Today in Mass

[sedonaman]

Based on what? You weren’t there, so your assessment, like mine, is simply based on the scant information provided by the OP. What makes you think your interpretation of the event more valid than mine?

I think that my interpretation is more valid than yours unless you can clearly explain why radical Muslim extremists would want to speak with a Catholic priest in the first place. Such extremists aren’t known for their willingness to engage in conversation with those they consider infidels (a term that includes Christians).

And once again, you didn’t actually answer my question, so here it is for the third time: Exactly what is your point in light of this thread? Are you suggesting that because these Muslims got mad when the priest said that Judaism is a major religion that they are violent radical extremists?

Or, to put this another way, when you say, “they knew perfectly well what they were doing”, clearly explain to me what you think they were doing? Tell me what you think was their motive for speaking with the priest, what they expected to happen, and what they intended to accomplish in this visit to that parish.

Haven’t you ever heard of “jihad of the word”?

 

[EricFilmer]

Haven’t you ever heard of “jihad of the word”?

Why don’t you simply tell me what you think it means, and then clearly explain its significance in terms of the Muslims described in the OP.

And seeing as you have introduced this term but without any further elaboration, it seems that, once again, you have deigned not to answer my long-running question.

Even though you have yet to clearly outline what you think about the Muslims described in the OP, you have been strongly implying that you believe they had sinister, and possibly dangerous, motives for their visit to that Catholic parish. Given the fact that you have not given your rationale for this stance (despite posting in this thread over a course of four days) I’m beginning to think that you have no rationale for your position, and therefore, by definition, it is irrational.

I am trying to give the OP some assurance that the Muslims who visited her parish are probably not violent radical extremists, and I have supported my reasoning in a very sound fashion. For example:

**1) Violent radical Muslim extremists view all Christians as infidels and are not interested in dialoging with us. The Muslims in the OP not only wanted to discuss religion with a Christian, they actually chose a Catholic priest.

1. The Muslims went to the priest to discuss Christianity and Islam. It was the priest, not the Muslims, who brought up Judaism.
2. When the Muslims stated that the two major religions in the world are Christianity and Islam, they may well have expected the priest to agree with them, and may have been surprised to hear him bring up Judaism and then defend it. For centuries, Catholics have been accused of being anti-Semitic in one way or another. For example, an accusation that has come up continuously in recent years (up to this very day) is that the Catholic Church was either in league with Hitler and the Nazis, or at least failed to do enough concerning the Holocaust. Many of these accusers are fellow Christians. So if certain other Christians are willing to believe this about Catholics, so much more would certain Muslims.

In light of all this, I think that the event described in the OP involved some Muslims who were misguided, misinformed, imprudent, and impolite, but not violent radical extremists. Such extremists do not visit the churches of infidels to look for an excuse to get mad so that they can return with guns and bombs. After all, they already have an excuse: infidels should die. According to such extremists, we Catholics are already guilty of being infidels simply because we are Catholic, and therefore we are automatically under the sentence of death. Therefore, for a violent radical Muslim extremist, what purpose would a conversation with a priest serve?**

That is a reiteration of my position in this thread (plus a little more elaboration on it), and my reasoning behind it. So if you think that the OP needs to fearful of bombs or gunfire going off during Mass then kindly stop dodging my ongoing question and clearly explain your position and the rationale behind it. And if you don’t think the OP needs to be fearful of this, then kindly come out and say it, and then clearly explain to me exactly what you are trying to debate me about.

In light of all this, here is my question again. For the record, this is now the forth time I’ve asked it:

**Exactly what is your point in light of this thread? Are you suggesting that because these Muslims got mad when the priest said that Judaism is a major religion that they are violent radical extremists?

Or, to put this another way, when you say, “they knew perfectly well what they were doing”, clearly explain to me what you think they were doing. Tell me what you think was their motive for speaking with the priest, what they expected to happen, and what they intended to accomplish in this visit to that parish.**

 

[sedonaman]

Why don’t you simply tell me what you think it means, and then clearly explain its significance in terms of the Muslims described in the OP.

…etc.

This is all speculation; you have no proof of any of this.

Based on the following given by the OP:

… They [the Muslims] said “well, there are two major religions in the world, Islam, and Christianity” and Fr. Ignace stopped them right there and said “No, there are not only 2, there are 3. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam”. The men started to argue, and said they’d like to discuss Christianity and Islam only, since they do not recognize Judaism as being a major religion, and so Father told them no, and asked them to leave.

Now, I feel like maybe I’m being a racist or biased, since my first thought was, he made them angry, and now we had to be afraid. I was also quite angry that someone would come into a Catholic church rectory, to speak with a Catholic priest, and then assume he would allow them to discount Judaism, which is our roots.
… I lost friends on 9-11 and I am, I guess, afraid to bring the anger to my home.

It was so upsetting, and when I told my husband, (he was at work) he had almost the same thought-look out for they would be back. Of course, he’s a NYC Firefighter, so he just gets angry. Do you think Father Ignace was right, or should he have listened to them further. Am I being racist, or just a normal person. My husband claims I’m just being normal, but I feel bad.

The rest of the homily, he spoke of being in Nigeria, and having to hide Christianity, since it was punishable by death in some areas.

So what is it that would cause cautious reactions in the above people whereas a lack of caution in you? Does it have to be proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that all 1.3 billion Muslims are terrorists before a red flag goes up in your mind? It’s not necessary for me, and apparently it wasn’t necessary for the priest either [again, given the OP statement].

I would say that your speculations would not pass a “preponderance of evidence” test whereas the reactions and statements of those involved would pass the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test that the Muslims were up to no good.

And that’s all I have to say about it.

 

[EricFilmer]

This is all speculation; you have no proof of any of this.

And I obviously never considered my position as anything but speculation. In each instance I prefaced my position with “I think”, or similar words. Moreover, in Post #18 I clearly stated that my interpretation of the event described in the OP was a “presumption”. So why you bothered to point out that I am speculating is beyond me.

Based on the following given by the OP…

So what is it that would cause cautious reactions in the above people whereas a lack of caution in you?

This isn’t simply about caution or lack of caution. The entire context of my statements was to give some assurance that even though these particular Muslims got mad, I did not think that this indicated that they were violent radical extremists. I clearly outlined my reasons for my belief, and you have not attempted to refute a single one of them.

Does it have to be proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that all 1.3 billion Muslims are terrorists before a red flag goes up in your mind?

Wow! So all Muslims are terrorists??? Exactly how did you come to this conclusion?

Plus, for the sake of this discussion such a thing does not need to be proven to me. I will be quite satisfied if you simply answered my ongoing question and then backed it up with sound reasoning! And yet you have been dodging it for days.

Or am I to presume that this is, indeed, your reasoning:

a) All 1.3 billion Muslims are terrorists.
b) The people who visited the priest were Muslims.
c) Therefore, the people who visited the priest were terrorists.

You’ll pardon me if I do not find this line of reasoning convincing.

It’s not necessary for me, and apparently it wasn’t necessary for the priest either [again, given the OP statement].

Oh? The priest described in the OP never denounced Islam, nor did he say that these Muslims were terrorists. His motive for telling them to leave was because they got mad and were being disrespectful. Maybe he was also worried that things would escalate and there would be a fight or something, and I think that such a concern would be perfectly valid and justified. But the same concern could be leveled against lots of non-Muslims who get in arguments over religion. It doesn’t mean that such people are killers scoping out future targets for murdering people.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

I would say that your speculations would not pass a “preponderance of evidence” test…

Then do it. Put it to the test. Here is my position again:

**1) Violent radical Muslim extremists view all Christians as infidels and are not interested in dialoging with us. The Muslims in the OP not only wanted to discuss religion with a Christian, they actually chose a Catholic priest.

1. The Muslims went to the priest to discuss Christianity and Islam. It was the priest, not the Muslims, who brought up Judaism.
2. When the Muslims stated that the two major religions in the world are Christianity and Islam, they may well have expected the priest to agree with them, and may have been surprised to hear him bring up Judaism and then defend it. For centuries, Catholics have been accused of being anti-Semitic in one way or another. For example, an accusation that has come up continuously in recent years (up to this very day) is that the Catholic Church was either in league with Hitler and the Nazis, or at least failed to do enough concerning the Holocaust. Many of these accusers are fellow Christians. So if certain other Christians are willing to believe this about Catholics, so much more would certain Muslims.

In light of all this, I think that the event described in the OP involved some Muslims who were misguided, misinformed, imprudent, and impolite, but not violent radical extremists. Such extremists do not visit the churches of infidels to look for an excuse to get mad so that they can return with guns and bombs. After all, they already have an excuse: infidels should die. According to such extremists, we Catholics are already guilty of being infidels simply because we are Catholic, and therefore we are automatically under the sentence of death. Therefore, for a violent radical Muslim extremist, what purpose would a conversation with a priest serve?**

Now I challenge you to give a specific refutation of my points. If you don’t think they pass the “preponderance of evidence” test then clearly demonstrate it.

whereas the reactions and statements of those involved would pass the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test that the Muslims were up to no good.

I’m not necessarily denying that they were up to no good. For all I know, maybe they were trying to engage in proselytizing, figuring if they could convert an actual Catholic priest, then they could convert anybody. In this case, they would (IMO) be up to no good. Or maybe they were feeling drawn to Catholicism and wanted to learn more, in which case the reason for their visit was not problematic (although the ensuing argument over Judaism was).

But they could have been up to no good without necessarily being violent radical Muslims extremists, and that people at that parish now have to be afraid of suicide bombers. If these were radical Muslim extremists who intended violence against the Catholics in that area, why didn’t they go ahead and attack the priest right then and there? After all, they were mad and outnumbered the priest, so if they were violent people, where was the actual violence?

And that’s all I have to say about it.

But that’s not quite true. After all, you have already indicated (in Post #21) that the nature of the Muslims visit was “Jihad of the word” but you have not yet explained what you mean by the term, or explained exactly how it applies here. So it seems that there is, indeed, more for you to say on this subject.

I have never heard the phrase “Jihad of the word” used in the context of someone defending Judaism. Rather, it usually comes up as a reaction against someone who denounces Islam in writing, or against someone who creates an image of Mohammad. But seeing as the priest described in the OP did neither, I am curious how the term “Jihad of the word” is relevant to this situation.

I am also still wondering what your answer is to the question I have been posing over and over again. So, for the fifth time:

**Exactly what is your point in light of this thread? Are you suggesting that because these Muslims got mad when the priest said that Judaism is a major religion that they are violent radical extremists?

Or, to put this another way, when you say, “they knew perfectly well what they were doing”, clearly explain to me what you think they were doing. Tell me what you think was their motive for speaking with the priest, what they expected to happen, and what they intended to accomplish in this visit to that parish.**

Although I agree that it is possible that the Muslims described in the OP were, as you say, “up to no good”, if it is your position that their actions reveal them to be violent radical extremists then answer what I have posted in blue text and let us examine its merits.

 

[hooper496]

Judiasm is a major religion and God is not yet done with Israel according to Paul. Let’s not forget Hitler was a Catholic and we all know how the pulpits failed to teach him that the Jews are God’s people and nothing has changed, despite their sin.

It apparently failed to teach him a lot. He also killed 5 million Polish Catholics in addition to the 6 million Jews.

 

[hooper496]

I recently got into a discussion with a Muslim on another blog. He kept insisting that Jesus never said “I am God. Worship me.” After doing a little research, I found out this is something Muslims are taught to ask Christians.

Even only using Jesus’ words in scripture, I was able to show 14 or 15 different ways Jesus acted and spoke like God. I was very thorough.

Nonetheless the discussion kept going in circles until another poster interrupted and suggested that the Muslim I was dealing with was being disingenuous and using a tactic of deceit to draw me in to foolish games. Apparently there are passages in the Qur’an which laud Allah as a plotter and deceiver, and Muslims are encouraged to do the same to draw in infidels. I still am not sure about what I have been reading, but this seems to be the gist of it.

Furthermore, I have been reading the passages in the Qu’ran about Jesus. They call him Isa. It is totally inconsistent with the bible, making false and inconsistent statements about Jesus. The upshot is that while they call him the Messiah (Mesah), they deny his Divinity. They deny that he died on the Cross and rose from the dead. They even confuse Mary with Miriam from the old testament. Very odd.

I can’t imagine how we could ever see eye to eye with these people. It is quite scary actually. Allah in the Qur’an seems so very different from God in our bible. I have only read small pieces of the Qur’an but wow it really jumps out at you.

Am I on the wrong track here?