Baucus joins Grassley in follow-up letter to ministries

Article Title: Baucus joins Grassley in follow-up letter to ministries

Source: THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS [A. H. Belo Corporation/Belo Group] - Religion Blog by Sam Hodges - March 12, 2008

Link: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/baucus-joins-grassley-in-follo.html


Sen Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Commitee, has joined ranking member Sen. Charles Grassley in writing four ministries, urging them to comply with Grassley's earlier request for financial information. This would suggest that Grassley's probe of the finances of the ministries, including the one run by Kenneth Copeland of the Fort Worth area, isn't going away and enjoys at least some support by Baucus.

Here's a press release from the Finance Committe. After that come letters from the senators to four non-complying ministries, including Copeland's.

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Grassley, Baucus Urge Four Ministries to Cooperate with Information Request

WASHINGTON - Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Committee on Finance, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member, have written to four ministries to urge cooperation with an earlier information request from Grassley. Baucus and Grassley lead the committee with exclusive Senate jurisdiction over tax policy; the ministry inquiry that Grassley launched last November is meant to gauge the effectiveness of certain tax-exempt policies.

"This ought to clear up any misunderstanding about our interest and the committee's role," Grassley said. "We have an obligation to oversee how the tax laws are working for both tax-exempt organizations and taxpayers. Just like with reviews of other tax-exempt organizations in recent years, I look forward to the cooperation of these ministries in the weeks and months ahead."

Grassley wrote to six ministries on Nov. 5, 2007, asking a series of questions on the non-profit organizations' expenses, treatment of donations and business practices. The questions were based on presentations of material from watchdog groups and whistleblowers and on investigative reports in local media outlets. One of the six ministries - Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo. - has cooperated substantially with his request and provided the requested information. Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas, has indicated a willingness to cooperate and provided answers to five of the 28 questions so far.

Representatives for Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church/Paula White Ministries, Tampa, Fla., verbally have indicated to Finance Committee staff that they will cooperate. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to thank them for the verbal commitment and to reiterate the committee's role.

The remaining three ministries have not cooperated, citing privacy protections or questioning the committee's standing to request the information. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to describe the committee's jurisdiction and role in determining the effectiveness of tax policy developed by the committee, distinct from the Internal Revenue Service's role, which is to enforce existing law.

The three ministries are: Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Newark, Texas; Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International/Creflo Dollar Ministries College Park, Ga.; and Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church/Eddie L. Long Ministries, Lithonia, Ga.

The committee's jurisdiction includes the federal tax policy governing the billions of dollars donated to and controlled by the nation's tax-exempt groups. The federal government forgoes the collection of billions of dollars to tax-exempt organizations every year.

The text of the March 11 follow-up letters to the four ministries follows here. The text of the Grassley Nov. 5, 2007, letters to the six ministries is available at finance.senate.gov.

March 11, 2008

Kenneth and Gloria Copeland
Kenneth Copeland Ministries
14355 Morris Dido Road
Newark, TX 76071

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Copeland:

As senior members of the United States Senate and as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance, it is our duty under the Constitution to conduct oversight into matters related to legislation enacted by Congress. The purpose of oversight is to determine how well a particular agency of the executive branch is administering legislation enacted by Congress, if a particular law or section of the law is being administered in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress and what changes might be required to a law to improve and enhance it. Oversight through the committee system is an important way for Congress to determine if the laws of this country are sound and if they are administered according to the intent of Congress.

One of the roles of the Finance Committee under the Standing Rules of the Senate encompasses the exercise of oversight over the administration of the federal tax revenue system by the Internal Revenue Service to make sure that its rules and procedures meet the purpose and intent of the revenue code, including those rules applicable to non-profit organizations. In order to do this effectively, the Committee needs to understand clearly and specifically how non-profit organizations are structured and operate.

On November 5, 2007, Ranking Member Grassley sent a letter requesting information from your ministry related to the laws that govern tax-exempt organizations. While the inquiry is not part of an enforcement action, which would properly belong to the IRS, it is within the jurisdiction of the Committee to make these inquiries. The Committee conferred with the Senate Legal Counsel to ensure that the letter was well within the scope of the authority of the Committee and that it does not infringe upon First Amendment rights.

Prior to your organization determining whether to submit the requested information, Committee staff members met with your legal counsel to explain the purpose of the investigation and to address your specific concerns. The Committee recognizes the concerns regarding the privacy and confidentiality of certain records and has offered to work with your organization to protect any proprietary or confidential information. Unfortunately, the information submitted by your organization was incomplete. Staff members contacted your legal counsel in an attempt to secure further cooperation and once again address your concerns. To date, you and/or your legal counsel have not provided the requested information to Senator Grassley, nor offered any assurances that the information would be forthcoming.

The Committee continues to hope that mutually respectful discussions will enable the Committee to obtain the requested information without resorting to compulsory process. Therefore, as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance, we are affording you another opportunity to send the information requested by Senator Grassley in the letter dated November 5, 2007. Our office should receive the requested documentation no later than March 31, 2008.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and we look forward to your cooperation.

Sincerely,
Max Baucus Charles Grassley
Chairman Ranking Member

The same exact letter is addressed verbatum to the following:

Bishop Eddie L. Long
New Birth Missionary Baptist Church
Eddie L. Long Ministries
6400 Woodrow Road
Lithonia, GA 30038

Randy and Paula White
Without Walls International Church
Paula White Ministries
2511 North Grady Avenue
Tampa, FL 33607

BE/\LERT!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

US ambassador: Jews will just have to leave Jerusalem

ISRAEL TODAY MAGAZINE [Sheldon Adelson/Las Vegas Sands Corp] - By Staff Writer - March 18, 2008
US Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones suggested during a tour of overcrowded Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem on Monday that many Jews will just have to move out of the capital rather than expand into parts of the city claimed by the Palestinians.

Jones told said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post that Washington is growing increasingly displeased with Jewish housing projects on the eastern side of Jerusalem, which are certain to hinder efforts to conclude a peace deal along the lines of US President George W. Bush's vision for the region.

The American envoy said he is well aware of the lack of Jewish housing in Jerusalem, but in a remark betraying a lack of understanding regarding Jewish historical and spiritual connection to the city Jones concluded that "sometimes people do have to move to a different location. They cannot always stay close to their families."

He insisted that more important than the Jews' restoration to their biblical capital and heartland is Israel's implementation of commitments made as part of the US-driven Road Map peace process, even if unreciprocated by the Palestinians.

Jones ended the interview by all but justifying the Palestinian Authority's ongoing failure to meet its primary obligations to curb anti-Israel violence and incitement by stating that "it is not easy for either side to move ahead when they see the provocative behavior of the other side."

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15485

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Animal rights groups against Passover sacrifice

YEDIOTH AHRONOTH [Yedioth Ahronoth Group - Private] - By Kobi Nahshoni - April 2, 2008
The Temple movements' intention to hold a public slaughter of the Passover sacrifice was slammed by the animal rights movement, Let Animals Live.

The activists demanded that the event's coordinators cancel their plans, and sent letters to Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, and to the Director of the Temple Institute, Yehuda Glick, threatening to sue if their demands were not met within 24 hours.

According to Let Animals Live director, Reuben Ladianski, the law states that it is prohibited to abuse or torture animals, including slaughtering them in a cruel manner.

"Any use of animals for educational purposes must be approved by the committee for animal experimentation," Ladianski said. "And the law states that permission will not be granted if the goal of the experiment can be reached in other, more humane ways."

In his letters, Ladianski warned that the maximum penalty for infringement of this law is three years in prison. He also mentioned the halacha, which prohibits animal abuse, and cited halachic rulings dealing with the correct treatment of animals.

In his letter to the mayor Ladianski writes, "Performing a public act in which an animal is sacrificed, when one can just as easily use a dummy, is wrong and unnecessary.

"Before we assume legal action we request that you notify us within 24 hours that you have received this letter and do not plan to allow this slaughter in Jerusalem's jurisdiction."

Eti Altman, one of the founders of the Let Animals Live movement, told Ynet that in her opinion, "The event is pointless and suitable only for unenlightened countries.

"Apart from the fact that it constitutes abuse, the slaughter of animals before an audience is liable to threaten their sense of humanity, and may deepen the rift between religious and secular communities."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3526520,00.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Russia Parades Its Military in an Echo of Soviet Days

NEW YORK TIMES [NYTimes Group/Sulzberger] - By C. J. Chivers - May 10, 2008
MOSCOW — Nuclear missile launchers and columns of tanks rolled through Red Square on Friday in a display of martial hardware not seen since the Soviet Union’s waning days.

The parade, much smaller than similar commemorations in the Soviet period but laden with significance and mixed messages, marked the 63rd anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, which is observed in Russia as Victory Day, a solemn state holiday.

It was intended both as a tribute to the dwindling ranks of surviving veterans and as a display of Russia’s efforts to revive armed forces made moribund by the Soviet Union’s collapse.

It was also widely described as a sign that the Kremlin wanted to show the world that it had recovered from the embarrassments of the 1990s and that its foreign policy had not softened in a transfer of presidential power this week.

But the goose-stepping footfalls, echoing in front of shop windows bearing products from Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior, captured as well the contrasts institutionalized during eight years of rule by Vladimir V. Putin, the former spymaster and president who left office on Wednesday and returned to power as prime minister the following day.

Confident and flush with wealth, Mr. Putin’s Russia is led by men who embrace Soviet symbols and rituals while promising tax breaks and legislation to encourage a growing Russian investor class.

The passing columns were reviewed by the new president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, a lawyer who has spoken of nurturing civil liberties and a climate more conducive to small business, but who ascended to office in an election stage-managed by the Kremlin.

Many of the soldiers were in period dress, wearing uniforms reminiscent of those worn in celebrations that Mr. Putin led in the same place three years ago on the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.

This time there was a new president. Mr. Putin, his mentor, stood behind Mr. Medvedev as he addressed the crowd. When the troops began to march by while saluting the dignitaries, the former president stepped forward to receive the salutes at his protégé’s side.

In a sign that suggested that the Kremlin had not yet settled how to interpret the seven decades of Soviet history, Lenin’s mausoleum was temporarily blocked from view by a huge mural of Russia’s tri-colored national flag.

The mausoleum, where Lenin’s embalmed body lies in state, is normally a centerpiece of the square and perhaps the most potent Soviet symbol in the capital. The president and prime minister stood on a reviewing stand erected for the event, their backs to Lenin’s remains as they presided over a ritual created by Stalin.

Mr. Medvedev thanked the aging veterans in the reviewing stands — white-haired men and women in their 80s and 90s, many wearing blazers heavy with medals. Then he spoke of readiness and restraint.

“The history of world wars warns that armed conflicts do not erupt on their own,” he said. “They are fueled by those whose irresponsible ambitions overpower the interests of countries and whole continents, the interests of millions of people.”

He added, “We need to remember the lessons of that war and work every day so that such tragedies never happen again.”

The parade was the first display of armor and nuclear missile launchers on Red Square since 1990, and was followed by a flyover of 32 military planes, including strategic bombers.

The Kremlin’s decision to parade its military hardware has been a subject of competing interpretations, viewed variously as symbolic confirmation of Russia’s pride, or aggressiveness, as a marketing show of Russian arms, and as a nationalistic festival ordered by Mr. Putin, for Mr. Putin.

Mr. Putin insisted earlier in the week that the parade should not be viewed as “saber rattling.” “It is not a warlike gesture,” he said. “Russia is not threatening anyone.”

But it followed a year during which the Kremlin asserted its case against what it regarded as reckless American foreign policies. Mr. Putin has strongly protested an American-led plan to install a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. As tensions rose, Russia’s aging strategic bombers conducted international patrols, entered British airspace and approached American carrier groups on the high seas.

Russian state-controlled television stations have featured extensive coverage of small-scale exercises of Russia’s navy, and of supposedly new weapons systems. Mr. Putin, who firmly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq five years ago, also endorsed a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threats to Russian soil.

As a tribute to veterans and to the irrefutable role and sacrifices of the Soviet Union’s people in defeating Hitler, the events on the square were high spectacle. But the parade, broadcast on television here as a national triumph, also offered sights of the mixed condition of the once vaunted armed forces under Kremlin command.

Several of the infantry units, including marine and airborne units, were staffed with lean and fit young men who marched with bearing and precision. Others included troops who appeared to be in only fair condition, and several of the officers leading formations past the two Russian leaders were visibly overweight.

The United States expressed no alarm over the parade. Russia has become a leading global arms exporter again, but its wares are almost all items designed decades ago. A Pentagon spokesman, echoing a view common among military analysts, had characterized the planned military review as a hollow show of dated gear bearing fresh coats of paint.

“If they wish to take out their old equipment and take it for a spin and check it out,” said the spokesman, Geoff Morrell, “they’re more than welcome to do so.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/world/europe/10russia.html?ex=1368158400&en=1f19f228e4aa79dd&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Israel wants citizens abroad back home

ASSOCIATED PRESS - By Ian Deitch - December 9, 2007
JERUSALEM - Israel is trying to persuade hundreds of thousands of its citizens living overseas to return home in a project to coincide with the state's 60th anniversary next year, the Immigrant Absorption Ministry said Sunday.

The project, dubbed "Coming Home," will try to lure Israelis living abroad to come back with tax breaks, employment and small business loans.

About 650,000 Israelis live abroad, 450,000 of them in North America, the ministry said. The ministry began contacting them last month with direct phone calls, an Internet site and a "hot line" phone connection.

"What surprised us most is the amount of positive feedback we received from countries where the standard of living is very high," said Erez Halfon, director of the Immigrant Absorption Ministry. "We received 285 calls from Israelis living in Switzerland, and of them, 15 families have committed to coming home."

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed support for the project at a Cabinet meeting Sunday.

"Every Israeli, even if they live abroad, is Israeli at heart and knows that their home is here. I call on all Israelis to return home," Olmert said.

The project aims to bring 10,000 expatriates back to Israel in the first year and double that number over the next few years. Between 18,000 and 21,000 Israelis emigrate each year, Halfon told reporters.

The estimated cost of the campaign is $36 million a year, an amount the ministry believes will be paid back by the returning Israelis themselves.

"Within half a year of their being reintroduced into society as consumers, the government will get all their money back," Halfon said.

Halfon said the project aims to remove the social stigma faced by those who leave Israel, so they will have a softer landing upon their return.

Traditionally, Israelis who left the Jewish state were widely looked down on by Israeli society and viewed as letting the country down or selling out. Linguistically, immigration to Israel is called "aliya," the Hebrew word for ascent, while emigrating is dubbed "yerida," or descent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_immigration_1

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Aliya to Israel drops to 20-year low

THE JERUSALEM POST [Mirkaei Tikshoret/CanWest] - By JPost.com Staff - December 24, 2007
Jewish immigration into Israel dropped 6% in 2007, reaching a 20-year low of just under 19,700 immigrants, the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption announced Monday.

The best years for aliya were just after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Over 400,000 Jews arrived in Israel between 1989 and 1991. Since then the immigration rates have been dropping steadily, a trend aggravated by the outburst of the Second Intifada: 60,000 immigrants arrived into Israel in 2000, but only 35,000 arrived in 2002.

The most significant drop this year was in immigration from the former Soviet Union, with 15% fewer arriving in Israel than in 2006.

Jerusalem was hailed by the ministry as the leader in immigrant absorption, with over 14% of immigrants deciding to settle there. This year Israel also boasts its eldest immigrant since 2005 - a 99-year-old woman who immigrated from England in May. Another famed elderly newcomer is Mimi Reinhardt, formerly a secretary to Oskar Schindler, who arrived in Israel at the age of 92.

Minister of Immigration Absorption Ya'acov Edri said that the decline in Jewish immigration "should be a wakeup call."

"We should do everything we can to increase the rate of aliya," Edri said. "The ministry intends to invest great resources to that end in the coming years. Aliya is the single greatest Zionist enterprise in our sixty years of statehood."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847419023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Evangelicals fund Jews departing Iran

THE WASHINGTON TIMES [News World Communications/Moon-Unification Church]By Joshua Mitnick - December 26, 2007
TEL AVIV - About 40 Jews who left Iran in secret arrived in Israel yesterday - one of the largest such defections - and got a Christmas present of $10,000 per person from U.S. evangelicals.

The number of Iranian-Jewish emigrants to Israel more than tripled to 200 in 2007, according to officials from the Jewish Agency for Israel, the quasi-governmental organization that promotes immigration to Israel.

A Jewish Agency spokesman credited the increase to a stipend program financed by donations to the Christian Zionist group International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ).

"The money is a major consideration" to come to Israel, said Michael Jankelowitz, a spokesman for the agency. "These people come with the clothes on their back and their suitcase. Iranian money has no value."

Family members of the Iranian emigrants screamed in delight and threw candy at the newcomers as they emerged into the reception hall at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv after a long bureaucratic procedure, the Associated Press reported.

Officials from the Jewish Agency refused to divulge details of the immigrants' journey, such as the airline that brought them to Israel or stopover countries, and kept identities secret for fear of endangering Jews still in Iran.

The $1.4 million donated in 2007 by IFCJ for Iranian-Jewish immigration is the latest example of the growing involvement of evangelicals in pro-Israel philanthropy that was once the exclusive turf of Diaspora Jewry.

Numbering 28,000, the Jewish community in Iran is the largest in any Muslim country and enjoys a comfortable standard of living and generally good relations with fellow Iranians. But they are forbidden from visiting Israel, and the possessions left behind in Iran are subject to confiscation.

Michael, 15 - one of the immigrants arriving yesterday - said he told all his friends where he was going, and they wanted to come along, the AP reported. "I was scared in Iran as a Jew," he said.

No comment was available yesterday from the Iranian government.

IFCJ President Yechiel Eckstein, an Orthodox rabbi who oversees philanthropic operations that have raised millions from Christian Zionists, said the Jewish Agency approached him earlier this year about the stipend program.

The subsidies are intended to allay economic concerns among Iranian Jews mulling emigration to Israel.

"The thing that is blocking them from coming is the fear that they won't have enough money to even rent an apartment," said Mr. Eckstein, who compared the situation for Jews in contemporary Iran with Jews who remained in Germany in the 1930s despite the rise of Nazism.

"My feeling is that they're sitting on a time bomb. All it takes is an Israeli or American strike on Iran, and I am reasonably sure that if that happens in the next few years, the repercussions would come down on the Jewish community."

Just last week, the Jewish Agency announced a deal that allows Mr. Eckstein to join its leadership in return for $45 million in evangelical money over three years - giving Christian Zionists an unprecedented toehold in an organization envisioned as a parliament of world Jewry.

Evangelical backers of Israel say they are following a biblical prophecy that creation of a Jewish state here is a step toward the Messianic Age. Some Israeli critics say their ultimate goal is to convert Jews to Christianity, which the evangelicals deny.

Meanwhile, one Israel-based Iran analyst, Meir Javedanfar, said the publicity given to the defection operation will ultimately hurt the Jews who remain in Iran.

Publicizing the number of Jewish emigrants from Iran could place the community in the middle of a "tug of war" between Israel and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he said.

While Mr. Ahmadinejad can hold up the Jewish community as proof his regime is not anti-Semitic, emigration to Israel suggests the community faces hardship.

"The more high-profile it is, the more it endangers the Jewish community," said Mr. Javedanfar. "It's a positive development for Israel, but let's not throw it in Iran's face. It could have a negative impact on the relationship between the Iranian government and the Jewish community."

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/FOREIGN/553402321/1001&template=printart

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

'Lost Tribe of Israel' couples marry in Jerusalem

Isaiah 43:5-6
"Do not fear, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, And gather you from the west."I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring My sons from afar And My daughters from the ends of the earth,..

Group 'descended from Joseph' struggled to 'return home'

WORLDNETDAILY - By Aaron Klein - March 11, 2008
JERUSALEM - Eighteen couples from a group of hundreds who recently moved here from India believing they are one of the "lost tribes" of Israel have been married in a massive, emotional ceremony, fulfilling for many a lifelong dream of starting a life in what they consider their homeland.

"For the first time, 18 B'nei Menashe couples - equal to chai ['life' in Hebrew numerical equivalent] - married in a joint ceremony under the wedding canopy in Jerusalem. This symbolizes their successful absorption into Jewish and Israeli society, and we wish the couples a lot of joy and success," said Michael Freund, chairman of Shavei Israel, a Jerusalem-based immigrant organization working with the "lost" Jews.

Shavei hopes to bring to the Jewish state the remaining 7,000 Indian citizens who believe they are the Bnei Menashe, the descendants of Manasseh, one of biblical patriarch Joseph's two sons and a grandson of Jacob, the man whose name was changed to Israel.

The tribe lives in the two Indian states of Mizoram and Manipur, to which they claim to have been exiled from Israel more than 2,700 years ago by the Assyrian empire.

This past August, WND reported Freund's group brought 230 Bnei Menashe to Israel; the new arrivals made their way to a Shavei Israel absorption center in northern Israel where they studied Hebrew and Torah. The batch of arrivals followed about 1,200 other Bnei Menashe brought here the past 10 years, largely with the help of Shavei Israel.

Freund, who previously served as deputy communications director under former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stressed the Bnei Menashe have been keeping Jewish customs for at least the past four decades and were well-off in India but came due to Zionist ideology.

According to Bnei Menashe oral tradition, the tribe was exiled from Israel and pushed to the east, eventually settling in the border regions of China and India, where most remain today. Most kept customs similar to Jewish tradition, including observing Shabbat, keeping the laws of Kosher, practicing circumcision on the eighth day of a baby boy's life and observing laws of family purity.

In the 1950s, several thousand Bnei Menashe say they set out on foot to Israel but were quickly halted by Indian authorities. Undeterred, many began practicing Orthodox Judaism and pledged to make it to Israel. They now attend community centers established by Shavei Israel to teach the Bnei Menashe Jewish tradition and modern Hebrew. - - - -

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=58667

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

A review of Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) By Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck

- Moody, 2008. (Available in Australia from Koorong Books)

CultureWatch - Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day - April 24, 2008

These two young guys are sceptical about megachurches, how-to-sermons, legalism, the effects of modernity, marketing gimmicks, and overly aligning faith with politics. They know that Christianity is not just doctrine, and they are aware that the Bible has been misused. And they want their faith to be relevant and they seek to be conversant with their culture. Thus they are aptly qualified to be representatives of, or advocates for, the emerging church movement.

But they are not. Indeed, the more they learn about the emerging church, “the harder it is to swallow”. Thus this book. It is a detailed assessment and critique of the emerging church. The pair seek to be as fair as possible, and are clearly aware of the strengths of the movement. But unfortunately the many weaknesses must also be addressed. They affirm many of the emergent diagnoses, but find most of the prescribed remedies to be quite troubling.

Of course D.A. Carson offered a critique of this movement in 2005, as did R. Scott Smith, who also penned a volume that year. But this new book is really quite superb in giving us a balanced appraisal of, as well as a serious warning about, the emergent movement.

So what in fact is it? Well, like postmodernism which it is so enamoured with, it is an amorphous and hard to identify movement. But simply put, it likes to make antitheses, favouring one polarity over the other. It favours relationships over rules, conversation over preaching, doubt over certainty, postmodernism over modernism, discussion over theology, orthopraxis over orthodoxy, action over theory, embodiment over rationalism, journey over destination, and so on. But as the authors note, why make such either/or scenarios? Why can’t it be a case of both/and? Why create such false dichotomies?

The genuine Christian church should be marked by both “grace and truth, logical precision and warmhearted compassion, careful thinking and compassionate feeling, strong theology and tender love,” and so on. Why cannot both be affirmed simultaneously, instead of demanding that we must choose one or the other, as so many emerging thinkers and writers demand?

Consistent with postmodernism, the emerging church folk have a strong dislike of rationality, theology, propositional truth - indeed, truth of any kind. They look down on dogma, rules, teaching, preaching, boundaries and doctrine. While they reject some things we should reject – legalism, unloving judgmentalism, head over heart, and so on – they have a tendency of throwing the baby out with the bath water. In reacting to one extreme, they go way over to another extreme. What is needed is biblical balance, not wild pendulum swings.

Consider the issue of our knowledge of God. The emergent crowd generally argues that we should be content with mystery, wonder and questions. We cannot pin down God and he is too big to be put in a theological box. That all may be true, but they go to unnecessary extremes here. Emergent leaders “are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up His knowability. In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real knowledge about God in the first place.”

But God is a God who reveals himself, who speaks, who acts, and discloses truths about himself to finite mankind. If God does not have a problem with this, why do the emergent leaders? Sure, we only have partial knowledge of God, but as Francis Schaeffer used to say, we can still have true truth, although not exhaustive truth, about God and his world.

As one of many unnecessary and unhelpful antitheses, many emergent leaders argue that we can know God personally, but we cannot know him propositionally. We can have a relationship with God, but we cannot really know too much about him. But this is just plain silly, as well as unbiblical. How can a man love his wife, for example, while knowing little about her? Knowledge about others is necessary in order for us to have a relationship with them.

Similarly, the emergent crowd makes much of relationship over against rules and regulations. Do’s and don’ts and laws just don’t cut it anymore. Instead, Christianity is all about love and relationship. But as the authors rightly remind us, relationships must be guarded and preserved by rules: “Try telling your wife after you’ve had an affair, ‘Come on, I thought our marriage was about the relationship, not all these do’s and don’ts’.”

Take also the common emergent charge that evangelicals worship the Bible, are guilty of bibliolatry, and are more concerned about dissecting Scripture than being transformed by it. Sure, that can often be the case. But once again, the emerging church leaders throw the baby out with the bathwater. They end up taking a very low view of Scripture instead.

Christ himself had a very high regard for Scripture, so we should as well. As the authors note, “For every fundamentalist who loves the Bible more than Christ … there are several emergent Christians who honor the Bible less than Christ did.”

Related to this is the whole postmodern idea that we are only left with interpretation. The emphasis of the deconstructionists is that we can never really know what the author intended. All we are left with is our own subjective understandings.

The emergent infatuation with deconstructionism is dangerous business indeed. By abandoning any sure word, by saying we are only left with interpretation - not final truth - the emergent crowd is leaving us all in a sea of relativism and uncertainty. But God is quite able to communicate to us and to use words in such a way that are understandable and meaningful.

Of course we all misinterpret things, because we are fallen and finite. But Scripture throughout insists that there is real meaning in the text, that it can be communicated to us, and that we can have some genuine understanding of it, albeit in a limited and not exhaustive fashion.

But if we can never be sure about anything, why do the emerging leaders seem so certain about what they are trying to tell us? The authors remind us that the emergent leaders want to tell us that our traditional understandings (for example, about hell, exclusivism, the nature of the atonement, etc.) are faulty, yet they somehow seem certain about this, and that their alternative understandings are the ones to adopt.

They say traditional evangelicals have been misinterpreting the Bible, all the while saying we can never really know that any interpretation is true. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If anything goes in interpretation, then why should we heed the emergent leaders any more than, say, Paris Hilton?

The authors point out that the emergent writers confuse humility with uncertainty. They think it is a good thing that we are not dogmatic, but instead live with ambiguity, mystery, doubt and questions. Indeed, many of them equate faith with doubt. They dislike hard and fast theological systems, and they dislike those who claim to have some solid handle on the truth, equating that with pride and intolerance.

But that does not square with the Biblical writers, especially the early apostles. They claimed to have the truth, to know the truth, and to proclaim the truth. They proclaimed the gospel as certain truth, and were willing to die for their strong convictions. But the emergent crowd wants us to hold onto things so loosely and so tentatively that one must ask, what gospel are they in fact offering to people?

“The apostles never preached with the double-talk and ambiguity you find in so many emergent books” the authors state. And the idea of a non-doctrinal Christianity – the no-creed-but-Jesus mentality – is simply the stuff of old-fashioned theological liberalism. It is weak and wishy washy, and converts no one.

This Jesus-versus-theology foolishness is typical of theological liberalism, and is the sort of thing H. Richard Niebuhr once denounced in these terms: “The liberal gospel consists of a God without wrath bringing people without sin into a kingdom without judgment through a Christ without a cross.”

Indeed, the emergent gospel leaves a lot to be desired. Many in the movement have real trouble with saying Jesus is the only way to salvation; are squeamish about propitiation; dislike talk of hell; and have a very low view of Scripture. As the authors stress, on so many levels, the emerging church advocates are really quite identical to the old theological liberals. “The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernism.”

And although the emergent movement prides itself in challenging the old ways and being a trailblazer, it is quickly becoming a new rigid orthodoxy. The emerging church may have its roots in rebellion against more traditional forms of church, and seek to be always new and innovative, yet as the authors demonstrate, in many ways it too has become another type of traditionalism. It has its own books, authors, conferences, websites, and devoted followers. It has become establishment, in other words, although seeking to be anti-establishment.

It may, in fact, be just another passing fad. It is certainly trendy, and it remains to be seen if it will have anything of real value to offer the body of Christ. Certainly in some of its less extreme forms it may well have helpful contributions to make. But in some of its more radical forms, it may in fact simply be destructive, even heretical.

The books of McLaren, Bell, Pagitt, Kimball, Jones and others will undoubtedly continue to sell well, and their conferences will probably still be sell-outs. But it is a movement that is in urgent need of balance. And this book is an excellent resource in helping to bring about that balance. It is hoped that this very important book sells as well as do the books of the emergent church. It has a message that desperately needs to be heard.

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/04/24/a-review-of-why-we’re-not-emergent-by-two-guys-who-should-be-by-kevin-deyoung-and-ted-kluck/

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.