Indeed. And how would you think the Muslims would react were I to go to a mosque and hang up a big crucifix, banners proclaiming Jesus is the son of God, and blot out all insulting references to Muhammed? That’d be ok with you I suppose. But I doubt the Muslims would find it very amusing. And rightly so.
It’s also quite common for Jewish congregations to hold High Holy Day (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) services in a church as well as a synagogue. So many more people attend High Holy Day services than normally attend synagogue, more space is needed for those few days, and it wouldn’t be economical to have the synagogue sitting mostly empty the rest of the year.
The synagogues I’ve gone to in the Bay Area both did this. One held services in a “community church”, the other in a Unitarian church. I’m not sure if either of those churches had explicitly Christian symbols in them at other times- if they did, we might well cover them. We certainly bring in an Ark (the cabinet that holds the Torah scrolls in a synagogue) when we have services there. I’ve never heard anything to make me think that either of those churches considers what we do a desecration (they seem more concerned about our leaving parking spaces for their staff members). I don’t really see how hanging temporary banners with Islamic slogans in a church is so different from bringing in a portable Ark with Jewish Torah scrolls in it.
Um, if you asked their permission and they encouraged you to use the space, probably they wouldn’t have a problem with it. In the very OP, you mention that the dude in charge of the church approves of it! I’m sure he’s glad that you want to help, but you’re not doing your side any favors with this weak shit. It’s not up to you what a church gets used for. This whole thing is a complete non-issue, and you’re a fucktard of the highest caliber to be throwing this fit over it.
Enjoy your second-class citizenship, dhimmi.
There seem to be a lot of Catholics on the web who think it is an issue, and you’re not only a fucktard when you disregard their wishes in the matter, but an arrogant lout as well.
Why don’t the people who who approved this and own the church deserve to have their wishes regarded? Surely their wishes for their own church take precedence?
“Bootlicker” ? How about hypersensitive goofball ? That’s you.
I’m not licking anybody’s boots; I just plain don’t care, and fail to see why anyone else does. If I let some guy stay at my home, and he hangs posters you disapprove of on the wall, it’s none of your business unless I complain.
Depends on the Muslims; quite a few are big on obligations to guests. Besdies, it wouldn’t be my business unless and until the Muslims who owned the mosque complained.
Hey, I found a news story on the Belgian church (and mosque, btw) occupations, from the 21 April Turkish Weekly:
If the protestors are occupying churches with the permission of the church authorities, then I don’t see a problem with it. Of course, they shouldn’t be permitted to trespass on church property if the authorities don’t want them there.
And I join the other posters in asking why it would be okay for Jews to remove or cover Christian symbols in churches when they are using church space with the permission of the church authorities, but not okay for Muslims to remove or cover Christian symbols in churches when they are using church space with the permission of the church authorities.
Are these same Catholics equally upset about Jews covering or removing Christian symbols in churches when they get permission to use church property, as discussed above? If not, why not?
Isn’t it kind of a leap from “some Muslim protesters are temporarily occupying certain churches with the permission of church authorities” to “this indicates that Muslims are going to take over the Western world and reduce non-Muslims to second-class citizens”?
It does kind of diminish the force of a Pitting if the pitter(s) seem more insane than the thing being pitted.
And you know for a fact that the local parishioners of these churches approve of what the heirarchs are doing? It never occurred to you that they might be exceeding their authority and/or ignoring the wishes of the local congregration?
If this were an emergency situation, there might be some excuse for this. But it’s not. Try to get it through your thick head, dhimmi, these people are not being persecuted.
And many Mosques were once churches. Notably the Hagia Sophia of Istanbul/Constantinople. The Spanish churches and Turkish Mosques also have this in common that they’re spoils of war. And I should think we were past that. Had this been a respectful and cautious use of a Christian church, as I’m sure the Jewish temporary use of churches are, I personally would have had no problem with it. But this hanging up banners with Allah proclaiming it to now be a Muslim place, menacing Christian visitors, remodelling the place and covering up images revered by Catholics, is not a careful and respectful use of the Church. On the contrary, they’re walking in with boots with complete contempt and disregard.
Look, I know you like to find any reason you can to hate on Muslims. But you and Rune simply failed this time. This is a non-issue. There is no reason anyone should care about this.
Besides, what the fuck to the wishes of the local congregation have to do with anything? Until you can provide some evidence that most of the congregation disapproved, you don’t have any business bringing it up at all. It’s up to you to prove that they don’t like it, not for you to challenge everyone else to prove you wrong. Even if they do disapprove, while it’s something a Cardinal probably takes under advisement, it’s certainly not a decisive factor. Or were you under the impression that the Catholic Church operated as a democracy?
Seriously, you are just reaching here. You and Rune are trying your damnedest to make this non-issue into something else to hate Muslims over. But you haven’t come up with any reason why the Muslims using the church or the church’s leaders are doing anything wrong.
In view of the recent cartoon riots, it is not at all insane to believe that many Muslims do indeed intend to chip away slowly at the West until Europe has been Islamicized. Many have openly stated that this is, in fact, what they mean to do. It takes a complete, utter fool to dismiss this very real and present danger with a sneer.
To argue that that’s what some Muslims want to do is one thing, and not unreasonable. (After all, it’s the same thing that many Christians want to do with currently non-Christian countries, right?) I don’t think such a wholesale religious transformation will ever happen (in either direction), but I don’t deny that it’s what some Muslims want.
But to argue that Muslims temporarily using church property, with the permission of church authorities, is a sign that this “Islamicization” is actually happening is another thing, and pretty ridiculous.
If the Muslim occupants really are “menacing Christian visitors” or engaging in “remodelling” beyond what the church authorities have permitted, then of course that’s wrong and disrespectful.
But simply covering a cross or statue, or hanging up a Qur’anic banner, is no worse than a Catholic congregation bringing a statue of Mary into a Protestant church that they’re temporarily using, or a Protestant congregation screening off a statue of Mary in a Catholic church that they’re temporarily using. None of these things are in any way insulting, defiling, or a desecration.
But how is it different, really?
We bring in an Ark with Torah scrolls, and wear our prayer shawls and yarmulkes, which proclaim it to be a Jewish space.
We don’t menace Christians, but we do have security people who check tickets and keep out anyone who doesn’t have one. Since Christians are presumably not members of our congregation, that means they’re kept out (unless they’re guests of a member, or buy tickets, which aren’t cheap).
We cover up or temporarily move images revered by Christians.
We say non-Christian prayers, and have sermons that give the Jewish view on various things, which is often quite different from the Christian view.
We mostly don’t wear boots, at least not leather ones on Yom Kippur 
You can find people on the web who think all kinds of things. You can find people on the Web who think the Catholic Church reveres the Virgin Mary to promote worship of ancient Egyptian goddesses (Jack Chick says this).
I like that one of the pictures of the “vandalism” is a pile of shoes left by the front door. Apparently, not tracking mud all over the floors is vandalism in Holland these days.
I’d be willing to bet there are a lot of Catholics (like me) who think it’s bullshit. Yep, I’m a Catholic. Born Catholic, raised Catholic, will be buried Catholic.
Have to agree with SteveG1 here … offering charity to those in need is a much more important part of the Christian faith than making sure the right images are on display in the church. (Speaking as a Protestant, myself, of course. IMO.)
So, basically, the Christians referenced in the OP are being Pitted for … behaving like Christians. Whoopee.
(If there is any actual vandalism going on, of course, the people doing it … well, shouldn’t be. But it’s not clear that there is, and in any case, those of us who are Christians might feel obliged to forgive them anyway.)
Can’t speak for the rest of the EU, but England is a formally Christian country where freedom of religion has been pretty much guaranteed ever since the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act*. Prior to that, of course, we had the Established Church of England as an official and actual state religion … and prior to that, we were a Catholic country like the rest of Western Europe. No doubt there are a few radical Muslims who want to undermine all that and set up an Islamic theocracy, but I don’t fancy their chances much. (It’s not an ambition held by any Muslims I know, and I’ve met a fair few in my time.)
*Unless you want to be, or marry, the monarch or an heir to the throne. If you are outside the C of E and want to be in line for the succession, you’re SOL. Sorry. Being unable to marry Prince Charles is such a violation of your human rights …
Excalibre addressed this nicely.
Did you just learn that word, and are trying to impress us with your vocabulary? It’s not working. It only shows what a ridiculous slipperly slope you’ll believe in.
And please point out where I said they were persecuted.
My only argument is the people in charge of the church are OK with this. There should be no discussion after that.
No, the Dutch are generally all in favour of clean floors. We await a consensus in this thread on what the Belgian opinion is. 
Well, I don’t like how you feel you need to move images revered by Christians. If I go into a Mosque I’d try to behave as is fitting for that place, and if I were to go into a Jewish temple I’d try to act as was expected of that place – whatever that would be. And it seems to me, if you’re not above borrowing their church, you shouldn’t be above respecting their images – which don’t entail belief or worship. But I guess, if it’s done with care and consideration it’s not so bad. Which is not what I see here. Lightning fire, remodelling and disrespectfully hooding the virgin Mary gives unpleasant reminders of the Palestinian use of bibles as toilet paper and thievery of holy religious symbols. The banner shouting out ALLAH put up on the church wall has all the feel of a proclamation of power and ownership.
And there is the complete lack of a feeling of reciprocality. I can perhaps imagine Jews lending a temple to a Christian congregation (and if not, I wouldn’t support lending a Christian church to a Jewish congregation) I have a very hard time imagining Muslims in Europe or the Middle East agreeing to turn over a Mosque to be used for Christian or Jewish congregation – even if just temporary. Always the respect and adjustment is expected to go one way – and nothing coming back. It just gets real old after a while.