Muslims Converting Empty European Churches into Mosques

Mate we are talking about Napoleon, not general history. Stay on topic.

Which facts prove what I said wrong or invalidate my claims? The Napoleonic code was not introduced until 1804, thus legislation from 1792 is irrelevant.

 

Getting back to the topic:

If people wish to buy and sell property, including religious buildings, they should be entirely free to do so. If European law is so tyrannical as to bar this general practice, then it should be called as it is - oppressive and immoral.

 

Clic on link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_code ... scroll down to "Important Civil Codes", then "France", and read: "In force."

No, your "article" (I'm being generous in calling your yahoo link that way) is pure bias. It takes from Wiki what it wants and leaves important things such as the tidbit about divorce which would have completely contradicted your claim. It's dishonest to the point of being ridiculous, but that is to be expected.Anyway it is good to hear you praise Americans here

Very bad move on his part, but he probably was inspired by the Brits who were still practicing slavery.

That should teach you

 

Show me where it says "France has the same entire body of law as was introduced under Napoleon" or the equivalent.

So the other bit about divorce contradicts the all males schools and the lack of rights for woman and black people? If so, explain how it contradicts it.

No, he was most likely motivated by money, especially since some Americans still wanted to keep slavery alive as a legitimate and active industry. As for the British, they are irrelevant, but to put your mind at ease, I do not believe they were any better than the French.

LOL Teach me what - that you cant debate? I learned that ages ago.

 

You are so full of it. Before you can claim it was backward because it did not grant the same rights to women, you need to show me one country in Europe who did. But you can't. So that is the end of it. And while France was becoming democratic despite the bloody Brits trying to stop it, your Australia was declared Terra nullius. You have no ground to stand on so go yap with your pack of dingos

 

LOL You began to defend the Napoleonic codes tyranny by saying "for the time it was good." I have maintained since I said it was tyrannical that, regardless for the time, it was unfair and backward. I still dont accept the idea it need be better or worse than its contemporaries for me to make this statement. As to its comparison with other laws of other societies at the time, this would require I read up on the laws of other societies, something I do not plan to do. However, as I did mention the US before, I would still argue the clear directive of establishing equality of the sexes in law and social policy, like education, was superior than to that of the French.

See above. I dont have to to make the point I did.

Oh I get it now. You keep using limy as like a British insult thing. LOL Epic fail. You should have said pommies, I think that's more offensive to Brits, but I'm Aussie so it doesnt actually relate to me anyway. As for the Brits trying to stop the French from being democratic, that's debatable. Perhaps you'd best clarify what you men. As for the British empire, and particularly Australia, yes the British, for all their exporting of political and economic innovation (of which they half stole from others to begin with or created via killing each other), is hard to admire next to their near Nazi-like attitude in colonizing and repressing others. Australia is probably a poor example of this, but a relevant one. In India, the British were absolutely brutal. Indeed, it would be fair to say the British, and other European empires mind you, played an extensive role in setting these countries up as poor and crippled entities upon entering the 20th century.

LOL I have plenty of ground. Given neither one of us seems prepared to concede, perhaps we can get back to more relevant discussion?

I'll restate my earlier attempt:

If people wish to buy and sell property, including religious buildings, they should be entirely free to do so. If European law is so tyrannical as to bar this general practice, then it should be called as it is - oppressive and immoral.

What's your response to that?

 

I disagree, and I agree to a certain extent.

Most religious buildings in Belgium are from high historical value, so no.

For all buildings of high historical value, I want to conserve them and let them be open to the public. History is from, and for, everybody.

Now, if we were talking about curches bullt in the 1960's and they are of no historical or achitectural value -- then I agree that they should be traded freely and I should have no say what happens to them.

 

Sure but, ultimately then, you need to take wealth from everyone to do so. Problems arise when some people do not want to preserve these buildings but also in application - how many is enough? What's more, what if one were simply to say they want to create new history by turning the building into something else? I guess my real question is, why should people have to pay for something whose value is subjective and to which they do not agree with? How and why do you place a value on historical buildings.

But they are historical and DO have architectural value. Your argument is contradictory. How can you place a value on age? How can you possibly do this objectively? You cant.

 

He's hit the nail on the head.

Some catholic churches are closing but most are C of E.
People in the UK are turning away from the old religions so less churches are needed.
Most have ended up as bars or small business workshops but some are becoming mosques.

Only because you have totally failed to research properly.
I watched the decline of the UK churches first hand so I'm aware of the real situation.

There is a real need for mosques as there is an influx of new Muslims from abroad, new children of Muslims in the UK and more and more British Christians converting to Islam.

 

Why do you need to go to the extreme in everything...

You are turning my point, which is highly practical, into an extremist philosophical argument...

Why do folks have to pay taxes that is used for healthcare when they are never sick? Why do folks pay taxes that is spent on public transportation when they always use their cars?

Even more, I don't believe in a world purely based on "ratio" -- which is the undercurrent of your post. You seek purity. (= boring).

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

Because that is how you test the durability, consistency and thus validity of an ethical or political position.

It isnt practical at all, and it is very extreme. Any tyranny is extreme. What you describe is tyranny, imho.

Dont change the subject, although to answer your questions, because healthcare and transportation are shared interests - paying for the preservation of old buildings is not. However, when it comes to healthcare and transportation, these things should only be funded by the government where a market, that is free individual choice and activity does not effectively allow for such interest to be met and achieved.

Could you elaborate on this?

Could you please answer my questions:

1. Why should people have to pay for interests that are individualistic and not shared?
2. How and why do you place a value on historical buildings?

 

Jan, I am sorry but it simply not credible that most or even many religious buildings are of 'high historical value' age does not nessisarily imply that they are of architectural or historical significance. Yes some undoubtedly are but very few would argue that they should be demolished or altered. What is being argued is that where a religious organisation say the Church of Ireland*feels that it has a surplus of buildings that it cannot or no longer wishes to maintain, primarily as a result of a fall in parishoners they should be able to sell it. It is doubtful that a great building of great worth or historical significance would be off loaded by a church as they have great intrinsic value and would be much prized by the religious organisation.

In the unlikely event of a significant historical building or great architectural or asthetic beauty being sold it is even more doubtful that significant alternations could be performed on a building of great historical value as most european countries operate some form of preservation order or listed building system. Where such structures are protected from alterations and works that can be carried out are restricted to conservation works and modernisations that are sympathetic to the original structure both of which must be overseen by conservationists.

Converting a church to a mosque makes it no less open to the public, Muslims do not prevent non Muslims from visiting their places of worship (saving Mecca) so it is not as if those interested in the church would be prevented from visiting, but as always be respectful of religious services etc.

* This is not an uncommon occurance here, in my village the CofI church was sold in the 50's and has since become a branch of an undertakers functioning as a removal home for Catholic funerals.

 

*sigh*

Flemish organization for Immovable Heritage conducted almost half-a-century of continous research. Every single building that has historical or achitectual value is listed. One can buy such a building, but there are regulations (e.g. one can not change the exterior and/or interior, or has to preserve certain elements). Even if it is not listed, the local government still has to review every single building plan of any private citizen (that has to be published publicly) -- to which any person or organization can protest, in court if neccessary.

It is higly organized, on the federal, regional, communal, provincial and local levels...

This is not a foreign concept for you since Australia has something in the trend of that too (e.g. national heritage sites, and I'm sure cities like Sydney or Melbourne have local so-called "Heritage Cells" as well).

 

Ryan,...

In case you didn't notice, some posterts are demanding a complete free market in which any building can be bought by a person/group/organization that has the deepest pockets and then can do whatever they want. To that, I say: no.

Converting a church into a mosque demands re-building, in case you didn't noticed but a lot of churches are bult in the shape of cross to begin with...

Now, if we are talking about curches of the 1950's*1960's -- a lot of them were built in pseudo "international style" and aren't in the shape of a cross -- so I see little problem with those buildings...

Converting churches into mosques is not that very practible to begin with...

 

And the topic of the tread is the conversion of churches and other religious buildings to mosques and the outrage it is greeted with by certain elements of the far right.

I had noticed however conversion to a mosque does not require a massive rebuild of the churches, their is no requirement for a minaret or a dome, no more than it is required that a church has a steeple or nave, Most churches face east (to Jerusalem) so their is seldom even the need to re orientate the building. And as there are pre-existing protections for buildings of significant historical or architectural significance it is not as though damage is being done to our heritage.

If the Muslim community saw such a problem they would not be purchasing the building, far more practical and less controversial to purchase another site.

If it was not practical the Muslim community who wished to find a place of worship would not be buying the church in the first place.

 

Tyranny - all of it. Please answer my questions about the validity of these programs to see for yourself.

 

Tyranny to preserve our heritage, would you really be okay with Stonehenge being bulldozed or the Eiffel Tower being melted for scrap?

 

Oh no, if you want to preserve your heritage by all means go ahead - its tyrannical to expect others to do it for you.

If acquired by consent, sure. Quite sure these are both literally owned by the government and make money from tourism, so they need not necessarily be privatized since they dont impinge upon anyone.

 

Not really sure how you can justify government providing healthcare for you but not preserving heritage, the market for national heritage is not exactly normal.

 

Because everyone needs healthcare of some form and so it is necessary society make some attempt to ensure general availability and access. The government only need step in if that be the most effect means, but generally it isnt, thus generally government healthcare is not a good option. But there are societies, similar to my own, which utilize a combination that seems to have good results. Again, its about outcomes for shared interests. Heritage preservation is not a shared interest. If it is for some, let that small group do the preserving themselves. No one is stopping them.

LOL I hardly care for what is normal. That is meaningless.

 

You have decided that the preservation of national heritage is a shared interest but assume that healthcare is a shared interest? If the recent US debate on healthcare has shown anything it is that many see no interest in others particularly those less fortunate having healthcare.

 

Having good health is a desire everyone has. Keeping buildings around is not.

They may "see no interests in others" but that doesnt mean they do not exist. Everyone in the US wants healthcare - the debate is about the best means to supply it. Obamacare is, some argue not a good means to this end. They are probably right.

 

And if keeping buildings around is an interest of everyone?

 

Then it would be perfectly fine and people wouldnt much debate it except how to go about doing so. But it isnt a common interest and never will be.

 

For something to be backward you need a point of reference. If you had cared to peruse through the (already dumbed down) wiki article you would have learned that the Code Civil is regarded by a large majority of jurists to be a progress, a move forward; and there are tons of academic studies which you could read to support this, instead of the biased opinion of a single blogger. So, sorry, but you are far from getting it.

As to the topic at hand, I don't see any problem with a Christian temple being used by Muslims, though my preference would go to clubbers girating on the altar