Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Austria to limit building of mosques

It is reported that Austria’s Joerg Haider, governor of Carinthia, is planning to prevent mosques and minarets being constructed in his home province. It is his contention that planning laws should take into account ‘religious and cultural tradition’, when dealing with construction requests. He said: ‘We don't want a clash of cultures and we don't want institutions which are alien to our culture being erected in Western Europe.’

Now this is interesting. There is no transgression of human rights legislation because Muslims will still be free to practise Islam, and prayer rooms in buildings may be as abundant as required. What is noteworthy is the objection to the symbolism of mosques and minarets being built to ‘advertise the power of Islam’.

This has been the concern behind the colossal new London mosque planned for the site of the Olympics. In magnitude it will be bigger than St Paul’s Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, and its location will bring the eyes of the world upon it in 2012. It is considered by many to be an overtly political statement and a religious assertion of supremacy, and petitions have been signed by thousands to halt the proposal.

But neither Herr Haider’s objections nor the petition against the London mosque are likely to realise their objectives. There is no will in the West to contend either for two thousand years of culture or religion. There is simply acquiescence, accommodation, compliance, deference, and, ultimately, submission.

There is, of course, no reciprocity. While Muslims may build their mosques even in the Royal Parks of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Christians may not build churches in Islamic lands. And where they exist, they are firebombed, vandalised, and believers live in fear of the consequences of daring to follow their Lord. And the West utters not a word.

Even as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia bans visitors from all items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam, there is no objection from any Western government. If you are visiting Islam’s holiest land, you may no longer take your Bible, even for your own devotional purposes. There is also a ban on crosses, crucifixes, statues, carvings, and items with religious symbols such as the Star of David. They will be confiscated, permanently.

Pace Herr Haider, could one ever conceive of the West banning mosques, Qur’ans, crescent moons, and prayer mats?

Daniel Pipes has a strategy for dealing with the Saudi government. He suggests that until they change their ‘detestable policy’, its airline should be disallowed from flying into Western airports. Cranmer would go further, and demand of Western governments that they cease diplomatic relations and all trade agreements with a country which the United States has termed ‘among the most religiously repressive in the world’. But, of course, it is about oil. The land which spawned Osama bin Laden, and spreads the Wahhabi poison throughout the world and into the mosques of the United Kingdom, is ultimately untouchable.

Reciprocity may well be requested of equals, but when there is an ascendant power, with a victor and a vanquished in sight, reciprocity is simply a nice word for political consumption, and a vain dream of self delusion.

22 Comments:

Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

I'm with you until you mention the appalling neocon slimebag, Daniel Pipes. You did not need him to make your case.

29 August 2007 at 10:26  
Blogger Cranmer said...

King Aethelbald,

His Grace did not use him to make his case; he simply thought he had a good idea. Appalling neocon slimebags may indeed occasionally have them, and it would have been plagariste not to have apportioned the source of said idea.

29 August 2007 at 10:33  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Point taken, Your Grace, but I haven't quite finished my rant. Here is Pipes advocating internment of U.S. Muslims after 9/11. A scuzzer of the first water, I'd say.

I feel better now, thank you, so I'll stop.

29 August 2007 at 11:13  
Anonymous najistani said...

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2270642.stm

29 August 2007 at 12:00  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

I was reading on a website dedicated vedic heritage of hindus that relates to Mecca as a hindu faith site established by Abraham.
Its the second time I have come across these claims by hindus and it got me thinking, if Mecca has significance for all Abrahamic faiths, then jews, hindus, christians, plus numerous other faiths claiming an Abrahamic root should claim the rights to make pilgrimage there.
At the moment the Saudis only allow muslims to go so im sure this could be a good kick in the knacks for them, at the same time as a fight for equality of all faiths.
Not to mention the international significance it would stir up!!!

Oh sorry I said not to mention it :-D

29 August 2007 at 14:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, Your Grace will have observed that the forces of Islam, represented by the Turks, reached the gates of Vienna three times in 1529, 1532 and 1683.

Sadly the Cross and the Crescent never have seemed to be able to co-exist terribly well.

29 August 2007 at 14:56  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

An interesting review by John 'Don't Mention the Jews!' Derbyshire of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace?:

And, very uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, then why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do--the current President of the United States, for example.

That leads more or less directly to this book's most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an 'alliance' between 'Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?--the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.' What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear? Or if, having appeared, it dissolves in squabbling, as it surely would? What shall we do to be saved?

http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/2007/Texts/IslamAndChristianity.htm

29 August 2007 at 15:22  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Aethelbald
While I find your abhorrence of Daniel Pipes endearing, His Grace is right to say that he said something of use. What is sad, is that some of what Pipes says is true: that many are so uncomfortable with pointing out issues with Islam, that only extremists like him ever make these points! (Except for His Grace of course.) So yes, His Grace must refer to him and those like him. If only those of the middle ground were brave enough to make such comments.

29 August 2007 at 15:51  
Blogger C4' said...

I volunteer to become a Protestant suicide bomber Your Grace, I have nothing else to live for.

29 August 2007 at 16:42  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

This is the eminent non-extreme British historian, Sir Martin Gilbert, praising that 'awful neocon' Professor Daniel Pipes to the heights. It's 4 minutes into the interview on Israeli TV on the need to destroy Hamas and all other fanatical Muslims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or_CQJxqktA

Oh, and Sir Martin totally agrees with Pipes on the so-called 'clash of civilizations'.

Once again, it seems to be Americans, and especially Jewish Americans (a mere 2% of that population), who get up the nose of some fellow posters:

I wonder why that is.

By the way, I was born in Manchester myself.

29 August 2007 at 16:46  
Blogger the doctor said...

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

By the way, I was born in Manchester myself .


Dr.Lancaster , I look upon you with new respect .

29 August 2007 at 17:27  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions?

Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ

Matthew 22:21

29 August 2007 at 18:42  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

This is the eminent non-extreme British historian, Sir Martin Gilbert, praising that 'awful neocon' Professor Daniel Pipes to the heights. It's 4 minutes into the interview on Israeli TV on the need to destroy Hamas and all other fanatical Muslims.

You do like your arguments from authority, don't you, Dr L? You even have to over-egg the pudding with 'eminent'. Sir Martin is Jewish and Jews want the West to fight their wars for them. We can see from Iraq where that leads.

Once again, it seems to be Americans, and especially Jewish Americans (a mere 2% of that population), who get up the nose of some fellow posters:

I wonder why that is.


Sheer hate-filled envy and prejudice. Americans and Jews, and especially the latter, are without fault or flaw. In a fallen world, this naturally attracts the hatred of the imperfect. How else to explain the longevity of antisemitism, for example?

Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions?

Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ...


Και οι Ιουδαιοι εισιν ο Θεος

29 August 2007 at 19:15  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Arguments from authority give credibility, breadth and appeal to the intellect as opposed to narrow opinion and invective.

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA, in common with the BBC, the Guardian, the University of Ottawa and the University of Western Ontario and many more use the term 'eminent' to describe Sir Martin Gilbert, it must be a big omelette.

29 August 2007 at 20:09  
Blogger AethelBald, King of Wessex said...

Dr Lancaster said: it seems to be ... Jewish ... who get up the nose of some fellow posters

It crosses my mind that Dr Lancaster may not be aware that "anti-Zionists are anti-semites" is a very tired meme that is endlessly trotted out by some Zionists.

29 August 2007 at 20:43  
Anonymous Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

Martin Gilbert is eminent not because he's Jewish, but because he is one of the world's greatest experts on the 2nd World War period, as well as on Churchill, who probably wasn't Jewish, as far as I know.

The problem with a great many of these postings is that they are based in prejudice and ignorance and need to be nipped in the bud.

If you can't see the difference between Martin Gilbert and yourself, then you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

I agree that we need to explore the reasons for antisemitism, but this thread possibly isn't the place. There are, however, plenty of books on the subject.

I can even recommend some if you access my own blog in the comments section (which I shall filter) and give me your e-mail details.

Lastly, I don't think I'm that snobbish. Tomorrow I start teaching music and singing to Arab children in Jaffa. It's a hell of a commute, by the way, but think how rewarding it'll be!

29 August 2007 at 20:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Martin Gilbert is eminent not because he's Jewish, but because he is one of the world's greatest experts on the 2nd World War period,

I just view him as an historian - one of many. The Second World War is a big canvas and too often West Europeans are besotted with their own piece of fabric completely oblivious to the Far East and the 14th Army, or Siberia or Korea or Hong Kong or Malaysia or even Poland, Ukraine, Crimea.

Besides which the appeal to authority and the attempt to discredit by association are the basic tricks of the Communist......whatever views people hold in one area may still permit them to serve up perfectly reasonable and rational assessments in another.

That is why intelligence is required to differentiate and why State Education has worked so hard to programme prejudices in place of thinking

30 August 2007 at 07:23  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Martin Gilbert is eminent not because he's Jewish,

I didn't claim he was. He is a knight because he says what the establishment likes, tho.

The problem with a great many of these postings is that they are based in prejudice and ignorance and need to be nipped in the bud.

The root of the problem -- as 'Mild' Mel Phillips often points out -- is irrationality and the post-modern abandonment of the concept of objective Truth. You and she have It, but your opponents won't admit it.

If you can't see the difference between Martin Gilbert and yourself, then you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

Could I be a bigger fool than you thought?

I agree that we need to explore the reasons for antisemitism, but this thread possibly isn't the place. There are, however, plenty of books on the subject.

I think I'm familiar with the genre: David Cesarani et al. The analysis seems to go: 'Poor Jews! Wicked goyim!' I don't think that's an entirely fair picture: antisemitism can be and often has been justified. Are you familiar with Amy Chua's World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability and the concept of the market-dominant minority? Jews, Armenians and overseas Chinese are examples.

Besides which the appeal to authority and the attempt to discredit by association are the basic tricks of the Communist......whatever views people hold in one area may still permit them to serve up perfectly reasonable and rational assessments in another.

Yes, but Gilbert's ethnicity is relevant nonetheless. As is Dr Lancaster's.

30 August 2007 at 18:21  
Anonymous najistani said...

OCCULT SYMBOLISM IN WORLD'S LARGEST MOSQUE CELEBRATES HUMAN SACRIFICE TO ALLAH

"A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. As unveiled in September 2005, the Crescent of Embrace would have been the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The insignificantly altered Bowl of Embrace redesign leaves every particle of structure from the original design fully intact. It will still be the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred.

The only change was to add a few irrelevant trees, slightly disguising the crescent structure, but a mosque is unaffected by how many trees are planted around it. There are a dozen typical mosque features. All are realized in the Crescent/Bowl design, all on the same epic scale as the giant mihrab. (See Crescent of Betrayal, especially download 2, Chapter Five.)

But this is no ordinary mosque. It is a terrorist memorial mosque, specifically honoring the hijackers of Flight 93."

More at http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2007/08/three-terrorist-memorializing-features.html

30 August 2007 at 21:38  
Anonymous Sunny said...

There is, of course, no reciprocity. While Muslims may build their mosques even in the Royal Parks of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Christians may not build churches in Islamic lands.

So your point is..... we should be as repressive as them?

Or are you just pissed off that Christians in Britain don't take religion as seriously any more?

Austria is of course allowed to make its own laws. But if it starts imitating Saudi Arabia then it's hardly a good development.

31 August 2007 at 00:39  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

"Austria is of course allowed to make its own laws. But if it starts imitating Saudi Arabia then it's hardly a good development. "

The more mosques a country gets the more it is likely to imitate Saudi Arabia being the point I would of guessed.

31 August 2007 at 18:52  
Blogger Steven_L said...

I sometimes have naughty thoughts that the better repsonse to 9/11 would have been for Bush to publicise the anti-Americanism all over the world, egt in a huff with everyone and say "We're re-arming."


Then wait until the West was begging to get back into bed wioth the USA.

Then surround the whole of the Middle East with 5th Generation fighters and an allied Navy and begin to negotiate new terms.

4 September 2007 at 04:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older