Angry journalists vent their frustrations to the world

Mayhem in the Media: Is Judgment falling the anti-Christian, anti-Israeli Press? AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE - April 1, 2008 They're angry at their demanding editors. They're angry about the mushrooming workload in shrinking newsrooms. They're even angry about other angry journalists. But these angry journalists are happy they can now vent their frustrations to the rest of the world, courtesy of angryjournalist.com, a sort of online complaint board allowing ink-stained wretches to gripe anonymously. Ironically, their anger is partly fueled by the Internet, which has forced newspapers and television networks to reinvent themselves with painful consequences for their staffs. There's the veterans complaining about newsrooms stretched thin by executives requiring reporters to produce stories for old and new media. "I'm angry because my company, just like the rest of the industry, wants me to do more with less. They've said, 'To hell with quality. Let's just fill the website with as much (expletive) as possible,'" gripes Angry Journalist #241. There's also the young guns frustrated by the culture clash. "I hate the fact that print and online can't work together! Come on, online is the future, so please have some respect for the webeditors!" says Angry Journalist #700. The website contains gripes ranging from existential musings about one's career to expletive-laced diatribes that trigger heated exchanges. Angry Journalist #2559 seems to think that his or her newspaper serves for other purposes than informing readers: "Whatever I write ulimately (sic) either ends up as cage lining or as blankets for bums." As one would expect at any other job, bosses get the brunt of the gripes. "Our executive editor, the man who's supposed to be leading our newsroom, wanders around the building like he forgot where he left his coffee cup," writes Angry Journalist #2570. The website was created by a former journalist who cut short his young career in the news business to work in political communications in Illinois. But he insists his decision to change paths was not driven by anger. Kiyoshi Martinez, 23, who worked as Web editor for Chicago area community newspapers, said he was "disappointed" in his young journalism career about the direction of the industry. In early February, the same month he quit journalism, Martinez launched his website after reading a study on burnout among newspaper journalists, which sparked his interest in knowing what was on reporters' minds. Since then, his website has inspired an imitator, happyjournalist.com, which has much catching up to do with only about 100 "pieces of happiness" compared to the more than 2,600 gripes so far on angryjournalist.com. "It's kind of depressing to see an industry treat its workers so badly," Martinez told AFP. While venting about one's job is nothing new, Scott Reinardy, the journalism professor at Ball State University whose burnout study inspired Martinez, says angryjournalist.com provides a place for discussion about the direction of the news business in the age of the Internet. "Angryjournalist is a tremendous site to allow journalists to vent," Reinardy said in a telephone interview. "We're in a state of real transition and it's just going to take some time, it's going to take some pain before we can do it I'm afraid," he said. "The uncertainty is scary to people." Steve Outing, a columnist for the trade publication Editor and Publisher, said news executives should pay attention to angryjournalist.com. "Things get said on this website that otherwise would not get said -- other than perhaps at the neighborhood bar to co-workers or at home with a spouse," he wrote in his column last month. "I can't help but think that this is a good thing for the news industry." Meanwhile, Martinez, who now works as a communications specialist for the Illinois Senate Republican Caucus, is happy to have left journalism, earning more money and more vacation in a better working environment. "I'm having a blast," he said. Angry Journalist #856 is also happier now: "I'm not angry anymore. I quit my job." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080402022944.y4nk74gl&show_article=1 FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The chance for a new world order

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE [NYTimes Group/Sulzberger] - By Henry A. Kissinger - January 12, 2009 Ed. Note: Interestingly, or should I say ominously, this Op-Ed column appeared under the “APRÈS LE DÉLUGE” title which translated means after me the deluge or flood. As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy. That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread. At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action. Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled. The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos. The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organization of the world. The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their national political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point. So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place - so far without more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves. In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome. America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That seminal event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism - the standard complaint of European critics - or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions. Not since the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States. The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a common strategy reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution. The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The cooperative mood of the moment needs to be channeled into a grand strategy going beyond the controversies of the recent past. The charge of American unilateralism has some basis in fact; it also has become an alibi for a key European difference with America: that the United States still conducts itself as a national state capable of asking its people for sacrifices for the sake of the future, while Europe, suspended between abandoning its national framework and a yet-to-be-reached political substitute, finds it much harder to defer present benefits. Hence its concentration on soft power. Most Atlantic controversies have been substantive and only marginally procedural; there would have been conflict no matter how intense the consultation. The Atlantic partnership will depend much more on common policies than agreed procedures. The role of China in a new world order is equally crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernization and reform of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods. Both sides overestimated the durability of this arrangement. But while it lasted, it sustained unprecedented global growth. It mitigated as well the concerns over China's role once China emerged in full force as a fellow superpower. A consensus had developed according to which adversarial relations between these pillars of the international system would destroy much that had been achieved and benefit no one. That conviction needs to be preserved and reinforced. Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasizing infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 percent that Chinese experts have always defined as the line that challenges political stability. America needs Chinese cooperation to address its current account imbalance and to prevent its exploding deficits from sparking a devastating inflation. What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the Asean-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences. The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. The current crisis can be overcome only by developing a sense of common purpose. Such issues as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, energy and the environment demand strengthened political ties between China and the United States. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape trans-Pacific relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the immediate postwar period - except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military. Such a vision must embrace as well such countries as Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand, whether as part of trans-Pacific structures or, in regional arrangements, dealing with special subjects as energy, proliferation and the environment. The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programs with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope. Henry A. Kissinger served as national security adviser and as secretary of state in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Distributed by Tribune Media Services. Original Report http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/12/opinion/edkissinger.php 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.

Son of Hamas Leader Turns Back on Islam and Embraces Christianity

FOX NEWS [News Corporation/Murdoch] - By Jonathan Hunt - August 12, 2008 Mosab Hassan Yousef is an extraordinary young man with an extraordinary story. He was born the son of one of the most influential leaders of the militant Hamas organization in the West Bank and grew up in a strict Islamic family. Now, at 30 years old, he attends an evangelical Christian church, Barabbas Road in San Diego, Calif. He renounced his Muslim faith, left his family behind in Ramallah and is seeking asylum in the United States. The story of how his life unfolded is truly amazing, whether you agree or disagree with his views. Below is a transcript on an exclusive FOX News interview with Hassan as he tells firsthand how a West Bank Muslim became a West Coast Christian. Click here to view video of Mosab Hassan Yousef speaking out. Click here to view video 'Renouncing Islam.' MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: I believe that all those walls that Islam built for the last 1,400 years are not existing (sic) anymore. They don't recognize this. They built those walls and made people ignorant because they're afraid. They didn't want people to discuss anything about the reality of Islam, about the big questions of Islam and they asked their followers, the Muslims, 'Don't ask about those certain questions.' But now, people have media. If the father closes the door for his daughter not to leave the house, she's going to go behind her computer and travel the world. So people easily can get information, knowledge, searching (sic) engines, so it's very, very available for everybody to study about Islam, about other religions. Not from the Islam point of view, but from other points of view. So for the next 25 years this is for sure going to make huge change in the Muslim and the Arab world. JONATHAN HUNT: You speak from a unique perspective, a man who grew up not just in an Islamic family but as part of an organization seen by many people around the world as an extreme force in Islam: Hamas. What is the reality of Islam? You say people don't see the reality; What is the reality of Islam? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: There are two facts that Muslims don't understand ... I'd say about more than 95 percent of Muslims don't understand their own religion. It came with a much stronger language than the language that they speak so they don't understand it ... they rely only on religious people to get their knowledge about this religion. Second, they don't understand anything about other religions. Christian communities live between Muslims and they're minority and they (would) rather not to go speak out and tell people about Jesus because it's dangerous for them. So, all their ideas about other religions on earth are from Islamic perspectives. So those two realities, most people don't understand. If people, if Muslims, start to understand their religion - first of all, their religion - and see how awful stuff is in there, they'll start to figure out, this can't (be) ... because most religious people focus on certain points of Islam. They have many points that they are very embarrassed to talk about. JONATHAN HUNT: Such as? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Such as Muhammad's wives. You will never go to a mosque and hear about anyone talking about Muhammad's wives, which is like more than 50 wives - and nobody knows (this), by the way. If you ask the majority of Muslims, they will not know this fact. So they're embarrassed to talk about this, but they talk about the glory of Islam, they talk about the victory, the victories that Muhammad made. So, when people just like look at themselves and see they're defeated, they have ignorance, they're not educated, they're not leading the world as they're expected to do. They’re think they want to get back to that victory by doing the same, what Muhammad did, but disregarding (sic) the timing. They forget that this happened 1,400 years ago and it's not going to happen again. JONATHAN HUNT: Do they want to destroy Christianity? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Islam destroyed Christianity from the beginning and Muslims don't recognize that they stabbed Christianity (in) its heart when they said that Jesus wasn't killed on the cross. They think that they honor him in this way. Basically, any Christians understand that this way, (but Muslims) tell Jesus, okay, we don't care, you didn't die for us. Someone sacrificed his life for you, (but) you tell him, okay, you didn't do it! This is what Muslims are doing basically. But they don't understand that this is the most important part of Christianity: the cross! So, they are ignorant, they don't know what they are doing and it explains what an evil idea it is behind this Islam. JONATHAN HUNT: What specific event or events began to change your mind about Islam? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Since I was a child I started to ask very difficult questions, even my family was telling me all the time, 'You're a very difficult person and we were having trouble answering your questions. Why are you asking so many questions?' This was from the beginning, to be honest with you. But I felt that everybody - and my father was a good example for me because he was a very honest, humble person, very nice to my mother, to us, and raised us on the principle of forgiveness, okay? I thought that everybody in Islam was like this. When I was 18 years old, and I was arrested by the Israelis and was in an Israeli jail under the Israeli administration, Hamas had control of its members inside the jail and I saw their torture; (they were) torturing people in a very, very bad way. JONATHAN HUNT: Hamas members torturing other Hamas members? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Hamas leaders! Hamas leaders that we see on TV now, and big leaders, responsible for torturing their own members. They didn't torture me, but that was a shock for me, to see them torturing people: putting needles under their nails, burning their bodies. And they killed lots of them. JONATHAN HUNT: Why were they torturing people? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Because they suspected that they had relations with the Israelis and (were) co-operating with the Israeli occupation against Hamas ... So hundreds of people were victims for this, and I was a witness for about a year for this torture. So that was a huge change in my life. I started to open my (eyes), but, the point (is) that I got that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. Good Muslims, such as my father, and bad Muslims, like those Hamas members in the jail torturing people. So that was the beginning of opening my eyes wide. JONATHAN HUNT: You talk about the good Muslims, like your father, yet you still now renounce the faith of your father. Could you have not been a good Muslim? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Now, here's the reality: after I studied Christianity - which I had a big misunderstanding about, because I studied about Christianity from Islam, which is, there is nothing true about Christianity when you study it from Islam, and that was the only source. When I studied the Bible carefully verse by verse, I made sure that that was the book of God, the word of God for sure, so I started to see things in a different way, which was difficult for me, to say Islam is wrong. Islam is my father. I grew up for (one) father - 22 years for that father - and another father came to me and told me, 'I'm sorry, I'm your father.' And I was like, 'What are you talking about? Like, I have my own father, and it's Islam!' And the father of Christianity told me, 'No, I'm your father. I was in jail, and this (Islam) is not your father.' So basically this is what happened. It's not easy to believe this (Islam) is not your father anymore. So I had to study Islam again from a different point of view to figure out all the mistakes, the huge mistakes and its effects, not only on Muslims - (of) which I hated the values ... I didn't like all those traditions that make people's lives more difficult - but its effects also on humanity. On humanity! People killing each other (in) the name of God. So definitely I started to figure out the problem is Islam, not the Muslims and those people - I can't hate them because God loved them from the beginning. And God doesn't create junk. God created good people that he loved, but they're sick, they have the wrong idea. I don't hate those people anymore but I feel very sorry for them and the only way for them to be changed (is) by knowing the word of God and the real way to him. JONATHAN HUNT: Does it worry you that in saying these things - and given your background and your words carrying extra weight - there is a danger that you will increase the difficulties, the hatred between Christians and Muslims in the world right now? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: This could happen if a Christian person will go talk to them about the reality of Islam. They put Christians on the enemy list anyway, before you talk to them about Islam. So if you go to them and tell them, as a Christian, they will be offended immediately and they will hate you and this will definitely increase the vacuum between both religions - but what made someone like me change? Years ago, years ago, when I was there, God opened my eyes, my mind also, and I became a completely different person. So now, I can do this duty, while you as Christians can help me do it, but maybe you wouldn't be able to. (Muslims) have no excuse now. JONATHAN HUNT: How difficult a process has this been for you to effectively walk away from your family, leave your home behind? How difficult is that? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Taking your skin off your bones, that's what happened. I love my family, they love me. And my little brothers, they’re like my sons. I raised them. Basically, it was the biggest decision in my life. I left everything behind me, not only family. When you decide to convert to Christianity or any other religion from Islam, it's not (enough) to just say goodbye and leave, you know? It's not like that. You're saying goodbye to culture, civilization, traditions, society, family, religion, God - what you thought was God for so many years! So it's not easy. It's very complicated. People think it's that easy, like it doesn't matter. Now I'm here in the U.S. and I got my freedom and it's great, but at the same time, nothing is like family, you know. To lose your family - JONATHAN HUNT: Have you lost your family? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: My family is educated and it was very difficult for them. They asked me many times, especially for the first two days, to keep my faith to myself and not go to the media and announce it. But for me it was a duty from God to announce his name and praise him (around) the world because my reward is going to be that he's going to do the same for me. So I did it, basically, as a duty. I (wonder) how many people can do what I can do today? I didn't find any. So, I had to be strong about that. That was very challenging. That was the most difficult decision in my life and I didn't do it for fun. I didn't do it for anything from this world. I did it only for one reason: I believed in it. People are suffering every day because of wrong ideas. I can help them get out of this endless circle ... the track the devil (laid) for them. JONATHAN HUNT: Have you spoken to your father recently? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: There is no chance to communicate with my father because he's in jail now and there is (sic) no phones in the jail to communicate with him. JONATHAN HUNT: Have other members of your family told you how he's reacted? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: They've visited him from time to time. Till this moment, I don't know his reaction exactly but I'm sure he's very sad (over) a decision like this. But at the same time, he's going to understand, because he knows me and he knows that I don't make any decisions without (believing strongly in them). JONATHAN HUNT: Is it making his life more difficult among fellow Hamas members? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Definitely. My family, including my father, had to carry this cross with me. It wasn't their choice. It was my choice, but they had to carry this cross with me and I ask God - I pray for (my father), all my brothers and my sisters here in this church, praying all the time for them - 'God, open their eyes, their minds, to come to Christ. And bless them because they had to carry this cross with me.' JONATHAN HUNT: Tell me about Hamas and the way it works. Is Hamas a purely Islamic religious organization as you see it, and that's where, in your eyes, its faults lie, or are there other parts of it which are a problem for you? Or is Hamas a good organization? What is Hamas to you? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: If we talk about people, there are good people everywhere. Everywhere. I mean, good people that God created. Do they do their own things? Yes, they do their own things. I know people who support Hamas but they never got involved in terrorist attacks, for example ... They follow Hamas because they love God and they think that Hamas represents God. They don’t have knowledge, they don't know the real God and they never studied Christianity. But Hamas, as representative for Islam, it's a big problem. The problem is not Hamas, the problem is not people. The root of the problem is Islam itself as an idea, as an idea. And about Hamas as an organization, of course, the Hamas leadership, including my father, they're responsible; they're responsible for all the violence that happened from the organization. I know they describe it as reaction to Israeli aggression, but still, they are part of it and they had to make decisions in those operations against Israel, (for) which there was the killing of many civilians. JONATHAN HUNT: Do you believe Israel blameless in the conflict? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Occupation is bad. I can't say Israel - I'm not against any nation. We can't say Israelis, we can't say Palestinians, we're talking about ideas. Israel has the right to defend itself, nobody can (argue) against this. But sometimes they use (too much) aggression against civilians. Sometimes many civilians were killed because those soldiers weren't responsible enough, how they treat people at the checkpoints. My message even to the Israeli soldiers: at least treat people in a good way at the checkpoints. You don't have to look really bad and it's not about nations, it's about just wrong ideas on both sides and the only way for two nations really to get out of the endless circle is to know the principles that Jesus brought to this earth: grace, love, forgiveness. Without this, they will never be able to move on, or break this endless circle. JONATHAN HUNT: You've seen your father jailed, you've been in prison yourself. You've seen Hamas carry out acts of terror against Israelis, and yet you say everybody needs to rise above that? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Definitely. This is the only choice. Nobody has magic power to do something for the Middle East. No one. You can ask any politician here in the U.S., you can ask any Palestinian politician or Arab politician, Israeli leaders; no one, no one can do anything. Even if they believe in peace now: they're part of the game. They're part of the trick. They can't, even if you find a brave person, like Rabin, who was called by an Israeli to make peace with the Palestinians and give them a state, no one, even if you find a strong leader, they can't do this. You can't force an independent country to give another country independence. (Especially when) the other country wants to destroy it. Everybody is hurt. Israeli soldiers, they lost their friends. Palestinians, they lost their children, their fathers. (There are) many people in prison still, and many people were killed. Thousands. So everybody will never forget this. If they want to keep looking to the past, they will never get out of this circle. The only way to start (is just by) moving on. They were born under the occupation as Palestinians. The last two generations, it's not their choice. The new generations from Israel - if we say disregarding the existence of Israel is right or wrong, what's the guilt of those people who were born in Israel and they have no other country to go to? It's their country now, that's how they see it. And they are going to keep their resistance and defense against whomever. (They will) say, 'Get out of this land!' So the only way is for both nations to start to understand the grace, love and forgiveness of God, to be able to get out of this. JONATHAN HUNT: Do you believe that Israel can ever strike a peace deal with Hamas? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: There is no chance. Is there any chance for fire to co-exist with the water? There is no chance. Hamas can play politics for 10 years, 15 years; but ask any one of Hamas' leaders, 'Okay, what's going to happen after that? Are you just going to live and co-exist with Israel forever?' The answer is going to be no ... unless they want to do something against the Koran. But it's their ideology and they can't just say 'We're not going to do it.' So there is no chance. It's not about Israel, it's not about Hamas: it's about both ideologies. There is no chance. JONATHAN HUNT: Aren't you terrified that somebody is going to try to kill you for saying these things - which would be approved of according to parts of the Koran? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: They got to kill my ideas first, (and) that's it, they're already out. So how are they going to kill my idea? How are they going to kill the opinions that I have? ... They can kill my body, but they can't kill my soul. JONATHAN HUNT: You're not afraid? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: As a human, you know, I can be very brave now, I'm not thinking about it at this moment and I feel that God is on my side. But if this will be the challenge, I ask God to give me enough strength. JONATHAN HUNT: Have you been threatened? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: No, not really. Honestly, most Muslims and Muslim leaders here in the U.S. community, European communities, they are trying to get ahold of me. They are calling my famiily, my mother, and asking for my contacts. They are telling her, 'We want to help him.' JONATHAN HUNT: They think you need help? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Yeah, they think that Christians took advantage of me, and this is completely wrong. I've been a Christian for a long time before they knew, or anyone knew. I love Jesus, I followed him for many years now. It wasn't a secret for most of the time, and this time I just did it to glorify the name of God and praise him. They're not dealing with a regular Muslim. They know that I'm educated, they know that I studied, they know that I studied Islam and Christianity. When I made my decision, I didn't make it because someone did magic on me or convinced me. It was completely my decision. JONATHAN HUNT: Do you miss Ramallah? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Definitely. You've been there and you know how a wonderful country (it is). Very, very beautiful. It's a very small spot and it has everything - this is why people are fighting for that piece of land. I definitely miss Ramallah. Jereusalem. The Old City. JONATHAN HUNT: Do you believe you will ever be able to go back? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: I think I belong to that land, and sooner or later I'm going to go back, no matter what. If they want to kill me, they (will) do whatever they want to do. I have a family there, they love me, they completely support me now with my decisions. Maybe they don't want me to talk to the media but they believe that I made a decision that I completely believe in. So they support me, so I love my family. I'm going to go back there again one day. I love my town. JONATHAN HUNT: Do you think you'll ever go back to a Middle East living in peace? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: There will be a 100-person peace when Jesus comes back, when he judges everybody. His kingdom's going to be 1,000 years and it's going to be completely peaceful and it's going to be the kingdom of God. JONATHAN HUNT: What is your basic message to any Muslim listening to this right now? MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: My message to them is, first of all, to open their minds. They were born to Muslim families - this is how they got Islam and this is just like ... any other religion, like growing up (in) a Christian family, or growing up (in) a Jewish family. So my point is that I want those people to open their eyes, their minds, to start to understand and imagine that they weren't born for a Muslim famiily. And use their minds. Why did God give them minds? Open their hearts. Read the Bible. Study their religion. I want to open the gate for them, I want them to be free. They will find a good life on earth just by following God - and they're also going to guarantee the other life. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402483,00.html FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Iran and Hamas do Christmas

JEWISH WORLD REVIEW - By Caroline B. Glick - December 26, 2008 Both Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza have been busy this Christmas week showing Christendom just what they think of it. But no one seemed to have noticed. On Tuesday Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Sharia criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, the code legalizes crucifixion. Hamas's endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time as it renewed its jihad. Here too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn't neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday Hamas lobbed a mortar at Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas. While Hamas joyously renewed its jihad against Jews and Christians, its overlords in Iran also basked in jihadist triumphalism. The source of Iran's sense of ascendancy this week was Britain's state-owned Channel 4 network's decision to request that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad give a special Christmas Day address to the British people. Ahmadinejad's speech was supposed to be a response to Queen Elizabeth II's traditional Christmas Day address to her subjects. That is, Channel 4 presented his message as a reasonable counterpoint to the Christmas greetings of the head of the Church of England. Channel 4 justified its move by proclaiming that it was providing a public service. As a Channel 4 spokesman told the Jerusalem Post, "We're offering [Ahmadinejad] the chance to speak for himself, which people in the West don't often get the chance to see." While that sounds reasonable, the fact is that Westerners see Ahmadinejad speaking for himself all the time. They saw him at the UN two years in a row as he called for the countries of the world to submit to Islam; claimed that Iran's nuclear weapons program is divinely inspired; and castigated Jews as subhuman menaces to humanity. They saw him gather leading anti-Semites from all over the world at his Holocaust denial conference. They heard him speak in his own words when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." And of course, over the years Ahmadinejad has often communicated directly to the British people. For instance, in 2007 he received unlimited airtime on British television as he paraded kidnapped British sailors and marines in front of television cameras; forced them to make videotaped "confessions" of their "crime" of entering Iranian territorial waters; and compelled them to grovel at his knee and thank him for "forgiving" them. The British people listened to Ahmadinejad as he condemned Britain as a warmongering nation after its leaders had surrendered Basra to Iranian proxies. They heard him -- speaking in his own voice -- when he announced that in a gesture of Islamic mercy, he was freeing their humiliated sailors and marines in honor of Muhammad's birthday and Easter and then called on all Britons to convert to Islam. Yet as far as Channel 4 is concerned, Ahmadinejad is still an unknown quantity for most Britons. So they asked him to address the British on Christmas. And not surprisingly, in his address, he attacked their way of life and co-opted their Jewish savior Jesus, saying, "If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers." He then reiterated his call for non-Muslims to convert to Islam saying, "The solution to today's problems can be found in a return to the call of the divine prophets." The fact of the matter is that Channel 4 is right. There is a great deal of ignorance in the West about what the likes of Ahmadinejad and his colleagues in Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas stand for. But this isn't their fault. They tell us every day that they seek the destruction of the Jews and the domination of the West in the name of Islam. And every day they take actions that they believe advance their goals. The reason that the West remains ignorant of the views and goals of the likes of Hamas and Iran is not that the latter have hidden their views and goals. It is because the leading political leaders and foreign policy practitioners in the West refuse to listen to them and deny the significance of their actions. As far as the West's leaders are concerned, Iran and its allies are unimportant. They are not actors, but objects. As far as the West's leading foreign policy "experts" and decision makers are concerned, the only true actors on the global stage are Western powers. They alone have the power to shape reality and the world. Oddly enough, this dominant political philosophy, which is based on denying the existence of non-Western actors on the world stage, is referred to as political "realism." The "realist" view was given clear expression this week by one of the "realist" clique's most prominent members. In an op-ed published Tuesday in Canada's *Globe and Mail* entitled, "We must talk Iran out of the bomb," Richard Haas, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations argued that given the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the dangers of a US or Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations, the incoming Obama administration must hold direct negotiations with the mullahs in order to convince them to end their nuclear weapons program. In making this argument, Haas ignores the fact that this has been the Bush administration's policy for the past five years. He also ignores the fact that President George W. Bush adopted this policy at the urging of Haas's "realist" colleagues and at the urging of Haas himself. Moreover, Haas bizarrely contends that in negotiating with the mullahs, the Obama administration should offer Iran the same package of economic and political payoffs that the Bush administration and the EU have been offering, and Teheran has been rejecting since 2003. Even more disturbingly, Haas ignores the fact that Teheran made its greatest leaps forward in its uranium enrichment capabilities while it was engaged in these talks with the West. So in making his recommendation to the Obama administration -- which has already announced its intention to negotiate with the mullahs -- Haas has chosen to ignore Iran's statements, its actions, and known facts about the West's inability to steer it from its course of war by showering it with pay-offs. Haas and his colleagues in the US, Europe and on the Israeli Left are similarly unwilling to pay attention to Hamas. In an article in the current edition of *Foreign Affairs*, Haas and his colleague Martin Indyk from the Brookings Institute call on the Obama administration to either ignore Hamas, or if it abides by a ceasefire with Israel, they suggest that the Obama administration should support a joint Hamas-Fatah government and "authorize low-level contact between US officials and Hamas." The fact that Hamas itself is wholly dedicated to Israel's destruction and Islamic global domination is irrelevant. Similarly, Haas and Indyk assume that Syria can be appeased into abandoning its support for Hizbullah and Hamas, and its strategic alliance with Iran. Syrian President Bashar Assad's views of how his interests are best served are unimportant. Both Assad's statements of eternal friendship with Iran and his active involvement in Iran's war effort against the US and its allies in Israel, Iraq and Lebanon are meaningless. The "realists" know what he really wants. Muslims aren't the only ones whose views and actions are dismissed as irrelevant by these foreign policy wise men. The "realists" ignore just about every non-Western actor. Take Iran's principal Asian ally North Korea for example. This week North Korea's official news agency threatened to destroy South Korea in a "sea of fire," and "reduce everything treacherous and anti-reunification to debris and build an independent, reunified country on it," if any country dares to attack its nuclear installations. North Korea made its threat two weeks after Kim Jung Il's regime disengaged from its fraudulent disarmament talks with the Bush administration. Those talks -- the brainchild of foreign policy "realists" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill -- were based on the "realist" belief that the US can appease North Korea into giving up its nuclear arsenal. (That would be the same nuclear arsenal that the North Koreans built while engaged in fraudulent disarmament talks with the Clinton administration.) After Pyongyang agreed in February 2007 to eventually come clean on its plutonium installations (but not its uranium enrichment programs), and to account for its nuclear arsenal, (but not for its proliferation activities), Rice convinced President George W. Bush to remove North Korea from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror and to end its subjection to the US's Trading with the Enemy Act this past October. And then, after securing those massive US concessions, on December 11 Pyongyang renounced its previous commitments, walked away from the table and now threatens to destroy South Korea if anyone takes any action against it. North Korea's behavior is of no interest to the "realists" however. As far as they are concerned, the US has no option other than to continue the failed appeasement policy that has enabled North Korea to develop and proliferate nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. As the Council on Foreign Relations Gary Samore said, "I think we're sort of condemned to that process because we don't really have any alternative." Samore and his colleagues believe there are no other options because all other options involve placing responsibility for contending with North Korea on non-Western powers like China, South Korea and Japan. More radically, it involves holding North Korea itself accountable for its actions and making it pay a price for its poor behavior. As the "realists" claim that the US has no option other than their failed appeasement policies, back in the real world, this week military officials from the US's Pacific Command warned that North Korea may supply Iran with intercontinental ballistic missiles. These warnings are credible given that North Korea has been the primary supplier of ballistic missiles and missile technology to Iran and Syria and has played a major role in both countries' nuclear weapons programs. Defending Channel 4's invitation to Ahmadinejad, Dorothy Byrne, the network's head of news and current affairs, said, "As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East President Ahmadinejad's views are enormously influential. As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view." When you think about it, broadcasting Ahmadinejad really would have been a public service if Byrne or any of the delusional "realists" calling the shots were remotely interested in listening to what he has to say. But they aren't. So far from a public service for Britain, it was a service for those who, unbeknownst to most Britons, are dedicated to destroying their country. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1208/glick122608.php3?printer_friendly 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.

Santa's Little (Slave) Helper

DER SPIEGEL [BMG: Bertelsmann Media Group/Gruner & Jahr Magazines] - By Daryl Lindsey - December 5, 2008 Few European Christmas traditions elicit as many diverse and divergent opinions as Black Pete of the Netherlands. Santa's former slave may have been whitewashed in recent years, but many still view him as a racist caricature from the country's colonial past. Myths about Santa's sinister helpers are as widespread in Europe as Grimm's Fairy Tales. In parts of Germany, Knecht Ruprecht brings terror into the hearts of naughty children when the gift-giving season arrives. In Austria it's Krampus, the horned devil who torments adolescents with asocial tendencies. In France, Pere Foutard does the proverbial whipping. Kids in America are threatened with coal in their stockings if they act up, but in European folklore, they are beaten with switches or stuffed in sacks. Brutal stuff. But in no country is the tale of Santa's diabolical sidekick as bizarre as in the Netherlands, home to Zwarte Piet ("Black Pete"). The story of Black Pete is unique on the continent and it is also one of Europe's oddest and most titilating Christmas traditions -- one that tends to raise the eyebrows of foreign visitors and local immigrants. No small number of people see the yuletide character as a racist emblem of Holland's colonial past. Before trawling that debate, though, let's take a brief look at the myth that has defined the country's Holiday Season for the better part of a century and a half. Many say it was Holland's Sinterklaas who inspired America's modern-day Santa. But that's where the similiarities end. Unlike Santa, who lives at the North Pole, Sinterklaas resides in sunny Spain. The Saint Nicolas figure that both are based on was actually a real Greek bishop who hailed from the city of Mira in what is modern-day Turkey. The Dutch version, however, is much more faithful to the original. With his gold crosier, red bishop's dress and red mitre, he's far more ecclesiastical looking than his portly American counterpart. And whereas Santa Claus is famous for circumnavigating the globe with a sleigh and his reindeer, Sinterklaas arrives in the Netherlands each year by, get this, steamship. Steamship? At the time of the invention of Holland's modern Christmas myth by a Dutch schoolteacher in 1852, explains playright Mark Walraven, who recently wrote and staged a play critical of Black Pete, steamships were simply awe-inspiring. They must have been something akin to the Concorde or Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic spaceships. Perpetually in tow is Sinterklaas' slave, Black Pete. At least that's what he was called from his 19th century origins up until the 1950s, when a new focus on cultural sensitivity led to a slight watering down of a tradition that was slowly subjected to the rigors of political correctness. In the new tale told to children each year, that pesky black face paint on Zwarte Piet's face comes from soot collected as Santa's helper wriggles down chimneys to deposit branches in the shoes of badly behaving kids or to help deliver presents from Sinterklaas for the good ones. Some whitewashers of this racist little tale also like to say he's a chimney sweep. "It's just an excuse used by people because they don't like to be reminded of the dark nature of Black Pete," says Walraven. The arrival of Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet is an event covered live on national television and the festivities are celebrated across the country. For several weeks, dozens of Zwarte Pieten and Sinterklaases can be seen crisscrossing the lowlands country, culminating on Dec. 5 with the exchange of gifts. Throughout the celebrations, you can buy Black Pete cakes, plush toys, balloons, chocolates and any number of knickknacks. 'If You Don't Behave, Black Pete Will Get You' In the old days, parents would warn their children: "If you don't behave, Black Pete will come and take you with him back to Spain." Today, though, Black Pete -- and there are often a handful of them accompanying Sinterklaas as he makes his way around Dutch towns -- hands out cookies. The new incarnation of Black Pete may be a chimney sweep and "Sinterklaas' helper," but efforts to make him less offensive haven't been totally successful. The thousands who dress each year as Black Petes still resemble players in a 19th century American minstrel show or a British Golliwogg. And in recent years, that has angered many in the Netherlands' black immigrant community, which stems largely from former colonies like Surinam in South America, the Antilles in the Caribbean or Africa. Forty-six-year-old playwrite Walraven, whose drama "In the Shadow of the Saint" about the debate over Black Pete recently played at Amsterdam's Krater Theater, says he used to be one of the many white men in Holland who would paint their faces black each year to the delight of children. "I stopped after I began working with black people," he says. "Many people are offended by this symbol. In songs written before World War II, he was often called Sinterklaas's slave, and the texts of many songs and lyrics about him, especially from the 19th century, make it very clear that he was a racist symbol. In the end, Black Pete always comes across as a little stupid, clumsy and one who talks strangely and doesn't speak proper Dutch." But in a country where Sinterklaas and Black Pete is a favorite tradition, talk like that can quickly spark a wildfire of anger. Though an increasing number of groups are speaking out against Black Pete, most Dutch don't see anything racist in the character and instead fear that critics are waging an all-out war on Christmas itself. An anti-Black Pete protest planned in the city of Eindhoven in September was cancelled after its organizers received death threats. "The majority here in Holland refuse to talk about Black Pete," says playwright Walraven. "They are afraid that the people who discuss it want to take away Sinterklaas as a phenomenon." One of messages of his play, which received a warm reception in the immigrant-filled neighborhood where it premiered, is that you can still have Sinterklaas without Black Pete. "Many countries have abolished these kinds of things, but in Holland they still exist," Walraven explains. "Nevertheless, most Dutch don't consider themselves to be racist and feel they are being personally attacked when you criticize Black Pete." What would Walraven do with Black Pete? "I'd just get rid of him," he says. "You must admit that his origin is racist and that many people feel offended and hurt by it. It would be better to find another solution." In the Dutch-speaking Belgian region of Flanders, at least one city has already altered its tradition, switching roles to make Sinterklaas a black man and Pete his white helper. Felix De Rooy, the director who helped stage Walraven's plan in Amsterdam, has another idea. He recently suggested to the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad that Black Pete could be replaced by far less decisive figures of almost equal popularity in Holland and Belgium: The Smurfs. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,594674,00.html FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mormons, Muslims forge close ties

They see in each other a religion viewed with suspicion in U.S. and share an emphasis on the family LOS ANGELES TIMES [Tribune Company] - By David Haldane - April 13, 2008 The Mormon Church has to be among the most outgoing on Earth; in recent years its leaders have reached out to, among others, Hispanics, Koreans, Catholics and Jews. One of the most enthusiastic responses, however, has come from what some might consider a surprising source: U.S. Muslims. "We are very aware of the history of Mormons as a group that was chastised in America," says Maher Hathout, a senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. "They can be a good model for any group that feels alienated." Which perhaps explains an open-mosque day held last fall at the Islamic Center of Irvine. More than half of the guests were Mormons. "A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable," said Steve Young, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending the event. The sentiment is echoed by Muslims. "When I go to a Mormon church, I feel at ease," said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. "When I heard the (Mormon) president speak a few years ago, if I'd closed my eyes I'd have thought he was an imam." Though the relationship has raised eyebrows and provided ammunition for critics of both religions, Mormons and Muslims have deepening ties in the United States. What binds them has little to do with theology: Mormons venerate Jesus as interpreted by founder Joseph Smith, while Muslims view Muhammad as God's prophet. Based on shared values and a sense of isolation from mainstream America, the connection was intensified by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and cemented by the Southeast Asia tsunami. Brigham Young University in Utah, the Mormon church's major institution of higher learning, features what is thought to be one of the world's best programs for translating classic Islamic works from Arabic to English. Though created primarily for academic purposes, the results have impressed Muslims flattered by the close attention. "It shows they have a keen interest in the Muslim world," said Levent Akbarut, a member of the Islamic Congregation of La Canada Flintridge (Los Angeles County). And Mormons and Muslims say they often are co-hosts of educational and social programs at which, though some may be angling for long-term doctrinal influence, very little open proselytizing of each other seems to take place. "We have a very close and friendly relationship," said Keith Atkinson, West Coast Mormon spokesman. Mormons "explain our faith to anyone who will listen" and "treat Muslims like anybody else," said Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, one of the church's top governing bodies in Salt Lake City. But Oaks added that "we don't preach to people who would be disenfranchised" or likely offended. Arnold Green, a history professor at BYU, has traced how early Mormons in the 19th century were hounded by accusations that church founder Smith was the American Muhammad. The first Mormons angrily denied any connection to the Muslim prophet but gradually accepted some comparisons, particularly that both religions were founded by post-Christian prophets with strong sectarian views. "As the church grew into a global faith," Green wrote in a 2001 essay, "its posture toward Islam became ... more positive" until, today, "the two faiths have become associated in several ways, including Mormonism's being called the Islam of America." Both religions strongly emphasize family. They tend toward patriarchy, believing in feminine modesty, chastity and virtue. And although Islam discourages dancing involving both sexes, Mormons report that church-sponsored "modesty proms" commonly draw Islamic youths. Both faiths adhere to religion-based health codes, including prohibitions against alcohol, but Mormons and Muslims share something more: membership in quickly growing minority religions that many other Americans have sometimes viewed with suspicion and scorn. "We both come from traditions where there has been persecution in the past and continues to be prejudice," said Steve Gilliland, Mormon director of Muslim relations for Southern California. "That helps us Mormons identify with Muslims." A recent national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that although a thin majority of those polled expressed positive opinions of Muslims and Mormons, the number was significantly less than those favoring Roman Catholics or Jews. More than half the respondents said they had little or no awareness of the precepts and practices of either faith. But 45 percent saw Islam as more likely than other religions to encourage violence, and 31 percent said that Mormons weren't Christian. Armand Mauss, a Mormon and professor emeritus of sociology at Washington State University specializing in religious movements, said that unlike mainstream Christians and Jews, Muslims and Mormons "tend to make fairly stringent demands for religious conformity on their members." These practices, he said, include discouraging marriage outside the religion and observing dietary laws, such as the Mormon prohibition against tobacco, alcohol and caffeine. But the clincher, according to Mauss, is that both communities "have been stung in recent years by the recurrence of scandals over which they have no control." For Muslims, the obvious example is Sept. 11. For Mormons, Mauss says, the problem is polygamy, which, though rejected by the mainstream church more than a century ago, is still the first thing that occurs to many Americans when they think about the religion. And scattered throughout the Internet are numerous tracts, many by evangelical Christians, comparing the two religions in less-than-complimentary terms. "Modern Mohammedanism has its Mecca in Salt Lake," reads one. "Clearly the Quran was Joseph Smith's model, so closely followed as to exclude even the poor pretension of originality in his foul 'revelations.' " In Southern California, the relationship between the two religions became closer after the Los Angeles riots in 1992, when the Mormon Church, hoping to promote diversity, invited several ethnic and religious groups to attend the opening of its new temple in San Diego. Muslims responded in higher numbers and with greater enthusiasm than most others. The church later feted prominent Muslims in Salt Lake City. The relationship deepened with Sept. 11, 2001. In the months that followed, Mormons nationwide opened their churches to Islamic worshipers fearful of reprisals in their mosques. When Muslims needed a cannery to process the Bosnia-bound beef slaughtered for the annual Eid al-Adha observance, the Mormons offered theirs in Utah. Following the tsunami that devastated many Islamic communities, the Mormon church, which has a history of contributing to a wide range of charities, began working closely with Islamic Relief. Though it had helped Muslims before - providing 195 tons of powdered milk, hygiene kits, medical supplies and other provisions - it had never previously worked with this major Islamic agency, or on such a scale. And though the church continues to aid non-Muslim causes, only two of the six major disaster assistance efforts listed on its Web site since 2004 - Hurricane Katrina and Africa measles vaccination campaigns - did not primarily affect Islamic nations. The effects of Muslim-Mormon interaction are showing in subtle ways too. Spending time with Mormons, Bundakji says, has inspired him to stop drinking coffee. "I thought they had a good idea," he says. "Now I don't drink caffeine, and I don't have headaches anymore." This article also appeared on page B - 1 of the 4-13-08 San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/13/MN0410197R.DTL 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.

TO THE CHURCH AND NATION OF BRITAIN

A few months ago Moriel web posted this prophecy by our friend & brother Stewart Dool from a sister ministry Moriel endorses here in Britain. While some contacted us in objection, I prayerfully considered it right to publish the prophetic prediction for prayerful consideration. I am in retrospect glad in light of recent events that we carried it and promoted it. He has certainly been vindicated; as it says in Romans 12 he "propheseyed according to his faith". Jacob Prasch The following is a prophetic word received by Stewart Dool (who heads up Intercessors for Britain) in the week 23-27 July 2007. It has been weighed and tested by others in senior positions of ministry. TO THE CHURCH AND NATION OF BRITAIN I am about to send fire upon you, the fire of My judgment, and it will consume on the right and on the left. All who have spurned My ways and My words will reap what they have sown, for in My burning anger I will judge the gods in whom you have put your trust, the gods of materialism and covetousness. The gold and the silver will be taken from you, and your portion will be emptiness, desolation and vanity. I will bring the stability of your currency into doubt, to show you that it is I alone who caused you to prosper in the past. I raised you to prominence among the nations and gave you authority over many peoples: so you became rich, and boasted in your wealth, but I will bring you low, and the nations over whom you once ruled will say "What has happened to this great nation?" As you have feared other gods, and not feared Me, so I will visit your deeds upon you. Your idolatries have led you astray, and you have become like those before whom you bow down. I commanded your fathers that they should not fear the gods of the nations, but you have not obeyed Me. Therefore I have given you into the hands of abominations and all manner of uncleanness. Darkness will envelope those who have led my people into false light, for I will no longer forbear in my wrath. I will blind them, and they shall stumble in the perversity of their ways. Many shall follow them into darkness and be taken in the snare of the wicked, for they have loved to wander, and they have not watched the path of their feet. My people give heed to those who prophesy a lie, and they delight in the teachers of falsehood. They run to those who steal from them by their destructive heresies, for they cannot discern the paths of righteousness. A wave of deception is about to break forth that will sweep many away, therefore take heed to yourselves, and cling to the word of My truth. I am bringing My Church to a time of testing, and I will search the hearts of all who call upon My name, and I will know those who are mine, and they shall know their God. My displeasure will be visited upon your Government, for those who rule over you have become offensive to Me, as they have set aside My laws and My statutes, exalting the wicked and despising My holy name. You have not abhorred bloodshed, therefore the blood of your sons and daughters will lie in your streets, until you learn that as the cry of the unborn calls to me for vengeance, so I shall require it of you. All these things I will do, because you have rejected Me, and thought that your own power could save you. Yet even now, if you will cry out to Me, and turn from your wickedness, I will spare. Nevertheless, I will chasten you in measure, and you shall know that I am the Lord. My beloved ones, the hour of My patience will not continue much longer. I call your therefore to seek my face with earnestness and zeal, that I may extend compassion to your land and people.

Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: “My husband was born in Hawaii ..."

Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: “My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks”, on a direct telephone to API. AFRICAN PRESS INTERNATIONAL (API) - Posted by africanpress on October 15, 2008 Accusing API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, Mrs Obama said she decided to call API because of what she termed, API’s help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name, saying she hopes African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with. When API told her that our online news media was only relaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: “African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” and she went to state that, “it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API.” This is a very interesting turn of events. The American man Dr Corsi was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi. The question now is why he was arrested and who ordered his arrest. Was Obama’s hand in this in any way? We will never know the truth but what is clear is that Dr Corsi was seen as a threat while in Kenya. When API asked Mrs Obama to comment on why Dr Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya’s Prime Minister Mr Raila Odinga was involved in Dr Corsi’s arrest, she got irritated and and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency. When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy. On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr Farakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of muslim faith if he became the president, adding “even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?; Mrs Obama asked. Mrs Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that will earn API an invitation to the innoguration ceremony when, as she put it , her husband will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year. ADDED HERE BELOW DUE TO HUGE INTEREST ON THE ABOVE STORY. (TIME 16:08 Scandinavian time) Verification of the story: We have found it necessary to publish a telephone number that can be used to reach us should anyone doubt the story. We are doing this because of many requests by many people who want to know more abouth the story. We are able to receive calls tomorrow the 16th of October through to the 18th October. We find it important that our readers get the truth and not be misled in any way. This is a true story and we stand by everyone written. NB: For verification, we can be reached on 004793299739 Original Report http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/shocking-development-mrs-obama-decides-enough-is-enough-my-husband-was-born-in-hawaii-and-adopted-by-his-step-father-does-that-make-him-unpatriotic-she-asks-on-a-direct-telephone-to-api/ 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.

McCain and Obama in `dead heat' among born-again voters

The Barna Group says Obama has a commanding lead and is making "significant inroads" among Christian voters THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS [A. H. Belo Corporation/Belo Group] - By Sam Hodges - October 23, 2008 Ventura, California -- Unless a dramatic shake-up of the electorate occurs in the next two weeks, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is poised to win the November 4th election by a comfortable margin. A new survey from The Barna Group, exploring the voting preferences of registered voters who are likely to vote in the upcoming election found that Sen. Obama has a 13-point lead against Republican John McCain (50% to 37%). One of the surprising insights of the research is the significant inroads Sen. Obama has made among the Christian community, particularly compared to 2004. In fact, among born again voters there is a statistical dead-heat: 45% plan to vote for Sen. McCain, while 43% expect to cast a ballot for Sen. Obama. Even if Sen. McCain were to sweep the 10% who are undecided born again voters, he would fail to reach the 62% who rallied for President Bush in 2004. Breaking Down the Christian Vote The born again segment is large and diverse. This November, born again voters figure to represent nearly one out of every two votes (48%), but they are far from a monolithic voting bloc. Barna Group surveys differentiate between two segments within the born again population - evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians. [Note: Most media polls use a simplistic approach to define evangelical, asking survey respondents if they consider themselves to be evangelical. Barna Group studies, on the other hand, ask a series of nine questions about a person's religious beliefs in order to determine if they are an evangelical.] The larger of the two groups, non-evangelical voters, represent 39% of likely voters. Currently, a plurality support Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain (48% to 41%). Nine percent of these voters are undecided, theoretically giving either candidate a chance to win this segment of voters. However, if voter preference sustains through Election Day, John McCain will not duplicate the significant margin enjoyed by George Bush over John Kerry four years ago among non-evangelical born again Christians (56% to 44%). Evangelicals Waver An equally surprising insight from the research is the fact that Obama has cut into the advantage Republicans enjoyed among the smaller, more conservative segment of evangelicals. Although evangelicals will represent about 9% of likely voters this November, they have been a critical base of solidly Republican voting for several decades. In 2004, for instance, 85% of these voters selected George Bush. However, with two weeks to go before the election just 63% said they are supporting the Arizona Senator, compared with 23% who opted for the candidate from Illinois. With 12% of the evangelical vote undecided, there is still a chance for McCain to expand his advantage with this group. Nevertheless, support for Obama has steadily increased over the summer months, moving from 9% of evangelicals who supported Obama in May to 17% in late July to the current level of 23%. Other Factors If the presidential election were held only among born again Americans, it would be a close contest. When the rest of the nation's voters are factored into the equation, Sen. Obama is staked to a commanding lead among likely voters, 50% to 37%. In large part this lead is due to the substantial support he receives among other self-identified Christians, that is, individuals who describe themselves as Christians but who are not categorized as born again. Among this group, 54% plan to vote for Sen. Obama, compared with 33% for Sen. McCain. This voting segment represents 36% of likely voters. Other voters who do not identify themselves as Christians comprise 14% of all likely voters. Among those who are associated with other faiths, the Democratic Senator generates a 60-point gap over the Republican Senator (74% versus 14%). While not as pronounced, atheists and agnostics also strongly prefer Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain (50% versus 28%). Original Report http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/mccain-and-obama-in-dead-heat.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.

Statement on South Ossetia from a Sister in Christ

Ed. Note: This statement goes does not support the claims of the Georgian Government, US Government, nor our media, but rather supports the claims of Russia, at least concerning reports of Georgians attacking their own people. The Bible claims that all things hidden in darkness will be shouted from the rooftops, so my view is to always get the truth out no matter how much it may sting. Considering the source of these claims - Bible believing Christians in South Ossetia who sent this to Moriel missionary Jason Catizone, I do not doubt it’s authenticity. August 17, 2008 Dear Jason, Thank you very much for your letter. Really, me and my friends appreciate your attention and comfort very much. We all need strong minds here to survive such a big tragedy. Even for believers, because many of us have relatives in and from South Ossetia. It’s difficult to stay indifferent when we listen to such awful stories which happened to our people - children, women, old people, and young men. But as I see it, what’s amazing is this - refugees want to return to Tskhinvali, because that’s where their homes are, and they don’t want to disturb or impose upon other people. I see that South Ossetian people are very special. As we visited victims - they are all open to accept us and appreciate any kind of attention and concern. They were always very kind, open, and simple. But what happened to them? These are the refugees’ stories and a short chronicle of what happened. On Friday night, when people (South Ossetians) were sleeping, the Georgian army suddenly attacked South Ossetia. Some hours before that, Georgia’s president (Saakashvili) proclaimed on TV that Georgia wouldn’t fire any shots - that he guaranteed peace. But after some hours they started, not shooting, but bombing the capital of South Ossetia (Tskhinvali) with heavy bombers and heavy artillery! Tanks went into the city and villages and did not sort out children or women, or between people’s houses or buildings. All night without stop heavy artillery with tanks and mortars bombed the city and villages. The next day everybody was waiting for help but there was not any help. When they heard sounds of airplanes, many people left their shelters and went out in the street to meet what they thought was Russian help. People waved their hands and headscarves with the hope that help had finally come. BUT, the airplanes flew down, under top of trees and bombed the people (South Ossetians). These were Georgian planes. There were more people killed in the street then there were during the night. Most Ossetians hid in cellars, moving from one to another. As the Georgian army occupied one region and then the next one in south Ossetia, during their move from one village to another the Georgians went down into people’s cellar and shot the simple people hiding in them; they burned down the houses with the Ossetian people inside them, or the Georgian soldiers flung their grenades and then went into the cellars and shot down women and children. There were many atrocities committed - barbarities, which are even difficult to describe. Georgian people, who consider themselves to be one of the highest cultures in the world – they cut people’s throats, burned homes to ashes, and raped our women. 36 – for thirty six hours there was not any help. Perhaps this time was given for all of us - first in South Ossetia, and then in North Ossetia - to pray to God for mercy and help. That was the only hope of everybody. All Churches here, believers - and even non-believers - were praying. And help finally came. Thanks be to God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! God sent help by the Russian army and the Russian people. There are mountains around our country and the roads are very narrow for the army to travel on, and so perhaps that is one of the reasons that the help came so late. Perhaps another reason was that the Russian army had no law allowing them to go into the territory of another country, until there were “enough” victims. It is a crazy law, isn’t it? I heard that the Georgian aggression plan was called “Clean Field” - to make the South Ossetian territory empty, without buildings or people. There were many stories we heard as we visited refugees, and I want to share a few – about how God showed His mercy to us. All refugees that I visited said that it’s a miracle that they are alive after that nightmare and horror. I call Nelly’s story, “To Share Suffering.” A week before the war, Nelly was traveling from Tskhinvali (in south Ossetia) to Vladikavkaz (in North Ossetia). In that moment she was struck with great love for her people and country. All her thoughts were about South Ossetia. She prayed: “O Lord! I want to share about all the suffering of my people, if it possible”. A week later she decided to return (to South Ossetia) and do some light remodeling of her apartment in Tskhinvali. And that’s when the war started. Three days and three nights with her sister, she moved from one cellar to another, and prayed with her neighbors. Now she says “I don’t understand how to live after all this. I used to think that I was strong, but now I understand that I am very, very weak.” When they left their shelter on the third day, Nelly noticed that her hands had strange spots on them - in the middle of both of her palms she had blue circles with a white point in the center. She understood that South Ossetians are very precious to Christ, that He is near to us, and that He is among us. Larisa’s story – “Noah’s Ark.” “I have a strange neighbor, she is believer. She always was strange. A week before the war she started to strengthen her cellar. She put cardboard there, a big mattress, lots of food, and so on. Her cellar was like a cellar within a cellar, deep and strong. We all laughed at her and said, ‘Are you going to live there?’ Only later, when we hid there for three days and nights with our neighbors, we understood that perhaps it was the best place for shelter in the city. Thank God that He saved us through this woman.” David - “Faith and War.” We, almost all Protestants in Russia, have a pacifist view to war. We do not accept the idea of carrying a gun. But there was a situation when children and women were killed and an old man tried to defend them with a gun. Nearby was a believer, who was praying all this time. When there were no men alive around him except that old man, the believer took the submachine gun and started shooting. The old man later told him, “Now I see that you are a real man and love your people, your country, and that you haven’t got a heart of stone.” There was also a tragedy in the Russian Orthodox Church – some worshippers were killed when they were praying on their knees. They are blessed, because they are with our Lord now in Heaven. This is not the first war - it is the third war in 19 years in which Georgia has attacked South Ossetia. In the first two wars there were also victims, but there was not as much help from Russia as we’ve recently received. Russia was weak. People in South Ossetia are humble enough to forgive insults, although they have a strong spirit. They are tired of wars. Christians often pray about peace in South Ossetia: how long must we wait? We Ossetians are not as eloquent, popular, or keen in political plots as the Georgians are, and so nobody knows about us or defends us. But today God defends us through Russia. He also comforts us through such brothers as you. May we never forget His help and power, and may we always praise Him! In the beginning of the last century, one of the Georgian leaders – Geordania - burned down Ossetian villages in South Ossetia. For what? We all always respected Georgian people, but why don’t Georgian people respect others? In Tbilisi (Georgia’s capital) they always say, “She is a good person, but she is Ossetian”, or, “He is good, but he is Armenian,” or “Russian,” and so on. Georgian leaders in President Gamsakhurdia’s time (in 1990), used their very popular slogan: “Georgia is only for Georgians.” And they said on TV, ‘Can you imagine that even the dumb Japanese live better than us cultured Georgians?!’ Maybe such self-conceit looks funny, but maybe it is also a high level of arrogance which provides the course for genocide. May God heal this nation and our president, and keep all of us from such illnesses. After the first war, about 18 years ago, some Georgians beat an old man within an inch of his life. When he prayed, “God, forgive all my sins and take my soul,” one of the Georgians said, “What?! Do you pray to God? Don’t you know that God is only the Georgian’s God?!” That old man is a member of our church now in Vladikavkaz (North Ossetia). In Soviet time, Georgia was always quite rich in comparison with other places in the Russian Federation; South Ossetia was a poor colony of Georgia. How can people in Ossetia believe the promises of the Georgian government any more? Perhaps, this is God’s war. As I see it, this is not the common people’s fault… it is our (believers’) fault. People are open to The Gospel, but perhaps the churches are sleeping here. There were always very few (and inactive) missionaries in South Ossetia. We can do great things if we will listen to God’s voice. There are many things which I want to write - more information - but hopefully I’ll write you later. Jason, I think that you would be very helpful here. But perhaps you can be helpful in the US also. About help, thank you very, very much for such wishes. I told Sergei Totiev (a pastor in Beslan who lost two of his children in the terrorist attack) that you want to help us, our Church and refugees. There are now several refugee camps in North Ossetia in which the South Ossetian refugees are living; there are camps in Beslan, Alagir, Nagir, Ardon, and other areas as well. Jason, do you remember Beslan? There also was suffering there for three days and three nights. Maybe it is the sign which is needed to be understood – the North (Beslan, North Ossetia) and the South (South Ossetia). By the way, I gave your last disc to one musician (he is also a businessman) from South Ossetia. Thank you for praying, that is what is really needed for our health - there are too many emotions. May God bless you and use you for His glory, and make you very fruitful! Your sister in Christ, Tamara * Emphasis Added

20 Muslim nations ban U.S. religious workers

Yet State Department allows entry to 100s of Muslim clerics each year WORLDNETDAILY - August 15, 2008 A new congressional study has found that more than 20 Muslim nations deny entry to American and other foreign religious workers, WND has learned, even as the U.S. State Department grants entry to hundreds of clerics from their countries each year. The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and most other Middle Eastern countries still refuse to offer religious visas, and deny entry to U.S. clergy as official policy, according to a report by the Law Library of Congress, the foreign legal research arm of the U.S. Congress. In a shocker, U.S. allies Afghanistan and Iraq also made the list of religious refuseniks. "Of this group, the vast majority constitute Arab or Muslim states," said Wendy Zeldin, senior legal research analyst for the Library of Congress. "Since Islam prohibits proselytism by other religions, foreign religious workers will in effect be denied entry to conduct religious work," Zeldin wrote in the three-page report, a copy of which was obtained by WND. At the same time, Washington routinely issues R-1 religious visas to clerics from the Middle East, including jihadi hotbeds Saudi Arabia and Egypt, even though an alarming number of foreign imams have been suspects in terrorism investigations since 9/11. The Department of Homeland Security, in fact, considers visiting imams as nonthreatening as Buddhist monks. Screening procedures call for both visitors to be treated as the same level of security risk at the border. Also, R-2 visas are routinely granted to relatives of foreign imams. By comparison, Saudi religious police recently accused more than a dozen foreign Christians living in the kingdom of worshipping in their homes and ordered them deported. The deportation conflicts with the message stated just weeks earlier by Saudi King Abdullah, who called for interfaith dialogue and held a summit in Spain with a representatives from several major religions. "Deporting Christians for worshipping in their private homes shows that King Abdullah's speech is mere rhetoric and his country is deceiving the international community about their desire for change and reconciliation," International Christian Concern President Jeff King said. King Abdullah's meetings - which drew about 200 representatives of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism and other religions - had to be held outside of Saudi Arabia, because, as one journalist observed, "the mere fact that rabbis would be openly invited to the kingdom, a country where in principle Jews are not permitted to visit, would have constituted a turning point." . . . . Nations not offering religious visas & denying or restricting entry to religious workers: I. No religious visas, entry denied to foreign religious workers: Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bhutan Brunei Egypt Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Libya Maldives Morocco North Korea Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Yemen II. No religious visas, entry allowed, but with restrictions: Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Burma Cambodia China Georgia Indonesia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Russia Serbia Solomon Islands Tajikistan Tuvalu Vietnam Source: Library of Congress http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=72446 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.

Christian Missionaries to Protest Discrimination in Israel

ARUTZ SHEVA (Israeli National News) - By Hana Levi Julian - June 27, 2008 The US-based Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations has thrown down the gauntlet in what may become a renewed battle over the issue of who has the right to immigrate to Israel. The group is an umbrella organization for approximately 80 American Christian missionary congregations comprised of worshippers who seek to convince Jews to believe in Jesus. In their houses of worship, these congregations observe some Jewish traditions. But while Jewish law clearly says that Judaism is passed to the next generation through the mother, these missionary congregations say that if the father is Jewish, that's enough. Some of the missionaries were born to Jewish mothers and are therefore Jewish according to Jewish law. Under the State's current Law of Return anyone with at least one Jewish parent or grandparent on either side of the family is eligible to immigrate to Israel. It is this law that enabled the Jewish Agency to utilize Jewish funds to bring in some 300,000 non-Jews to Israel from the Former Soviet Union (FSU). In the past, however, those who profess belief in Jesus have been blocked from acquiring Israeli citizenship because such belief is in direct contradiction to the Jewish faith. A more serious problem is the compulsion that most members of these missionary congregations feel to convince other Jews to believe in Jesus. "Those people are proselytizers," says Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Ateret Yerushalayim Yeshiva. "They should not be allowed to have an influence on Jews who might be too weak to resist." The issue of missionary activity in Israel has been heating up over the past year, particularly since Purim, when the son of a missionary was injured after he opened a booby-trapped gift package received by the family in Ariel. Orthodox Jewish anti-missionaries were accused of having sent the package, but there was no evidence to indicate that Jews were involved. The boy's father, Pastor David Ortiz, had been warned repeatedly by Palestinian Authority religious authorities to stop trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. - - - - Read Full Report http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=126634 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.