Mar 17 2010
**MEMORY VERSE OF THE WEEK**
If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.
Job 14:14-15 KJV
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
**IMPORTANT NEWS HEADLINES**
China Arming Iran - March 17, 2010
Recent developments in Iran confirm that China is providing Tehran with critical defense technologies and weapons systems, including some that violate stated Chinese policies aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation. The disclosure of Chinese military aid comes as the Obama administration is trying to persuade Beijing to join other members of the UN Security Council,European Union member states and major non-aligned states such as Brazil to adopt a new set of tough sanctions to punish Iran for its nuclear-arms program. The Washington TimesBibi’s Son Wins National Bible Quiz - March 17, 2010
Avner Netanyahu, the 15-year-old son of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara, won the prestigious National Bible Quiz for Youth in Kiryat Shmona on Tuesday evening. The prime minister flew in from Jerusalem by helicopter, removing himself from duties of state for a couple of hours to watch and, later, to celebrate his son’s accomplishment. The packed audience observed a smiling, proud father in Kiryat Shmona, as the town celebrated its 60th anniversary. “I didn’t compete to win,” a modest Avner said afterwards. “I just did my best, and really enjoyed it.” The Jerusalem PostGilbert Home Church Fights For Religious Freedom - March 16, 2010
The town that celebrates Constitution Week with much fanfare is now trying to wade its way out of an embarrassing controversy over First Amendment protection on religious freedom. The issue began over a notification sent by town staff to a seven-member local group, all members of the Oasis of Truth Church, to stop meeting at home, citing the town’s land development code, which states: “religious-assembly uses are not permitted in single-family residential structures.” The group contacted the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale. Daniel Blomberg, litigation counsel for ADF, described the town’s position as “shocking and unconstitutional.” “They were trying to ban any sort of church-sponsored activity of any size and frequency, be it a Bible study or a potluck dinner, just because a church is associated with it,” Blomberg said. East Valley TribuneSouth Africa Focuses on Human Trafficking Ahead of World Cup - March 16, 2010
South Africa is to fast-track a comprehensive new law against human trafficking before the start of the soccer World Cup, Justice Minister Jeff Radebe said on Tuesday. South Africa hosts the month-long event from June 11 and some child rights groups have warned that trafficking, mainly for sexual exploitation, could rise during the tournament. ReutersMummy KV55 is Akhenaten’s - March 11, 2010
The DNA tests that revealed how the famed boy-king Tutankhamun most likely died solved another of ancient Egypt’s enduring mysteries - the fate of controversial Pharaoh Akhenaten’s mummy. The discovery could help fill out the picture of a fascinating era more than 3,300 years ago when Akhenaten embarked on history’s first attempt at monotheism. During his 17-year rule, Akhenaten sought to overturn more than a millennium of Egyptian religion and art to establish the worship of a single sun god. In the end, his bold experiment failed and he was eventually succeeded by his son, the young Tutankhamun, who rolled back his reforms and restored the old religion. AP
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
ISRAEL-US BOND ‘UNSHAKABLE’
US Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Israel last week began peaceably enough. It ended badly, however, after Biden said he “condemned” Israel’s decision to continue building new housing units in East Jerusalem. After several days of coldness, Hillary Clinton today announced that relations between Israel and the United States were strong, saying, “We have a close, unshakable bond between the United States and Israel.”
Over a year has passed since Barack Obama took office as President of the United States, and during the past fourteen months, the President has not yet made a trip to Israel. He has visited a wide variety of countries, including Ghana, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Djibouti, and has even shaken the hand of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Yet, while Obama visited Israel in 2008 before the elections, he has not stopped into Jerusalem since.
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden met with both Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the intent to extend a warm hand to the United States’ greatest ally in the Middle East. In the beginning, all went well. During a joint press conference with Netanyahu on Tuesday, Biden praised Israel for restarting the peace process, and said, “There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.” Netanyahu expressed thanks to the US for its leadership against Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “I very much appreciate the efforts of President Obama and the American government to lead the international community to place tough sanctions on Iran,” he said. Earlier that day, Biden had assured Peres that America was committed to Israel’s security.
Shortly thereafter, though, Israel announced that it was going ahead with plans to build 1600 new homes in East Jerusalem, a decision that was a surprise to Biden and apparently to Netanyahu as well. The Interior Ministry, run by the ultraorthodox, nationalist party Shas, made the announcement right during the middle Biden’s visit to the area. From Ramallah on Wednesday, Biden publicly criticized Israel’s decision to continue the building.
“Messages have been sent to Biden and the Americans that there was no intention to undermine him,” a senior Israeli official said. “We were genuinely surprised, just as surprised as the Americans.”
Netanyahu, however, has made no visible steps toward reversing the decision. The Prime Minister has made clear on several occasions that the unity of Jerusalem is not negotiable. Last November, Netanyahu ordered a halt on building in the West Bank as part of an effort to resume peace talks, but has allowed new housing to be built in East Jerusalem despite the protests of the Palestinians.
The media have portrayed the incident as a major blunder on Israel’s part and a risk to US-Israeli relations. On Friday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Israel for its bad timing and for endangering the upcoming peace negotiations with the Palestinians. She spent 43 minutes on the phone with Netanyahu expressing herself “bluntly” on the matter. “The announcement of the settlements on the very day that the vice president was there was insulting,” Clinton said in an interview with CNN Friday. “It was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for everyone…”
After the weekend, however, things seemed to calm down. Clinton affirmed on Tuesday that the US is completely committed to Israel’s security and assured all sides that the US remains a close ally of Israel.
The Obama Administration still wants Netanyahu to put a stop to building new housing units, but Netanyahu has not yet described how he is going to handle the situation. He did, however, respond to Clinton’s softened tone with a statement saying that he, “appreciates and respects the warm words” from Clinton on “the deep bond between the US and Israel, and on the US commitment to Israel’s security.”
In the US, however, Jewish groups argue that Clinton’s harsh words on Friday didn’t help the situation. The American Jewish Committee said that the “sustained harsh criticism of Israel by senior Administration officials is unprecedented and could leave the impression of a cooling of our nation’s relationship with Israel.”
Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House’s only Jewish Republican, was also not pleased with the harsh criticism directed at Israel. “This attempt to curry favor with the Arabs by bullying Israel is not a wise move,” Cantor said.
Related Links:
• Biden: U.S. Will Always Stand By Those Who Take Risks For Peace - Haaretz
• With Subtle Shift In Nuance, Hillary Clinton Reiterates U.S. Stance On Israel - The Washington Post
• Biden Scolds Israel Over Settlement Plan - Reuters
• HIllary Clinton Rebukes Israel - The Washington Times
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
The UN Gives an Award Named After a Murdered Man to One of His Murderer’s Best Friends
Posted: 14 Mar 2010 01:21 PM PDT
By Barry Rubin
If you want a good example of the ridiculous, shameful ironies in the terrible era we’re living in here it is. The UN-Habitat organization, part of the United Nations, has initiated a Rafik Hariri Memorial Award. The award is named after the former Lebanese prime minister who was assassinated by Syria in February 2005.
The first winner is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Of course, Erdogan is an Islamist who is an ally of Syria, the murderer of Hariri.
Why did Erdogan get the $200,000 award? According to the announcement, the reason is that he organized the first conference of mayors that led to the creation of a worldwide organization of mayors, thus creating another round of meetings so that the budgets of cities can be spent on plane fare and luxury hotels for mayors to travel around the world. How’s that for making the lives of urban people better?
Apparently, the fact that Erdogan is closely cooperating with the people who killed Hariri, after whom the award was named, did not strike the panel as ironic.
And of course Erdogan has also taken Turkey into alignment with Iran and Hizballah, the other forces which are trying to control Hariri’s country and against whom the late prime minister fought.
Meanwhile, the UN-sponsored investigation of Hariri’s murder has come to a dead halt and probably will never be pushed forward by that international organization.
By the way, the panel giving the award was headed by former UN Under Secretary General, Mervat Tallawy, an Egyptian who, I’m told, was known to express doubts as to whether Usama bin Ladin was really responsible for the September 11 attack on New York.
I think granting an award to the close friend of those who murdered the man it’s named after, a backer of those who he fought against, and who is aiding those seeking to take over his country definitely qualifies for being granted our own award for ironic and disgraceful behavior.
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
How Bad is the Quality of Media Coverage? A Small Example
Posted: 13 Mar 2010 10:22 AM PST
Here’s an example of just how bad media coverage is. I’m not writing this as an example of anti-Israel media bias but of just poor reporitng which applies to lots of other stories.
1. Lack of understanding
Shas is a populist party whose constituency is poor Orthodox Jews of Middle Eastern origin. A Shas minister announced housing construction in such a neighborhood. He couldn’t care less about international issues or the fact that it was five blocks across the pre-1967 border. He just wanted to show his constituents he was providing apartments for them.
Failing to understand this, prestigious Western media outlets claimed this showed how Israel was thumbing its nose at the US by the timing, Israel didn’t want peace, etc. They didn’t understand what was going on despite their highly paid correspondents, local stringers, pompous belief in their own brilliance, etc.
If they can’t understand party patronage politics in a democratic society how the heck are they going to cover societies far more different from their own?
2. Short memory
A few weeks ago, Israel announced it was going to continue construction in east Jerusalem while stopping it elsewhere. The U.S. government cheered this step as a major concession. Now the media has basically forgotten about the content of this deal in accusing Israel of doing something outrageous. (The timing can be criticized, of course, but not the step in principle.)
All of this reminds me of an exchange in “Seinfeld,” the comedy show. When Jerry Seinfeld confides in a priest (don’t ask, it’s a long story) that his dentist is telling Jewish jokes very badly, the priest says:
“And this offends you as a Jewish person?”
Seinfeld responds, “No, this offends me as a comedian.”
In other words, what is so often irritating about this kind of coverage–thousands of examples can be provided–is not so much that it is an example of anti-Israel bias but that it is just pure unprofessional and low-quality work. It offends me as a journalist and a policy analyst.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
America’s War with Japan: Tom Hanks Isn’t the Problem but Teaching Anti-Americanism Is
Posted: 13 Mar 2010 10:27 AM PST
Please subscribe and be number 9,497!
By Barry Rubin
Tom Hanks, the actor, made a very controversial statement regarding his new series on the Pacific front during World War Two. In a television interview he remarked that this was:
“A war that was of racism and terror that it seemed as if the only way to complete one of these battles in these [islands] was to, I’m sorry, `Kill them all,` and does that sound familiar to what we might be going through today?”
Hanks was not making an anti-American statement here but was rather characterizing the attitude of both sides. This battle, he was saying (and he interviewed many veterans on both sides), was based on such profound mutual hatred and difference in cultural standpoint that it was extremely bitter and bloody. In other interviews, he has added that reconciliation took a long time but did eventually come thereafter, suggesting that any “racism” was due to wartime passions and eventually went away.
The fault, then, is not with Hanks but with a contemporary context in which Americans are being taught to hate their own country, at least in historical terms. Hanks may not be thinking that the United States is a terrible racist country with a shameful past but many others are doing so and trying to make that the conventional view throughout the country.
In my son’s fourth-grade class in Maryland, for example, the ten-year-olds have been told the following:
–They have read four (yes, four) stories on the internment of Japanese in America during World War Two as a crime, being told by the teacher that they were interned because they were different.
In fact, there were a number of reasons for the internment which made sense at the time. The German and Italian fascist governments were usurpers who had seized power. In contrast, the Japanese government was a “legitimate” regime supported by the emperor. The emperor was viewed by Japanese as a god, the head of their religion. While most German- and Italian-Americans opposed the regimes with which the United States was at war, there was no such opposition from the Japanese. The government did not have agents inside the community who could tell who was supporting the enemy. And at the time, there was real fear—however wrong it might seem in retrospect—that the Japanese were going to invade California. I know this last point because my mother and grandmother left that state never to return because relatives back east begged them to get away from what they thought was about to become a war front.
At any rate, the kids are not told anything about the arguments for internment. Even if one thinks the act was wrong, there were two sides to the story. It wasn’t just an act of racism, and the fact that the order was given by a liberal Democratic president, President Franklin Roosevelt, reinforces that fact.
–The teacher said the internment took place after the United States declared war on Japan. There is no mention or discussion of Pearl Harbor. This attack was such a trauma at the time, especially since the two countries were engaged in negotiations, that it is no wonder hatred arose due to a perception of Japanese treachery. This was not racism but an understandable reaction.
–The teacher told the class, when a non-American student raised the issue, that claims of Japanese atrocities were unproven and that if they occurred they were acts of soldiers against other soldiers. This is untrue, of course. One of my teachers in high school was a survivor of the Bataan Death March and told me in detail about his experiences, which left him scarred for life. War crimes trials and other investigations showed horrendous Japanese actions against both civilians and soldiers.
–When a student complains that they are being given a one-side picture, the teacher responds that now they are hearing “the other side.” But this is nonsense. Almost none of these kids at age ten, of course, has ever heard the pro-American side on this or other historical issues because they have been going to a school that doesn’t present them.
Most important of all—and generally forgotten today–is the fact that the United States went to war with Japan due to sentiments that could be called anti-racist. The Japanese showed far more racism than did Americans. The key issue was the Japanese war in China. The Japanese government and army treated non-Japanese Asians as sub-humans. And if their behavior did not reach the horrendous heights of Nazism, they came closer than any other country in modern history. Millions of Chinese civilians were slaughtered.
Americans were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Chinese and it was the U.S. effort to pressure Japan into easing its attack on China by sanctions that helped bring on the attack on the United States. During the war, there was also tremendous sympathy in the United States for the people of the Philippines, who were constantly portrayed as heroic.
If Americans had warm feelings for all Asians except the Japanese, that’s not racism it is national conflict.
Go back and look at World War Two movies or read newspapers of the time. In films, there is as much respect shown to the Japanese as brave and good fighters as there is “racist” stereotyping. The amount of racism is amazingly low given the circumstances. Again, if Japanese were caricatured unfavorably that is national conflict—just as doing the same thing to Germans during the war did not make Americans racist aginst Europeans.
It is also important to remember why the island battles included the need to “kill them all.” Japanese soldiers hardly ever surrendered. At times, they pretended to but used the humanitarian behavior of American soldiers who were taking their surrender in order to kill them. The need to “kill them all” was not an American war crime but a necessity given the behavior of the Japanese. Of course, the Americans would have far preferred the Japanese surrender when the battle was clearly lost as it would have cut down greatly on their own losses.
When U.S. forces captured Okinawa, they watched in horror as Japanese soldiers forced civilians to throw themselves off cliffs rather than allowing them to surrender.
I’m not going to go into the use of nuclear weapons here at length but in 1945 this was rightly seen as the only alternative to a full-scale invasion that would cost one million American casualties, kill millions of Japanese, and devastate the country for decades to come. In retrospect, it was a correct decision and one that came about because of a Japanese decision not to surrender even though they’d lost the war. The United States would have greatly preferred not to have to drop those two bombs.
And, of course, when U.S. forces did occupy Japan, the treatment of that defeated nation was exemplary, laying the basis for both democracy and economic progress. How’s that for un-racist behavior?
There was a fascist and racist government involved in this conflict, and that was the Japanese government, an aggressive and imperialist regime allied with Nazi Germany and in many ways mirroring its attitudes. One important lesson for today–in contrast to anti-Western distortions–is that a country’s government and system doesn’t have to be “white” or Western to embody racism and imperialism. That is what truly is what sounds “familiar to what we [are] going through today.”
So the war in the Pacific, like much of American history, is being subjected to lies intended to make the United States seem evil when in fact it shows the greatness of this country and of Americans. This doesn’t mean one should not criticize fairly but what is really remarkable is that despite the shortcomings what a high proportion of rightful behavior on the part of the United States and its people, then and at other times in history.
I don’t think Tom Hanks intended to say otherwise. But, unfortunately, this is precisely the apparent goal of many in the cultural elite today, including those who design and teach the courses of study in public schools and universities in much of the country.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
How Quick They Forget: A Short History of U.S. Policy and Israeli Construction in East Jerusalem
Posted: 14 Mar 2010 12:39 AM PST
Please be subscriber 9,505 for free, round-the-clock, real-time, and original coverage.
By Barry Rubin
For more than four months the U.S. government has been celebrating Israel agreeing to stop construction on settlements in the West Bank while continuing building in east Jerusalem as a great step forward and Israeli concession deserving a reward. Suddenly, all of this is forgotten to say that Israel building in east Jerusalem is some kind of terrible deed which deserves punishment.
Israelis are used to this pattern: give a big concession and a few months later that step is forgotten as Israel is portrayed as intransigent and more concessions are demanded with nothing in return. Here is a short history of this round:
October 31, 2009: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lavishly praises Israel as making “unprecedented” concessions in stopping construction on West Bank settlements while it is still going to build in east Jerusalem.
November 1, 2009: The U.S. State Department cheers Israel’s announcement that it will stop construction on West Bank settlements but not in east Jerusalem: “Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
March 12, 2010: Secretary of State Hilary Clinton says that Israel building in east Jerusalem is an “insult” to the United States, jeopardizes the bilateral relationship, and damages the cause of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Meanwhile, even though the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate for 14 months; made President Brack Obama look very foolish after destroying his publicly announced September plan to have negotiations in two months; broke its promise not to sponsor the Goldstone report in the UN; and rejected direct negotiations after months of pleading by the Obama White House, not a single word of criticism has ever been offered by any administration official regarding the PA’s continuous and very public sabotage of peace process efforts.
Can people please point out that there’s a bit of a contradiction here?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
The Palestinian Authority Walks Out of Talks with a Big Smile on Its Face
Posted: 12 Mar 2010 11:19 AM PST
Please subscribe and be 9,391!
By Barry Rubin
In 1994, Israel asserted, and the PLO accepted, that construction would continue on existing Jewish settlements. For the next 15 years, negotiations were never stopped by that building.
In January 2009, the Palestinian Authority (PA) stopped negotiations because Hamas attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip and Israel defended itself. Of course, Hamas is also the PA’s enemy and the PA would be delighted if Israel destroyed that group. But for public relations’ purposes, the PA had to pretend inter-Palestinian solidarity.
Then came President Barack Obama who demanded a stop to all construction on settlements in 2009. Israel finally complied but announced that it would keep building in east Jerusalem. The United States accepted that arrangement and even highly praised Israel’s policy as a major concession.
But the PA refused to return to negotiations. Why, because the construction offended it? No, because the PA’s radical forces don’t want to make a peace deal because they believe they can win total victory and destroy Israel. The more moderate forces are too weak to make a deal because of Hamas and their own radicals, though they also have some problems with mutual compromise.
In September 2009, Obama announced that within two months there would be full and final peace negotiations in Washington. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “yes”: PA leader Mahmoud Abbas said “no.”
No Western media outlet said that the PA refusal to negotiate for—as of today—about 15 months shows that the PA doesn’t want peace. Yet they had no hesitation about saying that Israel doesn’t want peace (or at least maybe doesn’t) because Israel announced the building of apartments on the basis of a policy it has followed for 16 years, without serious complaint for most of that time.
Abbas seized on the opportunity to declare that he wasn’t going to negotiate. Is he indignant? Upset? Does he feel betrayed? No, he’s delighted to have an excuse to do what he wants to do anyway: Not negotiate with Israel!
Just like the famous scene in the film Casablanca when the police inspector, Renault, who regularly gambles at Rick’s Place decided to shut down the nightclub:
Rick: How can you close me down? On what grounds?
Renault: “I am shocked shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
The croupier comes out of the gambling room and up to Renault. He hands him a roll of bills. Croupier: “Your winnings, sir.”
Renault: “Oh thank you very much. [He turns to the crowd] Everybody out at once!”And so he gets to close down talks, keep his winnings, and blame it on Israel. While Abbas and the PA don’t agree with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on much, they do agree on one point: They claim that the West is abandoning Israel so why should they not just wait for it either to be destroyed (in Ahmadinejad’s case) or until the West gives the Palestinians a state on a silver platter with no concessions on their part (Abbas’s case).
Just as Obama killed the chance for negotiations with his demand for a full freeze, he and Vice-President Joe Biden may have done so again for indirect talks. But isn’t it Israel’s fault in the latter case for a stupid bureaucratic case of bad timing? Absolutely, yes. Yet the U.S. handling of the issue turned an annoying problem into an even worse problem for itself.
[Note: U.S. officials are claiming that talks will still take place, saying that reports of Abbas walking out are untrue. I don't believe this but if so I will correct this article accordingly.]
Even those in the West who mistrust or hate Israel, or at least the current government, have created a monumental paradox for themselves. They say (wrongly, I should point out) that Israel (or Netanyahu) doesn’t want to negotiate or make a deal. If so, however, why are they “punishing” Israel by letting negotiations be killed? One of the many knots one gets into if there’s no understanding of Middle East politics and realities.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
TONY BLAIR TO LAUNCH FAITH FOUNDATION IN US
” I’m really and always have been in a way more interested in religion than politics.” - Tony Blair
In 2008, Tony Blair launched an effort dedicated to bringing different faiths together for reconciliation. When his Tony Blair Faith Foundation was started, Blair described as one of its major goals to “counter extremism in all six leading religions.” He wanted to deal with global poverty and conflict and open up communication between people of different faiths in order to “educate, inform and develop understanding.” Now that Blair has assembled a collection of influential religious leaders from the major world religions, he is preparing to embark on a “faith offensive” across the United States. Yet, while the slaughter of countless millions in the name of religion over the centuries has been horrific, and maintaining respect between members of various religions appeals to peace-loving people, some Christians worry that too much “reconciliation” will create a backlash for those who insist that Jesus alone is the way the truth and the life.
Tony Blair has assembled a variety of religious leaders for the advisory council of his Faith Foundation, including five Christian leaders, Hindu leader Anantanand Rambachan, rabbis David Rosen, and Sir Jonathan Sacks, Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dr. Ismail Khudr Al-Shatti, and has even brought in Professor Jagtar Singh Grewal on behalf of the Sikh religion.
The wealthy and socially liberal Canadian Belinda Stronach, once known as “Bubba’s Blonde” for her alleged relationship with former President Clinton, sits on the advisory council as well. Along with championing liberal causes like gun control and abortion rights, Stronach is known for her philanthropic work, including co-founding Spread the Net to provide African families with mosquito nets as protection from malaria.
On the other side of the foundation’s ideological wall is Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, which has a weekly attendance of nearly 20,000 people. Warren is considered one of the “15 world leaders who matter most” and sits on the council as a social conservative. Warren’s presence on the advisory council may bother liberals because of his opposition to abortion and gay marriage. On the other hand, Warren’s presence on the advisory council may upset some conservatives who do not think an influential conservative should be involving himself with a religious reconciliation group headed by a known globalist.
Warren says he joined the council because he believes Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation is a good thing. He said, “It would be foolish to ignore how religious conviction impacts personal and national identity, poverty and education, extremism and reconciliation, disease and development, peace and progress. In any effort to help people learn to live and work together, we must engage the vast networks, resources, wisdom, and influence of the faith communities.”
Other conservatives are worried that this foundation may be the start of something far broader and more spiritually sinister than just getting together to help people. In a brief interview in 2008, Blair said he defined extremists as “people who want to exclude the other if someone is of a different faith.”
That loose definition could mean anything, and raises red flags for Christians who want to protect their freedom to declare that salvation is found only in Jesus – not out of prejudice or hatefulness, but out of dedication to the Bible as the Word of God (John 14:6 [show/hide]ERROR: You have exceeded your quota of 5000 requests per day. Please contact the developer of this application if you have questions. (If you're the developer and have questions about this error message, please contact Crossway.)
; Acts 4:10-12 [show/hide]ERROR: You have exceeded your quota of 5000 requests per day. Please contact the developer of this application if you have questions. (If you're the developer and have questions about this error message, please contact Crossway.)
Prof. Michel Schooyans of the Catholic University of Louvain has argued that, “In the case of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, this is also a matter of promoting one and only one religious confession, which a universal, global political power would impose on the entire world.”
Some Arab Muslims are skeptical of Tony Blair’s effort as well because he has taken up the US and Israel’s side in a variety of recent conflicts.
Blair has said that his foundation would not focus on “doctrinal inquiry” or “subsume different faiths in some universal faith of the lowest common denominator.” He does consider himself a religious person and wants to get people of different faiths working together to fight poverty and other global problems.
As Blair launches his potentially offensive “religious offensive” in the US, he may find a better reception than his Foundation has has gotten in Europe, where the Guardian last year said it just “inspired ridicule.” At least, with With 4.5 million pounds in the coffers, the group can buy a lot of mosquito nets, and will perhaps provide a rallying ”peace peace” cry that the globalists so long to follow.
Related Links:
• Blair Courts Controversial US Pastor Rick Warren In Bid To Unite Faiths - The Guardian
• Tony And Belinda Launch American Faith Offensive - The First Post
• Tony Blair’s Faith In New Mission - BBC
• More On Rick Warren - Defending Contending
• Tony Blair Faith Foundation - Wikipedia
• Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation Inspires Ridicule - The Guardian
• Strategic Trends: Global Religion - Koinonia House
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
Mar 17 2010
MIRACLES PART II: FREEDOM FROM ADDICTION
Chemical dependence tears apart the lives of millions of people every year. According to the Centers For Disease Control, alcohol induced the deaths of 22,073 Americans in 2006, not counting accidents or homicides. Drug addiction, both legal and illegal, also plagues millions. Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and a number of other multi-step self-help programs exist for those desperately seeking freedom from their addictions, but even with support systems and loved ones available to help, too many people continue to fall and return to their drug of choice. It could be said that a miracle has occurred any time somebody escapes an addiction. While some people struggle for years and years and never seem to find true victory, we will look at three men today whom God clearly and obviously set free, giving hope to countless others. No names have been changed.
Mark Boyle:
Mark’s father left the family when Mark was nine, leaving him without a positive male role model. As he grew into a teenager, Mark said, “I was fairly rudderless.” Despite having vowed to avoid drugs, he succumbed to peer-pressure in his late teens and began to experiment with marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines and LSD. By the time he was 21, Mark told us, drugs “pretty much consumed my whole life.”In 1984, though, at the age of 22, things changed for Mark. The friends that had been a negative influence on him began to move away. He was lonely and isolated and reaching the bottom. About that same time, a young lady named Alison began to tell him about Jesus. “I didn’t appreciate it at the time,” he said, but the seeds were being sown.
Mark told us, “One evening after I was done with work, while I was drinking and smoking pot like always, I was flipping through the channels and I stopped on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. Why would a guy who doesn’t want anything to do with God, who just wants to live his life partying, why would he stop on that channel?” Looking back, Mark said, he believes the Holy Spirit was getting his attention. The seed that had been planted was taking root.
“Pat Robertson was reading my mail. He was praying for lonely people caught in drugs and alcohol, saying, ‘God’s calling you.’” Right there, Mark prayed along with Robertson. He didn’t understand it all, but he believes the Holy Spirit was prompting him, letting him know that there was something better out there.
“So here comes the cool part. The following weekend, what did I do? I did what I’d normally do - go out to the bar and go dancing. I ordered a beer like normal, and when I took the first sip of it, it had the most awful, the most foul taste I’d ever tasted in my life. Right then I remembered that I’d prayed that God would take this desire away from me. And I knew that God was real and that he cared for me and had plans for me.”
Not only did God free Mark from his addiction to drugs and alcohol that week, but Mark ended up marrying Alison. Now, more than 25 years later, the two of them are preparing for the marriage of their oldest daughter.
Chuck Munson:
Chuck began smoking in the Navy during the Vietnam Era, and he found it impossible to quit later on. Within five minutes of waking up in the morning he would have to have a cigarette. He would try to quit on Sundays, which were the calmest day of his week, but he could never make it past 1:00 pm, and he wouldn’t even bother trying the rest of the week. Chuck had plenty of will power and self discipline. He would eventually build his own business up from the ground and go on to be one of the most respected commercial real estate appraisers in the Seattle area. Walking away from cigarettes, though, was “like being chained, and it was impossible to break the chains. It was like walking into the La Brea Tar Pits,” he said.One day in 1974, Chuck was at a Bible study in the office of Pastor Joe Harris at a small church in Bellingham, Washington. In the middle of a sentence, Pastor Joe stopped and said, “I feel like God has a mandate for somebody in this room.” He then went on with the study. Chuck said, “I’m sure that ten seconds later he’d forgotten he’d said anything, but I knew the meaning of what he said and who it was for and what it was about.” Earlier Chuck had been annoyed with himself, “because I knew that these cigarettes had become more important to me than God, and it wasn’t a good thing.”
Chuck went home after the Bible study, and before he went to bed he had a cigarette. The next morning he got up, and after five minutes he didn’t need a cigarette the way he normally did. Pretty soon it was 11:00 and then it was noon, and then it was 1:00, “and I had never made it past 1:00 before,” and then it was 2:00, and he still didn’t want to smoke. The next day passed and the next day, “and what had happened,” Chuck said, “is that God had given me freedom from a desire for cigarettes.”
About four months later, Chuck was in a lounge in Edmonds, Washington with his two brothers and his wife, all of whom smoked. His brother offered him a cigarette, and Chuck took it and put it in his mouth, “and inside me there welled up this feeling, like a silent roar. It was like somebody roared at me, and I felt like Somebody was very very angry at me. So, I took the cigarette out of my mouth and gave it back to my brother.”
Chuck has never had a problem with cigarettes since, “and I think I would probably be dead now if I hadn’t stopped, the way I used to smoke.”
Randy Hess:
Randy suffered with both emotional and physical pain for much of his life. He had been sexually abused, and as a teenager he turned to illegal drugs for relief from the deep shame he felt. Throughout the next 15 years, he was also seriously injured in a series of accidents. Car accidents injured his back. A backhoe accident left his neck damaged. Two discs in his back were ruptured when a front end loader ran into him. He suffered from constant physical and emotional pain, even after giving his life to Christ.In the summer of 1996, Randy was sitting on his front porch smoking a cigarette, and the Holy Spirit said, “What’s that in your hand?” Randy looked down and saw the cigarette, and he put it out. He never had the urge to smoke again. The next day, the power of the Holy Spirit covered him, freeing him from the shame he’d suffered for nearly 20 years. He felt the love of God like he never had before. He still had to endure the physical pain of his injuries, however, and for the next two-and-a-half years he continued to depend on prescription pain pills.
In 1998, Randy moved across the country, and in January 1999, his prescription refills ran out. He faced a decision. He would either have to find a new doctor and get new prescriptions or go without. “Lord,” he said with all his heart, “I don’t want to take drugs anymore.” During the next several months he felt his body grow stronger than it had been since he was a teenager. He was able to work hard and not suffer from horrible headaches and back pain. During the next several years he refused to even take an Advil, and he praised God for His goodness and power in his life.
Do some Christians continue to struggle with debilitating, embarrassing addictions? Yes. Do we always know why? No, we don’t. There are many variables involved, and in each situation we need the Spirit of God to lead us in how to confront the problem. What we do know is this: Christ came to set us free, and He is stronger than our worst habits and addictions. If we have any hope for true freedom, it is in total dependence on Him, moment by moment, day by day.
“If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” - John 8:36 [show/hide]ERROR: You have exceeded your quota of 5000 requests per day. Please contact the developer of this application if you have questions. (If you're the developer and have questions about this error message, please contact Crossway.)
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” - Romans 8:2 [show/hide]ERROR: You have exceeded your quota of 5000 requests per day. Please contact the developer of this application if you have questions. (If you're the developer and have questions about this error message, please contact Crossway.)
Related Links:
| Awesome Post: | |
| 0 Vote |
