Is it hypcrisy to be against a mosque near Ground Zero but for a pro-Catholic thing?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone! I was just wondering if it is a sin to be against a mosque near Ground Zero but also for a ruling that would allow a child to wear a rosary to school? I am thinking it’s fine but my friend thinks otherwise. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated!

 

[Holly3278]

Found this from the Catechism but am not sure what it means, anyone know?

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

 

[Ponyguy]

Constructing a mosque near New York City’s “Ground Zero” would be the cruelest of irony.
That area is “hallowed ground,” sanctified by the thousands of innocent people who blessed it with their lives and blood.
A Moslem mosque to glorify the objective “Allah” of the alleged “religious zealots” who murdered those innocents would be utterly sacrilegious.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hey everyone! I was just wondering if it is a sin to be against a mosque near Ground Zero but also for a ruling that would allow a child to wear a rosary to school? I am thinking it’s fine but my friend thinks otherwise. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated!

According to Catholic teaching, it may or may not be a sin.

 

[diggerdomer]

Found this from the Catechism but am not sure what it means, anyone know?

It means human can sin.

 

[St_Francis]

Hey everyone! I was just wondering if it is a sin to be against a mosque near Ground Zero but also for a ruling that would allow a child to wear a rosary to school? I am thinking it’s fine but my friend thinks otherwise. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated!

On the one hand, we have Holly who is against a mosque’s being built at the site at which 3000 died at the hands of Moslems.

On the other, we have Holly hoping for a ruling that a child is allowed to wear a Rosary.

I think you are fine, but I’m concerned about your friend…

(IE, building any sort of religious building *in a particular spot *is not a “right,” but wearing a religious symbol is a right.)

 

[Holly3278]

Constructing a mosque near New York City’s “Ground Zero” would be the cruelest of irony.
That area is “hallowed ground,” sanctified by the thousands of innocent people who blessed it with their lives and blood.
A Moslem mosque to glorify the objective “Allah” of the alleged “religious zealots” who murdered those innocents would be utterly sacrilegious.

I totally agree. But unfortunately, my friend does not agree. He is also a Catholic by the way. He is usually pretty orthodox when it comes to things but hey, we can all make mistakes.

According to Catholic teaching, it may or may not be a sin.

Okay, but that doesn’t tell me much.

It means human can sin.

Yeah, uh huh… It can’t mean that because if it meant that, it’d be contradicting other paragraphs and sections of the Catechism which clearly say that humans have free will and can sin. I have a feeling that you know this but yet you chose to post this useless post anyway. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Meanwhile, you are forgiven.

On the one hand, we have Holly who is against a mosque’s being built at the site at which 3000 died at the hands of Moslems.

On the other, we have Holly hoping for a ruling that a child is allowed to wear a Rosary.

I think you are fine, but I’m concerned about your friend…

(IE, building any sort of religious building *in a particular spot *is not a “right,” but wearing a religious symbol is a right.)

Yeah that is precisely what I was thinking but I wasn’t entirely sure.

But anyway, now that we think that my friend who is usually an orthodox Catholic has a problem, how do I go about correcting him?

 

[baltobetsy]

But anyway, now that we think that my friend who is usually an orthodox Catholic has a problem, how do I go about correcting him?

If we knew his objection, it would be easier to refute it.

 

[Holly3278]

If we knew his objection, it would be easier to refute it.

Sorry, I thought I made his objection clear in my original post. But since I apparently didn’t, I’ll try to make it clearer. Here is his objection:

He basically thought that it was hypocrisy to support the religious freedom of Catholics while not supporting the religious freedom of Muslims.

However, as others have said, it is still religious freedom to forbid the building of a mosque at a site like Ground Zero but to also allow a Catholic student to respectfully wear a rosary to school.

Did I help in making it any more clear?

 

[baltobetsy]

Oh, I thought there might be more to it. Thanks for the clarification.

In my opinion, the mosque at Ground Zero is an open and deliberate insult to the people who died there and their families, not to mention the United States of America. The child who wants to wear a rosary in memory of his brother is not doing it to insult or provoke anyone, even though some may be offended.

Betsy

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hey everyone! I was just wondering if it is a sin to be against a mosque near Ground Zero but also for a ruling that would allow a child to wear a rosary to school? I am thinking it’s fine but my friend thinks otherwise. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated!

I don’t think the two things even belong in the same thought process.

Erecting a mosque near the 911 site would be roughly comparable to the Japanese buying land overlooking Pearl Harbor and erecting a gigantic “rising sun” flag overlooking the site. It would be comparable to some American erecting a gigantic 48-star American flag over the Hiroshima memorial in Japan. Maybe they would have a legal right to do it, but it’s just arrogant and insensitive to the legitimate feelings of others, and seems intentionally so. Is it sinful, then, to oppose the mosque? I can’t see that it could be, and it seems possibly sinful to favor it, since erecting it would be uncharitable in the extreme. There is nothing to prevent the Muslims from building a mosque elsewhere, just as there is nothing to prevent Japanese from putting up a gigantic flag somewhere other than at Pearl Harbor.

As to wearing the rosary around one’s neck, to my understanding, it is not considered proper from a strictly Catholic standpoint to do it. But it really has nothing to do with the religions of others and, to my knowledge, is not deemed arrogant or offensive to others. I don’t think the state has any place telling Catholics how they should practice their religion properly. In any event, for some it seems to be a cultural thing.

But as I said, there is no moral connection between the two things. At least not now. The time could come, of course, as in France, when the only way the state feels it can prevent
religious conflict is to ban the wearing of religious symbols altogether. It could come to that someday here. But it’s not today.

 

[Holly3278]

Oh, I thought there might be more to it. Thanks for the clarification.

In my opinion, the mosque at Ground Zero is an open and deliberate insult to the people who died there and their families, not to mention the United States of America. The child who wants to wear a rosary in memory of his brother is not doing it to insult or provoke anyone, even though some may be offended.

Betsy

Ah okay. Well, once again, I agree with you. The only problem is that the fact that this would be an insult to those who died there and to their families is the fact that this was brought up in the thread on the other website and the friend of mine who called everyone hypocrites for disagreeing with the building of the mosque had already read those posts before replying (at least I can assume so anyway). So, therefore, are there any other ways to counter his opinion?

I don’t think the two things even belong in the same thought process.

Erecting a mosque near the 911 site would be roughly comparable to the Japanese buying land overlooking Pearl Harbor and erecting a gigantic “rising sun” flag overlooking the site. It would be comparable to some American erecting a gigantic 48-star American flag over the Hiroshima memorial in Japan. Maybe they would have a legal right to do it, but it’s just arrogant and insensitive to the legitimate feelings of others, and seems intentionally so. Is it sinful, then, to oppose the mosque? I can’t see that it could be, and it seems possibly sinful to favor it, since erecting it would be uncharitable in the extreme. There is nothing to prevent the Muslims from building a mosque elsewhere, just as there is nothing to prevent Japanese from putting up a gigantic flag somewhere other than at Pearl Harbor.

As to wearing the rosary around one’s neck, to my understanding, it is not considered proper from a strictly Catholic standpoint to do it. But it really has nothing to do with the religions of others and, to my knowledge, is not deemed arrogant or offensive to others. I don’t think the state has any place telling Catholics how they should practice their religion properly. In any event, for some it seems to be a cultural thing.

But as I said, there is no moral connection between the two things. At least not now. The time could come, of course, as in France, when the only way the state feels it can prevent
religious conflict is to ban the wearing of religious symbols altogether. It could come to that someday here. But it’s not today.

I totally agree. I asked the question, though, because I was trying to refute my friend’s erroneous opinion on this.

Anyway, about the wearing of the rosary, you might be interested in this Quick Question from Catholic Answers’ This Rock magazine:

Q: Can a rosary be worn as a piece of jewelry?

A: “Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons” (CIC 1171).

Essentially, sacramentals such as rosaries must be treated with respect, particularly if they have been blessed. Reverence is the attitude of awe or respect that is most often given to sacred things. By its very definition, it is an interior disposition that usually cannot be determined by onlookers by appearances alone. A person may be wearing a rosary as a statement of faith, to keep it handy for praying throughout the day, or to avoid losing it. Those reasons would be indicative of reverence and would not interfere with the canon’s directive that sacramentals must be treated reverently.

Ordinarily speaking, then, if someone is spotted wearing a rosary, he should be charitably presumed to be wearing it for just reasons. Only if the rosary is being put to an objectively sordid use (e.g., a rock star is using it as a prop in a music video, obscenely contrasting the symbolic purity of the rosary with the immodest or immoral actions of the performers) can we be sure that the rosary is being treated irreverently.

See here for source: catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0410qq.asp

 

[Corki]

Sorry, I thought I made his objection clear in my original post. But since I apparently didn’t, I’ll try to make it clearer. Here is his objection:

He basically thought that it was hypocrisy to support the religious freedom of Catholics while not supporting the religious freedom of Muslims.

However, as others have said, it is still religious freedom to forbid the building of a mosque at a site like Ground Zero but to also allow a Catholic student to respectfully wear a rosary to school.

Did I help in making it any more clear?

Your friend is confusing freedom of religious expression with freedom of religion. In the case of the student with the Rosary, that is a pesonal religious expression, a protected right in the US.

Building a mosque would be an exercise in freedom of religion. HOWEVER, cities regulate where, how and when places of worship are built all the time for all kinds of reasons. That does not infringe upon the groups freedom of religion unless the group is prevented from building a place of worship altogether. No one is saying the Moslems can’t practice their religion so there is no infringement on thier right to freedom of religion.

There is nothing even remotely sinful in the position of supporting the freedom of expression of the student but not the construction project of the moslem group.

 

[Holly3278]

Your friend is confusing freedom of religious expression with freedom of religion. In the case of the student with the Rosary, that is a pesonal religious expression, a protected right in the US.

Building a mosque would be an exercise in freedom of religion. HOWEVER, cities regulate where, how and when places of worship are built all the time for all kinds of reasons. That does not infringe upon the groups freedom of religion unless the group is prevented from building a place of worship altogether. No one is saying the Moslems can’t practice their religion so there is no infringement on thier right to freedom of religion.

There is nothing even remotely sinful in the position of supporting the freedom of expression of the student but not the construction project of the moslem group.

Ah okay! I will personally relay the basics of what you just said to my friend as soon as he comes online again! I’ll let you know if he offers another argument against it or no response at all. Last night when he posted this argument against what I stated in the OP, he refused to talk about it. Perhaps he’ll be more open today.

 

[Stylites]

There is nothing wrong with building a mosque in New York City, even blocks from where the Twin Towers stood. The Church teaches that Muslims and Christians all worship the same Abrahamic God, and it is always good whenever God is worshipped.
.

 

[Holly3278]

There is nothing wrong with building a mosque in New York City, even blocks from where the Twin Towers stood. The Church teaches that Muslims and Christians all worship the same Abrahamic God, and it is always good whenever God is worshipped.
.

We may worship the same God but Muslims do not worship Him properly. Therefore, it would be a much lesser good for a Muslim to worship God, especially in this case. The reason? Because you have to take into account that the presence of this mosque is going to deeply offend those who suffered in some form or another from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Also, this mosque is going to be an “Islamic Center”. In other words, it is going to be a place for people to go and be proselytized. Did you not think of the fact that some of those being proselytized could be other Christians/Catholics who are not that strong in their faith and who therefore may succumb to the faith of Islam which contains more falsities than Catholicism?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hey everyone! I was just wondering if it is a sin to be against a mosque near Ground Zero but also for a ruling that would allow a child to wear a rosary to school? I am thinking it’s fine but my friend thinks otherwise. Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated!

Absolutely not fine.

 

[Stylites]

We may worship the same God but Muslims do not worship Him properly. Therefore, it would be a much lesser good for a Muslim to worship God, especially in this case. The reason? Because you have to take into account that the presence of this mosque is going to deeply offend those who suffered in some form or another from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Also, this mosque is going to be an “Islamic Center”. In other words, it is going to be a place for people to go and be proselytized. Did you not think of the fact that some of those being proselytized could be other Christians/Catholics who are not that strong in their faith and who therefore may succumb to the faith of Islam which contains more falsities than Catholicism?

I hope you aren’t implying that Catholicism contains SOME falsities. Regardless of your choice of words, God is pleased whenever He is worshipped in whatever capacity He is. The Church teaches us that Muslims are to be commended and emulated for their regular and frequent prayers. As a Christian it is not my duty to try to thwart the practice of another’s religion, and if some Christians convert then maybe it’s better for them to do so than to not worship God at all. I am not the one to judge other’s souls.

As for the proximity to the Twin Towers, those who committed mass murder of innocents were not faithful Muslims, just as Christianity shouldn’t be smeared because of what Jim Jones or David Koresh said or did. Even if they were faithful Muslims, we do not engage in tribal justice whereby everyone in a group is guilty for the sins of a member of the group, or at least I would hope that we’ve generally achieved a level of civil justice above and beyond tribal justice. It’s really a matter of charity and good will.
.

 

[Holly3278]

I hope you aren’t implying that Catholicism contains SOME falsities. Regardless of your choice of words, God is pleased whenever He is worshipped in whatever capacity He is. The Church teaches us that Muslims are to be commended and emulated for their regular and frequent prayers. As a Christian it is not my duty to try to thwart the practice of another’s religion, and if some Christians convert then maybe it’s better for them to do so than to not worship God at all. I am not the one to judge other’s souls.

As for the proximity to the Twin Towers, those who committed mass murder of innocents were not faithful Muslims, just as Christianity shouldn’t be smeared because of what Jim Jones or David Koresh said or did. Even if they were faithful Muslims, we do not engage in tribal justice whereby everyone in a group is guilty for the sins of a member of the group, or at least I would hope that we’ve generally achieved a level of civil justice above and beyond tribal justice. It’s really a matter of charity and good will.
.

Oops! I totally did not intend to imply that at all! Man how I wish I could go back and change that! Thanks for letting me know though. I may contact a moderator to see if they can edit it for me. Believe me when I say that I accept all of Catholicism without fail! There is only one minor part that I have trouble believing and that is the idea that our pets will not be with us in Heaven because they do not have immortal and rational souls as humans do. I will start another thread to discuss that one though. But no, I did not intend to imply that Catholicism contains any error. Even though I do have trouble believing in the “no pets in Heaven” theory that some apologists have formulated, I still realize that this is but a theory that has not yet been decided upon by the Church and may never be. I also realize that there are ways for God to give us our pets in Heaven without them being resurrected or without having an eternal soul. Anyway, back to the topic!

That said, I do disagree with your second paragraph… I think. I’m honestly not entirely sure what you are trying to say. However, I think you are trying to say that the Islamic Center/mosque should be allowed to be built there because not all Muslims are guilty of the terrorist attacks. However, there are other reasons to oppose the building of the Islamic Center/mosque:

1. 
   *]It will deeply offend and cause painful memories to those who did suffer from the terrorist attacks in any way, shape, or form and I believe that the vast majority of Americans suffered in some way, if only from the shock of this horrendous event.
   *]The Islamic Center/mosque is going to be used to educate people about Islam according to an article that I read the other day. This is not good. Again, anyone who goes in there could be proselytized (and most likely will be) and you must understand that many Muslims are trained to try and effectively counter the objections of Christians and Catholics to their faith. Yes, the Muslims do have a portion of the Truth that the Catholic Church has an exclusive hold upon but they do not have the entire Truth. Far from it, actually. They deny the Trinity, the crucifixion of Christ, and even accuse much of the Bible of being corrupted by translation. For those Catholics and Christians who are not well catechized, they could easily win a proselyite from the one true Faith, the Catholic Church.
   *]What if this Islamic Center/mosque soon begins to become a center for training in the more radical variety of Islam but simply do not endorse terrorism for fear of being caught? What if those who were then indoctrinated into radical Islam take the seemingly “logical” (but actually false) conclusion that they should engage in terrorism in order to obtain a place in Muslim “Paradise” where they will then have their 72 virgins?
   
   Anyway, those are two main reasons to oppose the building of this mosque, or any mosque in general (number 1 relates specifically to this case).
   
   God Bless,
   Holly

 

[Ponyguy]

Why would a Moslem want to agitate and aggravate people against Islam any more than they already are?

Building a mosque near the site of the twin tower location is just pouring fuel on the already blazing inferno.

Bummer of an idea…