Banning minarets

[Jaberwocky]

So my question is, is this an immoral thing to do?

Aside from the issue of religious liberty, what if the government officials who introduce it and vote for it see Islam as a dangerous error? Would they not have a moral obligation to act against the spread of that particular error?

Would it be reasonable to not allow Muslims in to the country based on such a decision as well (i.e. since one is not prepared to accommodate the people with such beliefs, it is better to not invite/accept them in to the country)?

I do not hold one view or the other. I am just curious about this moral “dilemma” and the various views of people. If anyone knows what the official Church position is on this matter, that too would be welcome!

 

[Peter12rb]

Do you mean banning all mosques in general, or just minarets? If you mean all mosques (which is how I take your question - please correct me if I’m wrong), then yes, it would be an immoral thing to do for several reasons:

1.) From a Catholic viewpoint, Dignitatis Humanae states that all people have a right to religious liberty, and that any government should protect these rights.

2.) I often try to reverse the argument to see things from the other’s side of view. How would you feel if Catholicism were banned in other countries? This is essentially how Catholicism is treated in Saudi Arabia, where priests are not allowed to visit (if their intent is to conduct a mass) and Catholics can not worship openly (though private worship is allowed). It’s unfair, and a big injustice.

And other reasons as well, but have I understood your question accurately, and answered it well?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Do you mean banning all mosques in general, or just minarets? If you mean all mosques (which is how I take your question - please correct me if I’m wrong), then yes, it would be an immoral thing to do for several reasons:

1.) From a Catholic viewpoint, Dignitatis Humanae states that all people have a right to religious liberty, and that any government should protect these rights.

2.) I often try to reverse the argument to see things from the other’s side of view. How would you feel if Catholicism were banned in other countries? This is essentially how Catholicism is treated in Saudi Arabia, where priests are not allowed to visit (if their intent is to conduct a mass) and Catholics can not worship openly (though private worship is allowed). It’s unfair, and a big injustice.

And other reasons as well, but have I understood your question accurately, and answered it well?

Thank you. I am curious as to both positions (Minarets alone or all Mosques).

With respect to DH, is it always immoral to do so? If we were speaking of the child-sacrificing cult instead of Islam, would it be immoral to ban the sacrificial altars and suppress that cult? At which point do we say something is unacceptable and can be suppressed?

What if one were to stop immigration of Muslims in to the country? Is that immoral?

On the ban of Catholicism in other countries, would it not be reasonable for them to ban it given that they truly consider it (Catholicism) a false faith that is damaging to the true faith (Islam) which they have?

Another question that came to mind. Under DH, it is still permissible and required that a state does promote Catholicism (the true faith). How would this promotion be done if not by partly discouraging errors?

 

[manualman]

It’s one thing to attempt to ban a religion because “they’re different than we are.” That’s just plain immoral. It’s another thing to ban a religion whose tenets are diametrically opposed to core human values and civil rights.

The problem comes in defining what those ARE! Secularists have a difficult time articulating a coherent philosophical basis for why human even have civil rights. As catholics, we believe that since humans are created by God in his own image and likeness, that people possess an innate dignity from that fact that cannot be denigrated by individuals or the state.

Tolerance in civil government can and should be extended to non-catholics and non-Christians up to the point at which their own peculiar beliefs conflict with fundamental human rights.

So the argument comes down to “Does Islam contain teachings that fundamentally violate the human rights of some people?” Some argue that Islamic teachings on polygamy, the legal rights of women, Sharia law attitudes about Dhimmi peoples (look it up) and other Islamic teachings are so basic to Islam that it is irreformable. Others argue that Islamic people can learn to spiritualize the more offensive teachings and practices of Muhammed and Islamic tradition and that this is actually the practice among many muslims. Personally, I’m torn. I’d like to believe that peaceful and goodhearted muslims are the norm and I think that the data would bear that out. But I also think that Muhammed himself was a deeply flawed man held up officially by Islam as perfect. Because of that, it’s my opinion that among its deep believers, Islam will always have more than it’s fair share of lunatic jihadis.

In other words, human behavior is a combination of human nature (good and fallen), Grace, temptation and inculcated philosophy and values. Grace and the better aspects of human nature result in most muslims being good people. There are even some genuinely good values taught in Islam. But there are also the fallen parts of human nature, temptation and the evil aspects of Islamic teaching to deal with. It’s just not good when your religion teaches some evil things as good things. It doesn’t help!

 

[Jaberwocky]

It’s one thing to attempt to ban a religion because “they’re different than we are.” That’s just plain immoral. It’s another thing to ban a religion whose tenets are diametrically opposed to core human values and civil rights.

The problem comes in defining what those ARE! Secularists have a difficult time articulating a coherent philosophical basis for why human even have civil rights. As catholics, we believe that since humans are created by God in his own image and likeness, that people possess an innate dignity from that fact that cannot be denigrated by individuals or the state.

Tolerance in civil government can and should be extended to non-catholics and non-Christians up to the point at which their own peculiar beliefs conflict with fundamental human rights.

So the argument comes down to “Does Islam contain teachings that fundamentally violate the human rights of some people?” Some argue that Islamic teachings on polygamy, the legal rights of women, Sharia law attitudes about Dhimmi peoples (look it up) and other Islamic teachings are so basic to Islam that it is irreformable. Others argue that Islamic people can learn to spiritualize the more offensive teachings and practices of Muhammed and Islamic tradition and that this is actually the practice among many muslims. Personally, I’m torn. I’d like to believe that peaceful and goodhearted muslims are the norm and I think that the data would bear that out. But I also think that Muhammed himself was a deeply flawed man held up officially by Islam as perfect. Because of that, it’s my opinion that among its deep believers, Islam will always have more than it’s fair share of lunatic jihadis.

In other words, human behavior is a combination of human nature (good and fallen), Grace, temptation and inculcated philosophy and values. Grace and the better aspects of human nature result in most muslims being good people. There are even some genuinely good values taught in Islam. But there are also the fallen parts of human nature, temptation and the evil aspects of Islamic teaching to deal with. It’s just not good when your religion teaches some evil things as good things. It doesn’t help!

Very interesting thoughts. I am also leaning toward what you have said.

To me Islam has a fundamental problem of interpretation that Protestantism has. Even if some Imams agree to interpret the Quran’s “immoral decrees” in a different light, that is not binding on other Imams. Since the Quran does lend itself well to the hostile interpretation and the tradition of Islam seems to confirm that interpretation as valid, I am not sure the Imam’s who interpret it differently today are correct either. I suspect the extremist Islamic followers see it the same way and so they opt for the more traditional interpretation of the Quran which does become immoral.

In a way, I suspect that any non-Catholic religion if the followers adhere strongly to it will stand in fundamental opposition to the moral values of Catholicism. Even a religion like Buddhism which is non-violent do have a philosophical basis that can lead to despair in the followers. It seems at least somewhat tolerable because it is a personal choice for oneself whereas Islam by its traditional interpretation does cross over to the public sphere.

 

[manualman]

To me Islam has a fundamental problem of interpretation that Protestantism has…

Yes, but it’s worse than that. Protestantism (generally!) does indeed lend itself to ever greater number of opinions about the meaning of Scripture since there is no central authority for its interpretation (much less a divinely protected one!). But worse than that is that Islam fundamentally considers Muhammed’s life to have been impeccable. It’s awfully hard to condemn polygamy when Muhammed did it. It’s awfully hard to condemn jihadis who utilize the “convert, die or be our Dhimmi” approach to spreading Islam because Muhammed did it that way. And on and on.

Protestants, even if they can err badly in interpretation, at least have JESUS as their actual model of a perfect man.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Yes, but it’s worse than that. Protestantism (generally!) does indeed lend itself to ever greater number of opinions about the meaning of Scripture since there is no central authority for its interpretation (much less a divinely protected one!). But worse than that is that Islam fundamentally considers Muhammed’s life to have been impeccable. It’s awfully hard to condemn polygamy when Muhammed did it. It’s awfully hard to condemn jihadis who utilize the “convert, die or be our Dhimmi” approach to spreading Islam because Muhammed did it that way. And on and on.

Protestants, even if they can err badly in interpretation, at least have JESUS as their actual model of a perfect man.

Yes, very true. The example of Jesus usually keeps them in check. The Protestants tend to go more the other way in the sense that “Jesus wouldn’t care about any of those things” mode

 

[manualman]

…The Protestants tend to …

So much trouble I’ve gotten in over the years using lead-ins like that!

I try not to without reminding myself publicly that I’ve had some rather sad tendencies myself and with rather less excuses. It tends to keep the thread temperature under control.

 

[DaveBj]

Back to the subject of the OP, I have no problem with minarets, but if I were in government in a Western city, I would have problem with the highly amplified, pre-recorded calls to prayer. Send the imam up the tower and have him stand there with his hands cupped around his mouth, just like in the olden days.

 

[Usagi]

Back to the subject of the OP, I have no problem with minarets, but if I were in government in a Western city, I would have problem with the highly amplified, pre-recorded calls to prayer. Send the imam up the tower and have him stand there with his hands cupped around his mouth, just like in the olden days.

Ennh. We have church bells that are meant to be heard throughout a small town for the same purpose, so I’m not going to begrudge them that.

I’m still trying to understand, though, why would you pick minarets – not mosques, not the whole religion, just minarets – to ban? That just seems pointlessly rude and snippy toward a particular faith without having any practical effect. (Mind, I don’t agree with banning the larger categories, either, but if you truly believe a religion is dangerous that’s at least an honest approach, whereas banning minarets just makes it seem like you’re playing gotcha with people you dislike or disagree with.)

Usagi

 

[Jaberwocky]

Ennh. We have church bells that are meant to be heard throughout a small town for the same purpose, so I’m not going to begrudge them that.

I’m still trying to understand, though, why would you pick minarets – not mosques, not the whole religion, just minarets – to ban? That just seems pointlessly rude and snippy toward a particular faith without having any practical effect. (Mind, I don’t agree with banning the larger categories, either, but if you truly believe a religion is dangerous that’s at least an honest approach, whereas banning minarets just makes it seem like you’re playing gotcha with people you dislike or disagree with.)

Usagi

Well as I said, I am not closed to the idea of banning the entire religion and stopping immigration as well. I think it also seems reasonable to do so to protect the society from error.

 

[Genesis315]

Dignitatis Humane teaches that religious liberty refers primarily to the necesity of freedom in the act of faith itself, that the state’s power of coercion with regard to matters of religion in private and public is limited, and that given the makeup of most modern societies, a broad freedom enshrined as a civil right is the best approach.

However, that does not mean “religious liberty” is therefore unlimited and the state can never intervene to suppress false religious activity, as the Catechism notes:

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

(the citations for this section include the encyclical letter of Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura, which definitively condemned such absolutist claims to an unlimited liberty)

Therefore, if some religious activity were harmful to the common good of a particular society, it could be suppressed by the state.

Remember, as the CCC notes in the quote above, the common good cannot be conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner, and therefore must take into account the spiritual well-being of the society as well. Bl. John XXIII noted this in his enclyclical Pacem in Terris:

1. In this connection, We would draw the attention of Our own sons to the fact that the common good is something which affects the needs of the whole man, body and soul. That, then, is the sort of good which rulers of States must take suitable measure to ensure. They must respect the hierarchy of values, and aim at achieving the spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their subjects.(42)
2. These principles are clearly contained in that passage in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra where We emphasized that the common good "must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.(43)
3. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)

 

[epan]

So my question is, is this an immoral thing to do?

Aside from the issue of religious liberty, what if the government officials who introduce it and vote for it see Islam as a dangerous error? Would they not have a moral obligation to act against the spread of that particular error?

Would it be reasonable to not allow Muslims in to the country based on such a decision as well (i.e. since one is not prepared to accommodate the people with such beliefs, it is better to not invite/accept them in to the country)?

I do not hold one view or the other. I am just curious about this moral “dilemma” and the various views of people. If anyone knows what the official Church position is on this matter, that too would be welcome!

What about steeples? Would those be banned too, under this plan? Do unto others…