Command the Raven

From Koinonia House

Nations Must Know When to Cringe and Crawl—But for the West It’s Becoming Routine

Posted: 10 Mar 2010 12:13 PM PST

By Barry Rubin

Sometimes selective appeasement is necessary in foreign policy. But when and just how far should a democratic country go in such behavior? Here’s a brilliant defense of giving in at times—which doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with it, but I do respect it—and a recent example of how it’s overdone and mistakenly carried out nowadays.

The Times of London article is by George Walden, a former British diplomat and Conservative member of parliament with a lot of international experience. Let’s consider what he says and how we should interpret it.
The title tells a great deal: “We can’t afford the moral high ground: “In tough economic times, Britain cannot be too picky about whom it does business with.” In other words, the West is much weaker than it used to be and is often the beggar in these relationships with Third World dictatorships.

At times this is true, but at other times craven behavior is unnecessary and dangerous. Indeed, as I’ve often pointed out, the sense of Western weakness (the West cannot do anything) and cowardice (it won’t do anything) is Viagra for aggressive regimes—from Venezuela through Russia and the Middle East to North Korea–and revolutionary groups.

Here are Walden’s vivid examples:

1. The British government had to persuade an enraged Saudi king that the showing on television of a program about his government’s nasty beheading of a princess did not reflect official British views. He writes: “Being careful not to apologize for something over which the Government had no control, in the hope of reversing a devastating trade ban and other sanctions.” This is the right way to handle it, explaining without apologizing and also, one might add, without censoring. Note, however, how often this line has been crossed more recently by the United States and European governments.

2. A cordial meeting with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, “Despite what we knew of Saddam’s crimes, not just against his own people but in London, where his goons were busy poisoning dissidents.” In this case the action was strategic as well as trade-oriented. The British government did it, “Because he was at war with Iran, because the Russians were in Afghanistan and — who knew? — en route for the Gulf; and because, for historical reasons, our exports to Iraq were rather large.”

Supporting Iraq against Iran during the 1980-1988 war was a correct decision. The great mistake though, as I have argued in great detail elsewhere (Cauldron of Turmoil; The Tragedy of the Middle East) was to continue that behavior after 1988, errors that helped produce Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. In other words, strategic appeasement has to be carefully limited and, of course, used only with countries which are actually doing something useful to you, not your enemies (Iran) or those who promise benefits and never deliver (Syria).
3. The British government also “countenanced with little more than a noisy protest the barbarously sophisticated assassination of a British citizen in London, Alexander Litvinenko. Why? Partly because to have taken it farther would have jeopardized our exports to a fast-growing market, where the largest company in Britain, BP, had extensive investments.” The same thing happened in the case of a Libyan embassy employee murdering a British policewoman in cold blood.

I’d say this is going too far. Looking the other way while one of your citizens—and especially one of your own civil servants–is murdered on your territory out of purely commercial considerations seems too craven and a violation of the government’s promise to protect its own people.

4. Prime Minister Tony Blair overrode, “The law of the land in unprecedented fashion to protect the Saudi Royal Family from a corruption investigation in connection with a BAE deal. Legally it was a scandal, but to do otherwise would have put a huge defense contract at risk (you could hear the French salivating), not to speak of the incidental disadvantage of severing anti-terrorist cooperation with Riyadh, which the Saudis had blatantly threatened.”

I think this was a mistake, though perhaps the investigation might have been slowed or reduced in scope. When dictatorships get you to break your own laws like that it is subverting your own society. As for anti-terrorist cooperation, I suspect reasonably that this was more a Saudi than a British benefit. Beware of letting a dictatorship charge you for a service which is more useful to them than to you.

5. The deal allowing a Libyan terrorist in the Lockerbie plane incident go free in exchange for an oil deal with Libya. This is a serious error because not only does it make clear you can be bought and sold but also encourages future terrorist attacks. This—not the attack on Iraq—is the real blood for oil scandal.

Ironically, of course, when once Western states conducted gunboat diplomacy to protect investments and citizens while also to open markets, today the exact opposite occurs. (Is a terrorist attack the equivalent of a modern gunboat?) Walden rightly notes, “We would do well to understand this, because the international moral climate seems destined to become more brutal at roughly the same rate as our economic vulnerability increases.”

One should ask if Western imperialism has been replaced by Third World imperialism. Wow, that’s a good subject to study, isn’t it? Let’s get the academics , journalists, and intellectuals on it right away: Once upon a time North America and Europe were at times aggressive bullies but now that torch has been passed to a variety of radical dictatorships in the Third World. They are guilty of Westophobia, anti-Western racism, opposition to diversity, and a variety of other sins. I hope you can see the potential in this line of inquiry for turning the contemporary Western debate upside down.

But I digress. Walden makes clear regarding his examples: “I am not talking about wars, so much as how sovereign nations deal with one another in conditions of formal peace. “ But I’d go further than this: one can justify concessions or even what seems like appeasement in exchange for something tangible provided by an ally, even if somewhat odious and temporary. (The prime example is the alliance with Stalin’s USSR during World War Two.)

Yet such gifts should never be given to enemies—even in conditions of formal peace—who are trying to destroy the friends and influence of one’s own countries. The reason is that given the most practical considerations, such steps will strengthen the enemies and make them redouble their efforts to attack and undermine.

While acknowledging that Great Britain and America have done wrong things themselves, Walden explains—this should be obvious but unfortunately isn’t:

“Those who look forward eagerly (pop stars and theatre folk very much included) to the demise of the Anglo-American model and the emergence of a multipolar world should pause and consider where exactly these new poles of power are to be located, and how they are likely to behave when they feel the post-colonial boot transferring to the other foot.”

He also notes that some Western countries will merely step in even if others engage in sanctions. Of course, this is a problem in the Iran case with Russia and China.

One error I think Walden makes is to attribute the demand for more moralism as coming from pop stars and cosmopolitan elitists. Yet while such groups may find a cause like saving the whales or freeing Tibet congenial, it seems that nowadays they are more often on the other side, demanding kindness to dictatorships and tolerance of terrorists.

Indeed, given the five cases he cites above, I cannot identity a single one of the “beautiful people” who were outraged and demanded tougher action against Saddam, the Saudis, Libya, or for that matter Venezuela, Russia (over its attack on Georgia, for instance), Iran, or Syria (given its terrorist intimidation of Lebanon.

Tellingly he concludes:

“I am not suggesting we ease our moral joints in preparation to incline the knee in multiple directions. I simply draw attention to the widening gap between our predilection for national outrage and our power for action, and inquire how we propose to bridge it….Above all ask yourself how you would explain your ethical one-upmanship to an-out-of-work aviation technician/oil man/fork lift truck driver in the North of England.”

This made me think of the impoverished British mill workers who demanded sanctions against the Confederacy during the American Civil War because they opposed slavery, even though refusing to buy Southern cotton made them unemployed. Are today’s workers made of the same stuff as their ancestors, even if the elite doesn’t live up to its forbears?

So often we see that what is going on, though, is not dictated by clever strategy but a belief system in which “my country right or wrong” (yes I know the rest of the quote about putting it right if it isn’t) becomes “my country always wrong.” This is what the late J.B. Kelly called the “preemptive cringe” as policy.

And so State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley who never apologized to undermining a democratic friend of the United States did so to Libya. After that country’s daffy dictator Muammar Qadhafi threatened jihad against Switzerland because that country merely wanted to sustain its rule of law against his son’s criminal behavior while on a visit, Crowley made some mildly derogatory remarks.

But once Libya threatened actions against U.S. businesses he backed down. So let’s get this straight. Switzerland briefly arrested one of Qadhafi’s sons on the charge of beating up hotel workers, Libya then kidnapped two Swiss businessmen, imposed a trade embargo on Switzerland, and barred EU citizens from visiting but the United States is apologizing to Libya.

Shouldn’t the United States be backing up brave little Switzerland? Apologizing, crawling, and appeasing should be reserved for those times when it is really required by a compelling national interest. Doing it too often can be habit-forming; teaching others that they can walk all over you to their profit.

Optional footnotes:

I resisted the temptation to make some reference about Walden’s pond being turned into a swamp by excessive appeasement.

I also resisted the temptation to quip that P.J. O’Rourke would certainly make a better–certainly a more entertaining–State Department spokesman than P.J. Crowley. For those who don’t know, O’Rourke is a bitterly acerbic and funny satirical writer.

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.

From Koinonia House Archives January 2008

IN EMINENT DANGER -
In June of 2005 the Supreme Court shocked and frightened land owners across America by ruling that private property can be seized by the government and sold to private developers in order to generate tax revenue and spur economic growth. That case, Kelo v. City of New London, opened the floodgates for local governments to use eminent domain for private gain. The Supreme Court’s decision triggered an immediate response, and the following year the issue of eminent domain appeared on 12 state ballots – making it the single biggest ballot issue of the 2006 election. The ballot initiatives were successful in 10 states, giving residents in those states varying degrees of protection from eminent domain abuse. Other states have followed suit and passed similar laws. However the problem has not gone away.

In Baldwin Park, California city officials plan to use their eminent domain power to seize more than 500 homes and small businesses. The land will then be sold to the Bisno Development Company – a wealthy and politically connected private developer. The developer will use the 125 acres for projects that will generate more tax revenue. The Baldwin Park proposal is perhaps one of the worst examples of eminent domain abuse in the country (unfortunately it is not the only example).

In Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Historically, the government’s right of eminent domain has been invoked when land is needed for a distinct public purpose – such as a highway, public school, hospital or military base. The words “for public use” and “without just compensation” in the Fifth Amendment were meant to provide safeguards against excessive, unpredictable, or unfair use of the government’s eminent domain power. As a result of the court’s decision in the case of Kelo v.City of New London, however, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What happened in the city of New London, Connecticut was not an isolated incident. Similar scenarios have played out in communities all around the country. The city of New London was looking for ways to improve its economy. In 2000, the city approved a development plan that would put in office buildings, a hotel, and a health club near the waterfront. When they approved the plan, however, the city gave the developers power to condemn houses whose owners remained unwilling to sell. The city argued that it would be for public good to develop the city and encourage tourism and create jobs, and for that reason, those homes could be seized - and the Supreme Court agreed.

In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor criticized the court’s decision to expand eminent domain to include such takings. She wrote that, “under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.” Such a broad interpretation, she argued, could include just about anything.

The Supreme Court has given local governments the green light to confiscate private property for profit. Private homes and small businesses can now be bulldozed and replaced by upscale retail and housing developments, office buildings, hotels, casinos and other redevelopment projects that are owned, not by the public, but by private individuals and corporations. Such abuse of power cannot be what the founding father’s had in mind when they drafted the constitution.

[Editor's Note: It is important to point out that the Bible clearly establishes the importance of private property. In fact, God instituted the concept of private property in the Ten Commandments. Are we not told "thou shalt not steal"? Also, in several of Jesus' parables he indicated his respect for personal property and private gain. Likewise, there is nothing in the epistles that contradicts the right of private ownership and profit.]
Related Links:
• Eminent Domain Opponents Protest in Glassboro - Courier-Post
• Eminent Domain Still Worries Homeowners - NJ Herald
• Condo-Commercial Proposal May Require Eminent Domain - San Diego Union-Tribune
• Baldwin Park Eminent Domain Abuse - Pasadena Star
• Armor for the Age of Deceit - MP3 Download - Koinonia House
- From Koinonia House News Letter

From Koinonia House Archives January 2008

UNRAVELING THE MYSTERY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE -
With talk of a recession hanging in the air it seems the Federal Reserve may once again cut interest rates. While this news caused stock prices to rebound, it most likely went unnoticed by most Americans. The reality is that few people outside the world of finance take a keen interest in such matters. If TV ratings are any indication, the American public in general is more interested in hearing about Britney Spears’ custody battle than the news that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke cut the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point.

The actions of the Federal Reserve have a significant effect on our daily lives. However it remains something of a mystery to most Americans. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is perhaps the most powerful non-elected official in the world, whose decisions affect every aspect of our economy, from interest rates to the cost of groceries. So what is the Federal Reserve and how did it come into existence? The answer might surprise you.

The Meeting on Jekyll Island

In November of 1910, after having consulted with Rothschild banks in England, France, and Germany, Senator Nelson Aldrich boarded a private train in Hoboken, New Jersey. His destination was Jekyll Island, Georgia, and a private hunting club owned by J.P. Morgan.

Aboard the train were six other men: Benjamin Strong, President of Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company; Charles Norton, President of Morgan’s First National Bank of New York; Henry Davidson, senior partner of J. P. Morgan; Frank Vanderlip, President of Kuhn Loeb’s National City Bank of New York; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of Treasury; and Paul Warburg. The secret meeting, as described by one its architects, Frank Vanderlip, went as follows:
“There was an occasion near the close of 1910 when I was as secretive, indeed as furtive, as any conspirator. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.

We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time…where Senator Aldrich’s private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of the train for the South.

Once aboard the private car, we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted…”

What’s in a Name?

The goal was to establish a private bank that would control the national currency. The challenge was to slip the scheme by the representatives of the American people. Earlier, it had been called the Aldrich Bill and received effective opposition. The devious planners of the revised bill titled it “The Federal Reserve Act” to mask its real nature. It would create a system controlled by private individuals who would control the nation’s issue of money. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board, composed of twelve districts and one director (The Federal Reserve Chairman) would control the nation’s financial resources by controlling the money supply and available credit, all by mortgaging the government through borrowing.

The conspirators had a problem, however. President William Howard Taft had made it clear he would veto such a bill if it was introduced. They had to make sure he would not win reelection. They first supported ex-President Teddy Roosevelt in the Republican primaries, but he failed to get the nomination. The bankers then supported the Democratic contender, Woodrow Wilson.

In exchange for their support, Wilson promised to sign their bill into law. But the polls indicated that Wilson would only draw about 45 percent of the votes. The bankers needed someone who could draw a sufficient number of Republican votes away from Taft without harming their Democratic candidate. They arranged for Teddy Roosevelt to run against both men by representing a newly invented third party: the “Bull Moose” party.

The plan worked. The Federal Reserve Bill was held until December 23 (two days before Christmas!) before it was presented to the House and Senate. Only those senators and congressmen who had not gone home for the holidays - those who owed favors to, or were on the payroll of, the bankers - were present to sign the legislation.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a deliberate charade to pacify the American voters. They’d been crying out for banking reform and had held scores of elections, alternating one set of politicians with another, only to find themselves with the same programs and deeper debt.

The name “Federal Reserve Bank” was designed to deceive, and it still does. It is not federal, nor is it owned by the government. It is privately owned. It pays its own postage like any other corporation. Its employees are not civil service. Its physical property is held under private deeds and is subject to local taxation (government property is not). It is an engine that has created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated. It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for its own agenda and enlisted the government itself as its enforcer.

New World Order

Meyer Amschel Rothschild’s original plan was to facilitate “a new order of a one world government.” This explains why the Great Seal of the United States, on the back side of the one dollar bill, bears the inscription Novus Ordo Seclorum: New World Order. For more information on the Federal Reserve listen to our briefing called Behold a Black Horse.
Related Links:
• Wall Street Rebounds on Rate Cut Hopes - AP
• Recession in the US ‘Has Arrived’ - BBC
• Dollar May Fall Versus Euro, Yen on Expectation of Rate Cut - Bloomberg
• Behold A Black Horse - MP3 Download - Koinonia House
• The Vortex Strategy - DVD - Koinonia House
• The Vortex Strategy - MP3 Download - Koinonia House
- From Koinonia House News Letter

From Koinonia House

**IMPORTANT NEWS HEADLINES**

---

Obama Influenced By Many Religions - March 10, 2010
President Obama, who rarely attends public church services, turns often to a wide range of Baptists, Mainline Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and Jews for prayer and spiritual and moral discussion, according to a new report. While this effort to include the religions of most Americans may appear unifying, it demonstrates that Obama lacks true religious conviction of his own and is not dependent wholly on Jesus Christ. USA Today

3-D Bible Movie In Planning Stage - March 09, 2010
Paramount and Reel Fx have announced plans to make In The Beginning, a 3D telling of the creation story. The stories of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood and Abraham and Isaac were previously told by John Huston in 1966’s The Bible: In The Beginning. Digital Spy

Russia Delays Resetting Relations With US - March 09, 2010
After months of delay and discord, administration officials said, they have learned that when it comes to deal-making with Moscow, nothing is done until it is done, and rarely will it go as smoothly as anticipated. The arms control treaty is part of a complicated diplomatic effort to forge a new relationship with Russia, interlinked with issues like Iran, missile defense and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama had hoped to restore ties with some relatively easier deals that could lead to more trust and deeper cooperation in areas that have long divided the former adversaries. The New York Times

One In Six Americans Infected With Herpes - March 09, 2010
As many as one in six Americans is infected with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), health officials said Tuesday. HSV-2, one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the United States, is a serious, incurable infection that lasts a lifetime, causing recurrent and painful genital sores, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Business Week

Iraq Holds Elections, US Pullout On Track - March 08, 2010
While lower than the 76 percent that turned out in the country’s last parliamentary election in December 2005, the national turnout was higher than last year’s showing in provincial elections, suggesting higher stakes. Some of the largest turnout occurred in regions, like Kirkuk and Nineveh, which include disputed territories. “It was really a good day for Iraqi democracy,” the American ambassador to Iraq, Christopher R. Hill, told reporters. The New York Times

From Koinonia House

NATO - NOT DEAD YET

NATO appears to be in trouble. Europe lacks full commitment to the organization and its military is underfunded. Last week, the US Defense Secretary lamented over NATO’s deterioration and fueled the fires of those who argue that NATO has long outlasted its usefulness.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it clear last week that NATO’s weakness has been hurting the war effort in Afghanistan. “Right now, the alliance faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems,” Gates said. Only five of its 28 member states are sticking by their agreements to spend two percent of their GDP on defense, and that lack of funding is hurting NATO’s ability to buy the helicopters, cargo planes and spy drones necessary to fight effectively in Afghanistan.

One of NATO’s purposes in Afghanistan has been to train the Afghan security forces to do their jobs so that the local government can fight on its own without outside help. NATO members, however, have only sent half of the 32,0000 trainers requested in order to teach the local security forces to do their jobs well. “Training and advising the security forces of other nations needs to become a key alliance mission,” Gates said. “In Afghanistan, the alliance has struggled to field the trainers and mentors needed for this mission.”

Support for the war has dwindled in Europe, especially in light of the corruption within Karzai’s government. Yet, the war is not over, and it is imperative that the US maintain stability especially for the sake of Pakistan. If the Taliban overrun Pakistan with all of its nuclear weapons, the whole world will be in trouble. Europe, however, has not shown sufficient interest in maintaining a strong military force, and amidst complaints from US Cabinet officials that Europe does not do enough, some echo the sentiments of Andrew J Bacevich’s “Let Europe Be Europe” in Foreign Policy magazine arguing that the US should just abandon NATO to the Europeans to handle all on their own.

While the need for NATO appeared to be over with the Cold War, other issues from the Balkans crisis to 21st century terrorism have arisen in the past twenty years to keep the alliance alive. The USSR may have been broken and Russia may be struggling, but its weakened military can still do damage. Europe and American still have common histories and cultures - convenient bonds that give both sides of the ocean plenty of reasons to remain committed to one another as allies.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a defensive alliance in which each member was pledged to come to the aid of any of its members which were attacked militarily. However, at the 50th Anniversary Summit in Washington on April 23-24, 1999, NATO redefined itself in terms which appeared as a startling impetus toward the creation of a major new trans-global alliance. The new definition, as opposed to contributing toward regional and global stability, uncompromisingly identified the alliance as an offensive military threat to its neighbors.  Since 1999, 12 new members have been added to NATO from eastern Europe and the Balkans, including Albania and Croatia just last year.

While some believe the time for NATO is over, the alliance isn’t dead yet and even looks ready for another life boost. This fall another NATO summit will be held to present the updated vision of the alliance through a brand new Strategic Concept. Right now the Secretary General of NATO is drafting this new Strategic Concept in preparation for the 2010 summit at Lisbon, Portugal.

For centuries, Biblical scholars have been anticipating the re-emergence of the Roman Empire in its final phase. The bonding of Europe in recent decades would appear to be setting the stage for the final climax which the Bible portrays in such fascinating detail.

From Christian Post

Holographic preachers are stirring another technology-gone-too-far debate among Christians.

While the dust over beaming preachers on a video screen on multi-site campuses has somewhat settled, the new 3D tool is raising more questions and concerns among some believers.

“Since so many of us in the west are convinced that entertaining pew fodder is critical to advancing ‘the gospel’ and that only a very few have the necessary gifts to preachertain – this will become the ‘perfect’ solution,” Bill Kinnon, author of A Networked Conspiracy, Social Networks, The Church & the Power of Collective Intelligence, wrote in a recent blog post.

What has Kinnon and many other Christians talking is the holographic technology that music artist Madonna famously used at the Grammy Awards in 2006 and that one company wants to promote in churches.

Tony Morgan, pastor of ministries at West Ridge Church near Atlanta, introduced the technology as a possible church tool on his blog this week. He had visited with the company Clark (formerly Clark ProMedia) at their offices in Alpharetta, Ga., where they demonstrated the 3D tool. As he stood on the stage of the company’s new theater, an image of another person was projected next to him. From the audience’s perspective, it appears as if the other figure was actually present.

The technology itself isn’t new to Morgan but it was the first time he saw it in person.

Houston Clark, whose company has been involved in “high-end video venue type production environments,” is looking to get holograms in churches. He met with Ainsley Henn of Musion Systems based in the U.K. – the company responsible for the Gorillaz hologram in the Madonna show.

In an interview with ChurchMediaDesign.tv, Clark said the technology creates an “as if you’re there experience” and “begins to extend the realism of virtual teaching venues.”

“This just gives you a completely limitless palette for creating environments that don’t look as if you’re viewing them but look as if you’re part of them because it’s in three dimensions,” he added.

Currently, there are some 3,000 multi-sites in the country. Some churches that have adopted the one church in multiple locations approach have turned their other campuses into video venues. In other words, the pastor preaches at one location and is beamed to screens in other locations.

Video venues stirred debate among pastors, some of whom felt it was making a celebrity out of the preacher.

Bob Hyatt, lead pastor of Evergreen Community and a church planter, argued earlier that video venues focus “entirely too much on the preaching gifts of one person.”

Now with holograms slated to replace 2D video images of preachers at multi-sites, the technology is reviving the debate.

“Wow!!! Who needs fellowship anymore? Soon I will be able to sit at home in my pj’s and have my Pastor in my living room. Who needs a Pastor? We can have one hologram preacher for the whole world and then we wouldn’t need to pay for one. What is the church coming to?” one commenter named Schuyler Hedrick wrote in response to Morgan’s blog.

Missiologist Ed Stetzer, meanwhile, sees the use of holograms in the church as a “natural evolution” of the technology.

“People watched their pastor live on a big screen at a megachurch, then they watched their pastor on video from another place, now the video goes from 2D to 3D,” he commented to The Christian Post. “It is not a shift of philosophy but of technology. If you are already OK watching via video, this is just a new tool, not a new approach.”

Adding his own two cents to the debate he sparked on his own blog, Morgan said he supports churches using technology to reach today’s culture.

“Technology is not a sin,” he said in an e-mail to The Christian Post. “Technology can be used to sin. Technology can also be redeemed to engage today’s culture and present the gospel. As missionaries in today’s world, frankly, I think the church needs to embrace technology if we are going to speak the language of today’s culture.

“We can run from it. We can yell at it. Or, we can leverage it where it’s appropriate to present the gospel and help people take their next steps toward Christ.”

Having friends and neighbors who still don’t know Christ and his unconditional love, Morgan said he’s willing to face criticism for his espousal of new technology.

“If I’m criticized for my passion to present the gospel and help as many people as possible experience a life-changing journey in Christ, I’m willing to face that criticism to live out my conviction,” he said.

According to Morgan, pricing on the holographic technology is “coming down quickly to the point that I won’t be surprised if we see this technology implemented in churches within the next 12 months.”

“Not unlike other forms of video distribution, advancements in technology are making it easier for ministries to consider this form of communication as an option,” he noted.

- From Prophecy News Watch

From Telegraph UK

Traditionalists fear vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they rejected requests to hold civil partnership ceremonies on religious premises. The warning follows a landmark vote by peers that would allow the ceremonies to be held in places of worship.

It is also feared that the changes would blur the line further between marriage, which churches say must be between a man and a woman, and civil partnerships.

Until now, civil partnership ceremonies, which give same-sex couples the same legal rights as married spouses, have been restricted to register offices and venues such as hotels and stately homes.

However, the ban on the events taking place on religious premises will be lifted under an amendment to the Equality Bill tabled by Lord Alli, a homosexual Labour peer, which was passed late on Monday.

The amendment states that national faith groups will not be forced to carry out civil partnerships. However, it is feared that same-sex couples could use the Equality Bill or the Human Rights Act to take action against individual clergy if they refuse to “marry” them in a church.

The Bishop of Bradford, the Rt Rev David James, warned during the debate of the “unintended consequences”. He said that although it was being presented to “simply be an available option” to some religious groups, he was “not so confident” that it would remain so.

The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, added: “I believe it will open, not the Church of England, but individual clergy, to charges of discrimination.”

Lord Waddington, the former Home Secretary, said a clergyman “prepared to register marriages but not to register civil partnerships would be accused of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of services”.

The amendment, passed on a free vote in the Lords by 95 to 21, has to be approved by MPs. Baroness Royall, the leader of the Lords, warned it would “not work in practice”, although she supported its intention.

Don Horrocks, the head of public affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, warned that religious groups must not be “forced to betray their consciences”.

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: “The Government has failed to understand the nature of religious liberty and has treated faith as nothing more than a matter of personal devotion.”

The vote was welcomed by equality campaigners. Rabbi Aaron Goldstein, the joint chairman of the Rabbinic Conference of Liberal Judaism, said his community was “looking forward to being able to celebrate its first ever Jewish spiritual blessing together with the English legal ceremony”. Quakers and Unitarians also hope to hold the ceremonies on their premises.

Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, claimed bishops opposed the move because they feared it would worsen the divide within the Church of England over homosexuality. A spokesman for the Equalities Office said: “Baroness Royall made the Government’s position clear during the debate. We’re considering our position.”

- From Prophecy News Watch

From Telegraph UK

Four Muslim fanatics dreamed of “mounting a second September 11″ with a series of bomb attacks on a US military base in Germany as well as nightclubs and restaurants used by American servicemen.

The gang, two of whom were German-born but converted to Islam, plotted to detonate explosives 100 times more powerful than those used in the attacks on the London Underground in July 2005, in a “monstrous bloodbath”, a court heard.

Had the plot not been foiled the gang, a cell of a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda, would have killed 150 soldiers, along with women and children in a “mass murder unrivalled in Germany.”

On Thursday, at the end of a nine-month trial, the ringleader, Fritz Gelowicz, 30, the son of a doctor and engineer, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for the plot. His sidekick Daniel Schneider, 24, was also given an 12-year sentence. Adem Yilmaz, 31, a Turkish national, was sentenced to 11 years and Attila Selek, 25, a Turkish German, was sentenced to five years.

Judge Ottmar Breidling said the case: “has shown with frightening clarity what acts young people who are filled with hatred, blinded and seduced by wrong-headed ideas of jihad are prepared and able to carry out.”

“Never before had there been a terror attack of that dimension in Germany,” he said. “You were blinded by a strange, hate-filled notion of jihad and you turned yourselves into angels of death in the name of Islam.”

The gang, known as the “Sauerland Cell” after the tourist region where they stockpiled massive amounts of chemicals for the bombs, had planned to carry out the attacks at the US Air Force base at Ramstein and in restaurants and nightclubs in the area, in October 2007. It was to coincide with a vote in parliament to extend German participation in the Nato force in Afghanistan.

Gelowicz, who came from a family which “seemed to be the epitome of middle-class harmony”; Schneider and Yilmaz were captured in the Sauerland region in 2007 after storing vast quantities of hydrogen peroxide, suitable for making car bombs and other explosives.

Attila Selek, a Turkish German, was later arrested in Turkey where he was to acquire the detonators for the bombs. He was extradited to Germany in 2008.

The group was being watched by intelligence agents at a holiday cottage the men had rented as part of what has been called the biggest surveillance operation in German post-war history.

Police found the three suspects as they were preparing some 730 litres of what they thought was hydrogen peroxide liquid. “This would have resulted in about 410 kilograms of explosives – 100 times the amount used in the 2005 London bombings,” prosecutors said.

However, when the gang left their hideout, agents swapped the chemicals for water, rendering their plans useless.

All have given detailed accounts of their terrorist training at a camp in Pakistan’s “bandit country” of Waziristan together with details of the US bases that they planned to blitz with their home-made devices for the Islamic Jihadist Union.

“The confessions of the accused were the most comprehensive talks concerning terrorism ever heard in a German court of law,” said Rolf Tophoven, director of the institute of terrorism research and security policy in Essen.

“They gave an exact description of what was going on in the terror training camps in Pakistan.”

Schneider also admitted to trying to kill a policeman who he shot at when they moved in to break up their cell in September 2007.

Gelowicz, who once used to play American football and aspire to an American lifestyle, Schneider and Selek have now dissociated themselves from terrorism. In their final appeals to the court, they called their actions a “mistake.” Yilmaz also confessed but declined to address the judges during the final hearing.

“I could have and should have acted differently,” Schneider said, adding that he hoped to complete a university degree behind bars. He said that he would accept the responsibility for his actions and accept his punishment All said they turned to terror in disgust at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Germany’s intelligence agencies believe that, with 4,500 troops currently in Afghanistan, the risk of a terror attack in the country remains high.

- From Prophecy News Watch

From Christian Post

A controversial priest who has a lesbian partner has so far received more than half the votes she needs to be consecrated as an assistant bishop.

And the 120-day consent process began just a month ago.

The Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool has 29 consents to become bishop suffragan, according to a recent report by the Diocese of Los Angeles. She needs 56 to be confirmed as the second openly homosexual bishop in The Episcopal Church.

“Throughout her 30 years of ordained ministry, the Rev. Mary Glasspool has been faithful and consistent to the ministry, doctrine and teaching of the Episcopal Church,” Bishop Nathan Baxter of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Pennsylvania wrote in a pastoral letter indicating his consent.

“On the matter of her sexuality and life-style, the Rev. Glasspool is faithful to the spirit and prayerfully determined direction of our church,” he noted. “For 18 years, she and her partner have lived in witness to the marks the church has expected of all persons in committed intimate relationships (including traditional marriage): fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and holy love.”

Glasspool has been with her partner, Becki Sander, since 1988. Her election in December to the office of bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles has caused another uproar across The Episcopal Church, six years after it consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

The election came just months after The Episcopal Church’s top legislative body approved a resolution declaring the denomination’s ordination process open to all individuals, which some say includes practicing homosexuals.

Glasspool, who first came out to the national body 30 years ago, says “it’s time for our wonderful church to move on and be the inclusive Church we say we are.”

But conservative Anglicans say giving consent to her election would confirm that The Episcopal Church has abandoned biblically-based Christianity. Others who advocate for the full inclusion of gays and lesbians, meanwhile, are choosing to withhold their approval.

The Rev. Herman Hollerith IV, bishop of the Diocese of Southern Virginia, announced his decision to deny consent to the election of Glasspool.

Though he acknowledges her as an experienced, faithful priest with strong leadership skills, Hollerith believes her ordination would have “a serious negative impact on our relationship with the wider Anglican Communion.”

In fact, her ordination “may very well strain – to the breaking point – those bonds of affection which we have come to value with others, even with those who may agree with us,” he stated.

Sometimes, he said, “it is necessary to practice restraint for the sake of preserving and maintaining relationships.”

Since the 2003 consecration of Robinson, relationships between The Episcopal Church and much of the Anglican Communion have been strained or impaired, in some cases. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who is considered the spiritual leader of the worldwide communion, on Tuesday appealed for Anglicans to resolve divisions over homosexuality, noting that they were causing “chaos.”

Anglican bishops throughout the global body have reaffirmed a moratorium on the consecration of bishops living in a same gender union. Just after Glasspool’s election, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion called for “gracious restraint in respect of actions that endanger the unity” of the global body.

- From Prophecy News Watch

From Catholic.Net

Five cardinals have invited every cardinal and bishop in the world to join them in petitioning Pope Benedict XVI to solemnly proclaim the Mother of Jesus as the “Spiritual Mother of humanity” as an ecumenical service of clarification to other religious traditions and to proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary.

An English copy of the letter which the five cardinals sent to all the world’s cardinals and bishops in various languages on January 1, as well as a Latin “votum” or petition and its English translation has been released by His Eminence, Luis Cardinal Aponte Martínez, Fatima Symposium cardinal co-patron, with permission for publication.

This initiative also intends to start an in-depth worldwide dialogue on Mary’s role in salvation for our time and builds upon the endorsement of over 500 Catholic cardinals and bishops for the petition for the definition of this potential fifth Marian dogma over the course of the past 15 years. Renowned contemporary Catholic leaders have also voiced their support, such as Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Mother Angelica, foundress of the worldwide Eternal Word Television Network, along with approximately 7 million petitions from Catholics worldwide.

Should this effort prove successful, a proclamation would constitute a historical event for the Church as only the fifth Marian dogma defined in its 2,000-year history.

These five cardinals and their petition, in the form of a Latin votum, included the names and petitions of a number of cardinals and bishops who met at the renowned Marian Shrine in Fatima, Portugal, in May 2005 for a theological symposium on the role of the Virgin Mary as the “Unique Cooperator in the Redemption” (an expression of Pope John Paul II). The symposium ended with a commonly accepted and signed votum to Pope Benedict, which respectfully asks him to prayerfully consider declaring the existing Church doctrine on Mary as the spiritual mother of all peoples as a solemn definition or “dogma,” which represents the highest level of recognition of a particular Christian doctrine as a Catholic truth. This definition of Mary as spiritual mother would include her three maternal roles as the human “Co-redemptrix” (which literally means “a woman with the Redeemer” but never on a level of equality with her divine son), “Mediatrix” or distributor of the graces of the redemption, and “Advocate” or principal intercessor to her Jesus Christ.

The votum emphasizes the rich ecumenical benefits that would come from a solemn definition of this role of Mary as humanity’s spiritual mother, as the “ultimate expression of doctrinal clarity at the service of our Christian and non-Christian brothers and sisters who are not in communion with Rome, and as well as for the greater understanding and appreciation of this revealed doctrine concerning the Mother of the Redeemer by the People of God at the outset of this third millennium of Christianity.”

The first major petition drive to the popes for the solemn definition of Mary’s universal mediation of grace (a long-standing Catholic doctrine taught by the Roman pontiffs) came from Belgian Cardinal Mercier in 1915, at which time he received the positive support of hundreds of Catholic bishops. In the early 1920s, the petition was also strongly endorsed by Fr. Maximilian Kolbe (who was later canonized by Pope John Paul II), founder of the international Marian movement, Militia Immaculatae (“Army of the Immaculate”), and who offered his life in martyrdom in Auschwitz in 1941.

Cardinal Toppo, President of India’s Conference of Catholic Bishops and cardinal co-patron of the 2005 Fatima symposium stated in his address, “The title ‘co’ clarifies it all. She is in no way the Redemptrix of humanity, and yet by the will of God and her humble human co-operation, she truly is, and deserves to be called/designated/honoured as ‘Co-redemptrix.’”

Cardinal Aponte Martínez, also cardinal co-patron at the Fatima conference, offers the following comment in support of the present timeliness of this potential dogma by Benedict XVI: “I believe the time is now for the papal definition of the relationship of the Mother of Jesus to the each one of us, her earthly children, in her roles as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate. To solemnly proclaim Mary as the spiritual mother of all peoples is to fully and officially recognize her titles, and consequently to activate, to bring to new life the spiritual, intercessory functions they offer the Church for the New Evangelization, and for humanity in our serious present world situation.”

- From Prophecy News Watch