|
Post by fretslider on Jun 30, 2015 15:26:50 GMT -5
Nearly 5,000 people have signed a petition protesting a proposal to turn a Catholic hospital chapel into a Muslim prayer room. The chapel of St Raphael at North Manchester General Hospital has been open for 15 years and is one of several facilities serving different faiths. However, the Catholic Herald reports that the hospital chaplaincy has sent a letter to local Catholic parishes warning that it faces closure and conversion: “We write to inform you of a proposal by the spiritual care chaplaincy Team at North Manchester General Hospital to close the Roman Catholic Chapel of St Raphael in order to convert it into a Muslim prayer room.
“Worship spaces are going to be provided for Muslims, Jews, and Protestant Christians, and even a ‘Quiet Room’ for people of no faith at all. Yet it is proposed that Catholics should have no space of their own.
“St Raphael’s chapel contains the Blessed Sacrament and Mass is celebrated weekly. It is well used and highly valued by patients, staff and visitors at the hospital.”Fr Ged Murphy, who started the online petition protesting the plan, said that people get “great comfort” at the chapel and that other faiths use it. “It is used during the week for Mass. We are not against the Muslim community having a prayer room, but don’t see the sense in taking away a chapel that is serving one community to serve another,” he added. So far nearly 5,000 people have signed the petition aimed at Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust, but the Rev John Hall – the Trust’s chaplaincy coordinator – said there were “no plans” to close the Catholic chapel. He added, however, that they were “currently looking at how [the chapels and prayer rooms] are used so that we have the best possible arrangements that meet everyone’s needs.” Two Muslim prayer rooms already exist at the hospital, but the men’s prayer room does not have washing facilities. A hospital spokesman confirmed to the Manchester Evening News that one proposal was to close St Raphael’s and turn it into a Muslim prayer room. Local councillor Pat Karney said: “I am very disturbed to hear of these plans. Thousands of catholic families in north Manchester including my own have used this mini chapel. I will be meeting with the hospital bosses to clarify their intentions.” www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/29/thousands-protest-plan-to-convert-catholic-hospital-chapel-into-islamic-prayer-room/Surely their intentions are pretty obvious - even to a blind bat.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 30, 2015 15:56:46 GMT -5
Nearly 5,000 people have signed a petition protesting a proposal to turn a Catholic hospital chapel into a Muslim prayer room. The chapel of St Raphael at North Manchester General Hospital has been open for 15 years and is one of several facilities serving different faiths. However, the Catholic Herald reports that the hospital chaplaincy has sent a letter to local Catholic parishes warning that it faces closure and conversion: “We write to inform you of a proposal by the spiritual care chaplaincy Team at North Manchester General Hospital to close the Roman Catholic Chapel of St Raphael in order to convert it into a Muslim prayer room.
“Worship spaces are going to be provided for Muslims, Jews, and Protestant Christians, and even a ‘Quiet Room’ for people of no faith at all. Yet it is proposed that Catholics should have no space of their own.
“St Raphael’s chapel contains the Blessed Sacrament and Mass is celebrated weekly. It is well used and highly valued by patients, staff and visitors at the hospital.”Fr Ged Murphy, who started the online petition protesting the plan, said that people get “great comfort” at the chapel and that other faiths use it. “It is used during the week for Mass. We are not against the Muslim community having a prayer room, but don’t see the sense in taking away a chapel that is serving one community to serve another,” he added. So far nearly 5,000 people have signed the petition aimed at Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust, but the Rev John Hall – the Trust’s chaplaincy coordinator – said there were “no plans” to close the Catholic chapel. He added, however, that they were “currently looking at how [the chapels and prayer rooms] are used so that we have the best possible arrangements that meet everyone’s needs.” Two Muslim prayer rooms already exist at the hospital, but the men’s prayer room does not have washing facilities. A hospital spokesman confirmed to the Manchester Evening News that one proposal was to close St Raphael’s and turn it into a Muslim prayer room. Local councillor Pat Karney said: “I am very disturbed to hear of these plans. Thousands of catholic families in north Manchester including my own have used this mini chapel. I will be meeting with the hospital bosses to clarify their intentions.” www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/29/thousands-protest-plan-to-convert-catholic-hospital-chapel-into-islamic-prayer-room/Surely their intentions are pretty obvious - even to a blind bat. s As an Atheist I should be one applauding this approach, however, I do not support changing this to an Islamic facility. This is simply another case of an alien philosophy coming into a Western culture facility and wanting it changed to fit their demands. A little here and a little there and eventually well have the Mideast all over the England.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 30, 2015 17:18:07 GMT -5
As an Atheist I should be one applauding this approach, however, I do not support changing this to an Islamic facility. This is simply another case of an alien philosophy coming into a Western culture facility and wanting it changed to fit their demands. A little here and a little there and eventually well have the Mideast all over the England. As a libertarian, however, you can't oppose it. Unless, of course, you're really not a libertarian.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jun 30, 2015 18:58:37 GMT -5
As an Atheist I should be one applauding this approach, however, I do not support changing this to an Islamic facility. This is simply another case of an alien philosophy coming into a Western culture facility and wanting it changed to fit their demands. A little here and a little there and eventually well have the Mideast all over the England. As a ilbertarian, however, you can't oppose it. Unless, of course, you're really not a libertarian. Ah a seemingly good point Joseph. But Libertarians will support that which supports Individual Freedoms. Islam is against Individual Freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 1, 2015 3:12:30 GMT -5
As an Atheist I should be one applauding this approach, however, I do not support changing this to an Islamic facility. This is simply another case of an alien philosophy coming into a Western culture facility and wanting it changed to fit their demands. A little here and a little there and eventually well have the Mideast all over the England. As a ilbertarian, however, you can't oppose it. Unless, of course, you're really not a libertarian. liberty is never gained by the taking away of the liberty of others
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 1, 2015 4:01:34 GMT -5
Nearly 5,000 people have signed a petition protesting a proposal to turn a Catholic hospital chapel into a Muslim prayer room. The chapel of St Raphael at North Manchester General Hospital has been open for 15 years and is one of several facilities serving different faiths. However, the Catholic Herald reports that the hospital chaplaincy has sent a letter to local Catholic parishes warning that it faces closure and conversion: “We write to inform you of a proposal by the spiritual care chaplaincy Team at North Manchester General Hospital to close the Roman Catholic Chapel of St Raphael in order to convert it into a Muslim prayer room.
“Worship spaces are going to be provided for Muslims, Jews, and Protestant Christians, and even a ‘Quiet Room’ for people of no faith at all. Yet it is proposed that Catholics should have no space of their own.
“St Raphael’s chapel contains the Blessed Sacrament and Mass is celebrated weekly. It is well used and highly valued by patients, staff and visitors at the hospital.”Fr Ged Murphy, who started the online petition protesting the plan, said that people get “great comfort” at the chapel and that other faiths use it. “It is used during the week for Mass. We are not against the Muslim community having a prayer room, but don’t see the sense in taking away a chapel that is serving one community to serve another,” he added. So far nearly 5,000 people have signed the petition aimed at Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust, but the Rev John Hall – the Trust’s chaplaincy coordinator – said there were “no plans” to close the Catholic chapel. He added, however, that they were “currently looking at how [the chapels and prayer rooms] are used so that we have the best possible arrangements that meet everyone’s needs.” Two Muslim prayer rooms already exist at the hospital, but the men’s prayer room does not have washing facilities. A hospital spokesman confirmed to the Manchester Evening News that one proposal was to close St Raphael’s and turn it into a Muslim prayer room. Local councillor Pat Karney said: “I am very disturbed to hear of these plans. Thousands of catholic families in north Manchester including my own have used this mini chapel. I will be meeting with the hospital bosses to clarify their intentions.” www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/29/thousands-protest-plan-to-convert-catholic-hospital-chapel-into-islamic-prayer-room/Surely their intentions are pretty obvious - even to a blind bat. s As an Atheist I should be one applauding this approach, however, I do not support changing this to an Islamic facility. This is simply another case of an alien philosophy coming into a Western culture facility and wanting it changed to fit their demands. A little here and a little there and eventually well have the Mideast all over the England. There is a deep rooted Catholic tradition in England which, despite Henry VIII's best efforts, has remained. I fully respect the English Christian traditions; Christmas is a great story, you don't have to believe the son of god stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if a baby was born in a manger with no room at the inn. Did a bloodthirsty maniac impose an ideology on people at the point of a sword? Unfortunately, the answer is a definite yes. That is the core of their tradition.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 1, 2015 7:47:11 GMT -5
Libertarians will support that which supports Individual Freedoms. Islam is against Individual Freedoms. A true libertarian supports free speech of any kind, including that of nazis and muslims. I don't like them, but as long as they're law-abiding, I reluctantly tolerate them. The euros like to ban things. We don't, for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 1, 2015 7:51:32 GMT -5
Libertarians will support that which supports Individual Freedoms. Islam is against Individual Freedoms. A true libertarian supports free speech of any kind, including that of nazis and muslims. I don't like them, but as long as they're law-abiding, I reluctantly tolerate them. The euros like to ban things. We don't, for good reason. But Europe is not a country - yet, so it's the liberal elite - government appointees, not elected representatives, who decide on Euro-legislation. The people don't get a look-in
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 1, 2015 8:35:32 GMT -5
Libertarians will support that which supports Individual Freedoms. Islam is against Individual Freedoms. A true libertarian supports free speech of any kind, including that of nazis and muslims. I don't like them, but as long as they're law-abiding, I reluctantly tolerate them. The euros like to ban things. We don't, for good reason. Essentially your correct Joseph, however, Libertarians believe in self defense. If there is a group that speaks of coming after others (inclusive of Libertarians) and backs those words up with actions, Libertarianism will not support that group. I admit that there are different factions within Libertarianism and there are some who will lay down before their enemies (within the party we had these types of arguments all of the time) but that segment is small (sort of like the libertarian socialists). Obviously free speech is extremely important but when that free speech is gathering together people who will commit terrorist acts against others, free speech has now become overt acts of aggressive acts to others. This is true of this chapel. It is sort of like having someone come to your home and demand that you move out so they can take it over.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 1, 2015 9:20:42 GMT -5
Essentially your correct Joseph, however, Libertarians believe in self defense. If there is a group that speaks of coming after others (inclusive of Libertarians) and backs those words up with actions, Libertarianism will not support that group. The ACLU supported the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois. As a "libertarian," you supported that, right? Obviously free speech is extremely important but when that free speech is gathering together people who will commit terrorist acts against others, free speech has now become overt acts of aggressive acts to others. Hold it right there. You can't ban or prohibit lawful activity because of what some people might do. That isn't "libertarian," by any definition. This is true of this chapel. It is sort of like having someone come to your home and demand that you move out so they can take it over. That's a bad example. If someone lawfully evicts you and takes over your home, you have no right to question it. By the way, that's exactly what happened to me. In any case, muslims have a Constitutional right to erect mosques where churches once stood, or where local zoning laws permit such structures to be built. You're not much of a libertarian, if you ask me. You're as statist as any Democrat or Republican.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 1, 2015 13:00:21 GMT -5
Essentially your correct Joseph, however, Libertarians believe in self defense. If there is a group that speaks of coming after others (inclusive of Libertarians) and backs those words up with actions, Libertarianism will not support that group. The ACLU supported the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois. As a "libertarian," you supported that, right? Obviously free speech is extremely important but when that free speech is gathering together people who will commit terrorist acts against others, free speech has now become overt acts of aggressive acts to others. Hold it right there. You can't ban or prohibit lawful activity because of what some people might do. That isn't "libertarian," by any definition. This is true of this chapel. It is sort of like having someone come to your home and demand that you move out so they can take it over. That's a bad example. If someone lawfully evicts you and takes over your home, you have no right to question it. By the way, that's exactly what happened to me. In any case, muslims have a Constitutional right to erect mosques where churches once stood, or where local zoning laws permit such structures to be built. You're not much of a libertarian, if you ask me. You're as statist as any Democrat or Republican. Joseph, Libertarians are not a monolithic group. They include a wide range of perspectives. While your apparent perspective of Libertarianism fits some, it definitely doesn't fit all. Some such as myself, are Constitutional Libertarians in that the rights are viewed through the Constitution of the United States and this is because of recognizing the reality that we are part of a Community. Others have differing views including those who define themselves as Libertarian Socialists (which to me is an oxymoron). However, attending a National Libertarian Convention you will see both of those views as well as others. Those who promote themselves, or others, to the instigating of violence against others is an example of acts to which reasonable people (inclusive of those of Libertarian Philosophy) can support defensive acts. Obviously the way to do that is through the legal system. As far as someone coming to your home and demanding that you move out, it is a good example under the way it was phrased. You added something not part of the original posting, that is, someone lawfully taking over your home. You are assuming that such is the case, but I suggest that it is just as logical that there is most likely an existing agreement for the Catholic use of that space and if not an actual agreement then an existing precedence of long use of that space can have legal standing. Even so, you have every right to question such a move through the court system. We are not yet a dictatorship. Muslims erecting Mosques is not a Constitutional right except within the context of free expression of religion. This is more a question of local authority and local zoning codes. We just went through this with a Mosque in my local community. The Muslims had purchased land with the intent of erecting a new Mosque but they could not do so until they applied to the local city to cover any zoning restrictions and then met all permit requirements. It had nothing to do with any Constitutional Rights. Thank you for explaining to me 'what type of Libertarian' I am. I truly love the way people on the net want to define other people, even when that doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the situation. Too bad you couldn't have been with me when I was Libertarian State Chair for Iowa or when I represented the Iowa Libertarian Party at meetings of the National Libertarian Party in Washington D.C. If you had been there you could have defined the 'real' positions and beliefs of lots of Libertarians.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 1, 2015 19:30:30 GMT -5
As far as someone coming to your home and demanding that you move out, it is a good example under the way it was phrased. You added something not part of the original posting, that is, someone lawfully taking over your home. You are assuming that such is the case, but I suggest that it is just as logical that there is most likely an existing agreement for the Catholic use of that space and if not an actual agreement then an existing precedence of long use of that space can have legal standing. That sounds like crap to me. I've never heard of a religious organization laying claim to property it does not, and cannot, own. Even so, you have every right to question such a move through the court system. I would call that an abuse of process and a classic example of a frivolous lawsuit. We are not yet a dictatorship. We are, if the right to private property is vitiated to favor a particular religious group. Muslims erecting Mosques is not a Constitutional right except within the context of free expression of religion. This is more a question of local authority and local zoning codes. We just went through this with a Mosque in my local community. The Muslims had purchased land with the intent of erecting a new Mosque but they could not do so until they applied to the local city to cover any zoning restrictions and then met all permit requirements. It had nothing to do with any Constitutional Rights. The burden is on the government to prove it's denial of a permit is permitted under state and federal constitutions. If muslims buy property already zoned for a house of worship, they have a nonrebuttable right to erect a house of worship on that site. Thank you for explaining to me 'what type of Libertarian' I am. I truly love the way people on the net want to define other people, even when that doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the situation. Too bad you couldn't have been with me when I was Libertarian State Chair for Iowa or when I represented the Iowa Libertarian Party at meetings of the National Libertarian Party in Washington D.C. If you had been there you could have defined the 'real' positions and beliefs of lots of Libertarians. I'm not really interested in the Libertarian Party. I am interested in libertarianism as a philosophy. I submit it is contrary to libertarian principles, particularly within the context of the United States Constitution, for the government to make it more difficult for a collection of muslims to gather and worship than it is for a collection of Catholics or Jews. Such an effort is per se arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 2, 2015 8:32:21 GMT -5
As far as someone coming to your home and demanding that you move out, it is a good example under the way it was phrased. You added something not part of the original posting, that is, someone lawfully taking over your home. You are assuming that such is the case, but I suggest that it is just as logical that there is most likely an existing agreement for the Catholic use of that space and if not an actual agreement then an existing precedence of long use of that space can have legal standing. That sounds like crap to me. I've never heard of a religious organization laying claim to property it does not, and cannot, own. Even so, you have every right to question such a move through the court system. I would call that an abuse of process and a classic example of a frivolous lawsuit. We are not yet a dictatorship. We are, if the right to private property is vitiated to favor a particular religious group. Muslims erecting Mosques is not a Constitutional right except within the context of free expression of religion. This is more a question of local authority and local zoning codes. We just went through this with a Mosque in my local community. The Muslims had purchased land with the intent of erecting a new Mosque but they could not do so until they applied to the local city to cover any zoning restrictions and then met all permit requirements. It had nothing to do with any Constitutional Rights. The burden is on the government to prove it's denial of a permit is permitted under state and federal constitutions. If muslims buy property already zoned for a house of worship, they have a nonrebuttable right to erect a house of worship on that site. Thank you for explaining to me 'what type of Libertarian' I am. I truly love the way people on the net want to define other people, even when that doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the situation. Too bad you couldn't have been with me when I was Libertarian State Chair for Iowa or when I represented the Iowa Libertarian Party at meetings of the National Libertarian Party in Washington D.C. If you had been there you could have defined the 'real' positions and beliefs of lots of Libertarians. I'm not really interested in the Libertarian Party. I am interested in libertarianism as a philosophy. I submit it is contrary to libertarian principles, particularly within the context of the United States Constitution, for the government to make it more difficult for a collection of muslims to gather and worship than it is for a collection of Catholics or Jews. Such an effort is per se arbitrary and capricious. Joseph, I'm not sure what Libertarianism has to do with the subject of the original posting but I have no problem getting into that subject. You have also established some ground rules that you aren't interested in the Libertarian Party (in the United States I'm Guessing) but rather in Libertarian Philosophy. To keep this from ranging all over the place, are you interested in Libertarian Philosophy in general, or more in a specific school of Libertarian thought, or in its origin? I ask this because there are very different views by Libertarians as to just what is Libertarian Philosophy. I remember when I was once editing a Libertarian Newsletter and contacted a Professor at a University who had been interviewed on television (CSPAN) and he had stated that he was a Libertarian Socialist. I asked him to respond by addressing how socialism could have any validity within Libertarianism. I saw this as an opportunity for some dialog that other Libertarians might find of interest. He had a very different point of view and even threatened a legal suit if in the newsletter I suggest that socialism could not be part of Libertarian Philosophy. I used our conversation as the basis for an article and did ask the question, can socialism be part of Libertarianism. Needless to say he never initiated a suit. However, my point is that (in my opinion) there is not a singular Libertarian Philosophy as it is not monolithic. So which school of Libertarianism peaks your interest?
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 2, 2015 8:52:00 GMT -5
which school of Libertarianism peaks your interest? A good question. I don't know. I am much enamored of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, even if I do take certain exception to certain positions of the Libertarian party. I agree there can be no such thing as "libertarian" socialism. One precludes the other. Likewise there can't be anything like less-than-free speech and libertarianism.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 2, 2015 12:42:44 GMT -5
which school of Libertarianism peaks your interest? A good question. I don't know. I am much enamored of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, even if I do take certain exception to certain positions of the Libertarian party. I agree there can be no such thing as "libertarian" socialism. One precludes the other. Likewise there can't be anything like less-than-free speech and libertarianism. I apologize for the length of this positing but the subject (libertarian philosophy et al) is large and I am only skimming the highlights, so to speak. First off, there really is no singular libertarian theory (or even a principle set) either in the political of philosophical sense. However, as with the 400 plus breeds of dog that are all different, any and all of them can be identified as 'dog.' That is that being that has 4 legs and is a descendant of the Village dog. While the details and arguments can range far and wide, there are some rough approximations as to what comprises a 'libertarian.' For example, (there are various versions of this but generally this is comprised of), that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals. In terms of political recommendations, libertarians believe that most, if not all, of the activities currently undertaken by states should be either abandoned or transferred into private hands. The most well-known version of this conclusion finds expression in the so-called "minimal state" theories of Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, and others which hold that states may legitimately provide police, courts, and a military, but nothing more. Any further activity on the part of the state—regulating or prohibiting the sale or use of drugs, conscripting individuals for military service, providing taxpayer-funded support to the poor, or even building public roads—is itself rights-violating and hence illegitimate. Libertarian advocates of a strictly minimal state are to be distinguished from two closely related groups, who favor a smaller or greater role for government, and who may or may not also label themselves "libertarian." On one hand are so-called anarcho-capitalists who believe that even the minimal state is too large, and that a proper respect for individual rights requires the abolition of government altogether and the provision of protective services by private markets. On the other hand are those who generally identify themselves as classical liberals. Members of this group tend to share libertarians' confidence in free markets and skepticism over government power, but are more willing to allow greater room for coercive activity on the part of the state so as to allow, say, state provision of public goods or even limited tax-funded welfare transfers. My point here is twofold, one to demonstrate (in a small way) the wide points of view among libertarians. And two, to offer a link to an excellent source on this subject: www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/#H1 I realize that this may be more than most will want to get into on this subject, but the roots of Libertarianism are many and those who claim it as their own vary a great deal. I recommend reading the article and if more is needed there is a great list of sources. You have already mentioned Ayn Rand who is an enjoyable and exciting writer (although in my opinion her character descriptions in her fiction efforts are pretty two dimensional) that I first began reading in the mid 1950s. But it is Robert Nozick whose book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” published in 1974 that hit the Libertarian world like a thunder bolt, that I always recommend.
|
|