Fear in the Church

[Franze]

In this interview of zenit, translated from the spanish version, with a web, excuse me for mistakes, I would like to ask to us, why we have so fear with muslims? the priests and bishops like the Rabat´archbishop have fear o less confidence of Jesus, this is the interview
Archbishop of Rabat: “a Christian can be happy in the Muslim world” Monsignor Vincent Landel requests to European the own identity and welcome BARCELONA, Sunday, 23 January 2005 (ZENIT.org-Veritas). - “It is possible to live happy in the Muslim world”. Thus it assures it, in the following interview granted to Veritas, monsignor Vincent Landel, archbishop of Rabat, that dedicates intense efforts to help the thirty thousand Christians of its diocese to live in comunión with the Muslims, the only ones that can accede to the Moroccan nationality. – Is possible the comunión between Christians and Muslims? – Monsignor Vincent Landel: Yes. We can share our humanity, if not our faith. We did not speak as much of interreligious dialogue as of encounter, because before engaging in a dialog it is necessary to be, to live a coexistence that goes until the friendship and the brotherhood… and later we can speak of our faith. The Church must help to create this coexistence and friendship, so that someday another way can be opened. In Europe it is spoken much of the Muslims, but who knows what they are and in which they create? In France and Italy, for example, much fear to the Muslim exists. It is necessary to change the thought. All the islamistas are not radical, but that the majority is moderate. A shock of religion does not exist, but of lack of understanding, a political and mediatic shock. If they kidnap to a catholic bishop in Iraq, everybody speech. But one mixes policy and religion. Also in America, for example, when George Bush spoke to initiate the war in name of God. Sometimes, which is said against the Muslims, the Christians do also and it is not possible to be generalized. Also it is very important to know in the own faith to know the one the other. The Christians we have the responsibility to deepen in our identity and to welcome in the Muslims. The Muslims are in their majority believing, but in Europe, many do not know where it is his faith. – Háblenos of some initiatives that exist in their diocese to impel this comunión. – Monsignor Vincent Landel: In Morocco we have a joint educative project of catholics and Muslims, of fifteen schools with twelve thousand Muslim students in whom the Corán is taught and whose maximum person in charge I am, a catholic bishop. There the comunión without problems is lived. Also we have cultural centers, taken by priests or monks, who are used by Muslims. This way, the Church helps the Muslims; we are open to the Muslim world, that welcomes to us, since all the catholics we are foreign. On the other hand, many Christians cooperate, study or work with associations, companies, et cetera prevailed by Muslims. One is very positive experiences that allow to know the Muslims in the life and to state that it is possible to live happy in the Muslim world. What we lived as Christian Church in Morocco is not a model or an example, but looks like the Church in Europe, because the Islamic thing with the lay world can be compared, in which the Church must have a gratuitous presence, showing a way really, to help the town to discover to God and the importance of the religion in its life – How it is the Church of Rabat? –

 

[Franze]

Monsignor Vincent Landel: We are thirty thousand Christians, among them forty priests and 150 monks, all foreigners, since an Moroccan cannot be Christian, because the Islam is the religion of the State. But we have the open churches and we can meet without problems, on condition that of not making proselitismo. We can live happy and our faith freely. Our Church is a little more catholic because it is formed by people of eighty different nationalities. Before independence, there were many more catholics, the majority French, Italian and Spanish. Now there are many African, American and Asian, which supposes a challenge: the comunión between the Christians, that is not so easy, coming from so different places. The other characteristic of our Christian community is that it is always in movement. Every year, changes in a 20% because many Christians - students, workers… - live in Rabat only by a time. It acquires much importance, then, the pastoral of the welcome of the Christians, to help them to live his faith and to include/understand the one that is the Islamic world, that there is to know to coexist with him. – What discriminations take place? – Monsignor Vincent Landel: Discriminations of different types exist. In Morocco, for example, to some people it costs to them to accept the equality of the African, while they can deal with equal to equal the Spanish immigrants, who are in minority. However, the Moroccans who emigrate to Spain live another social situation. They have a greater sense of property to the family and the cultural community and run the risk of locking in itself. Europe must avoid that the Muslims form “ghettos” that later cannot include/understand. – Cree that is due to impel the education of the Muslim religion in the Spanish schools? – Monsignor Vincent Landel: About what the politicians are thinking who do not want the catholic religion in the schools, but are going to accept the Muslim? A disfunción exists. I believe that the religion must be taught, but not political it within the religion, which sometimes is difficult. Another question in that policy and religion are mixed is the one of the mosques, since the construction of four or five mosques in a city is allowed, one for each nationality. How we can accept that foreign they impose its policy in our country? Returning to the subject of the education, it is necessary to learn to know the others: that the Christians learn a little what is the Islam and, in other places, the children will have to learn what is the Christian faith, although is their history and its culture. There are young people who do not know anything on the religion and that requires education, a lay education in the true sense, not excluding the religion, but accepting and knowing other religions, because the laicism is the respect of the faith of the other, not it negation

 

[StJeanneDArc]

I just read the interview and while the Archbishop is attempting to speak positively 3 things dismay me.

1. Archbishop Landel apparently believes that George Bush “spoke about starting the war in the name of God”. Hmmm…I wonder where he’s getting his news. I don’t recall ever seeing anything like that at all. Perhaps one of our anti-Bush posters would have some backup for this.
2. All Christians are foreigners, because the state religion of Morocco is Islam. Once again Islam shows itself to be a creed that doesn’t support freedom of conscience. Non-muslims are second-class citizens (or in this case not even citizens at all).
3. The Christians can meet freely, but can’t proselytize. This means they can’t verbally evangelize, which I don’t exactly call living your faith freely.

 

[Franze]

StJeanneDArc:

I just read the interview and while the Archbishop is attempting to speak positively 3 things dismay me.

1. Archbishop Landel apparently believes that George Bush “spoke about starting the war in the name of God”. Hmmm…I wonder where he’s getting his news. I don’t recall ever seeing anything like that at all. Perhaps one of our anti-Bush posters would have some backup for this.
2. All Christians are foreigners, because the state religion of Morocco is Islam. Once again Islam shows itself to be a creed that doesn’t support freedom of conscience. Non-muslims are second-class citizens (or in this case not even citizens at all).
3. The Christians can meet freely, but can’t proselytize. This means they can’t verbally evangelize, which I don’t exactly call living your faith freely.

Do you know how I feel being a neighbour of them!, it isn´t very quietful, but my problem is why isn´t this denounced? why? we don´t have freedom religion or only in the Western.

Greetings

 

[Matt25]

StJeanneDArc:

1. Archbishop Landel apparently believes that George Bush “spoke about starting the war in the name of God”. Hmmm…I wonder where he’s getting his news. I don’t recall ever seeing anything like that at all.
   .

ilrs.org/faith/f2k3.1.html
The following is an abridged English translation of an article by Willy Spieler

					U.S. President George W. Bush has used his State of the Union address not only to prepare the U.S. military for a war against Iraq, but to do so in the name of God. It is believed by Bush that the coming war is being waged to 'defend peace', and that God is on the side of the American military. Bush states that the version of 'liberty' that the American Right supports is not merely America's gift to the world, but that this version of American ideas and values is God's gift to all mankind, and that God has blessed the United States in this endeavour to spread that gift. But what kind of god is worshipped by Bush? And is any less damage done in the world, if Bush ignores his own nation's constitution in order to legitimise an illegal war by the use of religious rhetoric?

The Bible knows two names for God: Baal and Yahweh. Baal is the god of the world, in whose image states make themselves, in whose name they prevail, suppress, and exploit. Baal is the sovereign representative of the current world order. Baal promises everything to everyone, full meat pots and/or full oil tanks and stable conditions, even if they are brought by force, so long as all is subjected to him. And naturally Baal has his ideologists and politicians, who owe their ‘way of life’ to him, whom they call ‘liberty’.

Without question Baal is also the ideal god for making war. The idea of ‘liberty’ as ‘God’s gift to mankind’ is intended to be a thorn in the eye of the evildoers. As is unfortunately inevitable, the deliverers of this ‘gift’ do so with bombs. In addition, the underprivileged minorities are made to suffer, as the Bush regime cuts the social security benefit, in order to finance the war. These worshippers of Baal cannot be distracted. Their ‘civil religion’ blesses the ruler, which pulls them into war. (I Kings 22:1-36).

In contrast, Yahweh is the God of the underdog, revealed between manger and cross, the liberating God of the poor, who Himself became poor. He is the God of the Exodus, which leads into the desert, the God of those who are and not those who have. Those who believe in this God, protest today: ‘not in our name’ and also ‘not in His name’. Because Yahweh is a God of peace. His envoys are the prophets, which trust in Him and not in miracle weapons and military alliances.

Jesus, who rides on a donkey - not even a horse - into Jerusalem, places himself consciously into the tradition of peace given by the prophets of Israel. ‘On a donkey foaled by a she-***, He shall banish chariots from Ephraim, and horses from Jerusalem; the warriors bow shall be banished, He shall call on the nations to surrender.’ (Zechariah 9:9) Also, the Sermon on the Mount seems to say to us: ‘If someone threatens you with weapons of mass destruction, then answer him by dismantling your own weapons of mass destruction.’

The confrontation of Baal and Yahweh demonstrates two types of theology and politics, which occur rarely as purely as they have done with Mr. Bush.That brings us to the example of the Pope, who unfortunately also does not question the USA’s weapons of mass destruction, but gives at least a clear ‘no’ to the war, and George W. Bush, who expresses didactically: ‘War is never an inevitable fate. War always means a defeat for mankind.’** Even Berlin’s conservative Cardinal Sterzinsky answered recently in regard to the ‘warrior of God’ pose taken by the President: ‘If Bush feels this way personally, that is his business. But Bush cannot expect that the international community recognizes him as a prophet.’**

Bush represents absolute truth, which is totalitarian at its core and knows only friends and enemies. ‘Who not for us is, is against us.’ That is political fundamentalism, which seems to be the tradition of Republican Party presidents. Father Bush always assigned God to himself, when he justified his war against Saddam Hussein and ‘property against evil, right assembled against injustice.’ Ronald Reagan considered that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was inevitable, since the prophet Ezekiel had said that God will bring ‘fires and sulfur to rain down on the enemies of God’.

Such fundamentalism not only contradicts the gospel, it also conflicts with the basic values of a democratic state. A modern state does not appoint itself the sole guardian of an ethical system.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

ilrs.org/faith/f2k3.1.html
The following is an abridged English translation of an article by Willy Spieler

                     U.S. President George W. Bush has used his State of the Union address not only to prepare the U.S. military for a war against Iraq, but to do so in the name of God. It is believed by Bush that the coming war is being waged to 'defend peace', and that God is on the side of the American military. Bush states that the version of 'liberty' that the American Right supports is not merely America's gift to the world, but that this version of American ideas and values is God's gift to all mankind, and that God has blessed the United States in this endeavour to spread that gift. But what kind of god is worshipped by Bush? And is any less damage done in the world, if Bush ignores his own nation's constitution in order to legitimise an illegal war by the use of religious rhetoric?.......

Excuse me, Matt, but this doesn’t address the question. This is just a much longer-winded attempt to say that George Bush invoked God in going to war. You haven’t produced a quote or any kind of direct evidence for this.

The only thing that he could come up with was Bush’s mention that “freedom is not America’s gift to the world, but God’s gift to mankind”. This is just a truism about free will and human nature. Only the most hardened anti-Bush person could twist that into an invocation of God in waging war. In fact reading over the article excerpt, I notice it’s full of judgments about what’s in Bush’s heart, what kind of God does he worship, what did his father think, what did Reagan think. It’s short on real quotations from these people and long on mind-reading. To sum up: anti-Bush propaganda.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Franze:

Do you know how I feel being a neighbour of them!, it isn´t very quietful, but my problem is why isn´t this denounced? why? we don´t have freedom religion or only in the Western.

Greetings

Partially because the pope fears for the Christian minorities in Islamic lands, partially because the present Vatican Secretary of State is anti American and is in close council with the pro Islamic faction of curia officials at th UN and the Vatican, and partially because information to the Vatican comes from such people as Sabbah et al. Additionally the pope has had to call for asisstance in the Muslim world at both the Cairo and Bejing conferences - he desires a peace between Israel and her neighbors, and peace generally in the world. As a result there are many reasons, all of which play into the “politics” nd the “color” of what you see and hear.

 

[Franze]

Yes, but this is politics Hagha Sofia, and I want the bible, go and preach the gospel( including muslims), greetings

 

[Matt25]

StJeanneDArc:

Excuse me, Matt, but this doesn’t address the question. This is just a much longer-winded attempt to say that George Bush invoked God in going to war. You haven’t produced a quote or any kind of direct evidence for this.

washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Road Map in the Back Seat?
By Al Kamen

Friday, June 27, 2003; Page A27

Imagine our surprise Wednesday to read in the Israeli paper Haaretz (online), that Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, meeting recently with militants to enlist their support for a truce with Israel, said that, when they met in Aqaba, **President Bush **had told him this: " God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at **Saddam ** Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

So who needs to find WMD or a link with al Qaeda when the orders come from The Highest Authority?

Two calls to the White House for clarification went unreturned, but colleague **Glenn Kessler **did some digging. The Haaretz reporter, Arnon Regular, read what the paper said were minutes of the Palestinians’ meeting to Kessler and another colleague, who is an Arabic speaker.

The Arabic-speaking colleague’s translation, was this: “God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them.”

Even then, there’s uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen’s account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.

But one thing seems consistent: The election season is going to be a huge distraction from the Road Map, something the White House has always insisted would not be the case.

 

[Matt25]

beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12112_1.html

Since taking office – and especially in the last couple weeks – Bush’s personal faith has turned highly public, arguably more so than any modern President. What’s important is not that Bush is talking about God more, but that he’s talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush’s theology–from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of “personal transformation” to describing a Calvinist “divine plan” laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush’s approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency.

Bush has made several statements indicating he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission:

• After Bush's September 20, 2001, speech to Congress, Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson called the President and said: "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought--God wanted you there." "He wants us all here, Gerson," the President responded.

• During that [speech](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html), Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.
  In his State of the Union address last month, Bush said that we place confidence in the loving God “behind all of life, and all of history” and that “we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. May He guide us now.”
  
  In addition to these public statements indicating a divine intervention in world events, there is evidence that Bush believes his election as President was a result of God’s acts.
  

  A month after the World Trade Center attack, [World Magazine](http://www.worldmag.com/), a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported that "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment.
  
     Richard Land, a top Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the White House, argues that Bush's sense of divine oversight is part of why he has become such a good wartime leader... Richard Land recalls being part of a group of about a dozen people who met after Bush's second inauguration as Texas governor in 1999. At the time, everyone in Texas was talking about Bush's potential to become the next President. During the meeting, Land says, Bush said, "I believe God wants me to be President, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK."..

  Certainly, European leaders seem to be bothered by Bush’s rhetoric and it possibly does contribute to a sense in Islamic countries that Bush is on an anti-Islamic “crusade.”
  

     In hindsight, even Bush's [inaugural address](http://www.atthewell.com/speech/) presaged his emerging theology. He quoted a colonist who wrote to Thomas Jefferson that "We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" Then Bush said:
  
  "Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate, but the themes of this day he would know, 'our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.'
  
  "We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with His purpose. Yet His purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today; to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.
  
  "This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."  		  		
  
    				 	 			http://images.beliefnet.com/imgs/x_ccc.gif

 

[Franze]

My question, is, Matt25, why, the church don´t evangelize in muslim countries, we have the right, because is important the freedom religion, here in the Western and the Morocco, I have to respect the mosques in my country but I can´t put churches in Morocco, why? this is a great lie, and the church have to denounce this, and is necessary imprisoned bishops, that woud be, we have to do freedom religion in every country.

 

[Matt25]

The church cannot freely evangelize in many parts of the world, China, Burma, Russia and others. Sometimes it openly campaigns about it sometimes it does not. The church has a wealth of experience about this and knows that sometimes speaking out creates added persecution. The Vatican has diplomats as well as pastors. In these matters I defer to their superior knowledge

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Matt, you’re still grabbing on what other people are saying about Bush, not what he says himself. The conversation with Abu Mazen (his nom de guerre, BTW) is hearsay and stupid hearsay at that–do you really believe that George Bush said that “God told him to go after Al Quaeda”? And you once again include quotes from his speeches that are truisms. God prefers justice over evil–are you arguing with that? God has his hand in man’s affairs–are you arguing with that? These are basic Christian principles–only a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist or Bush-hater would come to the conclusion that this is an invocation to go to war.

I think that Bush is showing remarkable courage in standing up to evil despite the risks and the barrage of carping he receives.

To go back to the original thread topic, the bishop in the article seems to be operating in a climate of fear. Morocco does not afford Christians the basic human right to worship as they please–it’s all up to the whim of the state. Any misstep, such as proselytizing, will land a Christian in jail or worse. I know the same is true in Qatar–I have a friend there.

The Church doesn’t speak forcefully on this issue for fear of offending those touchy Muslims and endangering Christians in those lands. This is understandable and perhaps prudent, but let’s not kid ourselves that it’s because the Muslims are so benevolent and we’re supportive of their ideology and just want to get along.

 

[Norwich]

StJeanneDArc:

God has his hand in man’s affairs–are you arguing with that? These are basic Christian principles–

That is not a basic christian principle. God gave man freedom of choice, he does not interfere in mans ways, man has to make up his own mind. Some he has spoken to but none have ever been told to wage war, the only records know of where the Vatican has acknowledged Gods messages to man (and women) have ALL been messages of peace. THAT IS A BASIC TRUISM.

Bush want’s to use the Church for his own political ends, sadly the extreme right seem to agree. It’s time the Church figured out where it stood and where Bush stands and all the cafeteria Catholics (those are the ones who select a bit here and a bit there and ignore the bits they don’t like) made up their mind if their for God or man.

 

[JamesD]

Norwich:

That is not a basic christian principle. God gave man freedom of choice, he does not interfere in mans ways, man has to make up his own mind. Some he has spoken to but none have ever been told to wage war, the only records know of where the Vatican has acknowledged Gods messages to man (and women) have ALL been messages of peace. THAT IS A BASIC TRUISM.

Bush want’s to use the Church for his own political ends, sadly the extreme right seem to agree. It’s time the Church figured out where it stood and where Bush stands and all the cafeteria Catholics (those are the ones who select a bit here and a bit there and ignore the bits they don’t like) made up their mind if their for God or man.

Norwich,
IMHO, you seem to be disagreaing with the CCC with reards to the hand of God in human affairs:
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”[17]

I know without doubt that God has a hand in my life. I can choose to ignore him and face the consequences to myself and others. In fact I have done this many times. However, my infinately faithful Lord has never withdrawn his hand from my life. I think (and it appears the church believes) that our omnipotent God’s hand is in the affairs of families, communities, nations, and civilizations as well as individuals.
I think that Bush has not been hugely succesful with “using” the church if you mean the Catholic church.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Norwich:

That is not a basic christian principle. God gave man freedom of choice, he does not interfere in mans ways, man has to make up his own mind. Some he has spoken to but none have ever been told to wage war, the only records know of where the Vatican has acknowledged Gods messages to man (and women) have ALL been messages of peace. THAT IS A BASIC TRUISM.

Bush want’s to use the Church for his own political ends, sadly the extreme right seem to agree. It’s time the Church figured out where it stood and where Bush stands and all the cafeteria Catholics (those are the ones who select a bit here and a bit there and ignore the bits they don’t like) made up their mind if their for God or man.

I guess you misunderstood my point. I don’t think and I’m sorry if I implied that man doesn’t have free will. If you read the original post that prompted my reply it states that Bush said

we place confidence in the loving God “behind all of life, and all of history” and that “we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. May He guide us now.”

This is just a recognition of divine providence and an invocation of God’s guidance. Most believers feel comforted at the thought of a leader who looks to his creator confidently for guidance. What should he be doing? Invoking Satan?

Your post seems to imply that Bush believes that he received some kind of divine instruction to wage war. Do you believe that? If so, where has he said that?

Why do you think Bush wants to use the Church? Where do you get that from? I’ve never seen any evidence of that.