'Muslim extremists' ignore Vatican, build mosque

I'm suprised they don't just build it right on top of the Church.

After all, the Dome of the Rock is built upon the Foundation Stone, where Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac.

Once they got to America, they did an excellent job of persecuting each other and the American Indians who saved them from starving to death

To set the record straight, the Indians may have saved the Puritans in Massachusetts from starvation that first winter, but the colonists were pretty much on their own. One of their major problems with the Indians was getting ambushed while they were working in their own fields they themselves had cleared and planted.

Journals from those times are replete with accounts of whole families and settlements being killed or kidnapped. Many were marched off to Canada in the dead of winter and held as hostages.

I would say that the Indians of those times were "terrorists" but we only hear one side of the story today. The reason tribes were decimated and driven further west was mostly a matter of self-preservation on the part of the settlers.

ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS THREATEN CHRISTIANS IN NAZARETH 20-Dec-99 -- EWTN Feature Story

JERUSALEM (FIDES/CWNews.com) – In the town of Nazareth, fundamentalist Muslims have stepped up pressure to intimidate Christians in the wake of an Israeli government decision allowing the construction of a mosque adjacent to the Basilica of the Annunciation. Now a leaflet is being circulated, threatening the life of Pope John Paul II.

The FIDES news agency reports that the leaflet-- which is written in Arabic, and unsigned--features harsh anti-Catholic slogans and threatens violence if the Pope "dares to make the 2000 visit."

The leaflet, which has been circulating in Nazareth for a week,warns Christians living there that if the Pope visits the town in March 2000, "We will burn down your homes with our own hands.The whole world will watch us and the press will write about us."

The leaflet announces that all of the religious sites of the Holy Land are rightfully the property of Islam, and "the cross must disappear,and Islam take its place."

Building on the controversy over the mosque near the Basilica of the Annunciation, the leaflet says: "the church of the Annunciation must be purified of the infidels who have sullied it." The unknown authors of the leaflet proclaim that they will turn the basilica itself into a mosque.

The Franciscan Custodian of the Holy Land, Father Giovanni Battistelli, told FIDES that "there is great sadness and anxiety among the local Christians, despite words of reassurance" from several Israeli government ministries. "The leaflet," he explained,"hasincreased tension and already caused violence near the Basilica of the Annunciation."

The Franciscan priest related that several incidents have occurred near the basilica, which has been the focal point of tensions for almost a full year:

"On Friday a young Christian from Nazareth was stabbed, another,wearing a cross and chain around his neck, was slapped; a group of pilgrims were insulted. Days earlier, fundamentalists hurled stones and rocks at the Church of St Joseph, pilgrims had to take refuge inside, and one of our fathers was spat upon."

Father Battistelli also reported that, in direct violation of an agreement forged by the Israeli government, an Islamic fundamentalist group has set up a tent in the public square outside the Basilica of the Annunciation. The Islamic group had laid a claim on the property in the square, announcing plans to build a mosque there, and setting up a tent to proclaim squatters' rights. The Israeli government-ignoring repeated Christian pleas and protests- had allowed construction of the mosque, with the proviso that the Islamic group would clear the square. That proviso is now being ignored.

Father Battistelli said that Israeli authorities appear reluctant to become involved in the controversy, and even to safeguard the Christian community. He reported that when Church officials scheduled a meeting to go over security procedures for the Christmas celebrations in Nazareth, police failed to show up for that meeting.

Father David Jaeger, OFM,one of the architects of the diplomatic agreements between Israel and the Holy See, is now in Nazareth. He told Fides that the people there are worried. In their view,the decision by the Israeli government to allow the mosque construction showed the power of a small fundamentalist group. That group, buoyed by their success in obtaining permission to build the mosque,is now even more aggressive.

However, Father Jaeger has spoken with several more moderate Islamic leaders in Nazareth, all of whom have assured him that the fundamentalist group is non- representative of the Muslims in Nazareth,and that the threats contained in the controversial leaflet are embarrassing to other Muslims. Father Jaeger pointed out that many Islamic leaders--from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Palestinian Authority-- have opposed the building of a mosque on that particular site in Nazareth, on the grounds that the project will inflame tensions and divide the community.

Father Jaeger holds out the hope that the Israeli government might reconsider its approval for the mosque construction process, FIDES reported. From his perspective in Nazareth, Father Jaeger told the Vatican news agency that "a top-ranking personality--whose name I cannot reveal--confirmed to me that the government is seriously reconsidering the question."

He said that there are two reasons for the government's willingness to think twice about the controversy. First, Israeli government authorities are under pressure from Christian leaders, both in the country and around the world. Second, government officials are beginning to recognize the dangerous precedent that could be set by bowing to the will of a fundamentalist Muslim group.

You asked for proof, gosh, it's just so easy.

I was under the impression that even though they were given the name "Puritans" in the 1570's that they still existed prior to that and were persecuted under the reign of Mary Tudor from 1553-1558.

I don't know if they were persecuted under Queen Elizabeth I. I do know that they separated from the Anglican Church, because they didn't think it was reforming fast enough.

I would say that the Indians of those times were "terrorists" but we only hear one side of the story today. The reason tribes were decimated and driven further west was mostly a matter of self-preservation on the part of the settlers.

Sounds like I'm a victim of revisionist history. Thanks, for the clarification.

"We have the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch..."

There is revisionism to a point; of course there are two sides to every issue. The Indians were here first and could be seen, rightly so, as defending their turf. Some of the tribes were friendly and peaceful, while others were fighting among themselves constantly, before and after the colonists came. Massacres by indians were still a threat in PA after 1750. I don't know the exact date when New England was made more secure, probably just before 1750. There are many forts still in existence. The purpose of those forts was as a lookout and shelter from indians. Often the settlers had to seek shelter in them. Fort #4 in Charlestown, NH on the Connecticut River comes to mind. There were many in PA as well.

The reason I know both sides is from having studied genealogy. One of my ancestors was killed while working in a field in PA and had his heart cut out and held in the air at knifepoint as a trophy. Another ancestor was hit with an arrow in CT in the 1600's near Fort Saybrook while burning off a field but he survived. He was wounded in the thigh. I could well not be here ;-) if the aim had been better!

There are several general newsgroups for New England genealogy at rootsweb where people have culled some of the accounts, mostly first-hand, from older publications. The archives can be searched.

Basically I believe it was a clash of civilizations and I concede that, at times, we treated them brutally, which I regret. I do resent the agendized presentation of history, however. My granddaughter learned the revisionist version in school. In choosing to refer to them as terrorists, they were certainly that in the eyes of many settlers although the phrase hadn't entered the English lexicon yet, at least in that context.

Building a structure dedicated to a pagan godlet should count.

As the Islamics say first the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.

I was refuting your statement:

Really though, I understand this would not be such a big deal if Sept 11th had never happened.

I thought perhaps you were Anti-Christian, now I know you are just uniformed. Shouldn't make such silly statements as this. It's not true and as I said, it's been going on for years. The fanatics do not just want a mosque, the goal is to wipe out all traces of Judaism and Christianity there (and the world). Please see my post 123 for further clarification on this subject.

plus pointing out the moral lesson that when you do the right thing the first time it's always better for everybody.

The right thing from whose point of view, Romulus? There are people who will beat up on Israel for doing what you call the "right thing". Israel is damned either way when there is a "disagreement" between Muslim and Christian. Of course, there have been plenty of times during Israel's short existence when the state has been damned by both groups. Ah well. At least you're happy today.

Did you know that in the 15th Franciscan friars provided the preaching that many parish priests lacked the learning to give, and that some drew crowds like John Wesley did in the 18th century England? San Benardino is named after one of the most popular preachers.

I don't know if they were persecuted under Queen Elizabeth I. They were. The message of Elizabeth to both Catholics and (true) Protestants was: MY WAY OR...ELSE: This included everything frtom mutilation to drawing-and quartering. The "Pilgrims" moved to Holland to get away from Elizabeth's government. The Puritans moved to Massachusetts to get away from the government of Charles I.

The right thing from whose point of view, Romulus?

As if the right thing were a matter of subjective interpretation. Huh!

There are people who will beat up on Israel for doing what you call the "right thing". Israel is damned either way...

Then Israel had better decide: is it about doing the right thing, or is it about worldly success? Naturally, for those who worship the State as their new golden calf, there's no contradiction.

Either the State of Israel is self-justifying, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating or else it is not. If it is, it's your god. If it is not, you must direct your allegiance to a higher power. Make up your mind.

As if the right thing were a matter of subjective interpretation. Huh!

Evidently, it is. For example, our Secretary of State seems to have a subjective interpretation of what a terrorist is.

Then Israel had better decide: is it about doing the right thing, or is it about worldly success?

If Israel were to truly do the right thing, it would have both.

Naturally, for those who worship the State as their new golden calf, there's no contradiction.

Who might that be, Romulus?

Either the State of Israel is self-justifying, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating or else it is not. If it is, it's your god. If it is not, you must direct your allegiance to a higher power. Make up your mind.

My mind is made up, Romulus. Although I do not accept your definition of Israel being a "g-d" just because it is self-justifying, etc. My allegiance is to a higher authority. Pity the governments of Israel and the US don't feel the same way.

Perhaps you might be interested to know that from the time of Henry VIII, and through the reign of Elizabeth and beyond, Catholics in England were imprisoned, tortured and executed merely for being Catholic.

My third son is named after two such English martyrs: John Fisher and Edmund Campion (we named him John Campion.) Fisher was the only English bishop to remain loyal to the Faith under Henry VIII. Campion was imprisoned, tortured, drawn and quartered under the regime of "Bloody Bess" (Elizabeth I) for the crime of being a Catholic priest. Since the time of Elizabeth, the English have been among the chief persecutors of the Faith.

That is all true. When a catholic was in power, the protestants suffered and when a protestant was in power, the catholics suffered. Those were terrible times.

Sounds like a good spot for a hog farm & meat packing plant.

Good one, Sabra. You are exactly right. The Vatican doesn't like when it's turf is encroached upon; however, doesn't mind if Israel's is and condemns her actions when she protects herself. Sounds like hypocracy to me, what do you think?

"When a Bible costs more than the average person's yearly income, aren't you going to keep it under lock and key?"

You cannot be serious. This comment and those of the others are simply ludicrous.

As a Christian, I must say that the only thing more disgraceful than our Church's behaviour during the Dark Ages is modern attempts to deny or justify them. (Protestants burned "witches, Catholics burned "heretics" - neither group are blameless.) Let's just admit it, repent, and go on.

Schmelvin and Stryker are right. Go learn your history. It is embarrassing to be so wrong, and gives fuel to those who would ridicule us.

By the way, in no way does this mitigate the continuous, habitual, and I believe worse, offenses of the Muslims now or in the past.