From this story:
"The Supreme Court ruled in December 2010 that the closure was unlawful and ordered its reopening, but the city administration continues to ignore the ruling. Mayor Diani Budiarto has used several excuses to keep the church closed, most recently saying there should not be a Christian church on a street with an Islamic name."
By all appearances, the Interior Ministry has no qualms about rewarding the mayor for defying a supreme court order. Its proposal is emblematic of the country's approach to rising Islamic supremacism and the thuggery of groups like the Islamic Defenders Front in recent years: in all cases, take the path of least resistance.
"Bogor: offer to move church may be "a fatal trap"," by Mathias Hariyadi for AsiaNews, December 13:
Bogor (AsiaNews) - The Indonesian Ministry of Interior has put forward a way to end the controversy over the construction of the Yasmin Church: namely, to propose three alternative locations to the Church Council (GKI) compared to the initial site, which generated the dispute . But the Church of Yasmin Council says that changing the site is not the solution, but only adds a new chapter to a new problem.
They know better than to think that would be the end of the story, especially if it is the mayor's proposal. New complications would be invented. They might be told to start the process all over again for a permit at the new address.
This has the appearance of another delaying tactic to keep Yasmin Church from ever operating normally, in a backdoor enforcement of Sharia's prohibition on building or repairing churches, which is also the practical effect of the execrable permit system itself.
Opposition to the church building stemmed originally from the Mayor of Bogor, Diani Budiarto, who opposes the construction and now this opposition is supported by the Interior Minister Gamawan Fauzi, who said today to agree with Budiarto’s proposal: namely move the construction of the church to another place. According to Fauzi, the authorities in West Java have offered three sites that could be used for Yasmin Church, as an alternative to the place in dispute.
Yasmin Church spokesman, Bona Sigalingging however, tells AsiaNews that this option is not a solution to the problem, namely civil disobedience by Bogor Mayor Diani Budiarto. Even if the authorities in West Java offered three different locations free of charge, as announced by the Minister of the Interior, the GKI would not accept the offer. "We will not accept any proposal of that type. In our opinion, any offer to move the site of the church is illegal. " Bona complained about a series of "infringements of the law" committed by the Interior Ministry, which overlook the verdict issued by the Indonesian Supreme Court. "The state, of which the Interior Ministry is part, must apply the law, and not the opposite, offering alternative solutions to end the dispute," he said.
The GKI’s strong opposition to the relocation project is based on two basic reasons, according to Sigalingging. The first is of a legal nature, neither the Ombudsman nor the Indonesian Supreme Court has ever issued an option to place the construction of the Church elsewhere. Then there is a historical reason. The faithful of Citeking to Bekasi in West Java, received the offer to relocate the permanent site of the church in a hall owned by the local authority from Bekasi authorities. But the continuity of Sunday services is becoming uncertain.
"We will never accept this offer, because it could be a fatal trap for a religious minority group. The faithful have received the promise of Citeking local authorities to have their church, but so far the promise has vanished in the wind. " He also rejects claims by followers of Budiarto, that the Yasmin Church used false signatures for the permit and says this must be brought to the attention of the judges. "It is absolutely immoral and illegal that a charge based on false arguments become the basis of the government's decision to move the site of construction," says the spokesman of the Church Yasmin....
The behavior of this mayor is emblematic of muslims everywhere. "We'll do as we please. We will do as the sharia demands."
Explaining of course why muslims can never be sincerely American citizens. They may carry the title nominally, but not in the heart.
Pam Geller has several pending lawsuits where just this issue, obedience to the sharia, is playing out. In most American dhimmis are doing the heavy lifting for muslim supremacy.
Muslims consistently act like muslims. Islam at its base is force. (Islam itself is translated as submission.) And muslims practice force in every aspect of their lives, from household matters, to employment, to dealings with the outside world.
Fortunately more and more non-muslims are noticing how disfunctional islam and muslims are in pluralistic societies.
With the sound of a toilet flushing, Indonesian society also begins its descent into the filthy sewer of Islamic oppression and fundamentalist persecution of its Chritians.
Appeasement of Muslims never works....Just ask Israel which has much experience trying to appease Muslims..
oops that should read "Christians"
This reminded me of Obama's repeated refusal to comply with court orders regarding drilling for oil in the Gulf. Obama's defiance has gotten so grotesque as to sue the state of Arizona to facilitate an illegal alien invasion, which is about as close to a federal government declaration of war as one can get. Picture Obama driving a bus full of undocumented aliens across the Arizona state line armed with a court order and backed by national guard troops. The basis for the Obama suit is consistent with the proclaimed rational of Duty To Protect that was used in Libya.
Good words in governing documents are not self enforcing. Any executive branch can twist them to suit their purposes. Court opinions often twist by way of tweaking the issue or question so as to provide a slightly tangential answer. Perhaps one can think of all of law anywhere as nothing more than decorations on a skeleton of free speech, where the skeleton is forever under assault by some human seeking arbitrary power. It is not unique to Islam, though Islam is unique in that it has no core to work with from the start to escape tyranny for all.
Mary
you wrote: "Islam at its base is force. (Islam itself is translated as submission.) And muslims practice force in every aspect of their lives, from household matters, to employment, to dealings with the outside world."
Yes.
Islam is like the Creed of Lord Voldemort: "there is neither good nor evil, there is only Power, and those too weak to seek it".
In the 19th century, a clergyman and abolitionist in the USA wrote a book about world religions. His name was James Freeman Clarke - his second name was well given! - and the book was "Ten Great Religions", which thanks to Project Gutenberg may be read in its entirety online.
Chapter XI, 'Mohammed and Islam" reveals that he had done his homework, well and truly.
Here is a passage from section 5 of that chapter:
"Two recent travellers, Mr. Palgrave and Mr. Vambéry, have described the present state of Mohammedanism in Central Arabia and Turkistan, or Central Asia.
"Barth has described it as existing among the negroes in North Africa.
"Count Gobineau has told us of Islam as it is in Persia at the present day.
"Mr. MacFarlane, in his book "Kismet, or the Doom of Turkey," has pointed out the gradual decay of that power, and the utter corruption of its administration.
"After reading such works as these,—and among them let us not forget Mr. Lane's "Modern Egyptians,"—the conclusion we must inevitably come to is, that the worst Christian government, be it that of the Pope or the Czar, is very much better than the best Mohammedan government.
'Everywhere we find arbitrary will taking the place of law.
“In most places the people have no protection for life or property, and know the government only through its tax-gatherers.
“And all this is necessarily and logically derived from the fundamental principle of Mohammedan theology. God is pure will, not justice, not reason, not love.
'Christianity says, "God is love"; Mohammedanism says, "God is will." Christianity says, "Trust in God"; Mohammedanism says, "Submit to God."
'Hence the hardness, coldness, and cruelty of the system; hence its utter inability to establish any good government..".
And there is more, in section 6 .
'Mr. Palgrave, who has given the latest and best account of the condition of Central and Southern Arabia, under the great Wahhabee revival, sums up all Mohammedan theology as teaching a Divine unity of pure will.
'God is the only force in the universe. Man is wholly passive and impotent.
'He calls the system, "A pantheism of force."
'God has no rule but arbitrary will.
'He is a tremendous unsympathizing autocrat, but is yet jealous of his creatures, lest they should attribute to themselves something which belongs to him.
'He delights in making all creatures feel that they are his slaves.
'This, Mr. Palgrave asserts, is the main idea of Mohammedanism, and of the Koran, and this was what lay in the mind of Mohammed."
There it is, Mary: the wise words of one Mr Palgrave, quoted by james Freeman Clarke in the 19th century, defining the Islamic system as "A pantheism of force."
True dat.