NY Catholic Church rejects mosque sale plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dee_Dee_King
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m wondering what you mean, too, Ms. King. Why is freedom of religion not such a good thing? How should it be administered? By whom? The governments? Community groups? Please explain. Thanks in advance.
 
A catholic Church decides not to sale a vacant convent and that major news??? In my Parish I voted against selling some vacant Lots we owned. I dont recall CNN beating a path to my door asking me why.
 
Would you care to explain your thoughts, and how they relate to this case?
Click to expand...
i’m making the assumption that this muslim group has extremist views and was therefore not considered eligible to sell to. but if we take as absolute religious freedom–even for violent muslims–it would appear that the catholic church, in this case at least, is bigoted and opposed to the spirit of vatican ii as some libs would have it.

the church’s teaching on religious freedom is something that changed. therefore, it’s not a black and white teaching like on faith and morals. reasonable people can disagree on how much religious freedom to you allow yet still be good catholics.
 
I agree with this Catholic Church. I also reject the mosque sale plan. To say that a vacant convent should be turned into a mosque is just blasphemous in my opinion.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
i’m making the assumption that this muslim group has extremist views and was therefore not considered eligible to sell to
Click to expand...
Okay. Although, that is quite an assumption to make, and the article gave no indication to support it.
 
Okay. Although, that is quite an assumption to make, and the article gave no indication to support it.
Click to expand...
i think we shouldn’t allow most muslims into our country. i see no reason to think that they will intergrate effectively and abandon hopes of sharia law and their sympathies to violence. i think 9-11 is reason enough to not let them in.
 
Are you confusing Muslims with terrorists, Dee Dee? The law in the US does not allow discrimination based on religion. There are countries that make laws concerning acceptable forms of religion, but they are autocracies (e.g. China, Cuba). How are these countries systems of governance better than our system? God is love. God is forgiveness.
 
Why is it that you doubt the willingness of ability of most Muslims to integrate into American society? Do you really think that a majority of the world’s 1 billion + Muslims are really violently anti-American or sympathetic to the 9-11 hijackers?

Perhaps you are unaware of how the Church views Muslims…

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

Do you know that there are somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 million Muslims living in the United States? Did you know that few than 2 dozen countries in the world have adopted Sharia law and that the legal codes of most Islamic countries are only influenced by sharia, in much the same way that American law is influenced by the Ten Commandments? In fact, the largest Islamic country by population basis it’s legal system on Dutch civil law?

To judge 1 billion people or just a single person, by the actions of its worst members would be profoundly uncharitable. Just as we reject the mindset of anti-Catholic bigots who would condemn all Catholics as child molesters because of the actions of a tiny minority of our clergy, so should we stand on guard against similar attitudes towards other groups.
 
It seems that the deal was flawed from the start because the pastor signed the contract. Canonically, the pastor has no right to sign such a thing because any Church property (that doesn’t belong to a religious group) belongs to the Bishop alone.

I can’t believe the xenophobic attitude being expressed here either. Immigrants from Europe (places like Ireland) built American into what it is today.

Although to be frank, it’s not too surprising since the xenophobia is constitutionally mandated: the fact that the president must be a natural born citizen. Heck, here in Canada our current Governor General is a Haitian immigrant, and over half of them have been Brits (some of our PMs have also been Brits).
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
i’m making the assumption that this muslim group has extremist views and was therefore not considered eligible to sell to. but if we take as absolute religious freedom–even for violent muslims–it would appear that the catholic church, in this case at least, is bigoted and opposed to the spirit of vatican ii as some libs would have it.

the church’s teaching on religious freedom is something that changed. therefore, it’s not a black and white teaching like on faith and morals. reasonable people can disagree on how much religious freedom to you allow yet still be good catholics.
Click to expand...
And a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat.
 
curlycool89 said:
It seems that the deal was flawed from the start because the pastor signed the contract. Canonically, the pastor has no right to sign such a thing because any Church property (that doesn’t belong to a religious group) belongs to the Bishop alone.

I can’t believe the xenophobic attitude being expressed here either. Immigrants from Europe (places like Ireland) built American into what it is today.

Although to be frank, it’s not too surprising since the xenophobia is constitutionally mandated: the fact that the president must be a natural born citizen. Heck, here in Canada our current Governor General is a Haitian immigrant, and over half of them have been Brits (some of our PMs have also been Brits).
Click to expand...
I certainly believe the requirement that only a natural born citizen is eligible for the Office of the Presidency has nothing at all to do with the notion of xenophobia. Although I thought of concocting some sort of a rebuttal in the form of a diatribe regarding that particular requirement, yet due to the fact that you’re not a citizen of the United States, I will instead post a wikipedia link pertaining to the issue of a natural born citizen of the United States. Thus, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

Moreover, as another poster mentioned. The potential sale of the former convent was to a Muslim group that had ties to extremism, such as the nefarious Muslim Brotherhood. A pertinent link regarding the issue:
jihadwatch.org/2010/07/victory-catholic-church-cancels-sale-of-staten-island-convent-to-muslim-brotherhood.html
 
PA650 said:
Moreover, as another poster mentioned. The potential sale of the former convent was to a Muslim group that had ties to extremism, such as the nefarious Muslim Brotherhood. A pertinent link regarding the issue:
Click to expand...
Jihad Watch? :ehh:

Perhaps you might have a somewhat more neutral source of information for this claim?
I think its a bit like getting information about the Catholic Church from CARM.
 
Chesire said:
Why is it that you doubt the willingness of ability of most Muslims to integrate into American society? Do you really think that a majority of the world’s 1 billion + Muslims are really violently anti-American or sympathetic to the 9-11 hijackers?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Or rather on average they probably disapprove of terrorism “in principle” but can understand how the injustice of Zionism, US foreign policy drives fellow Muslims to it. They certainly won’t do anything to stop it.
Perhaps you are unaware of how the Church views Muslims…
Click to expand...
"841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330 "
Click to expand...
A nice little piece of political correctness (and historical falsity, “first place” goes to the Jews) which doesn’t belong in a dogmatic document. I hope it will be purged from future editions.
Do you know that there are somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 million Muslims living in the United States? Did you know that few than 2 dozen countries in the world have adopted Sharia law and that the legal codes of most Islamic countries are only influenced by sharia, in much the same way that American law is influenced by the Ten Commandments? In fact, the largest Islamic country by population basis it’s legal system on Dutch civil law?
Click to expand...
Pray God that never happens here.
 
PA650 said:
I certainly believe the requirement that only a natural born citizen is eligible for the Office of the Presidency has nothing at all to do with the notion of xenophobia. Although I thought of concocting some sort of a rebuttal in the form of a diatribe regarding that particular requirement, yet due to the fact that you’re not a citizen of the United States, I will instead post a wikipedia link pertaining to the issue of a natural born citizen of the United States. Thus, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
Click to expand...
I think you may have just proved my point. For some reason, me not being an American makes me second class and not worthy of an actual explanation.
 
curlycool89 said:
I think you may have just proved my point. For some reason, me not being an American makes me second class and not worthy of an actual explanation.
Click to expand...
I agree that my response could be construed that way, albeit it wasn’t suppose to. Frankly, I deduced that you may be unfamiliar with the particular reason the U.S. Constitution stipulates such a requirement, thus I posted a link that examines the notion of a natural born citizen clause.

To make things a little more concise:
… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.[9][italics in original] 1862 U.S. Attorney General Edward Bates
Click to expand...
Jihad Watch?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might have a somewhat more neutral source of information for this claim?
I think its a bit like getting information about the Catholic Church from CARM.
Click to expand...
I work with what I have found to be quite factual over the years. The video regarding a discussion of the selling of the property found in the piece may alleviate any concerns you may have.
 
PA650 said:
I agree that my response could be construed that way, albeit it wasn’t suppose to. Frankly, I deduced that you may be unfamiliar with the particular reason the U.S. Constitution stipulates such a requirement, thus I posted a link that examines the notion of a natural born citizen clause.
Click to expand...
What about naturalized citizens though? Why should those who come to America in good faith and renounce other citizenships be automatically be classified as second class citizens? And yes, they are second class because by definition they are not given all the privileges of citizenship (including the ability to run for any political office).

The quote seems to be nothing more than “we were born here, therefore we’re better than you”. That seems very anachronistic for 21st century America.
estesbob said:
Actually its becuase you are Canadian! 😃 <JUST KIDDING!>
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, your response is not valid because it does not include a parallel response in French 😉
 
curlycool89 said:
What about naturalized citizens though? Why should those who come to America in good faith and renounce other citizenships be automatically be classified as second class citizens? And yes, they are second class because by definition they are not given all the privileges of citizenship (including the ability to run for any political office).

The quote seems to be nothing more than “we were born here, therefore we’re better than you”. That seems very anachronistic for 21st century America.
Click to expand...
From my understanding, an individual that has become a naturalized citizen is only unable to run for the President of the United States or Vice-President. All other offices are certainly open to that particular individual. Lastly, with the way the United States has been heading in recent decades, I am sure that little stipulation will be glossed over as the Federal Constitution is finally thrown in the trash. The very idea of a “Living Document” already treats the Federal Constitution as nothing more than some basic guidelines regarding the abilities of the Federal Government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top