Could you clarify to what you are referring to in this post?
Let me see if I got this right.
>> A world conference on women and Islam has ended in the Spanish city of Cordoba with calls for western society to change its negative image of the Muslim religion.
Why would they choose a place where they are disliked? Could it be they, in fact, are treated better and have greater liberty to discuss their things than in, say, Muslim countries?
>> Controversy came when a group of about 20 delegates, men and women, insisted on praying inside Cordoba’s Great Mosque, which was converted to a Catholic cathedral in the 13th century.
>> Yusuf Fernandez, of the Spanish Federation of Islamic Groups, said it was part of an ongoing campaign to change the status of the former mosque.
>> Worshippers said they wanted to reclaim a part of their history.
I see, so the purpose is they want to reclaim the building as a mosque and they go there without permission and start using it as a mosque. And the rightful owners of the building should just give them the building and walk away?
I am sure if they would have asked permission to organise a prayer they would have got it. But they went there unannounced with the clear intention of being disruptive and “claiming the mosque”. And the Catholic Church should apologise? I think they should be sent back to their freaking countries for disorderly conduct.
To present this as religious prejudice is utterly ridiculous as anyone with half a brain can see. If Christians did the same thing in a mosque would it be acceptable? If a group of native Americans decided to conduct their ceremonies in the rotunda of the Capitol to “reclaim” their land, do you think the police would respectfully stand by? If a group of Muslims decided to improvise a prayer meeting in the Washington Cathedral do you think they’d get away with it? Gimme a break.
your attempt to equate a prayer in an (empty) church with hypothetical actions regarding a private residence.
the only objection was the nature of the prayer - it appealed to the “wrong” god, and was, in the eyes of whoever (sounds like the RCC to me) unacceptable.
and yes, prayers are often said in public places in the US - with and without prior approval of anybody.
in other words - why would the RCC pick this fight? - it can’t win, at best it comes off looking intolerant.
gee, the RCC exhibiting intolerance in Spain. Was this a good idea?
Yeah, and that particular “whoever” if you’re right is the landowner. A Catholic Cathedral exists to allow people to enter and worship thier god. That’s the express purpose of having the property open to the public. When a different religion enters and begins to go through a ceremony of worship to their god, I see no problem with the Church taking exception to that. I don’t bring my Taco Bell food into the McDonald’s, sit down and eat it.
Well, you certainly think it “comes off looking intolerant.” It doesn’t look that way to me. In your previous post you indicated that you consider it “harassment” and think an “apology” is warranted. I agree with neither of those assertions.
I think they were well within their rights to break up the ceremonial activity taking place unauthorized upon their property. It’s not as if someone of the Islamic faith just happened to stroll through the Cathedral and utter a silent prayer to Allah whilst doing so. This was organized visible activity. Whether or not you like it, whether or not you like the nature of religious denominations, they have distinct beliefs and practices. They do not want practices running counter to that taking place on their property without their consent. That’s their right.
It is quite insulting, IMHO, to organize such activity with the very loaded premise of “reclaiming history”. This is especially so when we remember that if this structure is as old as is claimed, the only reason it was a mosque in the first place is the Moorish war of conquest and subsequent occupation of Spain. To say they want to “reclaim history” in that regard is tantamount to saying they want to reclaim the territory for Islam. Muslims wouldn’t tolerate such an insinuation about the Crusade, why should Catholics tolerate such an insinuation about the Islamic occupation?
Especially since it has been under the Catholics for 800 freaking years.
A little late for reclaiming it, wouldn’t you say?
when an entity which describes itself as having been “created by God, of necessity… to govern the earth” starts arguing property rights, don’t you think it maybe has lost the moral high ground?
and, to defend the history of conquest of the iberian pennisula - this boy ain’t going there.
So, whether the structure is rightfully a mosque or Church is irrelevant. It was under the control of the RCC at the time, and the guards were apparently carrying out the actions desired by the RCC.
Now, if an army had laid seige, or an imman had tried to call the faithful, maybe the thugs in unifoms would have been a good idea. 20 people attempting to say prayer, however, is not a credible threat to the Church’s property rights.
There is a mosque in Massachussets Avenue in DC. It is as public or as private as any Christian Church. Imagine a dozen Christians get inside uninvited and start holding their religious ceremonies, chanting that they are there to take back the place for Christian America. Would that be admissible? Would the muslims be “intolerant” if they kicked the uninvited guests out? It is laughable to think those people would have any sympathy from anyone.
Spain is full of mosques where Muslims practice their religion and nobody bothers them. When it comes to religion Spain is definitely more tolerant and easy going than the USA. People might disagree on abortion but it is not the divisive issue it is in the US. The question about creationism in schools is nonexistent and only a joke about America. There are no fundamentalist preachers or televangelists much less with the political power they have in the US. Politicians do not mention religion or God in their speeches as they know that would turn voters away. Religious tolerance in Spain is definitely greater than in the US. People live and let live.
Why the RCC? My experience with security cops the world over is that they tend to think enforcing rules–including “rules” they’ve made up to enforce their own prejudices–is their god-given mandate. If the Muslims were ordered out just as they began their prayers, I doubt that anyone actually took the time to go get the opinion of the bishop (who, of course, could be a xenophobic hater of muslims, but was not quoted as indicating that view).
Did you split your pants seam pulling that one out? There may have been no services at the time, but the article makes no mention of that. Regardless, one act of worship in Catholicism is known as silent devotion while muslim prayers recited facing Mecca are recited aloud. Without condoning the act of the security police (who quite possibly overreacted), a group of twenty people suddenly bursting into vocal prayer in a foreign tongue would be a tad disruptive to people who were engaged in silent adoration.
(I wonder how polite the Muslim Turkish authorities would be if a group of Orthodox Christians decided to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the Hagia Sophia (now a mosque) in an attempt to “take back” that church?)
Not that it would have any weight one way or the other but, out of curiosity, I did a little research. Cordoba was founded by the Romans. The Visigoths built a number of churches. After the Muslim invasion of Spain in the early 8th century, they built the mosque with materials from the Christian Churches they dismantled. About 500 years later, in the early 13th century, Cordoba was reconquered by the Christians who kept the building, simply converting it into a church, and setting up an altar in the middle. In the 16th century, this modest gothic insert was enlarged and given its current Renaissance - and later, baroque - styles.
I’ll say the Church was within their right to expell the prayees, as it was their property. If Burger King sent 20 employees into McDonalds to set up a taste test booth in their seating area, McDonalds would be right to throw them out. Just to forgo any “But that is not a religion” arguments, switch Burger King to Scientologists setting up shop. The owner still has a right to decide who goes and who stays.
Tom~ -
the photos showed only the muslims, security, and empty space - if other services had been in progress, I think that would have been mentioned.
yes, “other” religions are not usually welcomed in places of worship. BUT… how much noise could have been produced? the muslim services last how long? was this a good fight to pick?
and, yes, if a bishop had thought the actions of the thugs were inappropiate, I suspect he (always a ‘he’ - no guessing on that one!) would have issued a statement.
given the history of RCC/Islam, especially in Spain, this was a bad fight to pick.
Tars - see earlier comments on trying to reduce this incident to matter of property rights.
The whole thing was a provocation and totally inexcusable. If they had approached the Church and asked permission to conduct a Religious service that is one thng. But that was not their aim. Their aim was to provoke and to “take back” the church for Islam. It is a provocation and insulting on the country where they were guests.
This comes in the context of Morocco provoking several incidents with Spain and claiming Spanish territory. Especifically Moroccan children are taught in school southern Spain rightfully belongs to Morocco. So now they decide to come and do a protest in the Cathedral? Fuck them. I’d put their Muslim asses on the border before they could say “God is great”.
And try going to any religious building of any denomination and doing the same thing and see what happens. Try going into a synagogue or mosque anywhere in America and protesting uninvited and see how long you last. Ask nicely and you’ll go anywhere but like that they’ll kick you out and rightly so.
I found this
[quote]
(http://www.andalucia.com/cities/cordoba/mosque2.htm) interesting:
Relations between Christians and Muslims are much better in Spain than they are in the US so trying to make a mountain out of this incident just displays your ignorance about Spain.
Did and found them lacking. Why does arguing property rights lose the moral high ground? Its not like Athiests are gonna follow some divine right arguement.
The only photo currently displayed is so narrowly framed that one cannot see any of the actual church for the people standing behind the security cop. There could easily have been a number of people praying quietly throughout the church.
“Thugs”? I saw no mention of abuse.
The people came in with the expressed intention to make a vocal protest and were told to leave. The reactions of the security people might have been overblown or they might have been appropriate. Your attempt to turn this into one more example of the infamous abusive power of the great megalith of Rome is silly.
Tell the truth, now. You worship at the feet of Ian Paisley, don’t you?
Relations with Muslims (and Jews) were exceptionally good during all the Franco years. Franco’s personal guard was the Moroccan Moorish Guard and that is just one show of his affection for all things Moroccan.
A certain Moroccan officer in the Spanish army made it all the way up to the top and became Captain General of the military region of NorthEastern Spain. It was the custom that, every year, on the festivity of St James, patron of Spain, the Captain General would go to the Cathedral and make an offering to St James in the name of all Spain. It was kind of weird for a few years that the man doing this offering in the cathedral was a Muslim.
Not bad for a country that, supposedly, hates Muslims.
Well, let’s not wax too poetic about the Franco years. I believe that during the Franco years the Catholic Church was the state religion of Spain, and the religious freedom of non-Catholics was severely restricted.
However, claims that Muslims were “persecuted” in the incident in the cathedral in Cordoba are silly.
I never used the word “persecuted”. Harrassed was the term I used. I stand by it.
Tom~
I have already denounced Paisley. Get your references right.
and, do you really think there were services in progress, or are you relying on the “if you can’t positively prove it, it cannot be inferred” school of debate?
What would St. Aquinas say?
sailor - Franco was good for religious freedom? what have you been smoking? (I would ask for directions, but board rules forbid)
I think you could just as fairly say that the Muslims were harassing the Catholics in that particular incident.
>> Well, let’s not wax too poetic about the Franco years. I believe that during the Franco years the Catholic Church was the state religion of Spain, and the religious freedom of non-Catholics was severely restricted.
Nah, I’m not waxing anything. During the Franco years, catholicism was the official state religion which, in effect, meant it was the only one supported by the state. The right to practice other religions privately was recognised and respected though.
And the fact is that Franco was his own man and he liked Moorish things and people and religion was not going to get in the way. He was also staunchly anti-communist and yet he never broke diplomatic relations with Cuba as the US wanted him to do. Castro’s family was from the same part of Spain as Franco’s and that was enough reason for him. While the soviets might be the enemy, in Castro he just saw a sort of unthreatening relative gone astray and who needed some good offices to get him back to the fold. Maybe he had a point there.
The right to practice other religions privately was (at least in theory) recognized and respected. Which meant that adherents of other religions were free to keep quiet and stay in the closet.
Catholics should have the right to publicly (in the sense of openly) practice their religion in Catholic churches; Protestants should have the right to publicly practise their religion in Protestant churches; Muslims should have the right to publicly practise their religion in mosques; Jews should have the right to publicly practise their religion in synagogues. Nobody should have a “right” to barge into someone else’s church, mosque, or synagogue and try to take it over on behalf of a different religion.
As far as I know, everyone’s rights to peacefully and openly profess their religious beliefs are in fact now protected by the state and accepted by society at large in 21st century Spain, and I’m not disputing that.