Showing posts with label Interreligious Dialogue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interreligious Dialogue. Show all posts

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Coptic Christians Praise Swiss Minaret Ruling

USA: December 4, 2009. (PCP) Dottore Architetto Ashraf Ramelah, President of Coptic Voice said that Sunday, November 29, 2009 will be remembered as a turning point in the protection of our democracy and freedom. I believe that all of the West must congratulate every Swiss citizen that voted to ban the building of Minarets as well as those who agreed to allow them to be built.

This is the democracy that western women and men were brought up on prior to the introduction of political correctness, more appropriately called “shut your mouth.”

Swiss citizens as well as all westerners are in great need to sit back and analyze the facts without any exaggeration or undermining the issues. All of us have a great responsibility towards our children and grandchildren. History will remember us as a great people who fought to keep democracy and freedom, or rather, a people who were unable to protect it.

Referendum plays an important role in democracy and through democracy power is given to every citizen. The result of any referendum is sovereign, and governments are obligated to follow the desire of their citizens.

In the early 1970’s I had the opportunity to observe two important referendums in Italy. The first was in favor of divorce, the second was for abortion. Both referendums were against Catholic teaching. In spite of the fact that the Vatican is in the center of Rome, the Italian capitol, and the head of the Catholic Church is also the Bishop of the eternal city, I never heard any instigation from the Church, its leaders, or political conservatives at that time.

I grew up convinced that I could disagree with your idea but I still respect you. Arabs, on the other hand, think and act differently than this. Arab-Muslim leaders throughout the whole world condemned the Swiss referendum. Some Arab leaders instigated their followers to rise aggressively against such a decision. I am sure that we will soon read and hear about the boycott of Swiss products, and maybe Swiss embassies will be closed in some Arabs countries.

Various western voices including some Vatican officials condemned the result of that referendum. I wonder if those leaders forgot that in a democracy the power belongs to the people, or can it be that such political leaders cannot stay away from so-called political correctness. The question remains that if political correctness were really correct, would one use it to criticize the will of the people, or instead accept the outcome in spite of any disagreement.

In western society there is a tendency to please strangers without consideration to their own people. Furthermore, instead of condemning the referendum results, I was hoping that our political leaders would be more effective in putting pressure on dictatorial and fascist regimes ruling in Arab Islamic countries in order to bring democracy and freedom to those populations. How dare those Arab leaders criticize a Swiss citizen for his choice in his own homeland concerning strangers, while the same Arab leaders do not give any respect to a citizen with a different face living in his own country.

The Grand Mufti of Cairo was very angry about the result of the referendum, criticizing the Swiss people for lacking respect for freedom of religion. Wow!! I wish the Egyptian regime could give Egyptians even one-half of one percent of the freedoms that the Swiss people enjoy. I do not want to take the time to describe the 1400 year history of oppression, discrimination and political correctness that Copts have endured in their own land.

Is there any political or religious leader in all of Egypt who would be willing to stand up honestly and admit that Copts have been under siege for more than 1400 years? Is there any political leader in the West who would be willing to stand up and put aside his political correctness to demand that those who wish to build a Minaret in someone else’s home must first respect basic human rights in his own home. It is time that everything be called by its own name, without hiding the facts, and with no special privilege given to any ethnic group or religion.

On behalf of Voice of the Copts, I urge all the citizens of the European Union to promote a similar referendum in each country along with a demand to their political leaders to put pressure on those regimes in order to help the religious minority in those countries to have basic human rights, democracy and human respect.

The real issue of this referendum was the goal of putting an end to the building of Minarets (architecture) and not the banning of the construction of Mosques as Arab-Muslim leaders and those with politically correct views would have us believe.


Link to original...

Monday, November 23, 2009

Archbishop Nichols visits Europe's first traditional Hindu temple

After wagging an admonishing finger to the incoming Traditionalist Anglicans that they may not "pick and choose", Archbishop Nichols chooses to go to Europe's first Hindu temple to receive a pagan blessing.

Archbishop Nichols with the Temple's spiritual leader Yogvivek Swami


The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, has made an official visit to the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Europe's first traditional Hindu temple in Neasden, north London.

The visit took place on Saturday, 21 November during Interfaith Week and on the birth anniversary of the worldwide spiritual leader of the Hindus who pray at the Mandir (Hindu Temple) at Neasden, His Holiness Pramukhswamiji Maharaj.

Archbishop Nichols was greeted by the Mandir's spiritual leader, Yogvivek Swami, ( Head Sadhu, BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha (UK & Europe)) and the Trustees of the Mandir. He was welcomed in traditional Hindu style - with a red vermillion mark applied to the forehead and the tying of a sacred thread on the wrist, symbolising friendship and goodwill.

Read further...

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Cardinal George lauds appointment of N.Y. archbishop to Jewish Affairs post

Cardinal George lauds appointment of N.Y. archbishop to Jewish Affairs post

Just as a reminder, here is an article on Cardinal George's previous non-binding statement on Jewish-Catholic interaction and his aqcuiescence to their insistence that all references to "conversion" be removed.

- Curious Cardinal.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The Curious Cardinal



As providence would have it, there was an recently published interview in NCR about the aforementioned Cardinal George whose statement on interreligious dialogue with the Jews leaves us in little doubt that he has a very circumscribed notion of the Church's mission to the world, including the Jews.

John Allen's soft-ball interview leaves some questions unanswered, but does admit a blithe admonition to an indeterminate and perhaps fabled duality in the American Church, those elusive Liberals and Conservatives. Incredibly, the Cardinal accuses the mythical polarity of focusing too much on Bishops, assuming that they have more power than they have and an obligation to correct and on the other hand wishing they didn't have too much power. He admonishes both of these legendary antognists to focus more on Christ, but doesn't fail to relinquish responsibillity for the problems he identifies, feebly, like Catechesis, the sorry state of Catholic Charitable institutes, and Liturgy.

Considering the Cardinal's more recent "clarifications" on Interreligious Dialogue with the Jews, he's talking about himself when he describes Liberals. Wishing he had less authority than he does, perhaps, or still worse, wishing that since, "the conservatives wish to descend into sectarianism" that all of these distinctions between the beliefs of various religions are meant to be ignored. Somehow, our focus on Christ and work among with poor with a leftist missionary organisation like St'Egidio will cause us to forget those petty doctrinal problems and the poor showing so many priests make when it comes to the Liturgy. In all of this, he strikes me as a less potent, understated, and therefore perhaps more dangerous version of his sulferous predecessor, Cardinal Berardin.

What this all amounts to, more than a fawning softball interview by a bootlicking journalist, is the Bishop telling the laity that things will continue basically as they have and that they need to keep giving and obeying.

Moreover, by the end of this interview, I was still in the dark about what His Lordship meant by improving Evangelization. I think he's implying that we need to be less Catholic and more Universalist, that we can leave behind this implausible sectarianism as the dusty relic of a bygone age and other such cliché. Perhaps his "plant" is that there is no plan, or at least not one he's going to tell anyone else.