Allah Takes Over Catholic Church

[ConstantineTG]

Malphono, you may leave out of the frustration felt upon hitting the wall of another’s naivette (I may do the same, in fact; I fear my coming back here after a six month absence may have been a mistake), but please do not think that you do not have allies here. There is nothing un-Christian in preserving our faith against the falsehood of Christ-deniers, and all the happy go lucky inclusophilia in the world will not change the truth. He who has ears, let him hear…

Excuse me? What is so naive about breaking this vicious cycle of “I treat you the same way you treat me”? First, that is definitely unChristian-like. When did Christ not help people who are genuinely in need? From pagans to Samaritans, no one was turned away. The Apostles didn’t convert pagans and eventually conquered Rome because they treat non-Christians a class lower than themselves. Christ already did away with “eye for an eye”. Honestly, its this kind of talk which gives anti-Christians fire. We talk about Charity and when someone actually does something we find ways to berate them for doing it.

Besides, is keeping the church a church preserving the faith? The faith lives in us if we do indeed live it. They can burn all the churches down but Christianity lives in the hearts and minds of those who live Christ in their lives. The Apostles never had these buildings we have today.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ContantineTG,

Even in the US, the Church’s position on migration is different from that of the government. Remember that the Church doesn’t bend to the civil laws if it involves a greater good. The Church sees most illegal immigrants as people who are fleeing persecution or poverty from their native lands. Its more of an act of charity rather than breaking the law.

I believe you have given the most level-headed responses in this thread.

I certainly reject the sensationalist cries of “desecration!”, but in brother Malphono’s defense, I don’t believe he is approaching this from a humanist perspective, but from a religious perspective. I don’t think he is objecting to the Muslims as persons, I think he is objecting to the Muslim faith being permitted to be practiced on Catholic soil, so to speak. I don’t support the Muslim religion either, but I respect and accept your position that we should treat them as human beings.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ContantineTG,

I believe you have given the most level-headed responses in this thread.

I certainly reject the sensationalist cries of “desecration!”, but in brother Malphono’s defense, I don’t believe he is approaching this from a humanist perspective, but from a religious perspective. I don’t think he is objecting to the Muslims as persons, I think he is objecting to the Muslim faith being permitted to be practiced on Catholic soil, so to speak. I don’t support the Muslim religion either, but I respect and accept your position that we should treat them as human beings.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks. To tell you the truth I was in a similar situation months ago. A boat load of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka arrived on the shores of our province. We took them in and processed them for refugee claims. Me like many other British Columbians were against it while there are also those who support it. Of course my reasons were a bit short sighted. First being an immigrant myself, of course I complain why some take the short cut while I and many others like me take the long road. We had to spend a lot of money, made sure our credentials are verified as we need to pass a very strict criteria, then wait years to get our immigrant visa. Also the other issue was the prospect of these hundreds of refugees using up our tax money. But when I read our Catholic newspaper I read how much the Church supports these people who are fleeing persecution and civil war from their country. While the government worries about terrorists hiding among the legitimate refugees, the Church only looks upon them with compassionate eyes. They suffered and need our help, we need to welcome them and shelter them. It made me realize how different the Church sees things. Its not about who they are, what they did and what could go wrong. It just about genuine charity, helping them. If they seek to betray our love and our trust, then God will deal with them. We do not need to worry about that because Jesus never asked us to make such judgments. What he asked us is to do to the least of our brethren what we would have done for Him.

 

[dzheremi]

Excuse me? What is so naive about breaking this vicious cycle of “I treat you the same way you treat me”?

Who has advocated anything of that sort in this thread? I have not seen it. The closest has been several people pointing out that the opposite (Christian squatters praying and living in a mosque, hanging Christian banners outside of it, etc) could not happen. That is just reality, not viciousness on the part of any Christian.

First, that is definitely unChristian-like. When did Christ not help people who are genuinely in need? From pagans to Samaritans, no one was turned away.

Christ also drove the money changers out of the temple, as their activities were profaning it. Some Christians, myself included, feel that the actions of the Muslims (and really the spinelessness of the church leadership) profane this temple, which is consecrated to God as He has revealed Himself in Christianity, not to the god of the false religion of Islam. I agree that the Muslims should not be turned away, but I disagree strongly that this means that I or any Christian ought to accept what has happened in this church. There are plenty of places these people could have stayed and staged their protests that would not have involved desecrating a holy place that does not belong to their religion.

Christ already did away with “eye for an eye”.

Which, again, no one is talking about in this thread.

Honestly, its this kind of talk which gives anti-Christians fire. We talk about Charity and when someone actually does something we find ways to berate them for doing it.

No. It is not that they have done something that upsets people (I don’t think); it is what they have done. In the USA bishops have also advocated that certain unjust laws be defied, but this has not yet taken the form of allowing non-Christians to take over churches, hang banners over them, pray in them to their false gods, start fires inside them, play online poker games in them, etc. All of this is sacrilege. It is a church! Not a mosque, YMCA, or internet cafe.

Besides, is keeping the church a church preserving the faith? The faith lives in us if we do indeed live it. They can burn all the churches down but Christianity lives in the hearts and minds of those who live Christ in their lives. The Apostles never had these buildings we have today.

I certainly agree with this principle, but would never agree that therefore it is okay that we become lax in the administration of our churches. We are Christians, it is OUR faith, and part of that faith since the earliest times has been to meet in specific places in order to commune with Our Lord in the way the He has commanded us to. What kinds of physical places the apostles met in is not germane to the subject at hand. The fact is that physical suppression/destruction of churches and monasteries does hurt the faith. It is not coincidental that as more and more churches throughout the east were appropriated and turned into mosques, the numbers of Christians becoming Muslims grew. Where do you think the increase in population that demanded the mosques was coming from in the first place? Christian birthrates and church attendance were not always at the historic lows they are at now.

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother ContantineTG,

I believe you have given the most level-headed responses in this thread.

I certainly reject the sensationalist cries of “desecration!”, but in brother Malphono’s defense, I don’t believe he is approaching this from a humanist perspective, but from a religious perspective. I don’t think he is objecting to the Muslims as persons, I think he is objecting to the Muslim faith being permitted to be practiced on Catholic soil, so to speak. I don’t support the Muslim religion either, but I respect and accept your position that we should treat them as human beings.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

With due respect, since I have started this thread I feel like I should perhaps clarify a few things:

While I do view this as desecration, and will not be swayed from that position by your charge of sensationalism, it is not out of any sort of objection to Muslims as people that I started this thread or continue to post in it. Certainly Muslims in need are first and foremost people in need, and they deserve the same level of help that we would give our fellow Christians when it comes to social outreach from the Church. That said, I most definitely draw the line at anything that would allow their religion to be practiced or propagated in any way from within the Church/a church, as has happened in this case. This really seems like such an obvious stance to take that I am not even sure how to explain why this must be the case. Hopefully it is sufficient to say that it is not so much the idea that this or that particular place is “Catholic territory”, as though the land itself belongs to only one religion (that seems like a very “Muhammadean” idea, to correctly adapt the antiquated term), but that certainly a church is in and of itself the “property” of Christianity and Christians. If it were not, it would be just another building, and could just as easily be a mosque, or a (non-Christian) community center, or perhaps a particularly impressive McDonalds. But, if it is a church, it is to be reserved for the worship of God as we perform it according to our Christian faith. No other religions should be using it for worship. To the extent that they are wrongly allowed to do so (even with good intentions), it ceases to be consecrated to God, and as such becomes something other than that for which it is intended.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dzheremi,

The reporting is sensationalistic. Your OP stated that the Church was “handed over” to the Muslims for the purpose of Muslim worship. That’s sensationalistic no matter how you look at it. It’s impossible for me to believe that Muslim immigrants came all the way to the Catholic churches for the specific purpose of turning it into a mosques. A more level-headed explanation is that these immigrants came for asylum. These churches actually became their homes since it seems that if they leave the church grounds they will be arrested and imprisoned/deported. The church has almost actually become their prison since they can’t venture outside its boundaries. After some period, they requested if they could have some space to worship.

In any case, I don’t know if you are an Arab, but seeing a sign with name “Allah” is not at all offensive. If they hang up a sign in a Catholic Church that says “Allah,” who the heck cares? I do believe that the Catholic Church officially acknowledges that all monotheistic religions believe in the same one God. I think the reaction that hanging such a sign is a desecration has nothing to do with religion - it is really just a cultural prejudice if you think about it.

Blessings,
Marduk

With due respect, since I have started this thread I feel like I should perhaps clarify a few things:

While I do view this as desecration, and will not be swayed from that position by your charge of sensationalism, it is not out of any sort of objection to Muslims as people that I started this thread or continue to post in it. Certainly Muslims in need are first and foremost people in need, and they deserve the same level of help that we would give our fellow Christians when it comes to social outreach from the Church. That said, I most definitely draw the line at anything that would allow their religion to be practiced or propagated in any way from within the Church/a church, as has happened in this case. This really seems like such an obvious stance to take that I am not even sure how to explain why this must be the case. Hopefully it is sufficient to say that it is not so much the idea that this or that particular place is “Catholic territory”, as though the land itself belongs to only one religion (that seems like a very “Muhammadean” idea, to correctly adapt the antiquated term), but that certainly a church is in and of itself the “property” of Christianity and Christians. If it were not, it would be just another building, and could just as easily be a mosque, or a (non-Christian) community center, or perhaps a particularly impressive McDonalds. But, if it is a church, it is to be reserved for the worship of God as we perform it according to our Christian faith. No other religions should be using it for worship. To the extent that they are wrongly allowed to do so (even with good intentions), it ceases to be consecrated to God, and as such becomes something other than that for which it is intended.

 

[malphono]

The reporting is sensationalistic. Your OP stated that the Church was “handed over” to the Muslims for the purpose of Muslim worship. That’s sensationalistic no matter how you look at it. It’s impossible for me to believe that Muslim immigrants came all the way to the Catholic churches for the specific purpose of turning it into a mosques. A more level-headed explanation is that these immigrants came for asylum. These churches actually became their homes since it seems that if they leave the church grounds they will be arrested and imprisoned/deported. The church has almost actually become their prison since they can’t venture outside its boundaries. After some period, they requested if they could have some space to worship.

Part of the problem comes from the fact that these people are in the country illegally in the first place. If they were there as declared refugees, their legal status would be different. They are certainly not there as refugees escaping religious persecution. And people do not generally migrate en masse to escape political persecution.

I’m all too familiar with the artificial excuse of seeking economic opportunity. Yes, there are some who do, and those usually become good, upstanding citizens of their adopted countries. But there are others who care less about that and migrate in order to bleed the host country. I’ve seen this all my life, and it’s just getting worse. Plus, in some cases, there are those who are intent on forcing the host country to adapt to their ways: they use the institutions of the host country against it in order to get their way!

In any case, there are plenty of their own co-religionists who are legal. Those are the ones who should be looking out for their fellows: charity begins at home. As I see it, they should not be harbored in churches.

In any case, I don’t know if you are an Arab, but seeing a sign with name “Allah” is not at all offensive. If they hang up a sign in a Catholic Church that says “Allah,” who the heck cares? I do believe that the Catholic Church officially acknowledges that all monotheistic religions believe in the same one God. I think the reaction that hanging such a sign is a desecration has nothing to do with religion - it is really just a cultural prejudice if you think about it.

I, for one, would and do find such a sign highly offensive. One isn’t talking about a street-sign here: in the culture of the people involved, a sign (usually in some sort of Arabic calligraphy) can be said loosely equivalent to, e.g., a banner with a Lamb and IHS. Or an Icon. Or a Crucifix. The latter are distinctly Christian, where as the sign in question is most definitely distinctly **non-**Christian. Displaying such symbols of a false religion in a Christian church is a desecration.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Part of the problem comes from the fact that these people are in the country illegally in the first place. If they were there as declared refugees, their legal status would be different. They are certainly not there as refugees escaping religious persecution. And people do not generally migrate en masse to escape political persecution.

I’m all too familiar with the artificial excuse of seeking economic opportunity. Yes, there are some who do, and those usually become good, upstanding citizens of their adopted countries. But there are others who care less about that and migrate in order to bleed the host country. I’ve seen this all my life, and it’s just getting worse. Plus, in some cases, there are those who are intent on forcing the host country to adapt to their ways: they use the institutions of the host country against it in order to get their way!

In any case, there are plenty of their own co-religionists who are legal. Those are the ones who should be looking out for their fellows: charity begins at home.

I agree with your position regarding illegal immigrants who abuse the hospitatlity of a host country. I suspect many of them just want hand-outs and don’t even bother to want to work for a wage. That opposes Christian social principles. But I oppose viewpoints that generalize all illegal immigrants as such.

As I see it, they should not be harbored in churches.

I disagree. “We are the Church for the poor, but if you set foot in one of our churches, you’ve got another thing coming.” Something about that paradigm is illogical.

I, for one, would and do find such a sign highly offensive. One isn’t talking about a street-sign here: in the culture of the people involved, a sign (usually in some sort of Arabic calligraphy) can be said loosely equivalent to, e.g., a banner with a Lamb and IHS. Or an Icon. Or a Crucifix. The latter are distinctly Christian, where as the sign in question is most definitely distinctly **non-**Christian. Displaying such symbols of a false religion in a Christian church is a desecration.

Interesting point of view. We have Catholics and Christians in general being persecuted in Malaysia for using the word “Allah.” I just find it ironic that such a hardline distinction between “Allah” and “God” can find support from such disparate sources. It’s not about the fact that Malay Christians have traditionally used the word “Allah” to refer to God. It’s the fact that Allah means God pure and simple. There was nothing peculiarly Muslim about the Allah banner in the Church. If there was a crescent and star, yes, I would join in your objection. As it is, the position that a banner with the word “God” on it is a desecration is really what is objectionable.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother dzheremi,

The reporting is sensationalistic. Your OP stated that the Church was “handed over” to the Muslims for the purpose of Muslim worship. That’s sensationalistic no matter how you look at it.

As you see it. In subsequent posts I have stated that they were allowed to worship there as well as do other things that they should not be allowed to do in the church (that I would not be allowed to do either, I might add; In no way is it appropriate to play computer games and start fires in the church).

It’s impossible for me to believe that Muslim immigrants came all the way to the Catholic churches for the specific purpose of turning it into a mosques. A more level-headed explanation is that these immigrants came for asylum. These churches actually became their homes since it seems that if they leave the church grounds they will be arrested and imprisoned/deported.

They may not have intended to turn the church into a mosque, but it is defacto becoming one because they are being allowed to use it like one. It is also becoming a shanty town of sorts (see the pictures of the tents), and something of a rec room (the computer games). If you are comfortable with a church being all of those things because the people squatting in it would be deported if they left it, that’s up to you. As to the substance of the political and associated humanitarian argument to be made, I can see Malphono has written basically what I would have written, so there is little point in repeating the argument here.

The church has almost actually become their prison since they can’t venture outside its boundaries. After some period, they requested if they could have some space to worship.

Why have you bolded and underlined “after some period”? They were nice enough not to request to worship in the church until they had been there for a little while, so it’s fine that they are doing so now? I don’t understand that. It was a while before the religious dynamics changed in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere across the Christian east, too. That doesn’t exactly fill me with appreciation towards Muslims. Again, what upsets me most (if you re-read the words I did write in the OP) is that Catholic officials apparently see nothing wrong in this situation. I did not start this thread to bash the Muslim migrants, regardless of their legal status. They are, after all, just doing what Muslims have done for centuries (taking over churches).

In any case, I don’t know if you are an Arab, but seeing a sign with name “Allah” is not at all offensive. If they hang up a sign in a Catholic Church that says “Allah,” who the heck cares?

I care. I am not at all offended by a banner with the word “Allah” on it. That is missing the point completely. What I am offended by is that it was allowed to be placed there by Muslims. This is (for the time being…) a Roman Catholic church in Belgium. It is not a Melkite Catholic church. It is not a Maronite church. These are not Christian Arabic-speakers who have hanged this sign.

I do believe that the Catholic Church officially acknowledges that all monotheistic religions believe in the same one God.

A point that I personally disagree with, but that’s neither here nor there. Same God or not, what offends me about it is that it is put there by Muslims, and within their religion (as far as I understand it), it is…y’know what, nevermind. Malphono covered that too. It is offensive, regardless of what the Catechism says about who is worshiping God.

I think the reaction that hanging such a sign is a desecration has nothing to do with religion - it is really just a cultural prejudice if you think about it.

You have got to be kidding me. I usually find your posts to be very much full of wisdom. This one seems full of presumption and putting words in my mouth. Cultural prejudice? Really? This really does remind me of those Muslims who argue that non-Muslims who dislike their religion are “racist”. I will admit that I am prejudiced against a particular culture – the religious culture inculcated in Muslim-dominated societies by Islam. It has nothing to do with a person’s language, national origin, or other characteristics. I do speak a little Arabic and have spent much time on these boards discussing my experiences of living among Arabs, as well as defending Muslims from the more flagrantly dishonest claims peddled here. If you still want to assume that it is blind cultural prejudice that drives objections to this situation, fine, but I don’t think that shows a very nuanced understanding of the religious objections I have tried to raise. Perhaps I have failed on that account.

With regard to your reply to Malphono’s explanation: It is interesting that you charge that Allah means God “pure and simple”. Did you miss the several threads we had in the past dealing with the different communities’ interpretation of this word? Because what I learned in them (participated in by Muslims and native Arabic-speaking Christians) is that it really isn’t all that simple. For Muslims there is apparently quite a bit of Islam-specific theology bound up with their use of that word, and therefore the sign cannot be equated to the Christian use of “Allah” in Malaysia or anywhere else, and allowing Muslims to put up such a sign shows a great ignorance of the Islam-specific claims about who or what God is. These claims in no way support Christianity or Christian theology (quite the contrary, in fact, as I am sure you know), so the sign should not be allowed. Again, this is not a Melkite church we’re talking about. There is nothing on the sign that is particularly Christian. There is no reason to allow it there.

 

[malphono]

I disagree. “We are the Church for the poor, but if you set foot in one of our churches, you’ve got another thing coming.” Something about that paradigm is illogical.

Of course you stripped my words out of their context, but never mind that.

Interesting point of view. We have Catholics and Christians in general being persecuted in Malaysia for using the word “Allah.” I just find it ironic that such a hardline distinction between “Allah” and “God” can find support from such disparate sources. It’s not about the fact that Malay Christians have traditionally used the word “Allah” to refer to God. It’s the fact that Allah means God pure and simple. There was nothing peculiarly Muslim about the Allah banner in the Church. If there was a crescent and star, yes, I would join in your objection. As it is, the position that a banner with the word “God” on it is a desecration is really what is objectionable.

While dzheremi has already touched on this, allow me to add a thought or two. Yes, the word “allah” is technically a generic word in Arabic; Arabic-speaking Christians (as well as Jews) also use the same word because there really is no other word in that language to use. (The Malaysia situation is just bizarre: the word was imported and adopted into the Malay language, yet Christians are forbidden to use it. Apparently they are expected to import a word of their own. Perhaps what follows will help clarify.)

However, when used by believers in the other religion, the word “allah” is far, far more than generic: it becomes the equivalent of a proper name and there is, indeed, a lot of theology specific to that religion bound up in its use. (Note that when used by Arabic-speaking Christians (and Jews), the word is used strictly in its generic sense.) And that includes representations of the word itself, particularly in calligraphy. (If memory serves, representations of that can be found inside Hagia Sofia, dating from the time when it was expropriated and desecrated by followers of the very same false religion.) Native Christians in the Middle East do not, and never have, employed such signs or banners. They are, as I mentioned earlier, as distinct to the other religion as Icons are to the True Church. As such, a sign or banner of that nature has no place in a church, whether Roman, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, or whatever.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dzheremi,

As you see it. In subsequent posts I have stated that they were allowed to worship there.

I don’t know if you know this, but Muslim worship consists of nothing more than prayer. So they pray to God. So what? Praying to God is not desecration is it? I guess the real issue is that you don’t believe that Allah is the same God as the God of the Christians. On that point, we’ll have to disagree. I prefer to follow the Church and St. Paul (who himself recognized that the unknown god of the pantheistic, polytheistic Greeks was the same God he worshipped). We may have different beliefs about God than Muslims, but the God of a monotheistic faith is certainly much more obviously the same one God of the Christians than the unknown god of a polytheistic faith.

as well as do other things that they should not be allowed to do in the church (that I would not be allowed to do either, I might add; In no way is it appropriate to play computer games and start fires in the church).

Until you offer proof that they were playing computer games, I would consider such a viewpoint sensationalistic. As for the fire, it looked pretty cold. I’m sure they didn’t start the fire to be disrespectful or sacrilegeous, but to keep warm. Forgive me for saying so, but your viewpoint is strikingly similar to the legalism of the Pharisees that Jesus berated. Recall that they forbade even hungry people from picking wheat on Sabbath for the sake of religiosity. Similarly, Jesus cited the fact that though only priests were permitted to approach the altar, David was permitted to do so when he was hungry. The fire was providing a basic human need to keep warm. And you would deny that to them for the sake of — what?

They may not have intended to turn the church into a mosque, but it is defacto becoming one because they are being allowed to use it like one.

Again, sensationalism. Even from those pictures in the link you provided, it is obvious it is still a Catholic Church.

It is also becoming a shanty town of sorts (see the pictures of the tents), and something of a rec room (the computer games). If you are comfortable with a church being all of those things because the people squatting in it would be deported if they left it, that’s up to you.

Yes, I am comfortable with the house of God being used to provide for the poor. Again, please give us proof that they were playing computer games.

Why have you bolded and underlined “after some period”? They were nice enough not to request to worship in the church until they had been there for a little while, so it’s fine that they are doing so now? I don’t understand that.

I highlighted that to counter your implication that they sought asylum in the church for the specific purpose of turning it to a mosque. I highlighted that to indicate that this request was made probably only after it became obvious that they would be stuck in church for a very long while.

I care. I am not at all offended by a banner with the word “Allah” on it. That is missing the point completely. What I am offended by is that it was allowed to be placed there by Muslims. This is (for the time being…) a Roman Catholic church in Belgium. It is not a Melkite Catholic church. It is not a Maronite church. These are not Christian Arabic-speakers who have hanged this sign.

I don’t understand your position. Your argument regarding worship was a little more credible (though not by much). Muslims didn’t put up a banner to worship or venerate it. It is a banner with the word “God” on it, pure and simple, regardless of who puts it up.

Cultural prejudice? Really?

Yes. There have been threads here on CAF that demonstrate that people normally have a prejudice against the word “Allah”, not understanding that it is merely the Arabic word for God. Nothing you stated previously indicated that you were aware of this, so I think my comment is justified. But your recent further explanation indicates otherwise. So I’ll retract the cultural prejudice comment and apologize as it pertains to you (though I’m sure there are others reading this who deserve that exhortation).

With regard to your reply to Malphono’s explanation: It is interesting that you charge that Allah means God “pure and simple”. Did you miss the several threads we had in the past dealing with the different communities’ interpretation of this word? Because what I learned in them (participated in by Muslims and native Arabic-speaking Christians) is that it really isn’t all that simple. For Muslims there is apparently quite a bit of Islam-specific theology bound up with their use of that word, and therefore the sign cannot be equated.

If the sign had the script “Allah” on it with the crescent and star, then I would agree with you that the word “Allah” would have a completely un-Christian connotation. The word “Allah” by itself does not. Period. It means God, pure and simple.

These claims in no way support Christianity or Christian theology (quite the contrary, in fact, as I am sure you know), so the sign should not be allowed. Again, this is not a Melkite church we’re talking about. There is nothing on the sign that is particularly Christian. There is no reason to allow it there.

That sounds like the fundamentalist rhetoric that Christmas trees and Christmas itself has no place in the Christian religion. “Allah” - the word for a monotheistic God - is full of Christian connotation, or are we not a monotheistic Faith (rhetorical question, obviously )?

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings,

 

[ConstantineTG]

Who has advocated anything of that sort in this thread? I have not seen it. The closest has been several people pointing out that the opposite (Christian squatters praying and living in a mosque, hanging Christian banners outside of it, etc) could not happen. That is just reality, not viciousness on the part of any Christian.

My apologies for overreacting on the “naivette” comment.

But that was my point. We do not need for them to welcome us for us to welcome them. My point always is true Christian charity and love is always unconditional. It doesn’t matter if they are violent and agressive towards us, Christ still expects us to love them. We are violent and agressive towards God with sin but God still loves us. We shouldn’t be charitable only because we expect the same charity back. I know its highly idealistic, but if we keep that kind of mindset eventually we’ll be able to put it in practice.

Christ also drove the money changers out of the temple, as their activities were profaning it. Some Christians, myself included, feel that the actions of the Muslims (and really the spinelessness of the church leadership) profane this temple, which is consecrated to God as He has revealed Himself in Christianity, not to the god of the false religion of Islam. I agree that the Muslims should not be turned away, but I disagree strongly that this means that I or any Christian ought to accept what has happened in this church. There are plenty of places these people could have stayed and staged their protests that would not have involved desecrating a holy place that does not belong to their religion.

Actually what the money changers were doing is very hypocritical, they were changing Roman dinarii to the temple money because the priests of the temple wouldn’t accept pagan money. But also don’t miss that they are not refugees. These people are. As I mentioned earlier, the Church sees illegal immigration as a legal policy issue and looks beyond that. They look at the individual cases and see if people trully need help despite their illegal status. Its not for the Church to act on that, its a purely legal issue up to the country who has that policy on immigration. And its not like these people forcefully took the parish, they were placed there by the diocese out of genuine charity.

Which, again, no one is talking about in this thread.

No. It is not that they have done something that upsets people (I don’t think); it is what they have done. In the USA bishops have also advocated that certain unjust laws be defied, but this has not yet taken the form of allowing non-Christians to take over churches, hang banners over them, pray in them to their false gods, start fires inside them, play online poker games in them, etc. All of this is sacrilege. It is a church! Not a mosque, YMCA, or internet cafe.

Again, did they take over or were they allowed to come in and take refuge in the church? There is a difference. As mardukm has mentioned, its sensationalized journalism. They were allowed into the church and the diocese did what is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the church which is veiling the statues and emptying the tabernacle. It wasn’t a take over in a sense that they barged into it and squatted on it. We opened the doors for them.

I certainly agree with this principle, but would never agree that therefore it is okay that we become lax in the administration of our churches. We are Christians, it is OUR faith, and part of that faith since the earliest times has been to meet in specific places in order to commune with Our Lord in the way the He has commanded us to. What kinds of physical places the apostles met in is not germane to the subject at hand. The fact is that physical suppression/destruction of churches and monasteries does hurt the faith. It is not coincidental that as more and more churches throughout the east were appropriated and turned into mosques, the numbers of Christians becoming Muslims grew. Where do you think the increase in population that demanded the mosques was coming from in the first place? Christian birthrates and church attendance were not always at the historic lows they are at now.

I don’t believe its being lax. Sometimes we have to make do with what we have. I really think its noble to extend charity and love to people who would otherwise be violent against us. Violence begets violence, only love begets love. If we seek peace and conversion with these people, our only course is to show them love.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know if you know this, but Muslim worship consists of nothing more than prayer. So they pray to God. So what? Praying to God is not desecration is it?

This reaches into a fundamental point on which you and I will never agree. As I do not agree with the neo-Catholic notion (fed by well-meaning obfuscations such as CCC 841) that Muslims and Christians follow the same God, I do not recognize their prayers as being appropriate to be performed within a Christian church, and would reject any such idea that they are on the same grounds that I would reject holding a Wiccan ceremony, Hindu ceremony, or other non-Christian worship ceremony in a church. They have mosques in which they can pray and if they needed to be squatting in some place in which they can pray they ought to have gone to a mosque to stage their protest.

I guess the real issue is that you don’t believe that Allah is the same God as the God of the Christians. On that point, we’ll have to disagree.

Oops. I should learn to read the entire post before replying. Sorry. Yes, I said as much above. I do not agree with that idea.

I prefer to follow the Church and St. Paul (who himself recognized that the unknown god of the pantheistic, polytheistic Greeks was the same God he worshipped). We may have different beliefs about God than Muslims, but the God of a monotheistic faith is certainly much more obviously the same one God of the Christians than the unknown god of a polytheistic faith.

I believe that this is a misapplication of that particular passage, but okay. I’ve heard it enough from Catholics to know that this is the standard usage of that verse, and there is little point in fighting against it here, on a Catholic messageboard. I agree to disagree.

Until you offer proof that they were playing computer games, I would consider such a viewpoint sensationalistic.

It is your assertion against the solidly CATHOLIC media I have found that describes it as such. Here is one such report from Catholic News Agency (a source for Catholic news regularly posted on this very website). The blog that is linked to on that website has pictures of the squatters playing card games on the computers given to them. Note, by the way, the language used in the CNA headline. Is the Catholic News Agency also not following the church, or being sensationalistic?

As for the fire, it looked pretty cold. I’m sure they didn’t start the fire to be disrespectful or sacrilegeous, but to keep warm.

I am not saying that they did. I am merely saying that just as you or I would not be allowed to do such things inside the church, neither should they. I am not asking that they be unduly subjected, only held up to the same standard of those who DO use the church for its intended purpose.

Forgive me for saying so, but your viewpoint is strikingly similar to the legalism of the Pharisees that Jesus berated. Recall that they forbade even hungry people from picking wheat on Sunday for the sake of religiosity. Similarly, Jesus cited the fact that though only priests were permitted to approach the altar, David was permitted to do so when he was hungry.The fire was providing a basic human need to keep warm. And you would deny that to them for the sake of — what?

I am denying them nothing. See the preceding paragraph.

Again, sensationalism. Even from those pictures in the link you provided, it is obvious it is still a Catholic Church.

By its consecration, yes. By the way it is currently being profaned by being made into the site for Islamic religious services, I would say no. I know you’ll say that’s “sensationalism”, too, but that’s how I see it. There is simply no excuse that you can give me that will make it okay for Muslims to be performing their worship within a church, and hanging their Islamic religious banners and whatnot. Were they not doing that, were they instead allowed to stay elsewhere on church grounds provided that they show proper respect for the faith, I would have no problem with any of this. At the Catholic church I used to attend, there were often groups of homeless who would sleep on church grounds. For all I know some of them could have been Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Bahai, etc. I don’t know because unlike this particular group of immigrants in the news article, they did not hang banners outside of the church or use the use for their non-Christian worship services!

Yes, I am comfortable with the house of God being used to provide for the poor. Again, please give us proof that they were playing computer games.

See paragraph one. There is a link in the news story provided to a blog which has pictures that are said to depict just that (they are not very clear, but what am I supposed to do? Fly to Belgium in a time machine and tap the computer users on the shoulder? That would interrupt their solitare games!)

 

[dzheremi]

I highlighted that to counter your implication that they sought asylum in the church for the specific purpose of turning it to a mosque. I highlighted that to indicate that this request was made probably only after it became obvious that they would be stuck in church for a very long while.

As I stated in my reply, it may not have been the specific intention of the people to turn the church into a mosque. I do not think that matters in this case.

I don’t understand your position. Your argument regarding worship was a little more credible (though not by much). Muslims didn’t put up a banner to worship or venerate it. It is a banner with the word “God” on it, pure and simple, regardless of who puts it up.

I disagree. Read the comments provided by Malphono, who goes into a little more detail than I did as to why this position of “Allah is just God” is not supportable with reference to Islam specifically.

If the sign had the script “Allah” on it with the crescent and star, then I would agree with you that the word “Allah” would have a completely un-Christian connotation. The word “Allah” by itself does not. Period. It means God, pure and simple.

Again, I disagree. See Malphono’s comments.

That sounds like the fundamentalist rhetoric that Christmas trees and Christmas itself has no place in the Christian religion. “Allah” - the word for a monotheistic God - is full of Christian connotation, or are we not a monotheistic Faith (rhetorical question, obviously )?

That is not at all comparable. There would not be “Christmas trees” if there weren’t “Christmas”, so even though the physical Christmas tree itself is not integral to Christian worship, it is nonetheless very much related to Christianity. At worst, it is harmless so long as it does not become stripped of its connection to the faith (as basically all aspects of Christmas celebration have been, for the west’s secular majority). Can we say that Islamic banners hung outside of churches are similarly harmless? You are focusing on the word “Allah” as though the word, logographically, is in itself what is being objected to. It is not! Again, it is the THEOLOGY behind the use of the word by those who put it up there that is the problem. That is what ought never be associated with the Christian church. I don’t know how more clearly I can state my case without perhaps crossing over into some very uncharitable territory, so I’ll end this now with this parting thought: Allowing Islamic theology any sort of presence in ANY fashion within a specific christian church (building) or the Church (communion of believers, with the RISEN CHRIST as its head) as a whole is, in my view, tantamount to approving of the denial of Christ’s divinity and His salvific sacrifice upon the holy cross, as these are the very things that Islam denies. We can help our suffering brothers and sisters in humanity without rolling out a welcome mat for their heresies to gain hold in our churches and communities.

 

[dzheremi]

We do not need for them to welcome us for us to welcome them. My point always is true Christian charity and love is always unconditional.

I never meant to imply otherwise.

It doesn’t matter if they are violent and agressive towards us,

This is where you and I differ. As Christians, we are taught to embrace martyrdom should it come to us, but I don’t recall any injunction to invite it into your house. That would just be foolish and suicidal, especially in the Middle East where we are in such a precarious position. We have a right and duty to defend ourselves against aggressors of all kinds (not just Muslims).

Christ still expects us to love them.

And we still do. Muslims are people, made in the image of God no different than we are. They have inherent dignity and deserve to be loved and cared for same as anyone. This does not mean that their religion should be assisted by Christians, no matter how well meaning.

We shouldn’t be charitable only because we expect the same charity back. I know its highly idealistic, but if we keep that kind of mindset eventually we’ll be able to put it in practice.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating a view that charity is dependent on reciprocity.

Actually what the money changers were doing is very hypocritical, they were changing Roman dinarii to the temple money because the priests of the temple wouldn’t accept pagan money. But also don’t miss that they are not refugees. These people are.

Immaterial. My point in bringing that up is not to compare the specific actions, only their effect of performing profane actions (changing money, praying to Islam’s false god) in a holy place. Christ saw that taking place and put a stop to it.

As I mentioned earlier, the Church sees illegal immigration as a legal policy issue and looks beyond that. They look at the individual cases and see if people trully need help despite their illegal status. Its not for the Church to act on that, its a purely legal issue up to the country who has that policy on immigration.

All of this actually works against the action taken by the church in this case, as it is in direct defiance of Belgian law. That’s neither here nor there, though. I have no problem with the Church helping immigrants no matter what their status (though it is problematic in some ways; see Malphono’s comments), but I have a huge problem with the Church providing space for the non-Christian religions of those immigrants to be practiced and propagated in the church.

And its not like these people forcefully took the parish, they were placed there by the diocese out of genuine charity.

Immaterial. The church’s good will is one thing; the Muslim’s abuse of it is another.

Again, did they take over or were they allowed to come in and take refuge in the church? There is a difference.

If I allow you into my home for dinner and you perform some objectionable, non-dinner related activity in my home, am I to allow it because I let you in? No!

I

don’t believe its being lax. Sometimes we have to make do with what we have.

And Muslims cannot make do with what they have (the many, many mosques in Brussels in which they could have stayed, had their co-religionists cared to house them) why, exactly? Do we have to allow our religion and our holy places to be defiled by Christ-deniers in order to show charity towards the Muslims, or is there some third option here that ought to have been taken by the church that would have avoided this situation? I am not in any way advocating turning people away into the cold, but I just cannot understand why this particular action is being lauded as an example of the best kind of charity when it seems clear to many (not just me) that it is being exercised in a foolhardy fashion. Did Christ not tell His apostles to be as wise as serpents before sending them out to evangelize the world? Being charitable is not a zero sum game where we have to allow our faith to be gutted of its meaning or else capitulate to claims that we are not following Christ. It is imperative that we exercise charity while maintaining a strict sense of what is allowed in our religion. I do not believe letting Muslims pray in our churches is one of those things that ought to be allowed.

I really think its noble to extend charity and love to people who would otherwise be violent against us. Violence begets violence, only love begets love. If we seek peace and conversion with these people, our only course is to show them love.

We love the Muslim people just as much today, when they slaughter our co-religionists in Iraq and other places, as we ever have. We will never stop loving them. I am not at all saying that we ought not to love and pray for them and be charitable to them. I just think that this particular situation is absolutely the wrong way to go about it, that’s all.

 

[jakasaki]

Why isn’t the islamic muslim community taking these people in…??

They have many mosques & cultural centers there to accommodate many many muslims.!!!

Why are these muslims disrespectful to the Catholic Church by putting up “allah” banners…??

What are the islamic imams & leaders of the islamic world doing about this situation…??

Why aren’t they taking care of their own…??

How is this Catholic Church handling all of these people, using the facilities…??

Is it providing “foot baths”…??

Is the muslim community assisting with financial aid to these immigrant muslims…??

This whole thing is wrong.

I can see how the Church wants to help one and all, but if the muslim community is NOT going to jump in help their own & assist the Church, then this creates a problem.

I personally see it as a problem and a I way street.

As always, muslims placing demands on one and all - there is nothing gracious about this behavior.

 

[Robertwilliam]

This really makes me mad as hell Why can’t the muslims go to their mosks and get help??? Why go to the Christian Church??? They DON’T worship the same God we worship!!! They blaspheme the Holy Trinity, they deny the Death and Resurrection of Christ our God They don’t honor the Mother of God MUSLIMS GO BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRIES!!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers Dzheremi and Malphono,

I’ve done some reading on Islamic symbolism, and I now agree that the banner should be taken down – but not because of any of your arguments regarding the world “Allah” which I maintain means God pure and simple. The reason the banner should be taken down is because it is the color green, which is the traditional color of Islam that distinguishes it from other religions. Nothing you’ve written convinces me that a banner with the word Allah is inherently anti-Christian. But the fact that the banner is green with that word serves the same purpose as my earlier mention of a crescent and star with that word.

However, despite the fact that I believe it should be taken down, I still disagree with your perceptions that it is a desecration. That is because Islam does not actually have any religious icons for veneration or worship purposes (at least as we understand veneration or worship). Such a banner does not serve any function that can even be remotely taken in the context of worship from the Muslim perspective that could be considered to be in opposition to or to desecrate Christian worship. It is simply a flag of identity, nothing more. It should be taken down not because it is a desecration, but simply as a matter of civility and respect because the church is not made for Islam.

All my other statements regarding the situation I stand by wholeheartedly. I have asked Muslims in the Non-religion thread about the content of their prayers to God during their usual worship service. Depending on their answer, I may change my mind on that too. But for now, I maintain my position that praying to God is not a desecration in a Catholic church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

I figured you already knew that green is the traditional identifying color of Islam (see, for instance, the flags of Saudi, Pakistan, Libya, etc). I suppose I could have made that argument earlier, but I think that’s actually a much more abstract and ultimately useless distinction to dwell upon than the very real differences in the underlying theology behind the Islam-specific use of “Allah”. It is on the basis of those differences that I oppose the banner, and indeed any usage of the church to advance, sustain, or otherwise support Islam.

So I strongly disagree with you on all fronts, but I’m sure you realize that by now. Peace.

 

[malphono]

I figured you already knew that green is the traditional identifying color of Islam (see, for instance, the flags of Saudi, Pakistan, Libya, etc). I suppose I could have made that argument earlier, but I think that’s actually a much more abstract and ultimately useless distinction to dwell upon than the very real differences in the underlying theology behind the Islam-specific use of “Allah”. It is on the basis of those differences that I oppose the banner, and indeed any usage of the church to advance, sustain, or otherwise support Islam.

So I strongly disagree with you on all fronts, but I’m sure you realize that by now. Peace.

I’m sure this will not come as a surprise, but I’m with you on that 100%