Why no hand-wringing about "tolerance" and "religious freedom"? Of course, in Indonesia few people are concerned about such things, and if anyone makes a comparison with the resistance to the construction of Islamic supremacist mosques in the U.S., someone will be quick to pipe up and say, "Are you saying that the U.S. should imitate Indonesia (or Saudi Arabia, etc.) in its intolerance?"
Of course not. The differences in the two situations need to pointed out and brought to public attention. Non-Muslims oppose the mosque at Ground Zero because it will be regarded in the Islamic world as a triumphal mosque, and because of the duplicity of its organizers. They oppose other mosques elsewhere because of their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." Muslims in Indonesia, in contrast, oppose the building of churches out of the Islamic supremacist notion that non-Muslims in Muslim countries must "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).
"Muslims in Bekasi, Indonesia Oppose Another Church Building," from Compass Direct News, October 13 (thanks to Twostellas):
JAKARTA, Indonesia, October 13 (CDN) -- Islamic organizations have mounted a campaign against the planned construction of Mother Teresa Catholic Church in West Java Province, where Christian leaders report 20 other churches have faced Muslim hostility since 2009.Muslim leaders said plans for the Mother Teresa church in the Lippo Cikarang property project in the Cikarang area will make it the largest church building in Bekasi City. Adang Permana, general chairman of the Bekasi Islamic Youth Movement, said Bekasi area Muslims oppose the church building because they fear it will become "a center of Christianization," according to the Islamic website Hidayatullah.com.
"This church will become the center of apostasy and clearly disturb the faith of Bekasi citizens, who are mostly Muslims," Permana said, according to the website. "In addition to rejecting this parish church, we also call for the disbanding of all unauthorized churches in Bekasi Regency [City]," he stated. A church leader, however, said area residents had approved the presence of the church.
Adang said opposition to the church was based in the Islamic roots of the city.
"Historically, sociologically, and demographically, Bekasi cannot be separated from Islam, with the cleric K.H. Noer Ali as one of the founders and developers of the city," Adang told Hidayatullah.com. "Because of this, we reject the church."
H.M. Dahlan, coordinator of United Muslim Action of Bekasi, also expressed fear that the church would become a center of Christianization in Bekasi.
"Bekasi Muslims reject the presence of this church," Dahlan said in a letter that he has circulated among mosques in the Bekasi area. In it he states that plans for the Mother Teresa church would make it the largest church building in southeast Asia. The letter has reportedly generated much unrest among area residents.
At a recent press conference, Dahlan said Unified Muslim Action of Bekasi, along with "all Muslims, mosque congregations, leaders of women's study groups, Quranic schools, and Islamic education foundations have firmly decided to reject the construction of Mother Teresa Catholic Church in Cikarang and request that the Bekasi Regency cancel all [construction] plans."
The Islamic groups also called on Bekasi officials to clamp down on "illegal churches" meeting in homes and shops and to block "all forms of Christianization" in the area. Local government officials frequently stall Christian applications for building and worship permits, opening the way for Islamic groups to accuse churches of being "illegal."
The Mother Teresa church applied for a building permit in 2006, but the Bekasi government has not yet acted on the application, said a clergyman from the church identified only as Pangestu. He added that his church has met all requirements of 2006 Joint Ministerial Decrees No. 8 and No. 9, but the permit has still not been granted. The 2006 decrees require at least 60 non-Christian residents to agree to the construction of a church building, and the congregation must have at least 90 members....
Religious intolerance rising among Indonesian Muslims
About 57.8 per cent of Muslims oppose the construction of churches or other non-Muslim place of worship. Only 27.6 per cent accept that non-Muslim teachers teach Muslims. The absence of government policy and unrestrained schools and teachers are among the causes of the rising fundamentalism.
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Religious-intolerance-rising-among-Indonesian-Muslims-19635.html
We have protests of mosques in America that aren't tied to the "Muslim Brotherhood" or whatever conspiracy theory that's being peddled concerning Islam these days. Having dealt with it, I assure you that it isn't fun. So, having said that I DO still find it intensely ironic that you of all people would tut tut Indonesians for rejecting an invasive foreign religion while so many of those who follow your blog are suggesting the same thing in regard to Islam.
When you end your support for a man who wants to ban the Qur'an and quite possibly Islam (Wilders), end support of mosque protests and end your support of discriminatory law against Muslims (Swiss minaret ban, I'm looking at you) then can you come out and say Indonesia is being absurd. Seriously, you want these people to roll over and play dead for the religion of their former colonial masters and then claim something is exceptional in regard to Islam as the religion most associated with acts of terrorism today?
Now with all that said, the people of Indonesia are definitely in the wrong for placing opposition to the construction of churches. Religious discrimination is quite dangerous, it's a real powder keg situation. Consider this folks as you claim to be the vanguard of plurality while opposing the construction of new mosques in America.
"Mideast conflict blamed for Christian exodus"
i.e., "It's the Jews fault that Muslims are persecuting and killing Christians...."
Bishops at Vatican synod say "occupation" (Jews living in historic dar al Islam) causes difficulties for Palestinian Christians.....
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3969172,00.html
"Some 185 bishops are taking part in the synod from Latin and Eastern rite Catholic churches across the region and from the diaspora. In addition, two Muslim imams and a rabbi were invited to address the synod.
"Patriarch Gregory III, archbishop of the Greek-Melkites in Damascus, Syria, said fundamentalist movements such as Hamas or Hezbollah had been born from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (of course, as with everything else, it's the Jews fault....it's Jesus' fault. After all, wasn't Jesus also a Jew?) and warned Tuesday that the resulting flight of Christians would make a "society with only one color: only Muslim."
"Should this happen, should the East be emptied of its Christians, this would mean that any occasion would be propitious for a new clash of cultures, of civilizations and even of religions, a destructive clash between the Muslim Arab East and the Christian West," he said.
"American Cardinal John Foley, a longtime Vatican official who now raises money to support Christian sites in the Holy Land, also said the conflict had contributed to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism but blamed Israeli policies specifically....."
Yes of course, it's the Jews' fault. Indeed.
"Religious discrimination is quite dangerous..."
You're right, subjugation and/or death is a little more than dangerous, do you think? With Islam, it's a one way street. No plurality, no quarter given when they are strong enough to terrorize at will. End of discussion. When you come up with a workable plan that seperates political Islam from Islam, get back to me.
People in the West do not like Islam because it is violent, supermacist, and primitive faith and way of life.
They do not have problem with budhists, or hindus, or jews.
Consequently, there is no anti synagogue or anti other shrines referendums, and the majority of the jews live in the West.
Consequently, Wilders does not have a problem with hindus, or buddhists, or jews.
Islam, on the other hand, is against everybody.
Leaving Islam is forbidden in most of the muslim world, including in "secular" /by the low muslim standarts/ countries like Syria.
In the islamic "thinking" , nobody, no religion, should be able to proselytize and expand in muslim lands, while muslims should be able to proselytize and spread Islam in non - muslim lands.
Which shows that the muslims are similar to the Nazis and Islam is a form of fascism.
Hey Gerbil,
The main distinction between opposition in US and Indonesia is that in America we are opposed on moral grounds (i.e. not building the GZM as a supremacist victory mosque located TOO CLOSE to GZ) whereas the churches are opposed on legal grounds as set forth via sharia. Probably not much of a distinction to you but please don't compare the religious (legal) intolerance inherent in islam with the moral disgust people have with specific mosques.
"People in the West do not like Islam because it is violent, supermacist, and primitive faith and way of life.
They do not have problem with budhists, or hindus, or jews."
You should qualify your statement with "They do not have a problem TODAY with Buddhists or Hindus or Jews." Even that seems like a real stretch considering a few *minor* incidents that have occurred in living memory in Europe in the past century. I won't even bring up the Holocaust, we can just go with tremendous opposition Jews faced when they tried to return to places like Poland. Facing huge mobs of non-Nazi Polish Christians shouting things like "Hitler should have finished the job" and so on.
How is it that Christians could *possibly* be this way about that "older brother" in religion known as Judaism? Could it have something to do with the way their progenitor faith is depicted in the New Testament? What makes you so darn certain that such an attitude can not come about again?
Secularism is what has made Europe and America great and this secularism has come about in spite of invasive Abrahamic religion, not because of it. The dharmic religions are largely immune to this nonsense, the core problem always has been and always will be a belief in no god but God.
Yeah, and we wouldn't have a problem with islam today either if it weren't for all your co-religionists around the globe destroying and killing in the name of islam. By the way, when you can prove that Nazism is directly associated to the teachings of Christians or supported based on Christian beliefs we can discuss further; for now, it seems like there are many more similarities between Nazism and islamism but nice attempt trying to insinuate that there's something in the New Testament that led to the holocaust.
Nazism is mostly dead, with it's brains blown out and still burning.
Japanese imperialism was bombed into the stone age.
Communism is gasping for life (goodbye Russia, Red Cuba, soon to be Red China).
Islam is yet _another_ political movement that bows before the impoverished, the uneducated, the downtrodden, promising booty and barbaric outlets for baser instincts in order to perpetuate itself further.
Even if dar al harb were be to converted solely to dar al islam, there would STILL be no peace between the ahmadiyya, salafi, sunni, shi'a, et al. Bring up Northern Ireland all you want for xtians, it will certainly be no better. At least the Irish didn't detonate bombs in South Africa after a temper tantrum because they wouldn't send guns to the cause.
I think the problem is here is that the west FINALLY got it, the baptists can still talk to the methodists in the same room as the presbyterians and catholics, and for some reason they have no urge to pull pins on pineapples.
However, islam is not xtianity with a weird tangent to space jesus bringing a crystal decoder ring and magic disappearing tablets.... and I don't think that has come about just yet.
"but nice attempt trying to insinuate that there's something in the New Testament that led to the holocaust. "
There is a 2,000 year old deicide charge levied against the Jews stemming from the Bible. In many interpretations of the New Testament over the years, Christians have often seen it as the Jews or at the least the Jewish priestly caste that executed Jesus. Now, why exactly would the Sanhedrin have killed Jesus? Perhaps it was for the same reason that they killed St. Stephen in the book of Acts, APOSTASY! That's right, under Jewish law the penalty for apostasy is death! You can ask Moses about that one, after all, he killed EVERYONE who reverted to polytheism in the Old Testament.
It's certainly not accurate to make this claim in my mind, as an outsider to the Christian faith. However, it strangely seems to come up again and again among Christians. The Holocaust is merely greatest manifestation of this anti-Semitic attitude that had permeated Europe for centuries. Do you truly believe that the Jews would have been the scapegoat of choice had it not been for false accusations that they killed God?
When Mel Gibson, a now completely unmasked anti-Semite, released his film the Passion of the Christ it was considered "Biblically accurate". Interestingly, it was widely protested by Jews! Now why would they want to protest this... what with all of that *positive history* of passion plays throughout the history of Europe.
"and for some reason they have no urge to pull pins on pineapples."
What reason would that be? What major event caused the other two Abrahamic religions to suddenly be inoculated against religiously mandated violence while Islam is the lone aggressor?
Here's my answer, it simply hasn't happened. Secularism has certainly delivered a terrific wound to Abrahamic religion and perhaps some day it can reform these faiths into peaceful expressions of faith. However, the core problem with these religions lies in their belief in only one deity. If you believe that there is no god but God, all other belief systems are false at best or demonic at worst. This is why, in spite of a supposed doctrine of turn the other cheek, Christendom has classically been the WORST OFFENDER when it comes to religious violence.
Nothing about that has changed. Remove the protective hedge of secularism and the relative dominance of the West over most of the world and you'll find Judaism and Christianity back to their old habits. By the same token, similar measures can be applied to Muslims.
It is not clear that secularism made the West great, the Soviet Union was furiously secular, and you know their fate.
It is a combination of secularism, freedom of religion, the greco - roman concept of democracy, as well as the Christian Reformation.
Then there is “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” , which came from Christianity.
What makes me "certain that such an attitude /against the jews/ can not come about again" is the fact, that in the West, political and societal evolution is possible. For example you should look at the sexual revolution. We learn from our mistakes.
But I do not see genuine evolution in the islamic world, only copying of already developed Western values.
So, as i said.
People in the West do not like Islam because it is violent, supermacist, and primitive faith and way of life.
They do not have problem with budhists, or hindus, or jews.
Consequently, there is no anti synagogue or anti other shrines referendums, and the majority of the jews live in the West.
Consequently, Wilders does not have a problem with hindus, or buddhists, or jews.
Islam, on the other hand, is against everybody.
Leaving Islam is forbidden in most of the muslim world, including in "secular" /by the low muslim standarts/ countries like Syria.
In the islamic "thinking" , nobody, no religion, should be able to proselytize and expand in muslim lands, while muslims should be able to proselytize and spread Islam in non - muslim lands.
Which shows that the muslims are similar to the Nazis and Islam is a form of fascism.
Christendom is the WORST religious offender? Considering that Islam is 500 years YOUNGER and STILL going full-steam into that dark tunnel of apocalypse, you want to keep making that claim?
Are you counting pure death-dealing here, or can we count the enslavement of MILLIONS of Asians and Africans, the horrific atrocities committed against women and children, the destruction of historical and artistic properties, the humiliation and dhimmitude for centuries, and the continued anti-Semitic aggression?
I guess what all matters is perception of what is worse, and some people can ignore the cow shit in their back yard if it helps the grass grow.
I counted all of that Dead and still I found Christianity to be the worst offender, by a longshot. Just by virtue of sectarian violence alone, Christianity is the worst offender. Also, it's a 600 year difference, not 500.
The problem is that Christianity is an obligatory religion and is "the one true way". This means that only one of these competing factions can ever be "right". So even in its inception, Christians have been persecuting other Christians. Islam suffers from the exact same malady for the exact same reason.
We have found that Christianity can be contained or perhaps muzzled here in the West. This is a great thing. The same can be applied to Islam and will be. Islam will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern era just as the other two faiths were. We have to focus on the fact that there is a problem with Islam TODAY but there is always the spectre of problems with Christianity and Judaism in the future.
Ladies and gentlemen
why, if the Mohammedan GerbilTea is so convinced that 'Abrahamic religions' (note the Muslim terminology: the idea of 'Abrahamic religion' is an exclusively Muslim idea, cooked up quite recently in order to dupe Jews and Christians into thinking Muslims their long-lost relatives) are all bad, and all equally bad, does he continue to call himself a Muslim, and post here, frantically throwing taqiyya-and-tu-quoque all over the place in defence of...Islam?
Surely, if he regards 'the dharmic religions' as superior and more peaceful and tolerant, he should be jettisoning Islam altogether and trotting off to the nearest Buddhist temple, or else practising his yoga and meditation techniques and diligently reading up on the Rig Veda and the Bhagavad Gita?
And note that he has managed to substantially divert attention from the ugly reality that in Indonesia on more than one occasion Indonesian Christians are being prevented from a. building churches for public worship and b. prevented from gathering in small groups as what might be called 'house churches' in 'non-church' buildings.
The Muslims tell the Christians - "you are not allowed to meet *except* in a proper 'church' building...but (Catch 22) .we won't allow you to have a proper 'church' either, so...you won't be able to meet ANYWHERE...BWAHAHAHA."
Seems like the most zealous sharia-pushers want to turn Indonesia, a few more years down the track, into a replica of Saudi Arabia, where no religion except Islam is permitted to be seen or heard, and where NO Christian - or Hindu - or Buddhist, or anything else non-Islamic - worship practice or gathering of ANY kind, even just two or three people meeting to pray in whispers inside a private residence, is permitted, at all, at all.
I urge any new readers here who may have been confused by GerbilTea's obstinate and even robotic repetition of the 'Abrahamic religion' claim - which specious claim is, at bottom, merely a tool of Muslim da'wa, intended to confuse Jews and Christians and destroy the way in which they understand and have understood themselves - to acquire and consult Mark Durie, 'Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity and Islam'.
(Despite the title, Durie's book substantially covers not only the absolute opposition between the core assumptions of Christianity and those of Islam, but also the absolute opposition between the core assumptions of Judaism, and those of Islam. Bat Yeor, who is Jewish, gave it a good chit).
I quote a small portion of the introduction, just to give an idea of what Durie is arguing:
"A careful study of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity shows that the LORD God of the Bible and Allah of the Quran are different in many respects. They have such different personalities, and different capacities, that they cannot be said to be the same. They can be said to have some attributes in common, but in other ways they are so profoundly distinct that to claim that they are the same god would only be misleading".
And here is the link for Bat Yeor's review of Durie's book:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219405/which-one-god/bat-yeor
A sample from that review:
"The author analyses with great clarity and depth the fundamental principles of the two religions and, in a powerful chapter that raises essential questions,
"he discusses the concept of “Abrahamic Faith” that has become so fashionable today as a framework for dialogue.
"This definition, he points out, originates from the Koranic statement that Abraham was a Muslim prophet and from Islam’s core doctrine that Islam was the one revelation given to humanity by Allah through the Biblical figures and through Jesus.
"For Durie, the many “Abrahamic Faith” conferences throughout the world point to the Islamization of Christian understandings of interfaith dialogue.
"How should Christians respond to this claim which is a fundamental point of Muslim doctrine?
"Durie develops several arguments based on a rational analysis of history and the texts.
"In his conclusion, Durie writes that profound contrasts exist in Islam and Christianity in their understanding of the identity of God.
"These have far-reaching implications, affecting attitudes, ethics, and politics."
Although Rev Dr Durie is a Christian priest, I think that non-Muslims of all persuasions will find much in his book that is useful; it will certainly expose to them the full extent of the peculiar rhetorical/ theological con-job that Muslims attempt to pull upon both Jews and Christians.
"why, if the Mohammedan GerbilTea is so convinced that 'Abrahamic religions' (note the Muslim terminology: the idea of 'Abrahamic religion' is an exclusively Muslim idea, cooked up quite recently in order to dupe Jews and Christians into thinking Muslims their long-lost relatives) are all bad, and all equally bad, does he continue to call himself a Muslim, and post here, frantically throwing taqiyya-and-tu-quoque all over the place in defence of...Islam?"
It's not defense of Islam in particular but defense of secularism instead of blind devotion to religious law. As I have stated before, all three of these faiths are dangerous in the wrong hands and have shown themselves to be the most dangerous faiths that mankind has ever known. My admission of being a Muslim does not mean that I am unwilling to look at Islam critically which is why I criticize all of the faiths. There are many ways in which I feel Islam is right for me and my family. I came to this religion from an atheist background which was always highly critical of the "indigenous" religion of Christianity. As such, I feel I need to look objectively at the core problems surrounding these three faiths.
As to your claim that Islam isn't an Abrahamic faith, I say "whatever". If you want to make that claim then I may as well tell you that Christianity is completely pagan mythology dressed up as a monotheistic religion. So much of Christianity's background is like Islam's: pagan in origin. Despite the obvious pagan influences in both (and even in Judaism... Baal, Leviathan, "Esther", their chief deity was likely a product of henotheism etc) I have a firm belief that these religions can teach a great truth that God is one. Perhaps mankind had to come to this belief only first through rejecting polytheism and henotheism, who knows?
What I do know is that belief in many deities lends itself well to a tolerant attitude of new belief systems and very likely new ideas as well. Religious persecution of monotheists only came after their refusal to do what polytheists thought natural: accept their gods and mutually worship them as your own. Monotheism can not do this, it is intolerant by nature and this intolerance can lead to extreme displays of fanaticism.
I don't defend that about Islam which is backwards and insane, there's a lot of that to critique. What I also will never defend is comparable insanity in the other two faiths and this smug/naive belief that somehow they have grown beyond their troubled past.
For example, I will readily tell you that I am against female circumcision in all circumstances as well as male circumcision. In both cases, the most sensitive portion of the person's body is being butchered for the sake of cultural, religious or dubious medical reasons. However, in the West, circumcision for men is defended as being done for health concerns. This is ludicrous, there is a large body of evidence to suggest it causes trauma in infants and that the prepuce acts as a protective sheath rather than some genital appendix. Over 2/3rd of the most sensitive nerve endings in a man's body are severed for this "health benefit".
That's hypocritical and that's a practice consistent with halacha and (optionally) with shari'a. There's plenty of other examples of ancient barbarism still carried out under the banner of religion and most fall with Islam's domain. I do not believe it will be that way in perpetuity and I expect that Islam will see reform the way other faiths have. Why the exceptionalism though for the faiths not so far removed from Islam?
GerbilTea notes:
"We have protests of mosques in America that aren't tied to the "Muslim Brotherhood" or whatever conspiracy theory that's being peddled concerning Islam these days."
However there are some glitches in that theory...it seems both Imam Rauf and his father have direct ties to "the Muslim Brotherhood"...
And as we know, the "Muslim Brotherhood" is dedicated to death and destruction of infidels, especially Jews and Americans...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2514305/posts
It's not a church.
It's a cultural center that just happens to have a prayer room in it.
Bite me.
-Pope Pius X
"would tut tut Indonesians for rejecting an invasive foreign religion." by GerbilTea
I am sure he is talking about the Islamic religion.
Indonesia has a genuine, independent Human Rights Commission that tries hard, against autocratic government and sharia-pushers both in and outside parliment. The HRC will possibly do some "hand-wringing about tolerance and religious freedom" but the public and populists ignore it. The Javan people tend to be very imperialistic too - Indonesia is a Javan empire by conquest since 1946, and Islam wasn't even a significant presence in the eastern regions (Bali, Ambon/Moluccas, Sulawesi, West Papua), before the Javan conquest and 'transmigration' of millions of people into the conquered areas.
dumbledoresarmy, thanks for the recommendation of Dr Durie's "Revelation? Do We Worship The Same God?". I knew Dr Durie when he was an academic Linguist at the excellent University of Melbourne. He had lived in Indonesian Aceh for a number of years and still researched the language and culture. Aceh was the home of an Islamic separatist movement - the Javans took control of a former Sultanate - so Dr Durie studied the language and ideas of islamic supremicists first hand for years.
After he became a Christian minister, I was frustrated to miss his seminar on this topic, so now i will read the book.
GerbilTea is a troll not a debater. He should be ignored.
In referance to the gerbil brain huminist who admits to being a moslem....a follower of a dead man from Mecca who was a thug, a murderer of the innocent, a child molester and a extortioner his words are empty. True Christians and Hebrews do not follow the same train of facist thought at all of even the most basic moslem thought of having all submit to their law. They do not kill or mutilate those who leave their faith. As a follower of the risen Lord Jesus Christ King of all Kings I look forward to the day of his return to Jerusalem to show who rules in love.
david
You probably already know this, but he has a website and a blog
http://www.markdurie.com/
http://markdurie.blogspot.com/
But unlike the isolated Protestant denominations, the Catholics are BIG, and their local spokesman, Father Dani, sounds like he's up for a fight.
He's declared he'll go to court and reckons there are 'still some honest judges left.'
See Ross's Right Angle expat blog for an update http://rossrightangle.info/
"Someone will be quick to pipe up and say, 'Are you saying that the U.S. should imitate Indonesia (or Saudi Arabia, etc.) in its intolerance?'"
Haha, so true, Robert. That's exactly what Richard Cohen did a couple of months ago!
Writes Cohen: "I would also note that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. Applying Gingrichian logic, it follows that no Muslim women should be allowed to drive in the United States and its possessions and territories—or, for that matter, use a BlackBerry, since the United Arab Emirates is about to block some of its key functions. I’m sure Gingrich would agree."
I posted this in FB with comment "why should we allow building of mosques in europe". I was asked right away why in europe moslem should not be allowed to freely?
It is surprising how people cannot read between the lines and understand what is happening there will happen to europe.
Europe is boasting all about multiculturalism that is used as an argument against all those who critizise islamization.
Multiculturalism is a failed idea because the spread of islam and danger to our freedom is feeding on it.