The Ground Zero Mosque And Religious Freedom, Part Four

I would like to continue our conversation regarding The Ground Zero Mosque, Religious Freedom, and Interfaith Dialog with Islam. Earlier posts on this topic can be found here (Part One, Part Two, & Part Three).

Johan Bonny has written what I consider to be a very helpful article entitled “Christian Witness and Ecumenism in a Society with a Muslim Majority“. (HT Stephen Hand ~ Time Out of Joint)  I especially appreciate how he deals with the issue of violence and how he refers folks to the life of Brother Charles de Foucauld.  I encourage everyone to read the entire article, but here are some highlights for your reference.

Christian and ecumenical witness is first of all related to the heart of the Gospel, to the example and the commandment of Jesus Christ. How can Christians live and profess together the essence of Christian faith: this is the key question in any ecumenical reflection. This question, however, leads to a deeper one: what is then the essence, the very heart of Christian faith? What is the specific genius of Christianity among the three monotheistic religions, that has Abraham as their common father in faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

…The dialogue between Christianity and Islam will certainly become a major challenge of the new millennium. No dialogue, however, has a chance, unless it is based on friendship and mutual trust. How can personal trust and friendship be improved, where Christians and Muslims are living together, day after day?

7 Responses to The Ground Zero Mosque And Religious Freedom, Part Four

  1. Teresa says:

    The problem is that there is such a lack of mutual trust between Muslims and non-Muslims. I think that many of the problems that those who want the mosque to be built are encountering could have been avoided if beforehand they had worked to “build bridges” and spoken out against terrorism – specific terrorist attacks or attempts, and eased the perception or reality of Muslims intolerance of Christians and their violence against Christians or non-Muslims before building the mosque a stone’s throw from Ground Zero or where part of one of the planes hit into a building on September 11, which could be considered to be Ground Zero.

  2. David Jones says:

    To my understanding that is exactly what this Imam has being doing. Refer to the 60 Minutes episode which I linked to in Part Three. He has worked directly with the U.S. Government in speaking out against terrorism and violence… To be sure much more can and should be done within the Muslim community on exactly this topic.

  3. Those opposing the Islamic center portray it as a propaganda win for the terrorists — given its proximity to ground zero.

    However, to NOT build the Islamic Center can equally be seen as a propaganda win for the terrorists — in that it affirms their characterization of the United States as an antagonist for Muslims.

  4. Andy says:

    A propaganda win for the terrorists if the Mosque isn’t built

    We are all a bunch of wimps today.

    If we don’t allow them to build the mosque then they’ll REALLY get mad at us.

    Dauud, my friend, your big on establishing personal bona fides before beginning your remarks, so let me say that I’ve personally catechized and lead to baptism two former-Muslims, and I’ve personally conducted an emergency baptism on another. (By the way, how many Muslims have you converted to the Faith?)

    Milquetoast Vatican II Catholicism will only convert little girly men.. and we already have enough of them… Give the Episcopalians the rest.

    Who actually is converting Muslims and what tactics are they using? Why not look at that instead? (That is if your true heart’s intent is to actually convert infidels.)

  5. Eric Brown says:

    Good point, Christopher.

  6. Art Deco says:

    However, to NOT build the Islamic Center can equally be seen as a propaganda win for the terrorists — in that it affirms their characterization of the United States as an antagonist for Muslims.

    Let ’em win that one. Our task is to develop a salutary pattern of relations between the larger society on the one hand and recent immigrants from the Near East and adjacent areas (on the other). Putting up with effrontery does not advance that end. (Quite apart from the disfigurement to the site of having a mosque there, almost as bad as turning it over to some starchitect to get his artistic rocks off).

  7. Lionel Andrades says:

    Significant for ecumenism with Christians and dialogue with Muslim is the Catholic understanding that all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II).

    On YouTube a lady shared an insight. It was: those who are in invincible ignorance are only known to God. Her post on YouTube was a comment on the video Dr. Scott Hahn Answers Three Questions which I posted on the internet last year. The lady says she too would answer the three questions with a YES.

    Scott was responding to a report on the blog eucharistandmission and sent me the answers via e-mail.

    In his answer to question 3 Scott Hahn is saying everyone with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church now to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.

    In his answer to question 2 he affirmed the probability of salvation for non Catholics in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire – which as the lady observed – is unknown to us and known only to God.

    So when meeting a non Catholic in Boston, Scott Hahn indicates in his answer to question 3 he would not assume the person is in invincible ignorance or has the baptism of desire.

    He would assume that the non Catholic he meets needs to enter the Church through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water.There were no exceptions in Boston.

    Dr.Scott Hahn is affirming the rigorist interpretation of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus while also maintaining there could be non Catholics in invincible ignorance etc who can be saved and they would be known only to God.

    So what Scott Hahn is repeating is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and not just his opinion. It would mean ALL Muslims in New York including the Imam and all Christians, a part of ecumenism, are on the way to Hell unles they enter the Catholic Church.

    So I can understand ecumenism being easy in a Muslim country where the Christians are a minority.

    However in New York after Ground Zero on Sept.11 we have the Islamic community which teaches exclusive salvation and has mission (Dawah). We have the Catholic community which also officially according to Church texts teaches exclusive salvation and has ecumenism as part of mission.

    So can there really be a united Christian ecumenism response to Islam?

%d bloggers like this: