Eurabian News

Sobre la transformación de Europa en Eurabia y la Tercera Yijad

Argelia promulga una ley para frenar el avance del cristianismo

Posted by Spanish Eowyn en 22/marzo/2006

Y viva la tolerancia religiosa -para continuar con lo relacionado con el converso al cristianismo en Afganistán que puede ser condenado a muerte

Argelia promulga una ley para frenar el avance del cristianismo – ELPAIS.es – Internacional

Las autoridades de Argelia se disponen a promulgar una ley que prohíbe el proselitismo religioso y con la que desean impedir el avance del cristianismo impulsado por misioneros evangélicos, sobre todo en la región de Cabilia, al este del país.
El proyecto de ley fue aprobado en noviembre por el Consejo de Ministros, que explicó en un comunicado que contenía “disposiciones para acabar con las actividades anárquicas de asociaciones así como de particulares e impedir con la fuerza de la ley el proselitismo del que son objeto los musulmanes en el país”.
El pasado fin de semana concluyó la ratificación parlamentaria del proyecto de ley coincidiendo con la multiplicación de artículos en la prensa sobre el auge del cristianismo en Cabilia.
El texto adoptado por las dos cámaras prevé penas de dos a cinco años de cárcel y multas de entre 5.000 y 10.000 euros contra aquellos que “inciten, obliguen o utilicen medios de seducción para convertir a un musulmán a otra religión”. Las mismas penas se impondrán a quienes fabriquen, distribuyan o almacenen documentos en cualquier soporte que “busquen minar la fe de los musulmanes”.
Por último, queda prohibido el culto de cualquier religión, excepto el islam, “fuera de los edificios previstos para ello”. Se intenta así evitar que los cristianos puedan reunirse en casas particulares para rezar o leer la Biblia.
Coincidiendo con la conclusión de la tramitación parlamentaria, el Ministerio del Interior ordenó que las iglesias católicas y protestantes fuesen protegidas por las fuerzas de seguridad en previsión de posibles atentados,
Pastor apuñalado
En algunos casos, el clero será también escoltado, según la prensa de Argel de ayer
. El último atentado contra un miembro del clero, el pastor metodista norteamericano Hugues Johnson, tuvo lugar en enero de 2005 en el barrio de Belcourt. El pastor fue apuñalado por la espalda. En Argelia hay hoy día 110 sacerdotes católicos y 170 monjas, según el obispado de Argel. Los protestantes son más numerosos, pero la mayoría disimulan ante las autoridades su cometido en el país.
En los foros en Internet frecuentados por jóvenes de Cabilia, la nueva ley ha suscitado reacciones muy negativas. “La República islamista muestra su verdadera faz”, afirman los participantes en uno de ellos aludiendo al régimen argelino. “Los islamistas en libertad, los cristianos al trullo”, señalan otros refiriéndose a la reciente excarcelación de integristas indultados por el régimen.
Las conversiones al cristianismo han sido más numerosas en Cabilia porque es una región bereber rebelde que quiere marcar diferencias con el resto del país. Varias asociaciones de la sociedad civil reivindican incluso la reinstauración de los valores que imperaban en el siglo VIII, antes de que fuesen islamizados. Algunos lugares de la costa norteafricana habían sido entonces evangelizados.

Oh, yeah, y con estos son con los que algunos quieren que no se aplique el principio de reciprocidad, para obligar a proteger a estas personas de penas tan graves.

6 comentarios para “Argelia promulga una ley para frenar el avance del cristianismo”

  1. […] Enclaves to practise Islam in the West And this happens, when an Afghan is surely condemned to death beacuse of his conversion to Christianity and in Argelia a new law has been issued to condemn to prison and to fine the people who intend to convert a Muslim (that is, anyone that speaks about other religions -mainly Christianism-) and is obliging them to only practise their religion in appointed places. Well, as I said before: reciprocity is a NEED to protect this kind of people in countries where there is no freedom of religion, no matter who says the contrary. The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution – Middle East Quarterly – Spring 2006 First in Europe and now in the United States, Muslim groups have petitioned to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom and the prohibition against a state religion, when it comes to the rights of religious enclaves to impose communal rules, the dividing line is more nebulous. Can U.S. enclaves, homeowner associations, and other groups enforce Islamic law? Such questions are no longer theoretical. While Muslim organizations first established enclaves in Europe,[1] the trend is now crossing the Atlantic. Some Islamist community leaders in the United States are challenging the principles of assimilation and equality once central to the civil rights movement, seeking instead to live according to a separate but equal philosophy. The Gwynnoaks Muslim Residential Development group, for example, has established an informal enclave in Baltimore because, according to John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative, a Baltimore-based Muslim advocacy group, “there was no community in the U.S. that showed the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure.”[2]Baltimore is not alone. In August 2004, a local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted The Islamic Center for Human Excellence authorization to build an internal Islamic enclave to include a mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes.[3] While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create “a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs,”[4] the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution.The internal Muslim enclave proposed by the Islamic Center for Human Excellence in Arkansas represents a new direction for Islam in the United States. The group seeks to transform a loosely organized Muslim population into a tangible community presence. The group has foreign financial support: it falls under the umbrella of a much larger Islamic group, “Islam 4 the World,” an organization sponsored by Sharjah, one of the constituent emirates of the United Arab Emirates.[5] While the Islamic Center for Human Excellence has yet to articulate detailed plans for its Little Rock enclave, the group’s reliance on foreign funding is troublesome. Past investments by the United Arab Emirates’ rulers and institutions have promoted radical interpretations of Islam. [6]The Islamic Center for Human Excellence may seek to segregate schools and offices by gender. The enclave might also exercise broad control upon commerce within its boundaries—provided the economic restrictions did not discriminate against out-of-state interests or create an undue burden upon interstate commerce. But most critically, the enclave could promulgate every internal law—from enforcing strict religious dress codes to banning alcohol possession and music; it could even enforce limits upon religious and political tolerance. Although such concepts are antithetical to a free society, U.S. democracy allows the internal enclave to function beyond the established boundaries of our constitutional framework. At the very least, the permissible parameters of an Islamist enclave are ill defined. […]

  2. […] Enclaves to practise Islam in the West And this happens, when an Afghan is surely condemned to death beacuse of his conversion to Christianity and in Argelia a new law has been issued to condemn to prison and to fine the people who intend to convert a Muslim (that is, anyone that speaks about other religions -mainly Christianism-) and is obliging them to only practise their religion in appointed places. Well, as I said before: reciprocity is a NEED to protect this kind of people in countries where there is no freedom of religion, no matter who says the contrary. The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution – Middle East Quarterly – Spring 2006 First in Europe and now in the United States, Muslim groups have petitioned to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom and the prohibition against a state religion, when it comes to the rights of religious enclaves to impose communal rules, the dividing line is more nebulous. Can U.S. enclaves, homeowner associations, and other groups enforce Islamic law? Such questions are no longer theoretical. While Muslim organizations first established enclaves in Europe,[1] the trend is now crossing the Atlantic. Some Islamist community leaders in the United States are challenging the principles of assimilation and equality once central to the civil rights movement, seeking instead to live according to a separate but equal philosophy. The Gwynnoaks Muslim Residential Development group, for example, has established an informal enclave in Baltimore because, according to John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative, a Baltimore-based Muslim advocacy group, “there was no community in the U.S. that showed the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure.”[2]Baltimore is not alone. In August 2004, a local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted The Islamic Center for Human Excellence authorization to build an internal Islamic enclave to include a mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes.[3] While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create “a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs,”[4] the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution.The internal Muslim enclave proposed by the Islamic Center for Human Excellence in Arkansas represents a new direction for Islam in the United States. The group seeks to transform a loosely organized Muslim population into a tangible community presence. The group has foreign financial support: it falls under the umbrella of a much larger Islamic group, “Islam 4 the World,” an organization sponsored by Sharjah, one of the constituent emirates of the United Arab Emirates.[5] While the Islamic Center for Human Excellence has yet to articulate detailed plans for its Little Rock enclave, the group’s reliance on foreign funding is troublesome. Past investments by the United Arab Emirates’ rulers and institutions have promoted radical interpretations of Islam. [6]The Islamic Center for Human Excellence may seek to segregate schools and offices by gender. The enclave might also exercise broad control upon commerce within its boundaries—provided the economic restrictions did not discriminate against out-of-state interests or create an undue burden upon interstate commerce. But most critically, the enclave could promulgate every internal law—from enforcing strict religious dress codes to banning alcohol possession and music; it could even enforce limits upon religious and political tolerance. Although such concepts are antithetical to a free society, U.S. democracy allows the internal enclave to function beyond the established boundaries of our constitutional framework. At the very least, the permissible parameters of an Islamist enclave are ill defined. […]

  3. Dr Gorroño said

    Es para defecarse en sus muertos. Pero bueno, siempre pueden decir que es laicismo…

    He enviado al buzón un artículo sobre los US que os va a interesar.

  4. enzo said

    Excellente post. Esto es un ejemplo de Islamismo moderato del cual habla mucha gente sin saber que no existe.
    I wrote a post today on the same subject.
    Ciao

  5. Ajopringue said

    La religin de la paz con la libertad

    Los guerreros santos de la religión de la paz™ siguen mostrando su tolerancia con el apóstata afgano:[…]”Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die,” said cleric Abdul Raoulf…

  6. isabelhavuelto said

    Hubo una época en que la Iglesia también juzgaba y condenaba por las ideas. Pero cambió, porque la sociedad le hizo cambiar, y hoy no se concibe que alguien milite en una religión por imposición violenta y no por elección personal y libre, siguiendo los dictados de la conciencia. Las creencias impuestas no son creencias. Pero, por la misma razón, Si creemos en la libertad de conciencia tenemos la obligación moral de hacer que los que se empeñan en presentar la cara más radical de las religiones cambien de actitud. Si creemos en el respeto debemos ser firmes a la hora de exigirlo. Por sus creyentes y por los que no lo son. No abandonemos a su suerte a las víctimas de leyes brutales, simplemente porque tenemos miedo.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
A %d blogueros les gusta esto: