STRATFOR - By George Friedman - August 14, 2012
Crises are normally short, sharp and intense affairs. Israel's predicament has developed on a different time frame, is more diffuse than most crises and has not reached a decisive and intense moment. But it is still a crisis. It is not a crisis solely about Iran, although the Israeli government focuses on that issue. Rather, it is over Israel's strategic reality since 1978, when it signed the Camp David accords with Egypt.
Perhaps the deepest aspect of the crisis is that Israel has no internal consensus on whether it is in fact a crisis, or if so, what the crisis is about. The Israeli government speaks of an existential threat from Iranian nuclear weapons. I would argue that the existential threat is broader and deeper, part of it very new, and part of it embedded in the founding of Israel.
Israel now finds itself in a long-term crisis in which it is struggling to develop a strategy and foreign policy to deal with a new reality. This is causing substantial internal stress, since the domestic consensus on Israeli policy is fragmenting at the same time that the strategic reality is shifting. Though this happens periodically to nations, Israel sees itself in a weak position in the long run due to its size and population, despite its current military superiority. More precisely, it sees the evolution of events over time potentially undermining that military reality, and it therefore feels pressured to act to preserve it. How to preserve its superiority in the context of the emerging strategic reality is the core of the Israeli crisis.
Egypt
Since 1978, Israel's strategic reality had been that it faced no threat of a full peripheral war. After Camp David, the buffer of the Sinai Peninsula separated Egypt and Israel, and Egypt had a government that did not want that arrangement to break. Israel still faced a formally hostile Syria. Syria had invaded Lebanon in 1976 to crush the Palestine Liberation Organization based there and reconsolidate its hold over Lebanon, but knew it could not attack Israel by itself. Syria remained content reaching informal understandings with Israel. Meanwhile, relatively weak and isolated Jordan depended on Israel for its national security. Lebanon alone was unstable. Israel periodically intervened there, not very successfully, but not at very high cost.
The most important of Israel's neighbors, Egypt, is now moving on an uncertain course. This weekend, new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi removed five key leaders of the military and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and revoked constitutional amendments introduced by the military. There are two theories on what has happened. In the first, Morsi -- who until his election was a senior leader of the country's mainstream Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood -- is actually much more powerful than the military and is acting decisively to transform the Egyptian political system. In the second, this is all part of an agreement between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood that gives Morsi the appearance of greater power while actually leaving power with the military.
On the whole, I tend to think that the second is the case. Still, it is not clear how this will evolve: The appearance of power can turn into the reality of power. Despite any sub rosa agreements between the military and Morsi, how these might play out in a year or two as the public increasingly perceives Morsi as being in charge -- limiting the military's options and cementing Morsi's power -- is unknown. In the same sense, Morsi has been supportive of security measures taken by the military against militant Islamists, as was seen in the past week's operations in the Sinai Peninsula.
The Sinai remains a buffer zone against major military forces but not against the paramilitaries linked to radical Islamists who have increased their activities in the peninsula since the fall of former President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011. Last week, they attacked an Egyptian military post on the Gaza border, killing 16 Egyptian soldiers. This followed several attacks against Israeli border crossings. Morsi condemned the attack and ordered a large-scale military crackdown in the Sinai. Two problems could arise from this.
First, the Egyptians' ability to defeat the militant Islamists depends on redefining the Camp David accords, at least informally, to allow Egypt to deploy substantial forces there (though even this might not suffice). These additional military forces might not threaten Israel immediately, but setting a precedent for a greater Egyptian military presence in the Sinai Peninsula could eventually lead to a threat.
This would be particularly true if Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood impose their will on the Egyptian military. If we take Morsi at face value as a moderate, the question becomes who will succeed him. The Muslim Brotherhood is clearly ascendant, and the possibility that a secular democracy would emerge from the Egyptian uprising is unlikely. It is also clear that the Muslim Brotherhood is a movement with many competing factions. And it is clear from the elections that the Muslim Brotherhood represents the most popular movement in Egypt and that no one can predict how it will evolve or which factions will dominate and what new tendencies will arise. Egypt in the coming years will not resemble Egypt of the past generation, and that means that the Israeli calculus for what will happen on its southern front will need to take Hamas in Gaza into account and perhaps an Islamist Egypt prepared to ally with Hamas.
Syria and Lebanon
A similar situation exists in Syria. The secular and militarist regime of the al Assad family is in serious trouble. As mentioned, the Israelis had a working relationship with the Syrians going back to the Syrian invasion of Lebanon against the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1976. It was not a warm relationship, but it was predictable, particularly in the 1990s: Israel allowed Syria a free hand in Lebanon in exchange for Damascus' limiting Hezbollah's actions.
Lebanon was not exactly stable, but its instability hewed to a predictable framework. That understanding broke down when the United States seized an opportunity to force Syria to retreat from Lebanon in 2006 following the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. The United States used the Cedar Revolution that rose up in defiance of Damascus to retaliate against Syria for allowing al Qaeda to send jihadists into Iraq from Syria.
This didn't spark the current unrest in Syria, which appears to involve a loose coalition of Sunnis, including elements of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. Though Israel far preferred Syrian President Bashar al Assad to them, al Assad himself was shifting his behavior. The more pressure he came under, the more he became dependent on Iran. Israel began facing the unpleasant prospect of a Sunni Islamist government emerging or a government heavily dependent on Iran. Neither outcome appealed to Israel, and neither outcome was in Israel's control.
Just as dangerous to Israel would be the Lebanonization of Syria. Syria and Lebanon are linked in many ways, though Lebanon's political order was completely different and Syria could serve as a stabilizing force for it. There is now a reasonable probability that Syria will become like Lebanon, namely, a highly fragmented country divided along religious and ethnic lines at war with itself. Israel's best outcome would be for the West to succeed in preserving Syria's secular military regime without al Assad. But it is unclear how long a Western-backed regime resting on the structure of al Assad's Syria would survive. Even the best outcome has its own danger. And while Lebanon itself has been reasonably stable in recent years, when Syria catches a cold, Lebanon gets pneumonia. Israel thus faces the prospect of declining security to its north.
The U.S. Role and Israel's Strategic Lockdown
It is important to take into account the American role in this, because ultimately Israel's national security -- particularly if its strategic environment deteriorates -- rests on the United States. For the United States, the current situation is a strategic triumph. Iran had been extending its power westward, through Iraq and into Syria. This represented a new force in the region that directly challenged American interests. Where Israel originally had an interest in seeing al Assad survive, the United States did not. Washington's primary interest lay in blocking Iran and keeping it from posing a threat to the Arabian Peninsula. The United States saw Syria, particularly after the uprising, as an Iranian puppet. While the United States was delighted to see Iran face a reversal in Syria, Israel was much more ambivalent about that outcome.
The Israelis are always opposed to the rising regional force. When that was Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, they focused on Nasser. When it was al Qaeda and its sympathizers, they focused on al Qaeda. When it was Iran, they focused on Tehran. But simple opposition to a regional tendency is no longer a sufficient basis for Israeli strategy. As in Syria, Israel must potentially oppose all tendencies, where the United States can back one. That leaves Israeli policy incoherent. Lacking the power to impose a reality on Syria, the best Israel can do is play the balance of power. When its choice is between a pro-Iranian power and a Sunni Islamist power, it can no longer play the balance of power. Since it lacks the power to impose a reality, it winds up in a strategic lockdown.
Israel's ability to influence events on its borders was never great, but events taking place in bordering countries are now completely beyond its control. While Israeli policy has historically focused on the main threat, using the balance of power to stabilize the situation and ultimately on the decisive use of military force, it is no longer possible to identify the main threat. There are threats in all of its neighbors, including Jordan (where the kingdom's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is growing in influence while the Hashemite monarchy is reviving relations with Hamas). This means using the balance of power within these countries to create secure frontiers is no longer an option. It is not clear there is a faction for Israel to support or a balance that can be achieved. Finally, the problem is political rather than military. The ability to impose a political solution is not available.
Against the backdrop, any serious negotiations with the Palestinians are impossible. First, the Palestinians are divided. Second, they are watching carefully what happens in Egypt and Syria since this might provide new political opportunities. Finally, depending on what happens in neighboring countries, any agreement Israel might reach with the Palestinians could turn into a nightmare.
The occupation therefore continues, with the Palestinians holding the initiative. Unrest begins when they want it to begin and takes the form they want it to have within the limits of their resources. The Israelis are in a responsive mode. They can't eradicate the Palestinian threat. Extensive combat in Gaza, for example, has both political consequences and military limits. Occupying Gaza is easy; pacifying Gaza is not.
Israel's Military and Domestic Political Challenges
The crisis the Israelis face is that their levers of power, the open and covert relationships they had, and their military force are not up to the task of effectively shaping their immediate environment. They have lost the strategic initiative, and the type of power they possess will not prove decisive in dealing with their strategic issues. They no longer are operating at the extremes of power, but in a complex sphere not amenable to military solutions.
Israel's strong suit is conventional military force. It can't fully understand or control the forces at work on its borders, but it can understand the Iranian nuclear threat. This leads it to focus on the sort of conventional conflict it excels at, or at least used to excel at. The 2006 war with Hezbollah was quite conventional, but Israel was not prepared for an infantry war. The Israelis instead chose to deal with Lebanon via an air campaign, but that failed to achieve their political ends.
The Israelis want to redefine the game to something they can win, which is why their attention is drawn to the Iranian nuclear program. Of all their options in the region, a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities apparently plays to their strengths. Two things make such a move attractive. The first is that eliminating Iran's nuclear capability is desirable for Israel. The nuclear threat is so devastating that no matter how realistic the threat is, removing it is desirable.
Second, it would allow Israel to demonstrate the relevance of its power in the region. It has been a while since Israel has had a significant, large-scale military victory. The 1980s invasion of Lebanon didn't end well; the 2006 war was a stalemate; and while Israel may have achieved its military goals in the 2008 invasion of Gaza, that conflict was a political setback. Israel is still taken seriously in the regional psychology, but the sense of inevitability Israel enjoyed after 1967 is tattered. A victory on the order of destroying Iranian weapons would reinforce Israel's relevance.
It is, of course, not clear that the Israelis intend to launch such an attack. And it is not clear that such an attack would succeed. It is also not clear that the Iranian counter at the Strait of Hormuz wouldn't leave Israel in a difficult political situation, and above all it is not clear that Egyptian and Syrian factions would even be impressed by the attacks enough to change their behavior.
Israel also has a domestic problem, a crisis of confidence. Many military and intelligence leaders oppose an attack on Iran. Part of their opposition is rooted in calculation. Part of it is rooted in a series of less-than-successful military operations that have shaken their confidence in the military option. They are afraid both of failure and of the irrelevance of the attack on the strategic issues confronting Israel.
Political inertia can be seen among Israeli policymakers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to form a coalition with the centrist Kadima Party, but that fell apart over the parochial Israeli issue of whether Orthodox Jews should be drafted. Rather than rising to the level of a strategic dialogue, the secularist constituency of Kadima confronted the religious constituencies of the Likud coalition and failed to create a government able to devise a platform for decisive action.
This is Israel's crisis. It is not a sudden, life-threatening problem but instead is the product of unraveling regional strategies, a lack of confidence earned through failure and a political system incapable of unity on any particular course. Israel, a small country that always has used military force as its ultimate weapon, now faces a situation where the only possible use of military force -- against Iran -- is not only risky, it is not clearly linked to any of the main issues Israel faces other than the nuclear issue.
The French Third Republic was marked by a similar sense of self-regard overlaying a deep anxiety. This led to political paralysis and Paris' inability to understand the precise nature of the threat and to shape its response to it. Rather than deal with the issues at hand in the 1930s, the French relied on past glories to guide them. That didn't turn out very well.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/israeli-crisis
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.
Moriel Ministries Be Alert! has added this Blog as a resource for further information, links and research to help keep you above the global deception blinding the world and most of the church in these last days. Jesus our Messiah is indeed coming soon and this should only be cause for joy unless you have not surrendered to Him. Today is the day for salvation! For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you would hear His voice, - Psalms 95:7
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Judge orders B&B owners to pay 'gays' for hurt feelings
WND [WorldNetDaily] - October 20, 2012
A judge in the United Kingdom has ordered the owners of the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire to pay nearly $6,000 to two homosexuals for hurting their feelings by not allowing them to occupy a double bed.
The stunning penalty was delivered yesterday to Mike and Susanne Wilkinson, who explain the family lives their Christian life, “not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life – as Jesus expects from his followers.”
The Wilkinsons were ordered to pay 1,800 British pounds, or about $2,900, each to homosexuals Michael Black and John Morgan.
In 2010, they tried to book a double bed in the inn, which also is the private home for the Wilkinson family. When they were refused, they sued under the U.K.’s discrimination laws.
The case was funded by the Christian Institute, which said the Christians have been given permission to appeal.
Susanne Wilkinson said she is thinking about doing that.
“Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay 3,600 pounds in damages for injury to feelings. We have the option to appeal, and we will give that serious consideration.”
Susanne Wilkinson said: “We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home.
“People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack, and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs,” she told the institute.
She said all she was trying to do was live as a Christian.
“It’s quite wrong to punish me for that, especially after enduring over two years of vile abuse and threats,” she said.
Wilkinson and her husband say they have received “hundreds of emails an hour” and threatening phone threats and texts because of their faith.
Mike Wilkinson said, “One was hand-delivered and handwritten in capitals and said, ‘I am coming to burn your house down.’”
“We find this a strange justice in a society that aspires to be increasingly tolerant,” said Susanne Wilkinson.
The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge said: “Yes, Mrs. Wilkinson’s B&B is a business, but it’s also a family home. The law should be more flexible in allowing people to live according to their own values under their own roof. A bit more balance is needed, rather than allowing one set of rights to automatically suppress another.”
They said they experienced not only arson and death threats, but obscene messages, bogus reviews, canceled bookings and other harassment. They said previously that in a Google review, someone encouraged others to come and smash up the house. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/judge-orders-bb-owners-to-pay-gays-for-hurt-feelings/
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 judge in the United Kingdom has ordered the owners of the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire to pay nearly $6,000 to two homosexuals for hurting their feelings by not allowing them to occupy a double bed.
The stunning penalty was delivered yesterday to Mike and Susanne Wilkinson, who explain the family lives their Christian life, “not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life – as Jesus expects from his followers.”
The Wilkinsons were ordered to pay 1,800 British pounds, or about $2,900, each to homosexuals Michael Black and John Morgan.
In 2010, they tried to book a double bed in the inn, which also is the private home for the Wilkinson family. When they were refused, they sued under the U.K.’s discrimination laws.
The case was funded by the Christian Institute, which said the Christians have been given permission to appeal.
Susanne Wilkinson said she is thinking about doing that.
“Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay 3,600 pounds in damages for injury to feelings. We have the option to appeal, and we will give that serious consideration.”
Susanne Wilkinson said: “We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home.
“People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack, and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs,” she told the institute.
She said all she was trying to do was live as a Christian.
“It’s quite wrong to punish me for that, especially after enduring over two years of vile abuse and threats,” she said.
Wilkinson and her husband say they have received “hundreds of emails an hour” and threatening phone threats and texts because of their faith.
Mike Wilkinson said, “One was hand-delivered and handwritten in capitals and said, ‘I am coming to burn your house down.’”
“We find this a strange justice in a society that aspires to be increasingly tolerant,” said Susanne Wilkinson.
The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge said: “Yes, Mrs. Wilkinson’s B&B is a business, but it’s also a family home. The law should be more flexible in allowing people to live according to their own values under their own roof. A bit more balance is needed, rather than allowing one set of rights to automatically suppress another.”
They said they experienced not only arson and death threats, but obscene messages, bogus reviews, canceled bookings and other harassment. They said previously that in a Google review, someone encouraged others to come and smash up the house. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/judge-orders-bb-owners-to-pay-gays-for-hurt-feelings/
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.
New York Times accused of Catholic bashing, double standard on religion
FOX NEWS [News Corporation/Murdoch] - March 15, 2012
The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.
The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”
But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
"This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the "gold standard" in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation," Geller told FoxNews.com.
Geller said her anti-Shariah ad was designed to mimic the anti-Catholic one. In calling on Muslims to quit their religion, the ad asked “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims …
Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy referred requests for comment to the letter the paper sent Geller when it declined to publish the ad.
"We have not made a decision not to publish the ad you refer to," stated the letter. "We made a decision to postpone publishing it in light of recent events in Afghanistan, ... It is our belief that fallout from running this ad now could put US troops and civilians in the region in danger and we would like to avoid that."
Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, called the first ad “vile.” But he said running it was a “judgment call.” However, the decision not to run Geller’s ad shows an agenda, he told FoxNews.com.
“It shows the disparate treatment and the duplicity of The New York Times,” Donohue said. “You can trash some religions, like Roman Catholicism, with impunity, but you cannot trash Islam?”
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/15/new-york-times-accused-catholic-bashing-double-standard-on-religion/
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.
The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.
The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”
But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
"This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the "gold standard" in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation," Geller told FoxNews.com.
Geller said her anti-Shariah ad was designed to mimic the anti-Catholic one. In calling on Muslims to quit their religion, the ad asked “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims …
Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy referred requests for comment to the letter the paper sent Geller when it declined to publish the ad.
"We have not made a decision not to publish the ad you refer to," stated the letter. "We made a decision to postpone publishing it in light of recent events in Afghanistan, ... It is our belief that fallout from running this ad now could put US troops and civilians in the region in danger and we would like to avoid that."
Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, called the first ad “vile.” But he said running it was a “judgment call.” However, the decision not to run Geller’s ad shows an agenda, he told FoxNews.com.
“It shows the disparate treatment and the duplicity of The New York Times,” Donohue said. “You can trash some religions, like Roman Catholicism, with impunity, but you cannot trash Islam?”
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/15/new-york-times-accused-catholic-bashing-double-standard-on-religion/
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.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Court: Christians can be ordered to violate beliefs
WND [WorldNetDaily] - By Bob Unruh - June 5, 2012
A ruling from Judge Tim L. Garcia in the New Mexico Court of Appeals says states can require Christians to violate their faith in order to do business, affirming a penalty of nearly $7,000 for a photographer who refused to take pictures at a lesbian “commitment” ceremony in the state where same-sex “marriage” was illegal. ...
The women complained under the state’s anti-discrimination requirements and a state commission, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, imposed the penalty, which now has been affirmed by the appeals court judges. The judges explained in the 45-page ruling that the photography company is a “public accommodation” and those cannot discriminate under state law based on “sexual orientation.”
“The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests,” the judges wrote.
Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been representing Elane, said there would be an appeal. ...
The judges continued, “The act of photographing a same-sex ceremony does not express any opinions regarding same-sex commitments, or disseminate a personal message about such ceremonies.”
They called the state requirement “a neutral regulation of commercial conduct” and said that it does not “infringe upon freedom of speech or compel unwanted expression.” ...
The judges suggested the interesting scenario of the photographer accepting the job, and vocally condemning the women while taking pictures.
“The owners are free to express their religious beliefs and tell Willock or anyone else what they think about same-sex relationships and same-sex ceremonies,” they said. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/refuse-to-photograph-lesbians-get-fined-7000/
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 ruling from Judge Tim L. Garcia in the New Mexico Court of Appeals says states can require Christians to violate their faith in order to do business, affirming a penalty of nearly $7,000 for a photographer who refused to take pictures at a lesbian “commitment” ceremony in the state where same-sex “marriage” was illegal. ...
The women complained under the state’s anti-discrimination requirements and a state commission, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, imposed the penalty, which now has been affirmed by the appeals court judges. The judges explained in the 45-page ruling that the photography company is a “public accommodation” and those cannot discriminate under state law based on “sexual orientation.”
“The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests,” the judges wrote.
Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been representing Elane, said there would be an appeal. ...
The judges continued, “The act of photographing a same-sex ceremony does not express any opinions regarding same-sex commitments, or disseminate a personal message about such ceremonies.”
They called the state requirement “a neutral regulation of commercial conduct” and said that it does not “infringe upon freedom of speech or compel unwanted expression.” ...
The judges suggested the interesting scenario of the photographer accepting the job, and vocally condemning the women while taking pictures.
“The owners are free to express their religious beliefs and tell Willock or anyone else what they think about same-sex relationships and same-sex ceremonies,” they said. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/refuse-to-photograph-lesbians-get-fined-7000/
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.
Obama minions: Gov't 'can override your religion'
Ed. Note:
This is an interesting case because we may be witnessing what the initial battles
between a “beast system” and Mystery Babylon could look like. Legatus is one of
the most powerful Roman Catholic organizations tied to business and funding in
the US. It has also been tied to a number of stock market crashes by some
observers due to enormous and sudden withdraws of funds, which were then transferred
to Rome.
BE/\LERT! Court brief says corporations not allowed to reflect faith of their owners
WND [WorldNetDaily] - By Bob Unruh - September 6, 2012
The Obama administration today argued in court that the government can make a requirement that violates religious beliefs and that a company cannot reflect the religious faith of its owners.
The administration’s statements came in a court filing that asserts the federal government has the authority to order private companies to provide abortifacients for their employees.
A case against the order was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Legatus, the nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business leaders, and Weingartz Supply and its owner. ...
The plaintiffs argue that the federal order conflicts with the U.S. Constitution by requiring them to violate their religious faith.
The Michigan case is just one of dozens nationwide that raise similar issues.
The federal attorneys contend that allowing employers to direct the activities of their entities with a respect for their own religious faith would be unworkable.
“It would also cripple the government’s ability to solve national problems through laws of general application,” they wrote.
Erin Mersino, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, said the federal attorneys’ arguments essentially suggest that a Christian faith is just fine as long as it’s inside a private home or private worship center, but not in society.
The brief contains “a complete and utter disregard” for religious rights, she said.
The next step, she said, could be for the government to demand that private companies not only pay for abortifacients, but under Obamacare’s “counseling” provision to pay for those who would try to convince employees to have abortions - at company expense.
“It’s very frightening, facing this,” she said. “We just hope the judge makes the right decision.”
If such a concept would be upheld by a court, it could have a far-reaching impact, such as on the decision by Chick-fil-A owners to close their stores on Sundays to allow their employees to go to church. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-lawyers-govt-can-require-what-religion-forbids/?cat_orig=us
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.
Monday, October 08, 2012
Iraq's Assyrian Christians find temporary home in Kurdistan
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS - By Adam Ashton - August 5, 2009
AINKAWA,
Iraq - For 35-year-old Rajo Qardaq Palander, a church security guard,
the breaking point came last year, when insurgents demanded that he pay
$20,000 or abandon his home in Baghdad's Dora neighborhood. The choice was easy. He slipped out of Dora in the dead of night, joining the exodus of Assyrian Christians from Baghdad and Mosul to this haven in Iraq's Kurdish-controlled north.
"I held on as long as I could," Palander, 35 said. "I have no future in Iraq."
One of Iraq's most ancient national groups, the Assyrian Christians, who're Eastern Orthodox Christians, have largely quit their ancestral home in Arab Iraq and fled to the Kurdish region, where tens of thousands now live, or abroad.
The pressure on the Assyrians continues: Five churches were bombed in Baghdad in early July and killings continue in Mosul. In Ainkawa, a city of 40,000 on the outskirts of the main city of Irbil, there's sanctuary, castle-like churches, which dominate entire city blocks, and liquor, a trade that Christians dominated in Baghdad, is for sale openly.
Still, refugees and others who're choosing to stay in Iraq fear the days ahead. They're hoping to make political gains in Iraq's Kurdish provinces and to reclaim lost land.
"For the time being, it's a better place. But it's a dark future," said Father Isha Najiba, an Eastern Assyrian priest in Ainkawa who served in Dora until 2002.
He stresses that everyone in Iraq has suffered because of the war. The numbers of Assyrians make the pain especially acute for a minority proud of its history as the descendants of an empire that covered much of northern Iraq, Syria, Turkey and parts of Iran in pre-Biblical times.
"If 100 Muslims die, it will have the same impact as the killing of one Christian because there are so few of us," Najiba said.
The number of Assyrians and Chaldean Catholics remaining in Iraq - including Kurdistan - is hard to pin down, with estimates ranging from 150,000 to 800,000. It's accepted that the war has driven as much as half the former population to seek refuge outside Iraq.
Najiba said that only 150 of the 1,100 Assyrians who lived in his Dora neighborhood before the war are still in Baghdad. The others are in Syria, Jordan, or cities such as Ainkawa, in Iraq's Kurdish provinces.
They leave a visible mark in Ainkawa. Residents say a third to half the people living here fled Baghdad or Mosul since the war started more than six years ago.
A huge poster showing Pope Benedict XVI greeting Kurdish President Massoud Barzani looms over the main intersection leading into the city, reflecting Barzani's overtures to the growing community.
Green banners for Heineken beer hang from restaurants and bars, advertising a hidden vice in the Muslim cities that surround Ainkawa.
The Kurds "don't do anything to harm us, and that's enough," said Samir Francis, 35, whose home in Dora was blown up two weeks after he abandoned it in 2006, a message telling him not to return. ...
Assyrians have been scattered across the globe since the Ottoman Empire flushed many of them out of Turkey in the early 20th century. They've lost territory in Iraq to Kurds and Arabs alike. Many Assyrians who could afford to leave fled the country under Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, settling in Europe, the U.S. and Australia.
Many now live in Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley, two primary destinations for Assyrians seeking refugee status in the U.S.
Under Saddam, politically active Assyrians faced targeted threats. Others were pushed off their land, particularly in the countryside. Yonadam Kanna, the only Assyrian member of Iraq's current parliament, had been sentenced to death by the late dictator.
Assyrian Christians and Chaldean Catholics describe Saddam's tenure as a time of persecution, but it was the sectarian violence that ripped apart Iraq between 2005 and 2008 that drove them from Baghdad and Mosul.
Refugees in Ainkawa said they were targeted either for their religious identity or to seize their money and property. They blame mostly Sunni Muslim insurgent groups for the intimidation that evicted them from Baghdad's Dora neighborhood.
Their main concern in Ainkawa today centers on the power of the two leading Kurdish political parties, Barzani's Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. Assyrians say their job prospects are limited if they don't join the KDP or the PUK, a concern shared by some Muslims in Irbil. ...
"Christians have been separated into many parts," he said. "There's no hope for the people who have emigrated. They won't come back."
ABOUT THE ASSYRIANS
Assyrians are said to be the oldest ethnic group to live in the region known today as Iraq. Three millennia ago, they controlled an empire that extended from modern-day Syria to Turkey, included northern Iraq and parts of Iran.
Their native language is Aramaic, which is thought to be the language Jesus spoke. Assyrians are Christians and belong to the Assyrian Church, a Catholic rite, the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Chaldean Church, both eastern Orthodox rites.
Prior to the U.S. military invasion in 2003, Assyrians in Iraq numbered 1.5 million, or some 8 percent of Iraq's population. At least half of them have since fled the country, however, after Assyrian churches, shops and businesses were attacked.
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/08/05/73147/iraqs-assyrian-christians-find.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.
Fifty Christians Burned Alive in Pastor's Home in Nigeria
"Nigeria is truly becoming the new killing field for Christians ..."
THE CHRISTIAN POST - By Stoyan Zaimov - July 16, 2012
As the attacks on Nigeria's Christians continued in full force this past week, a particularly grisly attack saw fifty believers burned to death at their pastor's home, where they had fled for refuge from a terrorist attack.
Reports disclosed that over 100 people were killed by armed terrorists this past week, who went on a 12-village killing spree in Nigeria's Plateau state. Islamic extremist group Boko Haram has once again taken responsibility for the assaults.
Different sources have shared various reports of the number of lost lives from last week's assault on Christians, which have been occurring on a weekly basis for many months in Nigeria. But a story last week by the Baptist Press confirmed that about 50 members of the Church of Christ in Nigeria in the village of Maseh were burned alive after they took refuge in their pastor's house following a terrorist raid.
"Fifty of our church members were killed in the church building where they had fled to take refuge. They were killed alongside the wife of the pastor and children," said the Rev. Dachollom Datiri, vice president of the Church of Christ in Nigeria, in a July 11 interview.
Officials from the church confirmed that over 100 members were killed through various villages in Nigeria, which included Maseh, Ninchah, Kakkuruk, Kuzen, Negon, Pwabiduk, Kai, Ngyo, Kura Falls, Dogo, Kufang, and Ruk.
"Nigeria is truly becoming the new killing field for Christians. Hundreds of Christians have already been brutally murdered – including women and children – by the Boko Haram," said Open Doors, USA spokesman Jerry Dykst. "The Boko Haram earlier this week said that all Christians need to turn to Islam or 'they would never know peace again.' Their goal is make all of Nigeria a country run and dominated by Shariah law." ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.christianpost.com/news/fifty-christians-burned-alive-in-pastors-home-in-nigeria-78303/
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.
THE CHRISTIAN POST - By Stoyan Zaimov - July 16, 2012
As the attacks on Nigeria's Christians continued in full force this past week, a particularly grisly attack saw fifty believers burned to death at their pastor's home, where they had fled for refuge from a terrorist attack.
Reports disclosed that over 100 people were killed by armed terrorists this past week, who went on a 12-village killing spree in Nigeria's Plateau state. Islamic extremist group Boko Haram has once again taken responsibility for the assaults.
Different sources have shared various reports of the number of lost lives from last week's assault on Christians, which have been occurring on a weekly basis for many months in Nigeria. But a story last week by the Baptist Press confirmed that about 50 members of the Church of Christ in Nigeria in the village of Maseh were burned alive after they took refuge in their pastor's house following a terrorist raid.
"Fifty of our church members were killed in the church building where they had fled to take refuge. They were killed alongside the wife of the pastor and children," said the Rev. Dachollom Datiri, vice president of the Church of Christ in Nigeria, in a July 11 interview.
Officials from the church confirmed that over 100 members were killed through various villages in Nigeria, which included Maseh, Ninchah, Kakkuruk, Kuzen, Negon, Pwabiduk, Kai, Ngyo, Kura Falls, Dogo, Kufang, and Ruk.
"Nigeria is truly becoming the new killing field for Christians. Hundreds of Christians have already been brutally murdered – including women and children – by the Boko Haram," said Open Doors, USA spokesman Jerry Dykst. "The Boko Haram earlier this week said that all Christians need to turn to Islam or 'they would never know peace again.' Their goal is make all of Nigeria a country run and dominated by Shariah law." ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.christianpost.com/news/fifty-christians-burned-alive-in-pastors-home-in-nigeria-78303/
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.
Muslims trying for revolution in Nigeria
Analyst warns ultimate goal is 'Islamic government that rules by Shariah law'
WND [WorldNetDaily] - By Michael Carl - June 21, 2012
Reports are documenting how more than 100 people have been killed as a result of gun battles between Muslim Boko Haram guerrillas and Nigerian soldiers in the northern state of Kaduna in recent days, following another series of bomb attacks against Christians.
Those included three bomb attacks in Kaduna and Zaria this week killed at least 50 people.
What’s going on, according to Heritage Foundation Africa analyst Morgan Roach, likely is an attempt at a revolution that would turn Nigeria into a Shariah-practicing Muslim nation.
“The first reason is ideological. [Boko Haram] wants to overthrow the Christian state and replace it with an Islamic government that rules by Shariah law,” Roach said.
But she said the Muslims also have a political motive.
“Attacks against Christians undermine the authority of President Goodluck Jonathan (a Christian) and exploit the government’s lack of will or ability to protect Nigerian citizens,” Roach said.
Yet another reason is simply to create intertribal and inter-religious strife.
“The attacks are a useful tool to create sectarian instability. It must be said that in many parts of Nigeria, Muslims and Christians get along quite well. However, this dynamic is marred by Boko Haram’s ability to instigate violence,” Roach said.
“As the Nigerian government has proven ineffective at defending its Christian population, Christians are losing patience and either taking up arms to defend themselves or retaliating outright through violence,” Roach said. ...
“Nigerian security forces are already a major part of the picture. They’re often a source of grievances [for] both Muslims and Christians as they are unprofessional and tend to maintain a ‘shoot first ask questions later’ mindset,” Roach said.
Christian human rights group International Christian Concern Africa analyst Jonathan Racho says government security is lacking.
“The Nigerian security forces have failed to protect Christians from the attacks. We are afraid this trend will continue unless the international community, particularly the U.S., put pressure on Nigeria to protect the Christians,” Racho said. ...
Racho says that there is one other factor that would stop Boko Haram’s operations.
“Boko Haram has said that the only way in which they will stop the attacks against Christians is if the Christians convert to Islam. This is an unacceptable condition,” Racho said.
“We are observing a very dangerous trend in Nigeria where members of the radical Islamic group, Boko Haram, has been bombing churches during Sunday worship services,” Racho said.
“We urge Nigerian security forces to come up with strategy to stop this dangerous group from wiping out Christians from northern Nigeria,” Racho said. ...
”During my recent visit to Nigeria, I met several Christians who left their homes in the north due to attacks by Boko Haram. In some areas, members of Boko Haram go door-to-door hunting Christians,” Racho said.
Racho compares Boko Haram’s operations to genocide.
“In my opinion, what we are seeing in Nigeria amounts to religious cleansing and warrants serious consideration from the part of the international community,” Racho said.
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/muslims-trying-for-revolution-in-nigeria/
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.
WND [WorldNetDaily] - By Michael Carl - June 21, 2012
Reports are documenting how more than 100 people have been killed as a result of gun battles between Muslim Boko Haram guerrillas and Nigerian soldiers in the northern state of Kaduna in recent days, following another series of bomb attacks against Christians.
Those included three bomb attacks in Kaduna and Zaria this week killed at least 50 people.
What’s going on, according to Heritage Foundation Africa analyst Morgan Roach, likely is an attempt at a revolution that would turn Nigeria into a Shariah-practicing Muslim nation.
“The first reason is ideological. [Boko Haram] wants to overthrow the Christian state and replace it with an Islamic government that rules by Shariah law,” Roach said.
But she said the Muslims also have a political motive.
“Attacks against Christians undermine the authority of President Goodluck Jonathan (a Christian) and exploit the government’s lack of will or ability to protect Nigerian citizens,” Roach said.
Yet another reason is simply to create intertribal and inter-religious strife.
“The attacks are a useful tool to create sectarian instability. It must be said that in many parts of Nigeria, Muslims and Christians get along quite well. However, this dynamic is marred by Boko Haram’s ability to instigate violence,” Roach said.
“As the Nigerian government has proven ineffective at defending its Christian population, Christians are losing patience and either taking up arms to defend themselves or retaliating outright through violence,” Roach said. ...
“Nigerian security forces are already a major part of the picture. They’re often a source of grievances [for] both Muslims and Christians as they are unprofessional and tend to maintain a ‘shoot first ask questions later’ mindset,” Roach said.
Christian human rights group International Christian Concern Africa analyst Jonathan Racho says government security is lacking.
“The Nigerian security forces have failed to protect Christians from the attacks. We are afraid this trend will continue unless the international community, particularly the U.S., put pressure on Nigeria to protect the Christians,” Racho said. ...
Racho says that there is one other factor that would stop Boko Haram’s operations.
“Boko Haram has said that the only way in which they will stop the attacks against Christians is if the Christians convert to Islam. This is an unacceptable condition,” Racho said.
“We are observing a very dangerous trend in Nigeria where members of the radical Islamic group, Boko Haram, has been bombing churches during Sunday worship services,” Racho said.
“We urge Nigerian security forces to come up with strategy to stop this dangerous group from wiping out Christians from northern Nigeria,” Racho said. ...
”During my recent visit to Nigeria, I met several Christians who left their homes in the north due to attacks by Boko Haram. In some areas, members of Boko Haram go door-to-door hunting Christians,” Racho said.
Racho compares Boko Haram’s operations to genocide.
“In my opinion, what we are seeing in Nigeria amounts to religious cleansing and warrants serious consideration from the part of the international community,” Racho said.
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/muslims-trying-for-revolution-in-nigeria/
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.
Yale University May Revoke Fraternity's Charter Due to Its Christians-Only Bylaw
THE CHRISTIAN POST - By Katherine Weber - October 3, 2012
Reports from Yale University indicate that the largest Christian fraternity in the nation is struggling to attain official recognition at the prestigious school because its religion-based bylaws conflict with the school's non-discrimination policy.
Beta Upsilon Chi (BYX), the largest Christian fraternity in the nation, opened its new chapter at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., in mid-September. Just days after its opening, however, the school newspaper reported that the fraternity "will have to change its membership rules if it intends to comply with Yale's anti-discrimination policies."
The fraternity only allows men who are Christian to join, although it welcomes all students to its events. ...
Yale's non-discrimination policy does not allow student groups to carry the Yale name if they in any way discriminate against "sex, race, color, religion, age, disability, or national or ethnic origin," although, as Christian student news source World on Campus points out, there are exceptions, such as the student group Yale Law Women barring men from membership. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.christianpost.com/news/yale-university-may-revoke-fraternitys-charter-due-to-its-christians-only-bylaw-82598/
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.
Reports from Yale University indicate that the largest Christian fraternity in the nation is struggling to attain official recognition at the prestigious school because its religion-based bylaws conflict with the school's non-discrimination policy.
Beta Upsilon Chi (BYX), the largest Christian fraternity in the nation, opened its new chapter at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., in mid-September. Just days after its opening, however, the school newspaper reported that the fraternity "will have to change its membership rules if it intends to comply with Yale's anti-discrimination policies."
The fraternity only allows men who are Christian to join, although it welcomes all students to its events. ...
Yale's non-discrimination policy does not allow student groups to carry the Yale name if they in any way discriminate against "sex, race, color, religion, age, disability, or national or ethnic origin," although, as Christian student news source World on Campus points out, there are exceptions, such as the student group Yale Law Women barring men from membership. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.christianpost.com/news/yale-university-may-revoke-fraternitys-charter-due-to-its-christians-only-bylaw-82598/
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.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
American "Mainstream Media" changing war-on-terror terminology
Leftist media employ devious, sinister tactic to deceive Americans, alter perception
WND [WorldNetDaily] - By Joe Kovacs - September 5, 2011
American news media are deliberately reshaping war-on-terror terminology
for propaganda purposes to prevent radical Muslims from being perceived
in a negative light in the wake of the 9/11 attacks a decade ago. ...
"Today the left is manipulating language to make Americans ignorant or complacent about the Islamic threat."
She says one simple example can be seen with how the word "extremist" is now utilized in news stories.
"It is commonly used of both Islamic jihad terrorists, and those who fight against them and against Islamization in general," Geller explains.
"So for the mainstream lapdog media, the Fort Hood jihad assassin Major Hasan is an 'extremist,' and so am I. The word is used to claim that Islam has nothing to do with jihad terrorism - it's all just 'extremism,' and every religion has its 'extremists.' ...
Geller says in case you've ever wondered why you never got the straight story on Islam directly after Sept. 11, 2001, and still haven't, as well as "why the media seems in the tank for jihad, here's a clue."
"A couple of weeks after 9/11, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) issued a directive about how to cover Islam. For sheer propaganda, their 'Diversity Guidelines' are hard to beat. In fact, the enemy who attacked our country in an attempt to bring it down may just as well have been writing the narrative."
The guidelines, adopted less than a month after the terrorist attacks, urge journalists to "take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to reaffirm their commitment to use language that is informative and not inflammatory."
Some of the recommended steps include seeking out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, and seeking truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the tragic events.
The translation, says Geller, is "despite the horror, murder, and bloodshed of jihad, don't tell the people. That is what is important: the scrubbing of the truth. In effect, they are aiding in the self-enforcement of the Shariah (blasphemy laws)."
Another recommended step to deflect attention away from the Islamic character of jihad, reporters have been instructed to "portray Muslims, Arabs, and Middle Eastern, and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences."
"Portray the beheaders, the homicide bombers, and the infiltrators in the 'richness of their diverse experience'?" asks Geller. "You mean the stonings, amputations, Shariah law, clitorectomies, Jew-hatred, Hindu-hatred, the brutal conquests of India and Persia, and the caliphate? Yes, infidels, that is the poisonous fruit of the revered institution of multiculturalism."
In her book, Geller gives an in-depth examination of how those who work at American news agencies are being turned against the very people for whom they report.
"The SPJ is telling journalists to throw Americans under the bus and kiss the adherents to the Islamic ideology that murdered our people and want to take over this country."
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=341749
- Related News
"Courageous effort" leads to resolution banning "I-word"
SPJ Diversity Committee Caps Exciting Week
WHOS NEWS DIVERSITY EVERY DAY > a blog of the Society of Professional Journalists - By Curtis Lawrence - September 30, 2011
This
has been a great week for the Society of Professional Journalists'
Diversity Committee. We had a successful Diversity Leadership Program
including six stellar women. We also were able to pass two resolutions -
one including diversity hiring and one urging journalists to cease the use of "illegal alien" in news coverage.
The resolution urging the end of the "I-Word" was the result of a
courageous effort led by Diversity Committee member Leo Laurence over a
two-year span. ...Below is a description of last week's events by Diversity Committee Member Jeremy Steele. He mentions some of the key players and includes the resolution at the end. ...
The following is a memo from Jeremy Steele to the SPJ Diversity Committee:
Good morning, everyone,
Yesterday's
closing business session was certainly interesting and packed with
thoughtful debate on a lot of big issues. I wanted to give members of
the Diversity Committee an update.
...
Then we began the work on four other resolutions, including the
resolution put forward by the diversity committee on the use of "illegal
alien" and "illegal immigrant," support of a federal shield law
(passed), two resolutions attempting to bring back the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award (both failed) ...
http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/diversity/2011/09/30/spj-diversity-committee-caps-exciting-week/
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.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Meshing realism and idealism in Middle East
THE WASHINGTON POST [Wash Post Group/Graham] - By Henry A. Kissinger - August 2, 2012
The Arab Spring is often celebrated by reciting the roll call of overthrown autocrats. But revolutions, in the end, will be judged primarily by what they build, not what they destroy. And in this respect, a year of revolution has refashioned exhilaration into paradox.
The United States applauded the demonstrations in Egypt’s Tahrir Square. Blaming itself for too protracted an association with an undemocratic leader, it urged Hosni Mubarak to step down. But once he did so, the original exultant demonstrators have not turned out to be the heirs. Instead, Islamists with no record of democracy and a history of hostility to the West have been elected to a presidency they had pledged not to seek. They are opposed by the military, which had buttressed the previous regime. The secular democratic element has been marginalized. Where do we go from here?
Contrary to recent conventional wisdom, at no point was the internal structure of Egypt the United States’s to determine. For millennia, monarchs and military autocrats have held sway. In the 1970s, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat abandoned the Soviet alliance forged by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s military regime 20 years earlier. Sadat made peace with Israel, with the United States acting as mediator. These events helped to transform the Cold War. They reflected a hard-headed assessment by all parties of the relation of forces that emerged from the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by Islamist extremists, whose continued terrorism was used by his successor, Mubarak, as justification for prolonged emergency powers.
Throughout, Egypt and its government were facts of international life; American administrations of both parties, faced with the Cold War and looming turmoil in the region, judged it crucial to work with a major Arab country willing to take risks for regional peace. As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton affirmed in her recent Cairo press conference, “We worked with the government of the country at the time.”
At what point, faced first with Soviet adventurism and then the consequences of the Soviet Union’s disintegration, did the United States have an option to intervene directly in the region’s domestic politics? From Nixon through Clinton, American presidents judged the risks of such a course to outweigh its benefits. The George W. Bush administration did urge Mubarak to permit multiparty elections and criticized his suppression of dissent, and President Obama affirmed a similar direction early in his administration. U.S. foreign policy is neither the cause of, nor the solution to, all shortcomings in other countries’ domestic governance - especially in the Middle East.
With a constitution yet to be drafted, the function of key institutions in contention between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military, and an electorate closely divided between dramatically different visions of their country’s future, Egypt’s revolution is far from its end. U.S. policy is torn between competing imperatives. The Muslim Brotherhood has emerged by electoral processes called for by democratic values, while the military stands for outcomes that are closer to the the U.S. concept of international security (and possibly of domestic pluralism). If the United States erred in the Cold War period by excessive emphasis on the security element, it now runs the risk of confusing sectarian populism with democracy.
Amid these tremors, the debate regarding the determinants of U.S. foreign policy is reigniting. Realists judge the events from the perspective of security strategy; idealists see them as an opportunity to promote democracy. But the choice is not between the strategic and the idealistic. If we cannot combine both elements, we will achieve neither.
In that context we must face, and not fudge, the following questions: Do we stand aloof from these internal processes, or do we try to shape them? Do we back one of the contestants or concentrate on advocating electoral procedures (knowing that this may guarantee a strategically repugnant result)? Can our commitment to democracy avoid leading to a sectarian absolutism based on managed plebiscites and one-party rule?
In Egypt, backing a military council composed mostly of Mubarak associates offends democratic sensibilities. Postulating shared values with an explicitly Islamist party, which for generations has advocated an anti-Western course for the entire region, substitutes hope for experience. Military regimes have proved fragile; ideologically driven organizations have used democratic institutions for undemocratic ends and to challenge regional order. We should be open to genuine moderation shown by ideological opponents. But we should not be reluctant to affirm our security interests. In this narrow passage, U.S. policy must navigate without deluding itself that the key players are waiting for our instructions.
In Syria, even more complex comparable dilemmas loom. (On one level, Syria contradicts the argument that the United States could have promoted a more democratic outcome in Egypt by withholding cooperative relations. U.S. aloofness surely did not moderate the Assad family’s authoritarianism.)
In our public debate, the crisis in Syria is generally described as a struggle for democracy, and its culmination is presumed to be the removal of Bashar al-Assad. Neither attribute fits the essence of the problem. The real issue is a struggle for dominance between Assad’s Alawites, backed by many of the other Syrian minorities, and the Sunni majority.
Assad himself is an unlikely leader with a reputation for indecisiveness. Having settled in London as an ophthalmologist - a profession that usually does not attract the power-hungry - he was drafted into Syrian politics only after the death of his elder brother, the designated heir to their dominant father. The conflict in Syria is therefore likely to continue - probably even intensify - upon Assad’s welcome and all but inevitable removal. With their front man gone, Assad’s clan and the Alawite minority, dominant in Syria’s military, may consider themselves reduced to a struggle for physical survival.
Constructing a political alternative to the Assad regime will prove even more complex than the course in Egypt or the other Arab Spring countries, since the contending factions are more numerous and less clearly delineated, and their differences more intense. Without creative leadership to build an inclusive political order - a prospect not yet clearly in evidence among the combatants - Syria may break into component ethnic and sectarian entities, whose strife would then risk spreading by means of affiliated populations into neighboring countries.
On all sides of the Syrian conflict, the commitment of the belligerents to democratic values and alignment with Western interests is, at best, untested. Al-Qaeda has now entered the conflict, effectively on the side that the United States is being asked to join. In such circumstances, U.S. policymakers encounter a choice not between a “realistic” and an “idealistic” outcome but between competing imperfections, between considerations of strategy and of governance. We are stymied on Syria because we have a strategic interest in breaking the Assad clan’s alliance with Iran, which we are reluctant to avow, and the moral objective of saving human lives, which we are unable to implement through the U.N. Security Council.
Since the Arab uprisings began, four governments have fallen, and several others have been seriously tested. The United States has felt obliged to respond to and occasionally to participate in this drama, but it has still not answered fundamental questions about its direction: Do we have a vision of what strategic equation in the region serves our and global interests? Or of the means to achieve them? How do we handle the economic assistance which may be the best, if not the only, means to influence the evolution?
The United States can and should assist on the long journey toward societies based on civil tolerance and individual rights. But it cannot do so effectively by casting every conflict entirely in ideological terms. Our efforts must also be placed within a framework of U.S. strategic interests, which should help define the extent and nature of our role. Progress toward a world order embracing participatory governance and international cooperation requires the fortitude to work through intermediate stages. It also requires that the various aspirants to a new order in the Middle East recognize that our contribution to their efforts will be measured by their compatibility with our interests and values. For this, the realism and idealism we now treat as incompatible need to be reconciled.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-meshing-realism-and-idealism-in-syria-middle-east/2012/08/02/gJQAFkyHTX_print.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.
The Arab Spring is often celebrated by reciting the roll call of overthrown autocrats. But revolutions, in the end, will be judged primarily by what they build, not what they destroy. And in this respect, a year of revolution has refashioned exhilaration into paradox.
The United States applauded the demonstrations in Egypt’s Tahrir Square. Blaming itself for too protracted an association with an undemocratic leader, it urged Hosni Mubarak to step down. But once he did so, the original exultant demonstrators have not turned out to be the heirs. Instead, Islamists with no record of democracy and a history of hostility to the West have been elected to a presidency they had pledged not to seek. They are opposed by the military, which had buttressed the previous regime. The secular democratic element has been marginalized. Where do we go from here?
Contrary to recent conventional wisdom, at no point was the internal structure of Egypt the United States’s to determine. For millennia, monarchs and military autocrats have held sway. In the 1970s, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat abandoned the Soviet alliance forged by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s military regime 20 years earlier. Sadat made peace with Israel, with the United States acting as mediator. These events helped to transform the Cold War. They reflected a hard-headed assessment by all parties of the relation of forces that emerged from the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by Islamist extremists, whose continued terrorism was used by his successor, Mubarak, as justification for prolonged emergency powers.
Throughout, Egypt and its government were facts of international life; American administrations of both parties, faced with the Cold War and looming turmoil in the region, judged it crucial to work with a major Arab country willing to take risks for regional peace. As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton affirmed in her recent Cairo press conference, “We worked with the government of the country at the time.”
At what point, faced first with Soviet adventurism and then the consequences of the Soviet Union’s disintegration, did the United States have an option to intervene directly in the region’s domestic politics? From Nixon through Clinton, American presidents judged the risks of such a course to outweigh its benefits. The George W. Bush administration did urge Mubarak to permit multiparty elections and criticized his suppression of dissent, and President Obama affirmed a similar direction early in his administration. U.S. foreign policy is neither the cause of, nor the solution to, all shortcomings in other countries’ domestic governance - especially in the Middle East.
With a constitution yet to be drafted, the function of key institutions in contention between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military, and an electorate closely divided between dramatically different visions of their country’s future, Egypt’s revolution is far from its end. U.S. policy is torn between competing imperatives. The Muslim Brotherhood has emerged by electoral processes called for by democratic values, while the military stands for outcomes that are closer to the the U.S. concept of international security (and possibly of domestic pluralism). If the United States erred in the Cold War period by excessive emphasis on the security element, it now runs the risk of confusing sectarian populism with democracy.
Amid these tremors, the debate regarding the determinants of U.S. foreign policy is reigniting. Realists judge the events from the perspective of security strategy; idealists see them as an opportunity to promote democracy. But the choice is not between the strategic and the idealistic. If we cannot combine both elements, we will achieve neither.
In that context we must face, and not fudge, the following questions: Do we stand aloof from these internal processes, or do we try to shape them? Do we back one of the contestants or concentrate on advocating electoral procedures (knowing that this may guarantee a strategically repugnant result)? Can our commitment to democracy avoid leading to a sectarian absolutism based on managed plebiscites and one-party rule?
In Egypt, backing a military council composed mostly of Mubarak associates offends democratic sensibilities. Postulating shared values with an explicitly Islamist party, which for generations has advocated an anti-Western course for the entire region, substitutes hope for experience. Military regimes have proved fragile; ideologically driven organizations have used democratic institutions for undemocratic ends and to challenge regional order. We should be open to genuine moderation shown by ideological opponents. But we should not be reluctant to affirm our security interests. In this narrow passage, U.S. policy must navigate without deluding itself that the key players are waiting for our instructions.
In Syria, even more complex comparable dilemmas loom. (On one level, Syria contradicts the argument that the United States could have promoted a more democratic outcome in Egypt by withholding cooperative relations. U.S. aloofness surely did not moderate the Assad family’s authoritarianism.)
In our public debate, the crisis in Syria is generally described as a struggle for democracy, and its culmination is presumed to be the removal of Bashar al-Assad. Neither attribute fits the essence of the problem. The real issue is a struggle for dominance between Assad’s Alawites, backed by many of the other Syrian minorities, and the Sunni majority.
Assad himself is an unlikely leader with a reputation for indecisiveness. Having settled in London as an ophthalmologist - a profession that usually does not attract the power-hungry - he was drafted into Syrian politics only after the death of his elder brother, the designated heir to their dominant father. The conflict in Syria is therefore likely to continue - probably even intensify - upon Assad’s welcome and all but inevitable removal. With their front man gone, Assad’s clan and the Alawite minority, dominant in Syria’s military, may consider themselves reduced to a struggle for physical survival.
Constructing a political alternative to the Assad regime will prove even more complex than the course in Egypt or the other Arab Spring countries, since the contending factions are more numerous and less clearly delineated, and their differences more intense. Without creative leadership to build an inclusive political order - a prospect not yet clearly in evidence among the combatants - Syria may break into component ethnic and sectarian entities, whose strife would then risk spreading by means of affiliated populations into neighboring countries.
On all sides of the Syrian conflict, the commitment of the belligerents to democratic values and alignment with Western interests is, at best, untested. Al-Qaeda has now entered the conflict, effectively on the side that the United States is being asked to join. In such circumstances, U.S. policymakers encounter a choice not between a “realistic” and an “idealistic” outcome but between competing imperfections, between considerations of strategy and of governance. We are stymied on Syria because we have a strategic interest in breaking the Assad clan’s alliance with Iran, which we are reluctant to avow, and the moral objective of saving human lives, which we are unable to implement through the U.N. Security Council.
Since the Arab uprisings began, four governments have fallen, and several others have been seriously tested. The United States has felt obliged to respond to and occasionally to participate in this drama, but it has still not answered fundamental questions about its direction: Do we have a vision of what strategic equation in the region serves our and global interests? Or of the means to achieve them? How do we handle the economic assistance which may be the best, if not the only, means to influence the evolution?
The United States can and should assist on the long journey toward societies based on civil tolerance and individual rights. But it cannot do so effectively by casting every conflict entirely in ideological terms. Our efforts must also be placed within a framework of U.S. strategic interests, which should help define the extent and nature of our role. Progress toward a world order embracing participatory governance and international cooperation requires the fortitude to work through intermediate stages. It also requires that the various aspirants to a new order in the Middle East recognize that our contribution to their efforts will be measured by their compatibility with our interests and values. For this, the realism and idealism we now treat as incompatible need to be reconciled.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-meshing-realism-and-idealism-in-syria-middle-east/2012/08/02/gJQAFkyHTX_print.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.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
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.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
The Painful Truth About "CHEMTRAILS"
SOVEREIGN MIND MAGAZINE - By Jerry E. Smith - May/June 2009
I have been aggressively researching "chemtrails" since 1996. I first heard the phrase in 1995 and witnessed them in 1996 while working on my book "HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy." I devoted 100 pages to this subject in my next book on the subject: "WEATHER WARFARE: The Military’s Plan To Draft Mother Nature."
In "WEATHER WARFARE" I documented (from the open scientific and military literature and other mainstream sources) that there are indeed extremely high altitude atmospheric releases for scientific and military purposes (mainly releases of barium and aluminum). These are primarily used for Surveillance and Communications, such as for over-the-horizon radar and creating artificial radio bounce spots. These releases are at altitudes two or three times higher than commercial jet aircraft fly and do not leave visible "trails." ...
Friday, February 10, 2012
Number of faithful Mormons rapidly declining
KTVX-TV ABC 4/40 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH [Newport Television, LLC] - January 31, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, January 02, 2012
2011 Norway attacks: Perfect opportunity for anti-Christian Politicians & Media to attack Bible believing Christians at the expense of all truth
Norway's Killer, "Christian Fundamentalism,"
and the Media
LIFEWAY REASEARCH BLOG - By Ed Stetzer - July 23, 2011and the Media
The phrase "Christian fundamentalist" is all over the news today. Anders Behring Breivik (the Norwegian mass murderer) appears to be one, according to many news sources, but particularly The Atlantic. Fair enough-- he very well may identify himself that way, but I'd like to know why that term has now been so readily embraced.
Before getting to that, let me say that this is a tragedy of enormous proportion. A nation is grieving. My discussion of labeling and terminology should not distract us from that. Please pray with me for the families of the victims.
Yet, there are concerns here-- and I think they point to a growing perception among the media and elsewhere that "Christian fundamentalists" are a looming threat. Many are beginning to notice and comment on the "fundamentalist" connection.
The Atlantic headline shouts, "The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway's Massacre" and later gives the reason why ...
My concern is that this narrative has quickly caught on because, for many, some have been expecting such a thing from these "crazy Christian fundamentalists." As such, you can expect more articles and commentaries like the one from Frank Schaeffer, comparing "Christian fundamentalists" to the Taliban.
Some might say (and with some justification) that this is how Muslims feel (see Salon.com for more on that). And, there are some Christian fundamentalists that do indeed live and act in intolerant ways. Yet, the quick embrace of this label by many drives me to ask, "What is going on here?" ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/07/christian-fundamentalist-and-t.html
See Also:
http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/07/christian-fundamentalist-and-t.html
See Also:
Anders Berhring Breivik (Norway Killer) - Christian Fundamentalist or Religious Tyrannist?
LIGHTHOUSE TRAILS RESEARCH PROJECT/FROM THE LIGHTHOUSE BLOG - The Blog of Lighthouse Trails Research - July 25, 2011
[...] We know that many in the world will now blame "Christian fundamentalism" on this act in Norway. In time, and escalated because of these types of violent acts driven by demonic forces, Bible believing Christians will be told they can no longer say Jesus Christ is the only way to God. It will be a hate crime. As was the case in the 911 terrorist attack in 2001, the Norway shootings will be used to further the progress of a one-world unified religion that will have no place for the Bible-believing Christian.
In 2006, Rick Warren helped set the tone for animosity and marginalization against Bible-believing Christians (Fundamentalists) when he stated that fundamentalism will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century. . . . Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism - they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=6957
In 2006, Rick Warren helped set the tone for animosity and marginalization against Bible-believing Christians (Fundamentalists) when he stated that fundamentalism will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century. . . . Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism - they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=6957
A Christian Response to a Deranged "Crusader"
DEFEND CHRISTIANS.org - July 25, 2011
[...] For those looking to bash the right, especially the Christian right, the predictable "tar and feathering" is on its way. But, is it logical to blame the right for the acts of a deranged man? It is no more justifiable to blame the right as it is to blame the left for all the carnage of it's mad men, like the Tucson Arizona left wing lunatic, Jared Lee Loughner, who killed six and wounded fourteen, including Democratic Congresswoman Gifford. ...
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://defendchristians.org/commentary/a-christian-response-to-a-deranged-crusader/
Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://defendchristians.org/commentary/a-christian-response-to-a-deranged-crusader/
Media wrong to label Breivik as a Christian
THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, New York [Advance/Newhouse] > The Readers' Page - August 2, 2011
Letter to the Editor: Breivik not a ChristianTo the Editor:
I am appalled by the media elite portraying Anders Behring Breivik, the man behind the horrific slaughter of 60 plus innocent children at the youth camp on Utoya Island, Norway, as a right-wing, fundamentalist Christian.
Apparently, the media elite have no clue what a Christian is, but delight when one describes himself as one and commits atrocities such as Breivik did. Yes, it makes great headlines.
If anyone had the sense enough to do just a little digging, he would find out what Breivik meant when he termed himself a Christian. By Breivik's own admission in his self-published 1,500-page manifesto, he describes himself as a cultural Christian, and not a religious one. He writes, "If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God, then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do, however, believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."
Wrong. It makes you someone who likes the perks that comes with union membership but does not want to join.
Breivik is a terrorist, nothing more, nothing less.
- Lance Hillyer
Fayetteville [NY]
Unedited :: Link to Original Posting
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2011/08/tuesdays_letters_auburn_waste.html#incart_mrt
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
