 30, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[spittle]

If they want Bibles for themselves thats different but attempting to force the religious views of the hotel owners on the guests by sticking Bibles in the rooms is a very different matter. And what Bibles? The one that politically best suited James 1st in the early 1600s? Or one amongst the dozens of other rewrites that appear to have little left from the actual teachings of Christ.

 

As for Nepal it relates to the topic. Every yeqr Christian and Muslim missionaries are deported (or worse) for trying to preach a different religion to the state faith of Hinduism. We hear very little about this because its not Muslims doing it.

 

Historically Islam was the most tolerant monotheistic faith of them all. When the Christians first took back Jerusalem they massacred every non-Christian. A century later when Arabs re-occupied the city they were the first occupying regime to allow freedom of religion.

 

I DO NOT LIKE THIS PERSONS VIEWS I THINK I'LL SAY HE HAS GONE OFF TOPIC. Its getting dull when this weak attempt to undermine anothers point of view becomes increasingly used.

[Rameses the Great]

Didn't you say your family were Coptic Christians?

I'm surprized you cannot trace your family tree through the Coptic Churches/community you originate from?

 

What's your point? If you must know, not many Copts know where they came from. All we know is that we are Egyptians. Quite frankly its none of your business.

 

If a hotel in Nepal put Bibles in the rooms it would be illegal (State religion is Hindu) and I find it insensitive to do such a thing in a Muslim country, whether its owned by Western firms or not.

 

So they force Muslims to read the bible? I don't get your point here, this is just something standard. If you find it insensitive, then I find it insulting that you don't understand the history of the Middle East and find it insensitive for Muslims. This was a place for Christians as FVC pointed out. I don't think denying the religion of the native born Christians in the Middle East is apropriate.

 

Historically Islam was the most tolerant monotheistic faith of them all. When the Christians first took back Jerusalem they massacred every non-Christian. A century later when Arabs re-occupied the city they were the first occupying regime to allow freedom of religion.

 

Again, absolutely not! Have you never read tflex or my posts? When Christianity spread throught the Middle East no one was forced, only by Romans in the late centuries. Arabs did kill non Christians. The choices were, 1. Pay heavy and unreasonable taxes, 2. Leave the land or be killed, 3. Be converted or killed. If you see this as tolerance well then I advise you to take up a book.

 

The Islamic caliphate spread from Southern France to the Hindu Kush making the people there convert to the primary religion of Islam. This Islamic propaganda of them being a tolerant religion is far from the truth. If people saw the atrocities of what happened in Egypt, the Middle East, and India I think you and many others would change their views. They destroyed the temple of Solomon and many churches. Not tolerance spittle ignorance.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Northern Neil]

They destroyed the temple of Solomon and many churches. Not tolerance spittle ignorance.

 

And Christians were doing the same things to Aztecs 700 years later. As has been stated already, all religion breeds ignorance and a them and us attitude. Getting back to the point, Should the Muslims be allowed to pray at Cordoba by the Catholics, in the same way as Christian prayer was permitted once more by the turks at Haghia Sophia? Should we really be turning down olive branches?

[Gaius Octavius]

And Christians were doing the same things to Aztecs 700 years later. As has been stated already, all religion breeds ignorance and a them and us attitude. Getting back to the point, Should the Muslims be allowed to pray at Cordoba by the Catholics, in the same way as Christian prayer was permitted once more by the turks at Haghia Sophia? Should we really be turning down olive branches?

 

Christians entering Sancta Sophia, while it was a mosque was not allowed. A Christian would profane the place. What is the point, aside from provoking Christians, for praying in one of those idolatrous joints? They can whack their heads away in streets, on air planes in movies, etc. It seems that God sees them everywhere, so why do they need a church to do their head banging?

 

There is a mosk in Rome. Is there one non-moslem temple in all of Saudi Arabia? I give up! When a Christian can visit the Kabala, they can whack their heads away in St. Paddy's as far as I am concerned!

Edited December 31, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Northern Neil]

They can whack their heads away in streets, on air planes in movies, etc. It seems that God sees them everywhere, so why do they need a church to do their head banging?

 

Your terminology indicates a dislike for these people out of all proportion to their impact on your life in the US (unless I am gravely mistaken, in which case my apologies.) But speaking as someone who is in the front line, so to speak, given that 3 million plus muslims live amongst us, I feel that there is a need for greater understanding on both sides. Fighting ignorance with ignorance is never the way forward. Perhaps the teachings of your christ (I am atheist, personally) need to come into play here, and forgiveness is the answer?

 

During the 60's through to the early 90's, terrorism from Ireland, sponsored and funded in part by certain western countries who claimed to be our allies, caused considerable loss of life (four times that of 911) to British people, some of whom are or were known to me. Yet I have no generalised hatred for the Irish... or the countries which have in the past funded the IRA, and in one major instance continues to do so, despite our support to them in recent conflicts.

Edited December 31, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Gaius Octavius]

N.N., I have a great dislike for people who want to kill me because I am not of their ilk. To argue from a particular to the general is, of course, absurd. Their mullahs do preach hatred of the West and Christians in particular. They hate the U.S. because of its support of Israel. No matter how, the Israelis did defeat the Arabs for their land. The Arabs defeated the Romans for the Holy Land. That's life. Every nation was conquered by someone. Of course you speak of the U.S. with regard to the Irish. The British had/have no right to treat the Irish Catholics as less than human because they were/are not Protestants. Last on the job, first off. You seem to count British casualties; how about all the Irish who perished of starvation and mistreatment? Did you add them up?

 

Ignorance? Do you think that the Pope, recounting a dialogue that took place six centuries ago, should have been reviled the way he was by the Mohammedans?

 

BTW, how do you know, what if any, religion I hold to?

 

Just as a point of information. I don't like wars - period.

Edited December 31, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Northern Neil]

How can one condemn the Arabs for wanting back land taken from them in 1948, and yet support Irish terrorists killing members of a protestant community 300 years old? However the Irish were treated 150 years ago plus, does not excuse planting a bomb in a rubbish bin in Warrington (England) and blowing up shoppers. A pristine example of people being killed because they were not of the bomber's ilk, would you say? Do Black folks in America do this because they were mistreated historically? Or Native Americans? the English, to paraphrase yourself, defeated the Irish for their land. Thats life. At least we gave them most of it back in 1922. Most of the Colonies then followed by degres. Something native Americans are still waiting for...

 

Irish people were indeed mistreated and starved during the famines and prior to that. It is also worth saying that English working people were treated exactly the same way in this period-kept as virtual slaves by mill owners, dying due to overwork in their thirties, young boys sold to go up chimneys and clean them. Had Ireland been independent at this time, its working people would have suffered much the same as they did under the English, because thats how peasents and working people were treated at this time. There is no room here to discuss the current Irish problem in detail, but the view that it is down to English people treating Catholics as sub humans is grossly incorrect and naive, however true it may have been in the past. The British troops in recent decades were originally brought in to protect the Catholics from Protestant thugs. I think one needs to read a respectable volume on recent Irish politics to obtain a clear view here.

 

I do hate the way the Pope was reviled when he made his statement - and I also revile the way he backtracked as a result. I revile all sorts of things done by muslims and others to people not of their ilk. That is why I steer clear of viewing history in an absolutist way, condoning attrocities done in my name but reviling attrocities done by the 'other' side. true objectivity comes out of weighing up the situation by stepping out of it, and admitting when your own side are wrong, and when the other side have a point.

 

Turning down peaceful offers from muslims and calling them headbangers does not help to achieve this. Nor does excusing bombing of innocents because of a perceived injustice centuries ago - especially when people with similar grievences live on your doorstep. These are all prime examples of Western double standards which are at the root of why the Arab world dislikes us so much. I will not be contributing further to this discussion, as I believe I am failing in my aims, and at the end of the day I do not want to fall out with someone whose comments I generally find entertaining and informative.

Edited December 31, 2006 by Northern Neil