recital of a prayer does not rise to the level of ‘trying to take over’ - ill advised? yes. stupid? you betcha. credible attempt to ‘reclaim’ the structure? no.
Rising to the bait, given the history of RCC/Islam IN SPAIN???. really stupid.
at the very least, the local Bishop could have offered to hold joint services on neutral ground.
or, being the cynic I am, they at least have kept the photogs out of place.
[sub]Tom~ admit it. you know that only Catholics get into heaven, don’t you? [/sub]
Well, there it is, happyheathen giving referent to St. Aquinas in a post. I think the Saint would have said that you’re pulling your position on that particular fact out of the blue. The Saint believed in using reason to conclude facts about the world, “faith” was a separate sphere entirely, meant to work in conjunction together. I doubt he would approve of concluding with absolutely no evidentiary statement either way, the “fact” you claim that no service was in session.
Even if it weren’t, plenty of parishoners visit cathedrals during those times in which a ceremony is not being held. Those Moslems tossing down their rugs, bowing unto Mecca and reciting aloud their prayers might very well, as mentioned in a prior post, have interfered with the Catholics giving a silent devotion or elsewise observing their Lord in their way.
happyheathen, you have given us plenty of reason to conclude you hold anti-Catholic opinions, backing the remark tomndebb levels upon you by saying you would support Paisley. It is clear from the tone of your remarks. tomndebb has given us none at all to lead us to believe that only Catholics will enter unto Heaven, the accusation you level upon him. If he is in fact Catholic, you know darn well that the conclusions reached at the 2nd Vatican Council this last century forbid the labelling of Protestants as heretics. (And if you want a discussion about that, I’m sure you can find plenty of Dopers ready to argue about it.) Your sentiments are becoming quite clear, sir, and I must say I do not care for them.
I and others here have expressed our belief that the Church’s actions were justified. You have said they were not. All very well. Neither of our sides has the final word on that decision, the property owners do. I concur on that issue with MEBuckner.
MEBuckner
>> 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.
Yes, I think all reasonable and objective people would agree with that statement and so do I. That is the way it has been for the last 25 years but I just wanted to add some historical perspective and show that even before then there was no animosity or hostility towards Muslims or Jews either from the State or from Spanish society which could lead to any left-over animosity today.
>> The right to practice other religions privately was (at least in theory) recognized and respected.
You imply something which was not the case. The “at least in theory” part implies “but not in practice” which I do not think you can support but I will be glad to read any cites you can find supporting that.
>> Which meant that adherents of other religions were free to keep quiet and stay in the closet.
Again, I believe you cannot support this with facts and it is only your own prejudice. The Catholic Church received funds and support from the State while the others did not. I am not saying this is an ideal situation but the perfect is the enemy of the good. The fact is that Muslims rights to practice their religion were respected in Franco’s Spain. As proof I have shown you a couple of things which I think are significant. Franco’s personal guard were all Muslims. I see this as significant. A muslim made it to the highest post in The Spanish army at the time. Spain administered northern Morocco until its independence in 1956 and I do not think you will find any instance of persecution there.
The fact that Catholicism was the religion sponsored by the State does not mean others were persecuted or harassed and you will have to provide some facts if that is what you claim. I do not think you will find any cases of a mosque or synagogue being shut down or harassed like you might see in China today. Any press articles of the time which were anti-muslim? If you go back you will find Franco and the official view was a brotherhood of the three monotheistic religions against the atheists which, with the simplification of the times, were the same as communists.
Legally the situation might be better in America but, let’s face it, in fact life was not the best in the 50s for those who openly called themselves communist or atheist. And today the chances of a communist, atheist candidate in the US are still practically zero while you have a few of them in several European parliaments, including Spain (not that I would vote for them but you get the point).
In summary, I say there was no animosity against Musmlims in Franco’s Spain. If you say otherwise it is up to you to support it with facts but I doubt you will find many or even any.
for those who missed the point - I have denounced Paisley on at least two occasions on these boards, most recently in this thread.
I have also stated that I believe the RCC to be the largest single source of evil in the history of mankind (I guess that would classify me as anti-catholicism. duh.)
similarly, Tom~ has refuted the “only Catholics can enter Heaven”
(a Paisley-type assertion regarding Catholicism)
and, Aquinas - a major contributor to the nature of knowledge - including observation vs. inferrance, and holding both valid.
If we are to attribute known-false ideological positions, I get to posit an equally offensive belief on Tom~ as he posits on me.
and, if this is to pivot on the issue of how many worshippers of each religion were inconvenienced, pls provide cites.
and, if you bother to read my posts re. RCC, you will find that I an aware of the doctrinal changes wrought by Vat. II
…I wanted to say that! And isn’t Hagia Sophia a museum now?
You don’t need to go to Hagia Sophia, just go to the mosque in Mass Ave. in DC and see how long you last. happyheathen is quite alone in his fanatical views, thank goodness.
MEBuckner, one more point. The UK has had and still has and official state religion which bars Catholics (and others?) from certain positions. While this may be the law as written, I do not think one could say other religions are persecuted or in the closet in the UK today.
I did a little reading online about Franco and the Catholic church. Like most topics, it is not simple and many hours could be spent discussing it.
Franco, was not a specially religious man and he just used religion and the church to his advantage and support. But he used whatever support he could get from whereever it came. Politics came first and religion second. He had no problem using muslim troops during the war and equated godlessness with communism as it was a useful simplification. He had no problem executing a bunch of basque catholic priests who did not share his views.
From the end of the civil war to the late 60s oficially the Church and the State supported each other even though there were some disagreements and clashes. By 1970 the Church was openly critical of the regime and resulted in open confrontation with the regime.
After Franco’s death in 1975 an attempt to establish a Christian-Democratic party, in the model of similar European parties, failed miserably and the religious vote was split among the different parties, left and right.
When filling their income tax forms, people get to check whether a certain amount of their taxes should go to support religious groups or other ‘objective of social interest’ (i.e.charity). Nearly two thirds of Spaniards now choose not to support religion.
The birth rate in Spain is the lowest in Europe, showing that Spain is effectively a secular society in its birth control practices.
Recently there has been some serious clash between the Spanish government and a basque bishop but I do not know the details. The government appealed to Rome and Rome distanced itself from the whole thing saying bishops were pretty autonomous and there was nothing Rome could do about it. It was amusing to see prime minister Aznar on TV slamming a Catholic bishop.
Just tidbits I have gathered online. Comments and corrections are welcome.
Article 6 of the Spanish Charter of July 13, 1945:
Note that my source for this is some reactionary who thinks this was a good thing. Here is a source quoting the relevant article in Spanish. Note also that article 6 was amended in 1966, so that even under the later years of Franco’s regime there was a loosening of state repression of non-Catholic religions, and post-Franco Spain has now separated church and state.
MEBuckner, maybe I am missing something here but I don’t follow you. The article you quote seems to support what I said and not what you said.
>> 1) The profession and practice of the Catholic religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.
In other words they got money from the State and the other religions did not. Probably the same as the UK today. Protecting one religion is not the same as prohibiting the exercise of others.
>> 2) No one shall be disturbed for his religious beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion.
Private includes mosques, synagogues etc. This confirms what I said.
>> There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations of other than those of the Catholic religion.
This prohibited things like outdoor processions similar to the Catholic ones held in Easter, the use of the media to proselityse, and such things which were “public” in the sense of exposing the general public to the religious event. This confirms what I was saying: that even at the height of fascist furor in Spain, the rights of Muslims and Jews to practice their religion in their temples was always respected. Even at that time a large part of Spanish society considered this restriction wrong and it was finally removed in 1966. Put this in the context of post WWII western countries and it is not so bad. At the same time the US had McCarthyism, the UK was injecting homosexuals with hormones, . . . Luckily the world has come a long way from then but, putting this in the context of a fascist dictatorship I do not see it as the most outrageous thing in the world.
You have not shown me a single instance where any Muslim or Jew was hindered or harassed for practicing their religion in their temples. I do not think your cite supports in any way the notion that Muslims or Jews were persecuted or prohibited from practicing their religions (except the “external-public” demonstrations and even that prohibition was not really enforced that much in later years).
Note also that, at the time, Spain had a foreign policy of consistently aligning itself and voting in the UN with the Arab and Muslim countries. Hardly an anti-muslim position.
I found a pretty comprehensive paper about religion in Spain:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5666.htm
Some quotes:
It is very long and comprehensive and you can find similar reports about all other countries. Very interesting.
Your citation of the State Department’s report on the current status of religious freedom in Spain is, of course, totally irrelevant to this particular hijack of this thread.
It sounds to me as if Franco’s Spain during its most repressive period was, from the point of view of non-Catholics, about as bad as many Communist states have been from the point of view of Christians generally.
Concerning Muslims and Jews–I’m not sure there were any Muslims or Jews in Spain during that period–certainly in no great numbers. (To its credit, Spain during the war did aid several thousand Jews in escaping the Nazis, but my impression is that Spain served more as a transfer point than a final destination.) The Jews and Muslims were of course expelled or forced to convert back in the 15th century; hunting down backsliders was a major task of the Inquisition. There must have been Muslims in the Spanish colonies in Africa, but I think the phenomenon of relatively large numbers of Muslims is, as in France, a product of post-colonial immigration. Even now, the CIA factbook gives the population as “99% Roman Catholic”.
The relationship between the Catholic Church and Franco’s dictatorship was certainly complex. Official restrictions on religious freedom were loosened in the later part of Franco’s regime, in reaction to the Church’s Vatican II–it is difficult to maintain a church as the only religious institution allowed to publicly proclaim its dogmas when those dogmas include the necessity of respecting the freedom of religion of all. By the end of the Franco era the Church was clearly in the main a force for democratization and liberalization of Spanish society. It is also true that the repressiveness and downright theocratic aspects of the early years of Franco’s dictatorship were in part a reaction against the policies of the pre-war Republic, which went beyond church-state separation to at times violent anti-clericalism. (Of course, the anti-clericalism of the Republic can itself be explained in part as a reaction to four centuries of opposition to religious liberty by the Spanish state and church; an explanation of the Republic’s anti-clericalism does not, however, magically mean that the Republic was not anti-clerical, and an explanation of Franco’s repression of religious liberty does not mean that he did not in fact repress religious liberty.)
well I’m a catholic, and to answer your question I think the Inquisition was a bad idea. .
Now I don’t know about my grandparents, but I haven’t been brought up to believe that anyone not a catholic will go to heaven or hell. But you have to remember that there is no straight out heaven or hell. Every major religion has its own version, but they pretty much revolve around the same idea; Heaven= good, Hell= bad.
When I think of the bible + catholic I don’t think that the religion was born due to the bible. I think of it more like the bible was adopted by the catholics because it fits their ideas. The main goal of a catholic isn’t exactly to get into heaven, but to be a good person in your life, and if you were you will be rewarded by being allowed into heaven. Since it is a reward it means that going hell isn’t bad. Think of going to hell as being grounded (forever).
Seems like I got side tracked.
Anyway back to the topic. A Catholic won’t go to Muslim heaven, and so on. The inquisition in the end was to get more Catholics, pretty much to get more money for the church.
In the end the only thing that matters is to be a good person. When your a good person your life feels complete when you die, and this feeling of being complete is your heaven.
MEBuckner,
>> Your citation of the State Department’s report on the current status of religious freedom in Spain is, of course, totally irrelevant to this particular hijack of this thread.
It was not directed at you particularly, just related to the topic at hand, and specially for illustration to anyone like happyheathen who may say there is religious repression in Spain today. I just thought the page was quite comprehensive and might be of interest to those reading. In my surfing I find stuff which I find interesting and I’ll mention it if it is related to the discussion. That’s all
>> the CIA factbook gives the population as “99% Roman Catholic”
The CIA factbook is, obviously, wrong and in disagreement with the page I quoted by the Department of State which is also a US government source and I think much more reliable and comprehensive on this particular topic. The CIA page is a one page summary of a country which I do not expect to be very rigorous or reliable. (Insert your own CIA joke here.)
According to the page by the Department of State 83.6% declare themselves Catholics but this has to be taken with a grain of salt as many just go to church to get married and such things which are more social than religious. I cited a source which says in their income tax two thirds of Spaniards prefer to give their money to charitable organizations than to religious organizations. Of course, this only represents the views of those who pay income tax which are only a fraction of the population. At any rate, since this is only incidental and we agree religion is freely practiced in Spain these days, let’s get back to the Franco years.
Getting back to the issue of religious tolerance or intolerance in Spain during the Franco years, you understand I am not saying there was absolute freedom, only that it was not as bad as you paint it. Laws as written, are of very limited value in judging a country. If you look at the constitutions of the old Soviet Union or of China, you will see all sorts of rights guaranteed there, including religious freedom and yet the UK doesn’t even have a constitution and, in fact, has a confessional regime. The law as written may be a point of reference but you have to go to real everyday life to judge. In any case, Spanish law did provide for the freedom to practice any religion in private. Your second quote is merely a comment on the law we already discussed. The law recognized the right to practice any religion in private. We already discussed that and this quote does not really add anything we did not already know.
The Ripalda Catechism: what does this prove? It only proves what children were taught. Today the mere mention of the word Ripalda is the cause of laughter and jokes just like Americans can laugh at some of the garbage they were taught in school. I can show you many American textbooks of the 50s chock full of historical errors, garbage analysis, sectarian teachings, all were there. (Probably in a few years people will laugh at some of the crap being taught today. Take extreme examples and you can paint an awful picture of any country at any time, including the US today. Heck, just look at how creationism is still a source conflict. Does that mean Americans are all a bunch of religious fanatics?). The cite you mention does not show any cases of religious repression. In fact, look at the explicit list of evils it mentions: materialism, Darwinism, atheism, pantheism, deism, rationalism, Protestantism, socialism, communism, syndicalism, liberalism, modernism, and freemasonry. Two are conspicuously missing: Islam and Judaism. Is this telling or what? This is the most extremist textbook and even at that time it was considered too extreme by many and it was not used for long. It is often cited today as the worst of the worst of Spain at that time. It lists the worst enemies of religion and it does not mention Islam or Judaism. I don’t know what can make my point better than that. (BTW, condemning “rationalism” gets a chuckle out of me. I am doomed to hell for being rational.)
Let us put some context. In 1939 Spain had just come out of a bloody civil war where about one in thirty Spaniards was killed. Think 80 million for the US today. The rest of the world was engaged in WWII and conditions in Spain were of hunger and extreme poverty. Under those conditions no country or culture of the world is going to be in the best mood for tolerance or respecting other people’s rights. Just look at the paranoia permeating America today for much less reason.
>> It sounds to me as if Franco’s Spain during its most repressive period was, from the point of view of non-Catholics, about as bad as many Communist states have been from the point of view of Christians generally.
We had started talking specifically about the practice of Islam but you have brought other religions into the mix and I think we need to talk about each one separately since each one is a very different case. Your cites refer solely to Protestantism and not to Islam which is what we were talking about. Also, we have to bear in mind that it is extremely difficult to separate religion from other cultural and ethnic factors. In India today a Pakistani Muslim and a US citizen who happens to be Muslim would get very different treatment even though they are both Muslims.
Atheism: There is no doubt that declaring yourself to be atheist was the best way to ruin your life. At that time atheism was equated with communism and in Spain they were not popular with the government. But, again, put that in the context of the times. It was not much different in the US either. It was not right but it was understandable. While Spain has progressed and religion is a non-issue in getting elected or appointed to government posts, in the US a declared atheist still would have some difficulty.
Protestantism: The US and the UK win WWII and create the UN. One of the first things they do is declare the Spanish regime a bad thing and call for its boycott. The world is told they should not trade with Spain. Spain is totally destroyed and on the brink of starvation and the US and the UK are trying to strangle it. Only Argentina defied the boycott and, being a very rich country at the time (how things change!), sent shiploads of grain and beef which saved Spain from famine.
In this context of open enmity between Spain and the US and UK, I am not surprised American and English citizens were harassed with more or less backing from the State. It may not be right but it would be expected. It is happening in the US today that foreigners of certain backgrounds are harassed by government officials. It is a fact that some people abuse their power and if they feel they can get away with it due to the situation, then they will do it. In Spain at that time (pre 1952) pretty much the only Protestants were US and UK citizens and they were harassed on any grounds, not just religious. It was done by overzealous officers, in violation of the law, with the complicity of the higher-ups. Not that I would excuse it but put that in context and it is no worse than the Japanese internment camps or McCarthyism.
About 1951 -1953, the whole situation changed. The US, who led the economic boycott against Spain, now decided Spain’s anti-communism could serve its international policy so now it signed agreements with Spain for military bases, economic cooperation etc. American military bases were built, loans were issued, American corporations set up factories in Spain and Spain was flooded with Americans. The enemies of yesterday were now friends and government policy changed accordingly. Your cite of the US demanding more freedom for Protestants (i.e. Americans) in 1951 falls into this picture. Protestants were allowed private religious practice although they were still forbidden from proselytizing and other public displays. Not an ideal situation but, again, put this in context and it was not much worse than what you saw in other countries. What was the situation for Catholics, Jews and Muslims in the US in 1958? Not perfect either. The world was not as enlightened then. The good thing is the world is getting better and not worse as some like to think.
>> Concerning Muslims and Jews–I’m not sure there were any Muslims or Jews in Spain during that period–certainly in no great numbers.
You have to be kidding. You really need to do a little more research. Before I go into this I’ll say the numbers are irrelevant to whether their religious practices were curtailed or not. I can guarantee you (pre 1953) there were fewer Protestants than Muslims or Jews, but the fact is Protestants were harassed more for the political reasons I have pointed out. Being Protestant was associated with being Anglo and Anglo countries were enemies of Spain pre 1952. This was not the case with Muslims at all.
Spain had and has sizable Muslim and Jewish populations, in the 1950s certainly larger than any Protestant population. At that time Spain had possessions in Africa which included Northern Morocco, Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea, among others where the population was predominantly Muslim. In Northern Morocco there were large numbers of Sephardic Jews. Madrid and Barcelona also had Jewish populations, my guess is a couple thousand in each city. After Morocco was granted independence in 1956, there still remained several thousand Muslims and Jews in Ceuta and Melilla.
It is difficult to separate religion from other cultural and ethnic factors. No doubt you will find tensions between any two different groups, especially when one is poorer and the other has the power. Each group will put down the culture and practices of the other and religion will be in that mix but it is there as part of the whole package. Authorities of the ruling group may discriminate in favor of their own in general terms and those suffering the discrimination may see it as a religious thing when it is not.
I have no doubt the Spanish government protected and promoted Catholicism but you have not shown they also repressed the practice of Islam and Judaism. Show me that they closed mosques or synagogues, that they imprisoned or harassed people for attending mosques or synagogues etc. That kind of thing which shows they very expressly targeted the practice of those religions. Show me contemporary cites indicating temples were shut down, people were harassed or prosecuted just for practicing their religion. You have presented none so far and I doubt you will find any significant evidence of such acts.
Franco’s personal guard was composed of Muslims. This was not a secret, this was in newsreels every week. Do you think they were forbidden from practicing their religion? If the Spanish State was so keen on repressing Muslims why would the Head of state have a Moorish guard?
A Muslim made it all the way up the military ranks to the highest rank possible. Do you think he was forbidden from practicing Islam? Or that he would be part of a regime which openly targeted Muslims? BTW, it took me a while but I did manage to find a brief biography of Mohamed Ben Mizian . His life reads like an adventure novel.
>> To its credit, Spain during the war did aid several thousand Jews in escaping the Nazis, but my impression is that Spain served more as a transfer point than a final destination.
In any case, it shows Spain was willing to risk creating a source of friction with Germany to help the Jews escape. There was no general anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim sentiment in Spain at the time as there was anti-Communist or anti-freemasonry.
>> an explanation of Franco’s repression of religious liberty does not mean that he did not in fact repress religious liberty
I never said there were no limits. We are discussing to what extent people were free or not free to practice. I say it was not as bad as you make it out to be and I would like to see concrete examples of mosques being closed etc.
In summary, the law in Spain at the time was “No one shall be disturbed for his religious beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations of other than those of the Catholic religion.” and it was respected for the most part. There were times and cases where it was not respected and overzealous officers, with or without government backing, would harass people using religion as their excuse. For the reasons I have mentioned, this happened much more with Protestants than it ever happened with Muslims. This is no different than what happens in most countries, including the US today, where the government sometimes oversteps its boundaries, with what it believes is the best justification.
With regard to tolerance of minority cultures in the 1950s, Spain was not a whole lot worse than the US. Taking into account Spain was a ruthless dictatorship and the US the paragon of everything that is good and fair, it seems to me the situation in Spain was not so bad. Of course if we compare with Utopia, then it looks pretty bad, but then, who doesn’t?
Anyway, probably the topic does not deserve the amount of time we are dedicating to it (or, at least, that I am dedicating to it) since we agree on the big picture and we are just discussing details.
Wow, that was a big fart. sorry
As for being Catholic-it’s almost a culture of its own. At least, for me.