Posted on 12/07/2006 10:26:19 AM PST by ZeitgeistSurfer
Many in the West are congratulating Pope Benedict XVI’s recent trip to Turkey, where in the Blue Mosque he prayed facing Mecca and made other gestures meant to salve the wounds raised by his references to Islam’s history of violence. Personally, I found the whole scene a depressing exhibit of the West’s terminal failure of nerve, one particularly distressing given this Pope’s documented understanding that what we call the “war on terror” is in fact the latest episode in the centuries-long struggle with a militant Islam.
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
Who's to say he was facing Mecca? Maybe he was praying in the direction of Jerusalem, or Djibouti, or Tahiti.
Good thing the Jews did not follow your logic otherwise there would be no State of Israel today.
The Hagia Sophia has no imam. It does have a curator.
which has been a mosque since FOURTEEN FIFTY THREE
It is not a mosque.
It was a church from 325-1453.
It was a mosque from 1453-1935.
It is now a museum.
It was a church more than twice as long as it was a mosque.
We'll give you Hagia Sophia, when you give us the Alhambra
The Alhambra was a palace, not a mosque.
i'm sure there was a portion of the Alhambra set aside for the royal household's personal prayer, the Alhambra was not even an important mosque, let alone one of the two most important mosques in the world.
and the pagans the Pantheon
The Pantheon belonged to the Emperor of Rome. It was his property to dispose of as he wished, and he decided to convert it into a church.
The hagia Sophia was not converted by its rightful owner.
A silly argument.
The ownership of the hagia Sophia was an established matter of law recognized internationally.
The Greeks were not squatting on property to which they had made no legal claim.
No, it is a cluster of buildings designed as an administrative center and residence for the Nazrid rulers of Granada.
If it is analogous to anything in Christian Constantinople, it is analogous to the palace of the Roman Emperor.
The State of Israel exists to provide the Jews with a homeland, following centuries of oppression. It does not exist to specifically avenge Hadrian's persecutions of the 2nd century CE.
Constantinople is Turkish, by Right of Conquest, a legal principle recognized by all parties from the beginning of time until the creeping liberalism of the 20th century. The same way that Constantinople was Romano-Byzantine by Right of Conquest (just ask the Antigonids who ruled Byzantium until they were conquered by the Romans). If you want to conquer it "back," then go right ahead. But don't pretend that the Turks don't have legal claim to it.
A cluster of buildings that featured a mosque. If you want another analogy, how about the Mezquita in Cordoba?
Well the Orthodox were robbed of their spritual homeland and it is right that they reclaim it just like the Spaniards did with the Reconquista.
The Orthodox tend to believe that they can live in Israel, but they can't reconquer their spiritual homeland. Only the Messiah can do that. Read Maimonides.
well put.
one of the many reasons why you're not the pope
Look, I have very little time to discuss with you but the double standards you use are fairly obvious. I'll just say this and close it from my side: the Jews reclaimed Israel by being, as you so eloquently put it, obsessed with Jerusalem. If it was legitimate for them so it is for others whose homeland was taken away by force.
I was under the impression that it was a Christian Church for 1000 years before it was forcefully converted to a mosque.
Correct....in the year 1453. Of course many Catholic churches in Spain were once mosques that were forcefully converted to churches. Not to mention the Mexico City Cathedral, built on top of the Grand Temple of the Aztecs (which I believe was not done with full Aztec consent). 600 year grievances tend not to be too productive.
The rites and rituals of all religions have specific meanings. Words and actions also have meaning. When a person from one faith performs actions (especially ritual actions) of another incompatible faith, it is heresy.
Islam in all its forms roundly and utterly rejects the foundation of Christianity, namely, that Jesus is God. Christianity in all its forms roundly and utterly rejects the foundations of Islam and all other religions.
The idea that he can have it both ways -- profess to be a One-Way-To-Heaven follower of Jesus, and pretend to (or really) pray to Mecca -- especially in the context of a mosque -- seems ludicrous to me.
I would like to hear others' views on this.
I remember reading sometime in the last few years that Egyptian lawyers were considering suing Israel in the Hague for the plunder taken by the Hebrews as they escaped from Pharoh as described in the book of Exodus.
A more appropriate comparison would be to propose the return of the mosque at Cordoba (now a Christian cathedral) to the Moslems. (The Alhambra, mentioned here several times, isn't a very good comparison because the Alhambra was not a religious edifice in the first place.)
Or the return of the Great Synagogue in Toledo, also now a Christian church, to Jewish worship.
Or for that matter, the return of all the pre-Reformation churches and cathedrals in England and Scotland to the Roman Catholic Church.
None of this is going to happen. History is history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.