Tag Archives: mosque

The 9.1.1. Mosque: Saying no to a monument on our graveyard…

 

“We were so oblivious to the beauty of the twin towers as we sat with our kids in the park all those years ago. Gabrielle was in the second grade at P.S. 41 on 9/11, and by the time we walked home that day our clear view of the trade towers from Sixth Avenue and 11th Street was gone.” — Debra Weinstein

 

Starting to say ‘no’

By ANDREW C. McCARTHY

A Tectonic shift is in motion: How fitting that its focal point is Ground Zero, the inevitable fault line between Islam and the West.

Only the blink of an eye ago, uttering the unpleasant truth that in terms of doctrine there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” resulted in one’s banishment from what our opinion elites like to call the “mainstream,” by which they mean the narrow-minded, viciously defended circle of their own pieties and fictions.

You could say it, but your skin had better have an extra coat or two of thick: You were in for a fusillade of rage, the likes of which our candor-phobic elites would never dream of unleashing at our Islamist enemies — no matter how clearly those enemies announced their intention to destroy us.

The fusillade still comes, but now its blows only glance. The elites and their mainstream have been exposed as frauds: Being on the wrong side of enough 70-30 issues will do that to you.

It should never have gotten this far. Sponsors of the Ground Zero mosque neither own the property in question nor possess the means to build and operate the palatial Islamic center they envision. The more light that shines on their record of murky real-estate dealings and the dubious circumstances of their limited stake in the Ground Zero property, the more questions arise.

In a more sensible world, those questions would get answered before we plunged into a rancorous public debate. That hasn’t happened, though. In spite of the implacable determination of the mayor (and the attorney general who would be governor) to look the other way, the issue has galvanized the public. What has long bubbled beneath the surface did not need much more heat to boil over.

For the better part of two decades, Americans have been murdered by Islamists and then lectured that they are to blame for what has befallen them. We have been instructed in the need for special sensitivity to the unceasing demands of Islamic culture and falsely accused of intolerance by the people who wrote the book on intolerance.

Americans have sacrificed blood and bottomless treasure for Islamic peoples who despise Americans — and despise us even more as our sacrifices and gestures of self-loathing intensify. Americans have watched as apologists for terrorists and sha ria were made the face of an American Muslim community that we were simultaneously assured was the very picture of pro-American moderation.

Americans have had our fill. We are willing to live many lies. This one, though, strikes too close to home, arousing our heretofore dormant sense of decency. Americans have now heard President Obama’s shtick enough times to know that when he talks about “our values,” he’s really talking about his values, which most of us don’t share. And after 10 years of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’s tired tirades, we’re immune to Feisal Rauf, too.

We look around us and we see our country unrivaled by anything in the history of human tolerance. We see thousands of thriving mosques, permitted to operate freely even though we know for a fact that mosques have been used against us, repeatedly, to urge terrorism, recruit terrorists, raise money for terrorists, store and transfer firearms, and inflame Muslims against America and the West.

As Islamists rage against us, we see Islam celebrated in official Washington. As we reach out for the umpty-umpth time, we find Muslim leaders taking what we offer, but always with complaint and never with reciprocation.

We’re weary, and we don’t really care if that means that Timemagazine, Michael Bloomberg, Katie Couric, Fareed Zakaria and the rest think we’re bad people — they think we’re bad people anyway. So finally we’re asking: Where is this “moderate Islam” you’ve been telling us about?

Why would a self-proclaimed bridge-builder insist on something so patently provocative and divisive? How can we be sure that if imam Rauf builds his monument on our graveyard, it won’t become what other purportedly “moderate” Islamic centers have become: a cauldron of anti-American vitriol?

It turns out that there are no satisfactory answers. When finally pressed on the taxonomy of moderate Islam, the best our elites can do — besides shouting “Islamophobia!” — is debate whether there ever was a “golden age” of Islamic tolerance. They have to confess that the Islamists — whom they’d like us to see as a handful of “extremists” but who are in truth a mass movement — are in the ascendancy.

It is embarrassingly obvious that while some of us have been working to defeat Islamism in our midst, our elites are of the incorrigibly progressive mindset that counsels accommodating them — in the delusion that they will be appeased rather than encouraged to become more aggressive.

That is precisely the mindset that makes an Islamist think: Maybe now is the time for a $100 million mosque at Ground Zero.

“Moderate Islam” is a dream, not a reality. It is a dream with potential — because there are millions of Muslims who are moderate people, and because there are dedicated Muslims working to transform their faith into something that is institutionally moderate.

But they work against great odds. They confront Islamists whose dedication to theocratic principles is deeply and undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture. And they confront American opinion elites who, wittingly or not, serve as the lifeline of the Islamists.

The reformers’ slim chance at prevailing hinges on the American people’s will to say “no” to our self-anointed betters. Ground Zero, once again the site of epic Islamist overreach, may be remembered as the place where we started to say “no.”

Andrew C. McCarthy is a Na tional Review Institute senior fellow. His latest book is “The Grand Jihad.” From nationalreview.com

SOURCE/PIC NYT

END OF POST

Faith and Morals: My Response to the claim of bashing Muslims and Gays

Jesus is considered by scholars such as Weber ...
Image via Wikipedia

The following is a reply to a long-time friend on the baited-subject of bashing Muslims and Gays…

Dear Ron- There is no earth-bound moral argument from the left or the right that will suffice; all faith and moral arguments are predicated on attaining the spiritual truth about man, and thus, the will of God for him: his sanctification leading up into eternal life…

On Bashing Moslems: Faith

Before any debate on the subject of Bashing Muslims resumes, you should know the actual Church (Christian) position in its spiritual relationship with the Muslim religion…

As a convert to the Church not born of flesh and blood (that is, not evangelized by men) but of God, such conversion requires obedience and adherence to revealed truth placed within the soul and discovered within the Church; this comes by the Spirit, Who established and maintains the Church in the truth about God and man throughout the ages; that is, upon the foundation of Christ Jesus Who when in the flesh as God on earth said of Himself:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” [John 14]

So it is with the Church on all things pertaining to faith and morals (our subjects) according to the same Spirit of Truth. The Spirit teaches the truth about faith and morals through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and through the Teaching Magisterium of the Church—The Pope and those Bishops united within him.

 With all that in mind Ron, this from the Catechism (the authoritative teaching) of the Catholic Church:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:  All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .[331]

843 “The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.’

All this is my position according to the same obedience to the Spirit of God. God is spirit and we must worship in spirit and truth.

As for the Mosque near ground zero in New York, I do not oppose it as a constitutional right and freedom, or on religious grounds, I oppose it because it betrays the victims of 911 and their lost right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; rights which both victims and their surviving families alike were denied by Muslim extremists; Extremists, yes, to be sure Ron, but Muslim nonetheless. And for what little my opinion matters, it’s the wrong place and time for a Mosque. Period.

On Bashing Gays: Morals

The immoral sexual act(s) of homosexuality is an impure act against nature and natures God. Even the non-spiritualized soul recognizes the Natural Law found within our hearts, which tells us the act is wrong. (i.e. morally sinful). Which goes a long way to explaining why most every state and people continues to vote against Gay marriage; and also why homosexual activists must use the U.S. court system or international bodies to override the people’s natural God-given gift of telling right from wrong.

From a Catholic moral standpoint, the Church teaches within the Catechism:

 Chastity and homsexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Homosexuality has indeed taken on a great number of forms throughout the centuries, and Christianity has remained steadfast in warning and declaring the spiritual dangers involved with such behavior [CLICK HERE]. Remember Ron, the object and aim of Christianity is God’s love for all men and the salvation of their souls. It is an act of charity to inform the uninformed or sinful soul that their temporary immoral behavior on earth imperils their eternal happiness in Heaven…

END OF POST

Fatima Vandalized: graffiti includes words “Islam,” “moon,” “sun,” “Muslim” and “mosque.”

 

Four statutes on the sides of the church as well as the church itself were painted with graffiti…

BELGA PHOTOS

 

FATIMA, Portugal, JAN. 12, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The church of the Holy Trinity and four statues at the shrine of Our Lady of Fatima were vandalized early Sunday morning.

In a press release Monday, officials from the shrine announced that in the early hours of Sunday morning, four statutes on the sides of the church as well as the church itself were painted with graffiti.

In the John Paul II Plaza, statutes of Popes John Paul II and Paul VI were painted. In the Pius XII Plaza, statues of Pope Pius XII and Bishop José Alves Correia da Silva were painted.

The graffiti includes the words “Islam,” “moon,” “sun,” “Muslim” and “mosque.”

According to the statement from shrine officials, “the difficult work of cleaning” is under way.

The communiqué added: “In reporting what has happened and without knowing who has done this, the shrine [officials] confirm [our] sadness and assure that the issue has been reported to the police.”

END OF POST