Jewish Arabs and Arabia

Jewish Arabs and a New Middle East

I noticed in various texts and articles that Jews from the Middle East, who often originated from Spain/Al-Andalus, were referred to by scholars not only as Sephardim but as Arab Jews, says Marc Gopin.

WASHINGTON - In 1998, Prince Hassan of Jordan appeared on video at the University of Notre Dame, marking one of the first academic conferences in the field of religion and conflict resolution. As he spoke via teleconference, he quoted at length and with great love from the writings of Moses Maimonides—the world-famous medieval Jewish philosopher who had been a chief conduit between Arab neo-Aristotelian philosophy and the Christian world.

It was already a thrilling moment for me – the conference was the first that I attended as an academic speaker – but Maimonides was part and parcel of my sequestered religious childhood. I went to school for 13 years as a child at a place called Maimonides School, and prayed there on Sundays and Saturdays. For Prince Hassan, a major figure of the Arab world, to be embracing Maimonides felt like an extraordinary inter-cultural and inter-religious gesture. I was so moved that I had to say something to the plenary meeting.

Then I got a shock.
When I shared my feelings of gratitude publicly, someone from the audience of scholars responded quite forcefully, "But he is our Maimonides, one of the great Arab philosophers of history." I think that if I were brought up with more Jewish wounds than I had ('Jewishness' could be defined by how many and how deep your wounds are), I might have taken offense. But I did not, and was instead stunned, intrigued, and amused at the playful re-orientation of identities afoot in the room.
That was one of those life-changing moments for me. In that instant I realized the truth of Gandhi's words when he claimed that, the more fluid and multiple our identities, the easier peace and coexistence can flourish at a very profound level. I noticed later in various texts and articles that Jews from the Middle East, who often originated from Spain/Al-Andalus, were referred to by scholars not only as Sephardim but as Arab Jews.

One decade later, Prince Turki, Saudi Arabia's current National Security Adviser and former Ambassador to America, said it was time for Israel to respond to the Arab League's 2002 offer to integrate into the Middle East. After fully withdrawing to the 1967 borders, after realizing a just two-state solution with the Palestinians—then, he added crucially, Israelis could become Arab Jews of the Middle East.

This went unnoticed by most of the enlightened press, presumably because Al Qaeda was not mentioned and no blood of Arabs or Jews was spilled. But at a deeper level, blood was very involved: this former head of intelligence – from a country from which so much of the extremism of the Middle East had emerged – was now utterly redefining identity, family, tribe and clan in terms of ethical relationships, in terms of peace and justice.

In the pages of The Forward, a centrist Jewish journal, some people reacted to Prince Turki's offer as insulting. They assumed that it was an offer from the majority group of the Middle East for a minority to attain some subsumed and subjugated status. But after working with Prince Turki for years at the World Economic Forum, I saw that he embraced the interfaith moment as a moment of absolute equality. He was suggesting, from within the most conservative religious environment in the Middle East, that "Arab" was an ethical term of belonging and community, not a racial or tribal term. It would be like the Orthodox Chief Rabbi of Israel saying that if Palestinians can live in peace with us then they will be our Jewish brothers. I have never heard anyone, no matter how progressive, say this.

Prince Turki went to the heart of the matter, to the question of how the definition of identity can drive us away from hatred, fear, and war, toward the peaceful embrace of the other, or, alternatively, how much identity can stand in the way of all rational negotiation. He has placed a challenge before every Jew and Arab as to who they really are, and who they will be in the future of the Middle East.

Marc Gopin is the James Laue Professor of World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University in Washington D.C. He can be reached at mgopin@gmu.edu.

This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service and can be accessed at GCNews.

Duttch Sue Fitna Wilders

Dutch Businesses to Sue Wilders
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1203758509173&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout


Major Dutch businesses threatened to sue Wilders if Muslim boycotted Dutch products over his anti-Qur'an film.

THE HAGUE — Fearing a Muslim boycott, major Dutch businesses are threatening to sue far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders over his documentary portraying the Noble Qur'an as inciting violence.

"If they (Muslims) decide to boycott Dutch businesses, it will harm Dutch exports," Bernard Wientjes, the chairman of the Dutch employers' organization VNO-NCW, told the newspaper Het Financieel Dagblad, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"Companies like Shell, Philips and Unilever are easily recognizable as Dutch companies."

Wilders, the leader of the far-right Freedom Party, released his anti-Qur'an film on a video-sharing website on Thursday, March 27.

A Counter Movie Against Wilders'

In Opposition to Anti-Qur'an Film

The film intersperses images of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and the Madrid train bombings in 2004 with verses from the Qur'an.

The documentary also featured a Danish cartoon of a man said to be Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) with a bomb protruding from his turban.

"I don't know if Wilders is rich, or well-insured, but in the case of a boycott, we would look to see if we could make him bear responsibility," said Wientjes.

Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard has already threatened legal action against the far-right politician for using the cartoon in his film without permission.

Dutch-Moroccan rapper Salah Edin has also vowed to sue Wilders for using his picture to portray the killer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh over his anti-Islam film "Submission".

Effective

The anti-Qur'an film has already sparked mounting calls in the Muslim world for boycotting Dutch products.

"If Muslims unite, it will be easy to take action," said former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.

"If we boycott Dutch products, they will have to close down their businesses.

"If the world's 1.3 billion Muslims unite and say they won't buy, then it (the boycott) will be effective," he said.

Nearly 30 Jordanian newspapers, radio stations and websites have launched a bid for boycotting Dutch businesses.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has warned it could be "months" before the consequences of the film were known.

Muslims worldwide boycotted Danish products during the 2005 Prophet cartoon crisis, causing Danish companies nearly $1.5 million a day in losses.

Denmark's leading dairy company Arla Foods, one of the hardest hit, issued at the time a strong condemnation of the cartoon and appealed to Arabs and Muslims to end their boycott of its products.

Related Links:

Muslims Rebut Wilders' Film
World Outrage of Anti-Quran Film
Dutch MP Releases Anti-Qur'an Film
Muslim Calm Vs Dutch Anti- Qur'an Film
Dutch TVs Shun Anti-Qur'an Film
Fitna Movie: Releasing Hatred & Testing Wisdom
Does the Qur'an Teach Violence?
Danish Cartoons, Again! (Audio)
Europe's New Anti-Terror Measures
Europe and Terrorism: The Wrong Path
Wake Up! Integration Is Not an Option
Fortress Europe
Freedom of Expression or Islamophobia?
Freedom of Artistic Expression (Contribution)
Christian Rage & Muslim Moderation

Dutch Jews on Fitna film

Dutch Jewish group: Anti-Islam film is 'counterproductive'
By Cnaan Liphshiz , Haaretz (Israel)- March 30, 2008

Dutch legislator Geert Wilders drew condemnations from the Netherlands' Central Jewish Board, which Friday called the film's focus on anti-Jewish preachings by Muslims "counterproductive" and "generalizing."

In keeping with Wilders' belief in a Judeo-Christian partnership in the face of "the threat of Islam," the 15-minute film, entitled "Fitna" - Arabic for strife - shows clerics calling to behead Jews, Koran passages equating Jews to "apes and swines" and photos of demonstrators promising "another Holocaust" and praising Adolf Hitler.

In a statement following the film's online release, the board said that Wilders - the leader of the Party for Freedom - was guilty of serious generalizations. "Wilders presented demographics on the increase of Muslims in Europe with pictures from scenes of terrorist attacks, suggesting all
Muslims are potential terrorists," head of the Hague-based Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, Dr. Ronny Naftaniel, Saturday told Haaretz.

While the anti-Semitic material Wilders compiled "demonstrates some Muslims have terrible ideas about Jews," the way Fitna portrays reality serves to "polarize Dutch society," the board said, adding this was counterproductive to the fight against extremism.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said he was "proud" of Dutch Muslims for their peaceful reaction to the film. Parliament is due to discuss Fitna on Tuesday.

The government feared religious riots if the footage was deemed offensive, but the umbrella group for Dutch Muslims said that the film does not insult their religion.

Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the Dutch ambassador to the Islamic Republic on Sunday to protest against the film, state radio said.

Understanding Biblical Verses

Bible, King James Version

A Christian friend shares these verses from Bible, we have to understood the context in which they were written. In case of Wilders' documentary Fitna, he has clearly mistranslated the Quraan verses, they were the product of crusades where they deliberatly paid the writers to mistranslate to paint the Muslims as evil and secure their monarchies. It is time for us to learn all the books and their context.

Mike Ghouse

Quotations on "war" "destroy" "sword" "kill" "slay"
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=war&restrict=All&size=All

---------------------------------------------------------
Biblical Verses that need to be understood in its context.

The Bible: God, War, Violence, Fornication

'The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust' -- Thomas Jefferson (Third President of the United States, 1801-1809)

Genesis
[19:8] Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

[19:31] And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

[19:32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

[19:33] And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

[19:34] And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.

[19:35] And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

[19:36] Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Exodus

[34:13] But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

[34:14] For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

[34:15] Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods , and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

[34:16] And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

[34:17] Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. Leviticus

[20:9] For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

[20:10] And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

[20:11] And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[20:12] And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

[20:13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. [20:14] And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

[20:15] And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

[20:16] And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Numbers

[15:32] And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

[15:33] And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

[15:34] And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

[15:35] And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

[15:36] And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Deuteronomy

[2:34] And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

[3:6] And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

[7:2] And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Joshua

[6:21] And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Judges

[19:23] And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

[19:24] Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

[19:25] But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

[19:26] Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

[19:29] And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. 1 Samuel

[15:3] Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass Psalms

[137:8] O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

[137:9] Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

--------------------------------------------------------

The 452 Matching verses from the internet

Quotations on "war" "destroy" "sword" "kill" "slay" http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=war&restrict=All&size=All

Gen.14
[2] That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.
Gen.40
[3] And he put them in ward in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound.
[4] And the captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he served them: and they continued a season in ward.
[7] And he asked Pharaoh's officers that were with him in the ward of his lord's house, saying, Wherefore look ye so sadly to day?
Gen.41
[10] Pharaoh was wroth with his servants, and put me in ward in the captain of the guard's house, both me and the chief baker:
Gen.42
[17] And he put them all together into ward three days.
Exod.1
[10] Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.
Exod.13
[17] And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:
Exod.15
[3] The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exod.17
[16] For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.
Exod.32
[17] And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.
Lev.13
[48] Whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of woollen; whether in a skin, or in any thing made of skin;
[49] And if the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a plague of leprosy, and shall be shewed unto the priest:
[51] And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a skin, or in any work that is made of skin; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean.
[52] He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in woollen or in linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire.
[53] And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin;
[56] And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be somewhat dark after the washing of it; then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof:
[57] And if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; it is a spreading plague: thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire.
[58] And the garment, either warp, or woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean.
[59] This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or woof, or any thing of skins, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.
Lev.24
[12] And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.
Num.1
[3] From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
[20] And the children of Reuben, Israel's eldest son, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[22] Of the children of Simeon, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, those that were numbered of them, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[24] Of the children of Gad, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[26] Of the children of Judah, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[28] Of the children of Issachar, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[30] Of the children of Zebulun, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[32] Of the children of Joseph, namely, of the children of Ephraim, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[34] Of the children of Manasseh, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[36] Of the children of Benjamin, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[38] Of the children of Dan, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[40] Of the children of Asher, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[42] Of the children of Naphtali, throughout their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;
[45] So were all those that were numbered of the children of Israel, by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel;
Num.10
[9] And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.
Num.15
[34] And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
Num.21
[14] Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,
Num.26
[2] Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, throughout their father's house, all that are able to go to war in Israel.
Num.31
[3] And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
[4] Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
[5] So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
[6] And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
[7] And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
[21] And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;
[27] And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:
[28] And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
[32] And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,
[36] And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:
[42] And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided from the men that warred,
[49] And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us.
[53] (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.)
Num.32
[6] And Moses said unto the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?
[20] And Moses said unto them, If ye will do this thing, if ye will go armed before the LORD to war,
[27] But thy servants will pass over, every man armed for war, before the LORD to battle, as my lord saith.
Deut.1
[41] Then ye answered and said unto me, We have sinned against the LORD, we will go up and fight, according to all that the LORD our God commanded us. And when ye had girded on every man his weapons of war, ye were ready to go up into the hill.
Deut.2
[14] And the space in which we came from Kadesh-barnea, until we were come over the brook Zered, was thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host, as the LORD sware unto them.
[16] So it came to pass, when all the men of war were consumed and dead from among the people,
Deut.3
[18] And I commanded you at that time, saying, The LORD your God hath given you this land to possess it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war.
Deut.4
[34] Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
Deut.20
[12] And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
[19] When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:
[20] Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.
Deut.21
[10] When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
Deut.24
[5] When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.
Josh.4
[13] About forty thousand prepared for war passed over before the LORD unto battle, to the plains of Jericho.
Josh.5
[4] And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.
[6] For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
Josh.6
[3] And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.
Josh.8
[1] And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land:
[3] So Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up against Ai: and Joshua chose out thirty thousand mighty men of valour, and sent them away by night.
[11] And all the people, even the people of war that were with him, went up, and drew nigh, and came before the city, and pitched on the north side of Ai: now there was a valley between them and Ai.
Josh.10
[5] Therefore the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon, gathered themselves together, and went up, they and all their hosts, and encamped before Gibeon, and made war against it.
[7] So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valour.
[24] And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them.
Josh.11
[7] So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by the waters of Merom suddenly; and they fell upon them.
[18] Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.
[23] So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
Josh.14
[11] As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses sent me: as my strength was then, even so is my strength now, for war, both to go out, and to come in.
[15] And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.
Josh.17
[1] There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh; for he was the firstborn of Joseph; to wit, for Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.
Josh.22
[12] And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them.
Josh.24
[9] Then Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose and warred against Israel, and sent and called Balaam the son of Beor to curse you:
Judg.3
[1] Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan;
[2] Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof;
[10] And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushan-rishathaim.
Judg.5
[8] They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?
Judg.11
[4] And it came to pass in process of time, that the children of Ammon made war against Israel.
[5] And it was so, that when the children of Ammon made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah out of the land of Tob:
[27] Wherefore I have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me: the LORD the Judge be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.
Judg.18
[11] And there went from thence of the family of the Danites, out of Zorah and out of Eshtaol, six hundred men appointed with weapons of war.
[16] And the six hundred men appointed with their weapons of war, which were of the children of Dan, stood by the entering of the gate.
[17] And the five men that went to spy out the land went up, and came in thither, and took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image: and the priest stood in the entering of the gate with the six hundred men that were appointed with weapons of war.
Judg.20
[17] And the men of Israel, beside Benjamin, were numbered four hundred thousand men that drew sword: all these were men of war.
Judg.21
[22] And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.
1Sam.8
[12] And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
1Sam.14
[52] And there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul: and when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him.
1Sam.16
[18] Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.
1Sam.17
[33] And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.
1Sam.18
[5] And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants.
1Sam.19
[8] And there was war again: and David went out, and fought with the Philistines, and slew them with a great slaughter; and they fled from him.
1Sam.23
[8] And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men.
1Sam.28
[1] And it came to pass in those days, that the Philistines gathered their armies together for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said unto David, Know thou assuredly, that thou shalt go out with me to battle, thou and thy men.
[15] And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
2Sam.1
[27] How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!
2Sam.3
[1] Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
[6] And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul.
2Sam.8
[10] Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass:
2Sam.11
[7] And when Uriah was come unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, and how the people did, and how the war prospered.
[18] Then Joab sent and told David all the things concerning the war;
[19] And charged the messenger, saying, When thou hast made an end of telling the matters of the war unto the king,
2Sam.17
[8] For, said Hushai, thou knowest thy father and his men, that they be mighty men, and they be chafed in their minds, as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field: and thy father is a man of war, and will not lodge with the people.
2Sam.20
[3] And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.
2Sam.21
[15] Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint.
2Sam.22
[35] He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
1Kgs.2
[5] Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet.
1Kgs.5
[3] Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the LORD his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until the LORD put them under the soles of his feet.
1Kgs.9
[22] But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen.
1Kgs.12
[21] And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.
1Kgs.14
[19] And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
[30] And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days.
1Kgs.15
[6] And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life.
[7] Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam.
[16] And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days.
[32] And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days.
1Kgs.20
[1] And Ben-hadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it.
[18] And he said, Whether they be come out for peace, take them alive; or whether they be come out for war, take them alive.
1Kgs.22
[1] And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel.
[45] Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2Kgs.4
[34] And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm.
2Kgs.6
[8] Then the king of Syria warred against Israel, and took counsel with his servants, saying, In such and such a place shall be my camp.
[10] And the king of Israel sent to the place which the man of God told him and warned him of, and saved himself there, not once nor twice.
2Kgs.8
[28] And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramoth-gilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram.
2Kgs.13
[25] And Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again out of the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities, which he had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz his father by war. Three times did Joash beat him, and recovered the cities of Israel.
2Kgs.14
[7] He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, and took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day.
[28] Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2Kgs.16
[5] Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.
2Kgs.18
[20] Thou sayest, (but they are but vain words,) I have counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
2Kgs.19
[8] So Rab-shakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish.
2Kgs.22
[14] So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.
2Kgs.24
[16] And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.
2Kgs.25
[4] And the city was broken up, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king's garden: (now the Chaldees were against the city round about:) and the king went the way toward the plain.
[19] And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the king's presence, which were found in the city, and the principal scribe of the host, which mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the city:
1Chr.5
[10] And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand: and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the east land of Gilead.
[18] The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh, of valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skilful in war, were four and forty thousand seven hundred and threescore, that went out to the war.
[19] And they made war with the Hagarites, with Jetur, and Nephish, and Nodab.
[22] For there fell down many slain, because the war was of God. And they dwelt in their steads until the captivity.
1Chr.7
[4] And with them, by their generations, after the house of their fathers, were bands of soldiers for war, six and thirty thousand men: for they had many wives and sons.
[11] All these the sons of Jediael, by the heads of their fathers, mighty men of valour, were seventeen thousand and two hundred soldiers, fit to go out for war and battle.
[40] All these were the children of Asher, heads of their father's house, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes. And the number throughout the genealogy of them that were apt to the war and to battle was twenty and six thousand men.
1Chr.9
[23] So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of the house of the Lord, namely, the house of the tabernacle, by wards.
1Chr.12
[1] Now these are they that came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept himself close because of Saul the son of Kish: and they were among the mighty men, helpers of the war.
[8] And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David into the hold to the wilderness men of might, and men of war fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler, whose faces were like the faces of lions, and were as swift as the roes upon the mountains;
[23] And these are the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the LORD.
[24] The children of Judah that bare shield and spear were six thousand and eight hundred, ready armed to the war.
[25] Of the children of Simeon, mighty men of valour for the war, seven thousand and one hundred.
[29] And of the children of Benjamin, the kindred of Saul, three thousand: for hitherto the greatest part of them had kept the ward of the house of Saul.
[33] Of Zebulun, such as went forth to battle, expert in war, with all instruments of war, fifty thousand, which could keep rank: they were not of double heart.
[35] And of the Danites expert in war twenty and eight thousand and six hundred.
[36] And of Asher, such as went forth to battle, expert in war, forty thousand.
[37] And on the other side of Jordan, of the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and of the half tribe of Manasseh, with all manner of instruments of war for the battle, an hundred and twenty thousand.
[38] All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.
1Chr.18
[10] He sent Hadoram his son to king David, to inquire of his welfare, and to congratulate him, because he had fought against Hadarezer, and smitten him; (for Hadarezer had war with Tou;) and with him all manner of vessels of gold and silver and brass.
1Chr.20
[4] And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, that was of the children of the giant: and they were subdued.
[5] And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.
[6] And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant.
1Chr.22
[8] But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.
1Chr.25
[8] And they cast lots, ward against ward, as well the small as the great, the teacher as the scholar.
1Chr.26
[12] Among these were the divisions of the porters, even among the chief men, having wards one against another, to minister in the house of the LORD.
[16] To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
1Chr.28
[3] But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood.
2Chr.6
[34] If thy people go out to war against their enemies by the way that thou shalt send them, and they pray unto thee toward this city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name;
2Chr.8
[9] But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no servants for his work; but they were men of war, and chief of his captains, and captains of his chariots and horsemen.
2Chr.11
[1] And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he gathered of the house of Judah and Benjamin an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against Israel, that he might bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam.
2Chr.12
[15] Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.
2Chr.13
[2] He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.
[3] And Abijah set the battle in array with an army of valiant men of war, even four hundred thousand chosen men: Jeroboam also set the battle in array against him with eight hundred thousand chosen men, being mighty men of valour.
2Chr.14
[6] And he built fenced cities in Judah: for the land had rest, and he had no war in those years; because the LORD had given him rest.
2Chr.15
[19] And there was no more war unto the five and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa.
2Chr.16
[9] For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars.
2Chr.17
[10] And the fear of the LORD fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat.
[13] And he had much business in the cities of Judah: and the men of war, mighty men of valour, were in Jerusalem.
[18] And next him was Jehozabad, and with him an hundred and fourscore thousand ready prepared for the war.
2Chr.18
[3] And Ahab king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Wilt thou go with me to Ramoth-gilead? And he answered him, I am as thou art, and my people as thy people; and we will be with thee in the war.
2Chr.19
[10] And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the LORD, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass.
2Chr.22
[5] He walked also after their counsel, and went with Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth-gilead: and the Syrians smote Joram.
2Chr.25
[5] Moreover Amaziah gathered Judah together, and made them captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, according to the houses of their fathers, throughout all Judah and Benjamin: and he numbered them from twenty years old and above, and found them three hundred thousand choice men, able to go forth to war, that could handle spear and shield.
2Chr.26
[6] And he went forth and warred against the Philistines, and brake down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, and built cities about Ashdod, and among the Philistines.
[11] Moreover Uzziah had an host of fighting men, that went out to war by bands, according to the number of their account by the hand of Jeiel the scribe and Maaseiah the ruler, under the hand of Hananiah, one of the king's captains.
[13] And under their hand was an army, three hundred thousand and seven thousand and five hundred, that made war with mighty power, to help the king against the enemy.
2Chr.27
[7] Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all his wars, and his ways, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.
2Chr.28
[12] Then certain of the heads of the children of Ephraim, Azariah the son of Johanan, Berechiah the son of Meshillemoth, and Jehizkiah the son of Shallum, and Amasa the son of Hadlai, stood up against them that came from the war,
2Chr.32
[6] And he set captains of war over the people, and gathered them together to him in the street of the gate of the city, and spake comfortably to them, saying,
2Chr.33
[14] Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish gate, and compassed about Ophel, and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.
2Chr.34
[22] And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect.
2Chr.35
[21] But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.
Neh.10
[31] And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day: and that we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.
Neh.12
[24] And the chief of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward.
[25] Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, Akkub, were porters keeping the ward at the thresholds of the gates.
[45] And both the singers and the porters kept the ward of their God, and the ward of the purification, according to the commandment of David, and of Solomon his son.
Neh.13
[16] There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem.
[20] So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice.
[30] Thus cleansed I them from all strangers, and appointed the wards of the priests and the Levites, every one in his business;
Job.5
[20] In famine he shall redeem thee from death: and in war from the power of the sword.
Job.6
[17] What time they wax warm, they vanish: when it is hot, they are consumed out of their place.
Job.10
[17] Thou renewest thy witnesses against me, and increasest thine indignation upon me; changes and war are against me.
Job.31
[20] If his loins have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep;
Job.37
[17] How thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth by the south wind?
Job.38
[23] Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
Job.39
[14] Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
Pss.18
[34] He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
Pss.19
[11] Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
Pss.27
[3] Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.
Pss.40
[5] Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.
Pss.46
[9] He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
Pss.55
[21] The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.
Pss.68
[30] Rebuke the company of spearmen, the multitude of the bulls, with the calves of the people, till every one submit himself with pieces of silver: scatter thou the people that delight in war.
Pss.120
[7] I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.
Pss.140
[2] Which imagine mischiefs in their heart; continually are they gathered together for war.
Pss.144
[1] Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Prov.20
[18] Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war.
Prov.24
[6] For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellers there is safety.
Qoh.3
[8] A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Qoh.4
[11] Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?
Qoh.8
[8] There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.
Qoh.9
[18] Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.
Cant.3
[8] They all hold swords, being expert in war: every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night.
Isa.2
[4] And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Isa.3
[2] The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient,
[25] Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
Isa.7
[1] And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
Isa.9
[5] For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.
Isa.21
[8] And he cried, A lion: My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime, and I am set in my ward whole nights:
[15] For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.
Isa.36
[5] I say, sayest thou, (but they are but vain words) I have counsel and strength for war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
Isa.37
[8] So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish.
[9] And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying,
Isa.40
[2] Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD's hand double for all her sins.
Isa.41
[12] Thou shalt seek them, and shalt not find them, even them that contended with thee: they that war against thee shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought.
Isa.42
[13] The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.
Isa.44
[15] Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
[16] He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
Isa.47
[14] Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.
Jer.4
[19] My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.
Jer.6
[4] Prepare ye war against her; arise, and let us go up at noon. Woe unto us! for the day goeth away, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out.
[10] To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.
[23] They shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion.
Jer.10
[17] Gather up thy wares out of the land, O inhabitant of the fortress.
Jer.21
[2] Inquire, I pray thee, of the LORD for us; for Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon maketh war against us; if so be that the LORD will deal with us according to all his wondrous works, that he may go up from us.
[4] Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Behold, I will turn back the weapons of war that are in your hands, wherewith ye fight against the king of Babylon, and against the Chaldeans, which besiege you without the walls, and I will assemble them into the midst of this city.
Jer.28
[8] The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.
Jer.37
[13] And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he took Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans.
Jer.38
[4] Therefore the princes said unto the king, We beseech thee, let this man be put to death: for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them: for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt.
Jer.39
[4] And it came to pass, that when Zedekiah the king of Judah saw them, and all the men of war, then they fled, and went forth out of the city by night, by the way of the king's garden, by the gate betwixt the two walls: and he went out the way of the plain.
Jer.41
[3] Ishmael also slew all the Jews that were with him, even with Gedaliah, at Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found there, and the men of war.
[16] Then took Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces that were with him, all the remnant of the people whom he had recovered from Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, from Mizpah, after that he had slain Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, even mighty men of war, and the women, and the children, and the eunuchs, whom he had brought again from Gibeon:
Jer.42
[14] Saying, No; but we will go into the land of Egypt, where we shall see no war, nor hear the sound of the trumpet, nor have hunger of bread; and there will we dwell:
Jer.48
[14] How say ye, We are mighty and strong men for the war?
Jer.49
[2] Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will cause an alarm of war to be heard in Rabbah of the Ammonites; and it shall be a desolate heap, and her daughters shall be burned with fire: then shall Israel be heir unto them that were his heirs, saith the LORD.
[26] Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts.
Jer.50
[30] Therefore shall her young men fall in the streets, and all her men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD.
Jer.51
[20] Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms;
[32] And that the passages are stopped, and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted.
Jer.52
[7] Then the city was broken up, and all the men of war fled, and went forth out of the city by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king's garden; (now the Chaldeans were by the city round about:) and they went by the way of the plain.
[25] He took also out of the city an eunuch, which had the charge of the men of war; and seven men of them that were near the king's person, which were found in the city; and the principal scribe of the host, who mustered the people of the land; and threescore men of the people of the land, that were found in the midst of the city.
Ezek.3
[17] Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
[18] When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
[19] Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
[20] Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
[21] Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.
Ezek.17
[17] Neither shall Pharaoh with his mighty army and great company make for him in the war, by casting up mounts, and building forts, to cut off many persons:
Ezek.19
[9] And they put him in ward in chains, and brought him to the king of Babylon: they brought him into holds, that his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel.
Ezek.26
[9] And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.
Ezek.27
[10] They of Persia and of Lud and of Phut were in thine army, thy men of war: they hanged the shield and helmet in thee; they set forth thy comeliness.
[16] Syria was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of the wares of thy making: they occupied in thy fairs with emeralds, purple, and broidered work, and fine linen, and coral, and agate.
[18] Damascus was thy merchant in the multitude of the wares of thy making, for the multitude of all riches; in the wine of Helbon, and white wool.
[27] Thy riches, and thy fairs, thy merchandise, thy mariners, and thy pilots, thy calkers, and the occupiers of thy merchandise, and all thy men of war, that are in thee, and in all thy company which is in the midst of thee, shall fall into the midst of the seas in the day of thy ruin.
[33] When thy wares went forth out of the seas, thou filledst many people; thou didst enrich the kings of the earth with the multitude of thy riches and of thy merchandise.
Ezek.32
[27] And they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to hell with their weapons of war: and they have laid their swords under their heads, but their iniquities shall be upon their bones, though they were the terror of the mighty in the land of the living.
Ezek.33
[3] If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
[4] Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
[5] He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
[6] But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.
[7] So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.
[8] When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
[9] Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
Ezek.39
[20] Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD.
Dan.7
[21] I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
Dan.9
[26] And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Joel.2
[7] They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war; and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks:
Joel.3
[9] Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:
Jonah.1
[5] Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.
Mic.2
[8] Even of late my people is risen up as an enemy: ye pull off the robe with the garment from them that pass by securely as men averse from war.
Mic.3
[5] Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him.
Mic.4
[3] And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Hag.1
[6] Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
1Esdr.1
[25] Now after all these acts of Josias it came to pass, that Pharaoh the king of Egypt came to raise war at Carchamis upon Euphrates: and Josias went out against him.
[27] I am not sent out from the Lord God against thee; for my war is upon Euphrates: and now the Lord is with me, yea, the Lord is with me hasting me forward: depart from me, and be not against the Lord.
1Esdr.2
[23] And that the Jews were rebellious, and raised always wars therein; for the which cause even this city was made desolate.
[27] And the men therein were given to rebellion and war: and that mighty kings and fierce were in Jerusalem, who reigned and exacted tributes in Celosyria and Phenice.
1Esdr.4
[4] If he bid them make war the one against the other, they do it: if he send them out against the enemies, they go, and break down mountains walls and towers.
[6] Likewise for those that are no soldiers, and have not to do with wars, but use husbundry, when they have reaped again that which they had sown, they bring it to the king, and compel one another to pay tribute unto the king.
4Ezra.4
[14] And said, Come, let us go and make war against the sea that it may depart away before us, and that we may make us more woods.
4Ezra.7
[52] And that the glory of the most High is kept to defend them which have led a wary life, whereas we have walked in the most wicked ways of all?
4Ezra.13
[9] And, lo, as he saw the violence of the multitude that came, he neither lifted up his hand, nor held sword, nor any instrument of war:
[28] And that he held neither sword, nor any instrument of war, but that the rushing in of him destroyed the whole multitude that came to subdue him; this is the interpretation:
4Ezra.16
[18] The beginning of sorrows and great mournings; the beginning of famine and great death; the beginning of wars, and the powers shall stand in fear; the beginning of evils! what shall I do when these evils shall come?
[34] In the wars shall their bridegrooms be destroyed, and their husbands shall perish of famine.
Tob.2
[10] And I knew not that there were sparrows in the wall, and mine eyes being open, the sparrows muted warm dung into mine eyes, and a whiteness came in mine eyes: and I went to the physicians, but they helped me not: moreover Achiacharus did nourish me, until I went into Elymais.
Jdt.1
[5] Even in those days king Nabuchodonosor made war with king Arphaxad in the great plain, which is the plain in the borders of Ragau.
[16] So he returned afterward to Nineve, both he and all his company of sundry nations being a very great multitude of men of war, and there he took his ease, and banqueted, both he and his army, an hundred and twenty days.
Jdt.2
[16] And he ranged them, as a great army is ordered for the war.
Jdt.4
[5] And possessed themselves beforehand of all the tops of the high mountains, and fortified the villages that were in them, and laid up victuals for the provision of war: for their fields were of late reaped.
Jdt.5
[1] Then was it declared to Holofernes, the chief captain of the army of Assur, that the children of Israel had prepared for war, and had shut up the passages of the hill country, and had fortified all the tops of the high hills and had laid impediments in the champaign countries:
Jdt.6
[2] And who art thou, Achior, and the hirelings of Ephraim, that thou hast prophesied against us as to day, and hast said, that we should not make war with the people of Israel, because their God will defend them? and who is God but Nabuchodonosor?
Jdt.7
[1] The next day Holofernes commanded all his army, and all his people which were come to take his part, that they should remove their camp against Bethulia, to take aforehand the ascents of the hill country, and to make war against the children of Israel.
[2] Then their strong men removed their camps in that day, and the army of the men of war was an hundred and seventy thousand footmen, and twelve thousand horsemen, beside the baggage, and other men that were afoot among them, a very great multitude.
[5] Then every man took up his weapons of war, and when they had kindled fires upon their towers, they remained and watched all that night.
[7] And viewed the passages up to the city, and came to the fountains of their waters, and took them, and set garrisons of men of war over them, and he himself removed toward his people.
Jdt.8
[5] And she made her a tent upon the top of her house, and put on sackcloth upon her loins and ware her widow's apparel.
[36] So they returned from the tent, and went to their wards.
Jdt.11
[8] For we have heard of thy wisdom and thy policies, and it is reported in all the earth, that thou only art excellent in all the kingdom, and mighty in knowledge, and wonderful in feats of war.
Jdt.15
[3] They also that had camped in the mountains round about Bethulia fled away. Then the children of Israel, every one that was a warrior among them, rushed out upon them.
Wis.8
[15] Horrible tyrants shall be afraid, when they do but hear of me; I shall be found good among the multitude, and valiant in war.
Wis.12
[2] Therefore chastenest thou them by little and little that offend, and warnest them by putting them in remembrance wherein they have offended, that leaving their wickedness they may believe on thee, O Lord.
Wis.14
[22] Moreover this was not enough for them, that they erred in the knowledge of God; but whereas they lived in the great war of ignorance, those so great plagues called they peace.
Wis.16
[27] For that which was not destroyed of the fire, being warmed with a little sunbeam, soon melted away:
Wis.18
[15] Thine Almighty word leaped down from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction,
Sir.3
[15] In the day of thine affliction it shall be remembered; thy sins also shall melt away, as the ice in the fair warm weather.
Sir.11
[18] There is that waxeth rich by his wariness and pinching, and this his the portion of his reward:
Sir.26
[28] There be two things that grieve my heart; and the third maketh me angry: a man of war that suffereth poverty; and men of understanding that are not set by; and one that returneth from righteousness to sin; the Lord prepareth such an one for the sword.
Sir.37
[11] Neither consult with a woman touching her of whom she is jealous; neither with a coward in matters of war; nor with a merchant concerning exchange; nor with a buyer of selling; nor with an envious man of thankfulness; nor with an unmerciful man touching kindness; nor with the slothful for any work; nor with an hireling for a year of finishing work; nor with an idle servant of much business: hearken not unto these in any matter of counsel.
Sir.46
[1] Jesus the son a Nave was valiant in the wars, and was the successor of Moses in prophecies, who according to his name was made great for the saving of the elect of God, and taking vengeance of the enemies that rose up against them, that he might set Israel in their inheritance.
Sir.47
[5] For he called upon the most high Lord; and he gave him strength in his right hand to slay that mighty warrior, and set up the horn of his people.
Bar.3
[26] There were the giants famous from the beginning, that were of so great stature, and so expert in war.
EpJer.1
[14] He hath also in his right hand a dagger and an ax: but cannot deliver himself from war and thieves.
[47] For when there cometh any war or plague upon them, the priests consult with themselves, where they may be hidden with them.
[48] How then cannot men perceive that they be no gods, which can neither save themselves from war, nor from plague?
1Mac.1
[2] And made many wars, and won many strong holds, and slew the kings of the earth,
[18] And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death.
1Mac.2
[32] They pursued after them a great number, and having overtaken them, they camped against them, and made war against them on the sabbath day.
1Mac.3
[3] So he gat his people great honour, and put on a breastplate as a giant, and girt his warlike harness about him, and he made battles, protecting the host with his sword.
[13] Now when Seron, a prince of the army of Syria, heard say that Judas had gathered unto him a multitude and company of the faithful to go out with him to war;
1Mac.4
[7] And they saw the camp of the heathen, that it was strong and well harnessed, and compassed round about with horsemen; and these were expert of war.
1Mac.5
[19] Unto whom he gave commandment, saying, Take ye the charge of this people, and see that ye make not war against the heathen until the time that we come again.
[30] And betimes in the morning they looked up, and, behold, there was an innumerable people bearing ladders and other engines of war, to take the fortress: for they assaulted them.
[56] Joseph the son of Zacharias, and Azarias, captains of the garrisons, heard of the valiant acts and warlike deeds which they had done.
1Mac.6
[3] Wherefore he came and sought to take the city, and to spoil it; but he was not able, because they of the city, having had warning thereof,
[31] These went through Idumea, and pitched against Bethsura, which they assaulted many days, making engines of war; but they of Bethsura came out, and burned them with fire, and fought valiantly.
1Mac.8
[2] And that they were men of great valour. It was told him also of their wars and noble acts which they had done among the Galatians, and how they had conquered them, and brought them under tribute;
[24] If there come first any war upon the Romans or any of their confederates throughout all their dominion,
[26] Neither shall they give any thing unto them that make war upon them, or aid them with victuals, weapons, money, or ships, as it hath seemed good unto the Romans; but they shall keep their covenants without taking any thing therefore.
[27] In the same manner also, if war come first upon the nation of the Jews, the Romans shall help them with all their heart, according as the time shall be appointed them:
1Mac.9
[22] As for the other things concerning Judas and his wars, and the noble acts which he did, and his greatness, they are not written: for they were very many.
[64] Then went he and laid siege against Bethbasi; and they fought against it a long season and made engines of war.
[67] And when he began to smite them, and came up with his forces, Simon and his company went out of the city, and burned up the engines of war,
1Mac.11
[15] But when Alexander heard of this, he came to war against him: whereupon king Ptolemee brought forth his host, and met him with a mighty power, and put him to flight.
[20] At the same time Jonathan gathered together them that were in Judea to take the tower that was in Jerusalem: and he made many engines of war against it.
[40] And lay sore upon him to deliver him this young Antiochus, that he might reign in his father's stead: he told him therefore all that Demetrius had done, and how his men of war were at enmity with him, and there he remained a long season.
[55] Then there gathered unto him all the men of war, whom Demetrius had put away, and they fought against Demetrius, who turned his back and fled.
1Mac.12
[13] As for ourselves, we have had great troubles and wars on every side, forsomuch as the kings that are round about us have fought against us.
[14] Howbeit we would not be troublesome unto you, nor to others of our confederates and friends, in these wars:
[43] But received him honourably, and commended him unto all his friends, and gave him gifts, and commanded his men of war to be as obedient unto him, as to himself.
[44] Unto Jonathan also he said, Why hast thou brought all this people to so great trouble, seeing there is no war betwixt us?
[53] Then all the heathen that were round about then sought to destroy them: for said they, They have no captain, nor any to help them: now therefore let us make war upon them, and take away their memorial from among men.
1Mac.13
[10] So then he gathered together all the men of war, and made haste to finish the walls of Jerusalem, and he fortified it round about.
[12] So Tryphon removed from Ptolemaus with a great power to invade the land of Judea, and Jonathan was with him in ward.
[43] In those days Simon camped against Gaza and besieged it round about; he made also an engine of war, and set it by the city, and battered a certain tower, and took it.
1Mac.14
[3] Who went and smote the host of Demetrius, and took him, and brought him to Arsaces, by whom he was put in ward.
[9] The ancient men sat all in the streets, communing together of good things, and the young men put on glorious and warlike apparel.
[29] Forasmuch as oftentimes there have been wars in the country, wherein for the maintenance of their sanctuary, and the law, Simon the son of Mattathias, of the posterity of Jarib, together with his brethren, put themselves in jeopardy, and resisting the enemies of their nation did their nation great honour:
1Mac.15
[3] Forasmuch as certain pestilent men have usurped the kingdom of our fathers, and my purpose is to challenge it again, that I may restore it to the old estate, and to that end have gathered a multitude of foreign soldiers together, and prepared ships of war;
[13] Then camped Antiochus against Dora, having with him an hundred and twenty thousand men of war, and eight thousand horsemen.
[39] And commanded him to remove his host toward Judea; also he commanded him to build up Cedron, and to fortify the gates, and to war against the people; but as for the king himself, he pursued Tryphon.
1Mac.16
[4] So he chose out of the country twenty thousand men of war with horsemen, who went out against Cendebeus, and rested that night at Modin.
[23] As concerning the rest of the acts of John, and his wars, and worthy deeds which he did, and the building of the walls which he made, and his doings,
2Mac.2
[4] It was also contained in the same writing, that the prophet, being warned of God, commanded the tabernacle and the ark to go with him, as he went forth into the mountain, where Moses climbed up, and saw the heritage of God.
[14] In like manner also Judas gathered together all those things that were lost by reason of the war we had, and they remain with us,
[20] And the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes, and Eupator his son,
2Mac.5
[12] And commanded his men of war not to spare such as they met, and to slay such as went up upon the houses.
2Mac.6
[17] But let this that we at spoken be for a warning unto us. And now will we come to the declaring of the matter in a few words.
2Mac.8
[9] Then forthwith choosing Nicanor the son of Patroclus, one of his special friends, he sent him with no fewer than twenty thousand of all nations under him, to root out the whole generation of the Jews; and with him he joined also Gorgias a captain, who in matters of war had great experience.
2Mac.10
[10] Now will we declare the acts of Antiochus Eupator, who was the son of this wicked man, gathering briefly the calamities of the wars.
[14] But when Gorgias was governor of the holds, he hired soldiers, and nourished war continually with the Jews:
[15] And therewithall the Idumeans, having gotten into their hands the most commodious holds, kept the Jews occupied, and receiving those that were banished from Jerusalem, they went about to nourish war.
2Mac.12
[15] Wherefore Judas with his company, calling upon the great Lord of the world, who without rams or engines of war did cast down Jericho in the time of Joshua, gave a fierce assault against the walls,
2Mac.14
[6] Those of the Jews that he called Assideans, whose captain is Judas Maccabeus, nourish war and are seditious, and will not let the rest be in peace.
[39] So Nicanor, willing to declare the hate that he bare unto the Jews, sent above five hundred men of war to take him:
Matt.2
[12] And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
[22] But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
Matt.3
[7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Matt.24
[6] And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Mark.13
[7] And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
Mark.14
[54] And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
[67] And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
Luke.3
[7] Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Luke.8
[27] And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
Luke.14
[31] Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Luke.21
[9] But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
Luke.23
[11] And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
John.18
[18] And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
[25] And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
Acts.10
[22] And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
Acts.12
[10] When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.
Acts.14
[6] They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:
Acts.20
[31] Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Rom.7
[23] But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
1Cor.4
[14] I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
1Cor.9
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
2Cor.1
[12] For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
2Cor.3
[4] And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
2Cor.10
[3] For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
[4] (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
2Cor.13
[3] Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.
Col.1
[28] Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
1Thes.1
[8] For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.
1Thes.5
[14] Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
1Tim.1
[18] This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
2Tim.2
[4] No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
2Tim.4
[15] Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.
Heb.11
[7] By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Jas.2
[16] And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Jas.4
[1] From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
[2] Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
1Pet.2
[11] Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
2Pet.3
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Rev.11
[7] And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Rev.12
[7] And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
[17] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev.13
[4] And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
[7] And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev.17
[14] These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Rev.19
[11] And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
[19] And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wilders, Fitna and Quraan

By Mike Ghouse & Imam Zia-ul-Haq Shaikh
It is a Muslim response to Geert Wilders documentary called "Fitna".

There are 14 mis-translated verses of Qur'aan in the movie that are listed along with the correct translation.

“Geert Wilders, Dutch conservative lawmaker, has made a sixteen minute film called "Fitna" (trouble) exposing the horrific passages of the Koran. Wilders refers to theses selected verses as “fascist.’” http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29496.html

First of all, as a Muslim, I want to thank Geert Wilders for making this documentary, the verses, as he has quoted certainly sound fascist.

Continued at: http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/03/wilders-fitna-and-muslims_30.html

Homosexuality and Islam

It may take several generations for the general public to accept homosexuality as a norm, however, it is a reality of life and denial of it borders on being unreal to the facts of life. Homosexuality has been around from times immemorial, we can find its existence on the relief’s carved out at the temples in India and the stories of Lut, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, Torah and Qur'aan.

We are conditioned to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, as our own existence has come through the reproductive cycle of life. We wouldn’t exist had it not been for that function.

Marriage is also deemed a conjugal relationship between a man and woman based on the gender needs of each other.

However, we are yet to see the union of two people in love, the basic element for a relationship beyond the scope of reproduction and sexuality. Could the union between two individual occur beyond our traditional confines?

It is a discussion that many people are not comfortable yet and may never be. The fact of the matter is, we do not live on an island, we have to live amidst people of different life style orientations including our own. We have to figure out a way to co-exist in peace and harmony, it is a necessity.

Indeed, we have come a long ways transitioning from an outright hostility to tolerant, and we have to take one more major step forward; acceptance.

Mike Ghouse

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality0\39.html

Islam 'recognizes homosexuality'

Abdul Khalik , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta Fri,03/28/2008 1:38 AM Headlines

Homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and created by God, thus permissible within Islam, a discussion concluded here Thursday.

Moderate Muslim scholars said there were no reasons to reject homosexuals under Islam, and that the condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality by mainstream ulema and many other Muslims was based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teachings.

Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace cited the Koran's al-Hujurat (49:3) that one of the blessings for human beings was that all men and women are equal, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, social positions or even sexual orientation.

"There is no difference between lesbians and nonlesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety," she told the discussion organized by nongovernmental organization Arus Pelangi.

"And talking about piety is God's prerogative to judge," she added.

"The essence of the religion (Islam) is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them."

Musdah said homosexuality was from God and should be considered natural, adding it was not pushed only by passion.

Mata Air magazine managing editor Soffa Ihsan said Islam's acknowledgement of heterogeneity should also include homosexuality.

He said Muslims needed to continue to embrace Ijtihad (the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the Koran and the Sunnah) to avoid being stuck in the old paradigm without developing open-minded interpretations.

Another speaker at the discussion, Nurofiah of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said the dominant notion of heterogeneity was a social construction, leading to the banning of homosexuality by the majority.

"Like gender bias or patriarchy, heterogeneity bias is socially constructed. It would be totally different if the ruling group was homosexuals," she said.

Other speakers said the magnificence of Islam was that it could be blended and integrated into local culture.

"In fact, Indonesia's culture has accepted homosexuality. The homosexual group in Bugis-Makassar tradition called Bissu is respected and given a high position in the kingdom.

"Also, we know that in Ponorogo (East Java) there has been acknowledgement of homosexuality," Arus Pelangi head Rido Triawan said.

Condemnation of homosexuality was voiced by two conservative Muslim groups, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI).

"It's a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong," MUI deputy chairman Amir Syarifuddin said.

Rokhmat, of the hardline HTI, several times asked homosexual participants in attendance to repent and force themselves to gradually return to the right path.

*****

Huriyah, a queer Muslim magazine
http://www.huriyahmag.com
*have you heard? there is a huriyah blog now. more queer and muslim
friendly stuff, faster: http://huriyahmag.blogspot.com

Bedevilled World

Prof. Azharul Islam plays the same game in reverse, placing the blame on Christians. The game of blaming and counterblaming might satisfy a few Muslim Neocons, but will not bring lasting solutions to any.

When we finally learn that the crimes are committed by men, insecure men, and not their religion, then we have a target to hit and punish. As long as we blame religions, we do not have a target, religion is intangible and you simply cannot punish it.

The war on Terra by Bush has failed simply because he is aiming the gun at Islamic Terrorism, an intangible item, it is not a target Mr. Bush. Go after the individuals, follow Bin Laden and his gang to the gates of hell and get them, then you are a gutsy man.

The pack of Neocons are chickens, they are afraid to do the right thing and instead scheme and aimlessly blaze their guns in darkness hoping some one will come in the way of fire and get killed, and claim a major victory on the war on terra.

Every policy recommendation by the schemey Neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz, Dick Cheney has failed and will continue to do so. Why would any one in the admin listen to them beats me.

If we want to make peace, we need to work on justice. Punish the wrong doer, as simple as it sounds will actually work. All else will fall in place.

As a member of community of nations, our efforts ought to be directed towards justice and equity to attain peace for the humankind with a firm grounding in commonly held values. We cannot have advantages at the cost of others. Such benefits are temporary and deleterious to lasting peace. We believe what is good for America has got to be good for the world, and vice versa, to sustain it.

Let the Neocons go.

Mike Ghouse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Book: Bedevilled World
By Azharul Islam,
Published by : Global Media Publications
http://www.gmpublications.com/product_info.php?products_id=25640

About the Book:

Islam has been accused for every evil, every incident of terrorism, every action of some splinter groups in remote corners of the world. Islam has been portrayed as a savage religion, bent upon destroying world. This unjust portrayal of Islam (a Divine Religion) is in sharp contrast to Christian groups responsible for atrocities or terrorist attacks throughout the century up to the present time. For these Christianity is hardly named or blamed in world media. Basque separatists, IRA, Ku Klux Klan, other terrorists groups or individuals including Oklahoma city bomber 27-year old Timothy James McVeigh (168 were killed on 19 April, 1995) in countries like Britain, Germany, Lebanaon, North or South America or elsewhere in the world are never called Christian terrorists and Christianity is never blamed for their actions.

President Bush's so-called multi-billion dollar 'war on terror' in the last few years has failed to contain terrorism. The so-called 'war on terror' should have been fought alongside the 'war on global injustice'. Something about redressing global injustice, Muslim plight, bigotry, attack on Islam should be addressed genuinely. One should clearly understand that 'fault' does not entirely rest on a group or a smaller country but on the most powerful nation and the colonial powers for their imperialistic behaviour. A manifesto that seeks to enforce 'Western hegemony and cultural imperialism' through an archaic policy of 'divide and rule' is probably hard to win friends, though it is sure to create more enemies. This book discusses all the above issues and tries to find out as to how the world can be made more secure, how terrorism can be contained and how the injustice can be removed from the face of the earth. Bangladesh is a good example where the Bangladeshi government destroyed the terrorist infrastructure in the country. It can be a good example to follow elsewhere too.


About the author


Born in Bogra (Bangladesh) in 1946, Professor Islam earned his Ph.D. from London University in 1972. For 39 years he has been engaged in university teaching and research.

Dr Azharul Islam is a former vice chancellor of International Islamic University, Rajshahi, Bangladesh. He is the recipient of several national and international awards. He has authored 17 books. Two International Conference proceedings edited by the author are catalogued in the Library of Congress, and several other libraries of UK, Italy, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Singapore etc.

Professor Islam regularly writes about culture, social issues, current affairs, issues involving Middle East and scientific issues including nuclear proliferation in several national and international dailies and weeklies. He has published more than 100 research articles in his field of research and around 75 review and general articles. He has also translated books from English to Bengali and edited several books and conference proceedings in English. The Arabic version of one of his recent books is being published from Jordan. He has recently completed a 50-page chapter of a big volume on invitation by Nova science publishers in New York.

Table of Contents

Preface

Chapter - 1 Wild World - Global Injustice

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Mapping some basic issues

1.3 US Middle East policy

1.4 From Hiroshima to Iraq

Chapter - 2 Global Violence and Terrorism

2.1 Violence and terrorism

2.2 Face of terrorism – few examples

2.3 From 'favoured' Mujahideen to 'Al-Qaeda'

2.4 US 'War on Terror'

2.5 Violence and terrorism – other aspects

2.6 Root causes of terrorism and why it is on the rise

Chapter - 3 Vilification and Demonization of Islam

3.1 The clash of ignorance

3.2 Neo-Crusaders – reviving ancient hatred of Islam

3.3 Religious intolerance and Qur'an abuse

3.4 Pretext of freedom of expression

3.5 'Militant Islam' – a fashionable label

3.6 Experiencing the fight against terror

Chapter - 4 From Nation-building to Religion-building

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Pretext to 'fix' Islam

4.3 Blueprint for nation to religion-building

4.4 Muslim revival

Chapter - 5 Unlearning Negative Image of Islam

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Abrahamic faiths of the world

5.3 Islam and Islamic world

5.4 West's ignorance of Islam

5.5 Fundamentalism and Jihad

5.6 Democracy in the context of Qur'an

5.7 Women's Issues

Chapter - 6 Tragedy of Muslim Nations and Possible Strategies

6.1 Current tragedy of Muslim nations

6.2 Unions of divided Muslims

6.3 Rising to the occasion

Countering terrorism – example of a Muslim nation

Chapter - 7 Road to a Better World

7.1 Odyssey of a safer world

7.2 Global peace – its chances of success

7.3 Reviving global justice

7.4 Deterrence of global violence and conflict resolutions

7.5 New Global Order – Road to end the evil

Index

Please contact
Global Media Publications
J-51-A, 1st Floor, AFE,
Jamia Nagar, Okhla,
New Delhi-110025
India
Tel: 91-11-55666830, 9818327757
E-mail: info@...
Or shop online at our secure online bookshop www.gmpublications.com

Laser Barking at Terrorists

http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2008/03/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html

Throw me in the ditch for the crimes I commit, inflict the punishment I deserve, but please do not unleash your fury on my family, my parents, my town or my religion. I should be responsible for my acts, and no one else. This should be a common principle and norm, we should abide by.

This essay explores the mistakes our Administration has made in not facing the terrorist squarely; and instead acting out like cranky babies. The world communities will be with us, with their hearts and minds in fighting the menace of terrorism, if we go after the individuals responsible for the crimes and not their families, their nation or their religion. We will achieve far greater success, if we learn to laser bark at the criminals, instead of barking at the universe.

There is always a reaction to the biased phrase when some one is addressed as, “You people”. We have seen reactions by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus or African Americans, Arabs, Caucasians and others when they hear that phrase, “you people” in that particular tone. For the wrongs I do, it should be, “Mike you goofed up” and not, “you guys”. When a Jewish councilman was addressed in that fashion in Dallas in 2006, all of us were offended, and I took the step to condemn the sayer of such a phrase through Dallas Morning News. I also make no exception if my fellow Muslims speak in that tone.

You face the battle with your kids when they go nuts, you do the best in disciplining them, and when they are cranky, they will do the thing they know how; to be unruly, challenging and sometimes even getting destructive. When you push a wild animal to the corner, he knows he is done with, but before he crumbles, he will charge on you and attempt to inflict whatever damage it can.

While the analogy of wild animal in the case of terrorists may not be perfect, more often than not we use an approach in delineating and classifying terrorists. We have to develop a nuanced and conscientious approach in dealing with terrorism. Some groups, such as al-Qaeda, are aimless, there is no negotiable goals or agendas that can be meaningfully contended with. Therefore, there is not a room for flexibility with them. However, there are many a movements that engage in terrorism, and have legitimate and genuine grievances as part of national resistance movement. Without addressing those grievances, no preaching or pressure would eliminate such terrorism, especially when many among these people have lost all hope for any solution or resolution and have been pushed to the wall.

While we must not condone any terrorism, we must also take the moral high ground by addressing the underlying grievances and problems and avoid pursuing policies, and undertaking ventures that provide new impetus to the terrorists, as it has unfolded in Iraq. We have to figure in the frustration game of new ones popping up and avoiding them. Pounding them with mega bombs will not cut it, we do not have a record in history of such successes; the Taliban’s are popping again. To create a just world for our own peace and peace for others requires giving due attention to their concerns without compromising our own deeply held values. We cannot become oppressors ourselves in the pursuit of peace. The world communities will be with us, with their hearts, in fighting the menace of terrorism, if we go after the individuals responsible for the crimes and not their families, not their nation or their religion. We will achieve far greater success, if we learn to laser bark at the right criminals, instead of barking at the universe. Others need to sense in our actions that we are not barking at them, and then they will be with us.

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." There is no saner advice than Mother Theresa’s, and when we are overwhelmed with badness around, “The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas” Alfred Griswold.

The business of Terrorism has been around for a long time, however tracing it in the last century, the Haganah began its operations in the 20’s, then came the Irgunists and after Stern died in a shoot-out with British police in 1942, the mantle was picked up by future Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, then in November 1944, Lord Moyne, the British minister was assassinated in Cairo by the stern Gang. Once, Israel was established in 1948, the tables turned, the Palestinians were displaced and the PLO came into being and started their acts of terrorizing the innocent. The 1971 Munich Massacre was the ugliest one followed by the plane hijackings and other activities. While IRA continued terrorizing in Northern part of UK, the Tamil Tigers were wreaking havoc in Sri Lanka. By the way, we never called them Christian, Hindu or Buddhist Terrorists, why do we call Muslim Terrorists then? That is plain stupid and counter-productive, if our goal is peaceful co-existence.

Now, the International terrorism has become a daily affair. President Reagan made hero out of Osama, instead of being grateful, the ugly traitor turned the guns against us. He has done a lot of damage to us; The 1992 Bombing of WTC, the Embassy in Kenya, the Cole and the 9/11. Regionally, the Beirut Bombardment created Hezbollah in Lebanon and the political imbroglio generated Hamas in Palestine. While other outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-a-Mohammad got going in South Asia. Intoxicated with our might, we extended the invitation “Bring on” to those al-Qaeda terrorists and they are multiplying in Iraq now, aren’t they?

Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King must have pondered over our situation in Iraq and mused about telling this to our President Years ago, “Conquer your foe by force, you increase his enmity; conquer by love, and you will reap no after-sorrow.” We completely violated the teaching of Jesus, Luke 6: 27, 28 – "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."

We did not believe in this wisdom and decided not to deal with the terrorists, who would we deal with then? They are the ones who are disruptive. We always have the last option available to us, but our first choice should have been to engage them into a dialogue, we can certainly laugh about it, but looking at the results we have achieved, the dialogue option would have been more fruitful and less destructive. Our insolence in not engaging them as a part of a broader approach has produced more of them, than we can conquer.

We falsely believed, and still do, that our gunpowder can subdue everything in the world. I hope we realize that we have always won the right battles and the right wars, and have certainly lost the wrong ones in Vietnam and other places. We forget that dear God is mightier than our gunpowder. We have also forgotten making distinctions between movements of national resistance and groups given to apocalyptic-type agenda for destruction.

The wrong wars did not have a clear objective, nor did we know where to point the gun. We were trigger happy to destroy what we did not like. The way we have gone about in dealing with Terrorism is pathetic. Shame on us, we were indeed scared to speak up until November 7th, 2006.

The Elections changed it all, Thanks God, we are speaking now, and at least our mistakes are surfacing. “When we took over Baghdad, we had plans to rebuild Iraq, but wasted our time for over a year in preparing the blueprints, while we let the un-employed and the youth rot with nothing to hope for,” Rajiv Chandrashekharan from Washington post had reported. Our strategy was wrong and planning was helter skelter. It is easier to blame on a host of things on our failure than to acknowledge our mistakes. That is the first thing we have to do, to know where we were wrong, then figure it out how to fix them.

We can consider the following;

i) Announcement of the troop withdrawal date, as it would give a clarity to all parties,

ii) asking a non-parties to the war like; Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Brazil or Japan to call on a summit of key Arab leaders including the leaders, and opposition leaders of the three factions in Iraq,

iii) asking each one of the three groups to prepare a wish list that would stop the bloodshed

iv) monthly withdrawal of our troops replaced by troops of their choice to maintain law and order. This may dampen the Al-Qaeda presence.

Hope is the most important ingredient of life, without which life is utterly meaningless. It is the hope that determines destiny and fuels the drive towards it. A normal youth aspires to go to school, get the education, fall in love, have job, get married, have a house and raise children who would live a life better than himself or herself. Most people learn to live and be content with accomplishing any part of that elusive hope. Snatch all of it from a human being, what is left to derive satisfaction? Have we thought seriously and empathically about it?

It is wrong to assume that Muslims support terrorism. Why should they? They are getting the shaft triply because of the terrorists; i) they are blamed iii) their religion is maligned and iii) the world looks at them maliciously. Muslims are as terrorized by the terrorists as anyone else is. Heck, Muslims condemn terrorism three times as strong. The media does not put the Muslim voice out; heck the Muslims are frustrated with this situation. But condemn they do, more so than others. It is just not Muslims, you will find that the Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and others also condemn the atrocities committed in their names, but their voices are drowned as well. The bullies on both sides continue to reign. It has got to change, and the moderates need to speak up and the media ought to oblige to give the space, even if it is not sensational. **1

Once we are committed to a peaceful world of co-existence, we will start seeing the issues in more focused way. Dalai Lama says, “Because we all share this planet earth, we have to learn to live in harmony and peace with each other and with nature. This is not just a dream, but a necessity”. If we see the problems of the world as problems that need resolution - then our approach will crystallize and start thinking of solutions.

Let’s start with the war on Terror.

Osama Bin Laden and his gang destroyed our symbol of freedom and prosperity on 9/11, we screamed, “You people” implying Muslims. We also said, “Muslim Terrorists” and a whole lot of other phrases to “Islamofascist”. The right phrase would have been “Osama, you screwed up”.

Whose rears should we have hauled? To the world, we looked like maniacs with a cocked gun running amuck with no particular place to point it towards; anything that moved got bombed out, including a wedding party. We were shooting everywhere, and destroyed every thing in our reach. This is the wrong way to get the terrorists; Osama is still on the loose.

If we can laser shoot the tiny object 3000 miles away, we can get the six footer and his cronies. We can laser bark at the right tree and quit barking at the universe. We have excuses for our failure, and have sacrificed over 3000 of our sons and daughters and a million plus Iraqis, and the latter simply doesn’t count.

We could have done the right thing, but we did not have the guts to do it. When people cannot face things squarely, they go the route of “you people” and shoot in darkness hoping we would shoot some at least, what a delusion! The American people, generally caring and empathic, understand now that we didn’t go to Iraq with pure and sincere motivations to help them, rather with our own grandiose interest in mind, where the Iraqi people would be guinea pigs. That’s why the support for the war has disappeared so visibly. It is time to admit our mistakes and undo those by disengaging from Iraq; they will probably not do as much of damage as we have done

--- ---
**1 - Note added today, May 11th, 2007. The article was written on April 20th and was asked to be published in New York Times, Washington post, Dallas Morning News, Wall Street Journal and a few others. They are still toeing the line of the admin and would not publish it. Thanks to countercurrents and conservative voice to publish it. As a principle, I have published on this blog, after it got published elsewhere.

The Conservative Voice: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25016.html
Counter Currents: http://www.countercurrents.org/ghouse100507.htm

Mike Ghouse is a thinker, writer, speaker and a pluralist with the aptitude [you might like to use a different word] to find solutions. He believes that if we can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the seven billion of us, conflicts fade and solutions emerge. Mike can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com and at the websites www.MikeGhouse.net and www.FoundationforPluralism.com and www.WorldMuslimCongress.com

Pope Benedict

Two articles on the subject follow my comments;
1. Christian Rage and Muslim Moderation
2. Don't turn faith into a hollow competition of numbers

I have been writing and re-writing the definition of a peace maker. "A peace maker constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. His or Her words and actions do not make things worse, but bring some sense and understanding to the situation. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; indeed that is the purpose religion." Indeed, peace making is the duty of a religious person.

Did Pope's conversion event on Easter, mitigate or aggravate the conflict? With all due respect to his holiness, his words have not been that of a peace maker. There have been three incidents where his non-action or silence would have been better. The revival of comments made by the Emperor Constantine he delivered in Germany irritated his counterparts in Muslim world, then revising the prayer that was not kosher and now this. What was the need to make the conversion on Easter? Provoke?

His holiness Pope Benedict knew darn well, that Muslims will jump up and down and scream to his reactions. As a holy man, was that necessary? What is the gain? What is the need to ruffle the feathers? It is a shame that those Muslims react so wildly towards his words, they need to get in control of themselves and not let the Pope make them dance. If the Pope had not said the things he said, not done the things he did, would there have been a crisis?

http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/WorldMuslimCongress/Articles/Pope-Baptizes-A-Muslims-on-Easter.asp

Mike Ghouse

1. Christian Rage and Muslim Moderation
By Christophe Dicky in Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129237

Despite recent provocations against Islam in the West, many Muslims seem weary of the same old tit for tat.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:35 AM ET Mar 27, 2008

Pope Benedict XVI, an exiled Egyptian journalist, a bleach-blond Dutch parliamentarian and Danish cartoonists all have something in common with a Teddy bear named Mohammed. They have been at the center of that seething storm called Muslim rage in the last few months, and, with the exception of Mohammed T. Bear, they appear to be testing that anger to see if it will erupt … yet again.

If it does, the crisis could peak just as Benedict begins his visit to the United States in mid-April. As he preaches world peace before the United Nations, once more we'll witness scenes of books and flags and effigies burning in the world of Muslims. If precedent holds, rioters may die in Kabul, a nun could be murdered in Somalia, a priest might be gunned down in Turkey. All this is all too predictable, as provocateurs like the peroxide blond must certainly know.

And yet, this time the shockwaves may amount to nothing more than ripples. If the satellite networks allow their lenses to zoom back from the book burners, they may discover there's no raging crowd there, just the usual collection of unemployed malcontents on any street in Karachi. And what is most important, we may find that the Muslims of this world are just as weary of this sorry spectacle—maybe even more so—than the Christian, Jewish and secular publics in the West.

There are several signs of change, and not always from the usual suspects.
In Turkey, the once militantly secular government is now dominated by the AK Party, which has Islamic roots and recently passed a constitutional amendment that ended the ban on women wearing Muslim headscarves at state universities. Yet the same government is supporting theological scholarship intended to modernize—and moderate—traditional Islamic teachings. An initiative run out of the prime minister's office is re-examining interpretation of the Qur'an itself as well as the Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet. Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey at Chatham House in London, recently told the BBC, "This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation. Not exactly the same, but if you think, it's changing the theological foundations."

In Lebanon, Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah once was known as the spiritual leader of Hizbullah and of its suicidal shock troops, who blew up American Marines and diplomats in Beirut in the early 1980s. Today, instead of calling the faithful to arms in response to perceived Western insults, Fadlallah calls on Muslim intellectuals, elites and religious scholars to work through the media and political organizations as well as "legal, artistic and literary" channels.

Fadlallah tells the faithful that the goal of Westerners who commit "aggressions against the Muslim world's sacred symbols" is to create a rift between Muslims and Western societies—and to isolate those Muslims who live in Western societies. He decries those Muslims he calls takfiri who claim they are fighting heresy with violence. He says they play into the hands of Islam's enemies. He even calls for "a united Islamic-Christian spiritual and humanitarian front."

In Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah was pushing an agenda of political and religious moderation even before he assumed full control of the country in 2005. The kingdom still holds to the ultraconservative Sunni religious dogmas known as Wahhabism, and the monarchy's legitimacy is tied to its custodianship of Mecca and Medina, the two holiest sites in Islam. That won't change. But Abdullah has fired 1,000 of the Muslim prayer leaders on the government payroll and decreed that the 40,000 who remain must be retrained to make sure they are not stoking radical violence.

Yes, there may be less here than meets the eye. When I talked to Hakura on the phone Wednesday morning, he cautioned that the Turkish rethink of Islam is rooted in national traditions and might be a hard sell in the Arab Middle East. Fadlallah may be enthusiastic about reconciliation with Christians, but on his Web site he still presents himself as an implacable foe of what he calls Israel's "Zionist project that is based on violence, arrogance and despise [sic] of other countries." A highly placed Saudi friend assured me the other day the so-called "retraining" of Saudi Arabia's retrograde imams really would be more like "a dialogue" to discuss the best ways to preach.

Islam, like any faith, has plenty of violent fools and fanatics. Certainly it is hard to credit the judgment or intelligence of anyone in Sudan connected with the arrest of British expatriate schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons a few months ago. You'll recall she made the nearly fatal mistake of letting her class of seven-year-olds in Khartoum name a Teddy bear Mohammed. To the kids, many of whom were named Mohammed themselves, the name just sounded friendly and cuddly. Sudanese authorities claimed Gibbons was inciting religious hatred and insulting the Prophet. Eventually she apologized and they released her—against the wishes of the mob calling for her death.

But even with many qualifications and reservations, in my view the conciliatory trends in Islam make an interesting contrast with renewed provocations coming out of Europe.
There's no use wasting much space on the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, the dyed blond with ugly roots who is promoting a film he says will prove his belief that "Islamic ideology is a retarded, dangerous one." What to say about a politician reminiscent of Goldmember in an Austin Powers film who claims the Qur'an should be banned like Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? No Dutch television network will show his little movie, and it seems nobody has seen it, but Wilders promises he will put it on the Internet before the end of this month. I suggest he wait until April Fools'.

Danish cartoonists and editors previously unknown to the wider world garnered international attention when they published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005 that brought on bloody riots in several Muslim countries in 2006. Having sunk once again into obscurity, the editors decided to publish one of the cartoons again last month, reportedly after the arrest of an individual plotting to kill the cartoonist. Great idea. Take one man's alleged crime and respond with new insults to an entire faith.

The most problematic event of late, however, was Pope Benedict's decision to baptize the Egyptian journalist Magdi Allam in Saint Peter's on the night before Easter, thus converting a famously self-hating Muslim into a self-loving Christian in the most high-profile setting possible. Perhaps Benedict really thought, as the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano opined, that the baptism was just a papal "gesture" to emphasize "in a gentle and clear way religious freedom." But I am not prepared to believe for a second, as some around the Vatican have hinted this week, that the Holy Father did not know who Allam was or how provocative this act would appear to Muslim scholars, including and especially those who are trying to foster interfaith dialogue.

Ever since 2006, when Benedict cited a medieval Christian emperor talking about Islam as "evil and inhuman," and the usual Muslim rabble-rousers whipped up the usual Muslim riots, more responsible members of the world's Islamic community have hoped to restore calm and reason. And now this. "The whole spectacle, with its choreography, persona and messages provokes genuine questions about the motives, intentions and plans of some of the pope's advisers on Islam," said a statement issued by Aref Ali Nayed, a spokesman for 138 Muslim scholars who established the Catholic-Muslim Forum for dialogue with Rome earlier this month.

Bishop Paul Hinder, the Vatican's representative in Arabia, was reluctant to criticize the pope, of course, but when I reached him in Abu Dhabi Wednesday morning he clearly had reservations about the way Allam was received into the Church. He said that local Christians took him aside at Easter services and asked him "why it had to be done in such an extraordinary way on a special night." Hinder contrasted Allam's conversion to Catholicism with former British prime minister Tony Blair's, which "was done in a private chapel."
"What I cannot accept is if it is done in a triumphalistic way," said Hinder. That is, if Allam were not declaring only his personal beliefs but intentionally demeaning the faith of Muslims. Yet it is hard to read the spectacle of his conversion otherwise, because that's exactly the tone in which Allam writes. He has made his career portraying Islam as a religion that terrorizes. Allam says he has lived in hiding and in fear for years because of reaction to his columns in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra, which regularly denounce excesses by Muslims and praise Israel. Allam converted to Catholicism, he says, as he turned away from "a past in which I imagined that there could be a moderate Islam." Speaking as if for the pope, Allam told one interviewer in Italy, "His Holiness has launched an explicit and revolutionary message to a church that, up to now, has been too prudent in converting Muslims."

Allam claims he is hoping his public embrace of Catholicism will help other converts to speak out in public. But that hardly seems likely. The more probable scenario is that others will feel even more vulnerable, while Allam's books, like many Muslim-bashing screeds that preceded them, climb the best-seller lists.

Unless—and this really would be news—the Muslim world just turns the page.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/129237
________________________________

2. Don't turn faith into a hollow competition of numbers
MONA ELTAHAWY
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
March 27, 2008 at 7:19 AM EDT

Is the Pope playing hardball with Osama bin Laden?

In a March 19 audio recording, the al-Qaeda leader accused Pope Benedict XVI of leading a "new crusade" against Islam. The accusation was outlandish and no doubt aimed at giving Osama bin Laden a leg up onto the bandwagon of current affairs upsetting some Muslims, including the notorious Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed and a yet-to-be-released anti-Islam film by a right-wing Dutch politician.
A few days later, however, the Pope seemed to oblige Osama bin Laden by baptizing a prominent Egyptian-born Italian Muslim in a Vatican Easter service beamed live to millions across the world.

When you have extremists from all sides scrambling for air time, determined to jump-start that very "clash of civilizations" they alone benefit from, surely the Pope would have been well advised to avoid playing into Osama bin Laden's hands?

Pope's baptism of convert from Islam denounced
Pope baptizes Italy's most prominent Muslim

By focusing so much attention on Magdi Allam's conversion, the Pope appeared to be engaging in a petty one-upmanship unbefitting the religious leader of more than a billion Catholics.

It was especially frustrating given that, on March 15, the first Catholic church opened in Qatar, and a Vatican official confirmed it was in talks with Saudi Arabia to build its first church - the Saudi kingdom being the only country in the region that bars non-Muslim houses of worship. (This last has been especially galling, considering the hundreds of thousands of expatriate workers from many faiths who keep Saudi Arabia running. Granted, it also makes it easy to deflate the double standards of Saudi officials when they condemn Denmark or the Netherlands for cartoons or a film, reminding them that Muslims in both those countries can publicly proclaim their faith in ways non-Muslims in the Saudi kingdom can only dream.)
But back to the Pope: What is achieved by his public gloating over a conversion? I am just as incensed when I hear Muslim leaders boast that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. So what? How sad that faith has become a hollow competition of "my numbers versus yours."

Let me be clear - everyone has the right to convert to any religion they want. Magdi Allam was clearly unhappy with Islam, which he attacked frequently in his writings. I want to be even clearer in my condemnation of any death threats that he or any other convert receives should they decide to leave Islam. We are taught as Muslims that there is no compulsion in faith, and our clerics should convey that message.
But those of us who call for freedom of worship, and who condemn threats of violence against those who choose another religion, are certainly not helped when the leaders of those other religions seem to exploit a conversion to score points. The Vatican seemed to want to have it both ways, holding up Magdi Allam as some kind of victory for Catholicism while, at the same time, claiming it was a private matter of faith.
I hope Magdi Allam finds peace in his new faith, but I agree with Rev. Christophe Rou�ou, the French Catholic Church's top official for relations with Islam, who told Reuters: "I don't understand why he wasn't baptized in his hometown by his local bishop."

This Pope seems to relish unnecessary run-ins with Islam. In a lecture he gave in 2006 in his native Germany, the Pope quoted a medieval text that described Islam as violent and irrational. This was rich coming from the leader of a church with its own bloody history. Of course, it certainly didn't help that, in response, some Muslims staged angry demonstrations living up to that offensive description.

Interestingly, the Pope sought to make amends when he visited Turkey's Blue Mosque and prayed toward Mecca with its imam. And he is due to meet Muslim representatives later this year. Muslim scholars and leaders had written to the Pope and other Christian authorities after the fallout over his speech, urging dialogue between the two faiths for the sake of the "survival of the world."

I long ago gave up waiting for clerics of any kind to save the world, but I'd much rather they sit and talk to each other than boast over who's joined their team.
If the Pope wants to play a numbers game, there is another equation he should keep in mind. The bin Ladens and Geert Wilders - the latter being the Dutch politician behind the above-mentioned anti-Islam film - appeal to minorities at opposite ends of a spectrum of hate.

As the head of a much bigger flock, Pope Benedict should wield his responsibility with more wisdom.

Mona Eltahawy is an award-winning New York-based journalist and commentator, and an international lecturer on Arab and Muslim issues

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080327.wcopope27/BNStory/specialComment/

Democracy a natural state?

Article follows my comments;

It is an interesting difference between the Jefforsonian and Hamiltonian idea of democracy. We have to study how George Bush and his likes made it? How did our nation went from a great democracy to almost a fascist system, thank God, November 2006 elections changed it.

The rise of fascism in democracies was a simaltaneous happening; Did Bush (really Cheney) gave the virus to Blair, Sharon and Vajpayee (Really Advani)? The fall has been in the reverse order and we have the last one to go this fall. I pray to dear God, McCain does not make it, even if he were, he may not have the partners around the globe to buy his destructive ideas.

How can President Bush and McCain not get it? The President keeps parrotting Al-Qaeda and Iraq, 9/11 and Iraq, WMD... he just does not get in his head, but keeps repeating it, the journalist don't stop him either. McCain had to be corrected on AlQaeda to Extremists, he wants to bomb when Iran had stopped the nuclear program several years ago. Is there a way to clean their heads? Both of them get elected only by frightening us, and the solutions they offer are even more frightening.

Mike Ghouse

Is democracy a natural state of mankind?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0325/p09s01-coop.html
Maybe Alexander Hamilton, not Thomas Jefferson, was right after all.
By Tim Hackler, Fayetteville, Ark.

Sixteen years ago in this newspaper, I tried to answer a perennial question about American politics. Does the United States look more like the country predicted by Thomas Jefferson, or by his rival, Alexander Hamilton?

Jefferson asserted that ordinary people with sufficient education and virtue can govern themselves wisely, that liberty is the natural desire of all mankind, and that the world's monarchs and dictators will ultimately be overthrown. Hamilton, on the other hand, claimed Jefferson's view was folly, based on wishful thinking, because human nature itself precludes the kind of wisdom necessary for self-government.

In short, Jefferson speaks to our hopes; Hamilton speaks to our fears.
Back in 1992, I concluded that America, and the world, reflected features of both men's views – their great philosophical fight lay unresolved. Today, Hamilton clearly has the upper hand.

Before the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, Hamilton observed the activities of a few state legislatures and concluded: "The inquiry [of legislators] constantly is what will please, not what will benefit the people." But he went a step further: It's the people themselves, not the legislators, who are to blame. The people, he said, "murmur at taxes, clamor at their rulers" but then elect demagogues who appeal to our worst instincts.

Over the years, Jefferson became less optimistic about the wisdom of the people, but in the last letter of his long life, he summed up his life's vision: "All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man." He hoped America's experiment with democracy would be "the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition has persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."

In 1992, it was still possible to believe Jefferson's prediction could one day come true. Many among us thought that the "blessings of freedom and democracy" might ultimately reach all areas of the globe.

But 16 years later, can we still believe this? I think most of us have moved at least slightly toward Hamilton's darker view of human nature. Can we still believe, for example, that Jeffersonian democracy will one day arrive and then survive throughout Africa and the Middle East? The painful failures of the Iraq war have sowed substantial doubts: "Looking back, I felt secure in the knowledge that all who yearn for freedom, once free, would use it well," wrote Danielle Pletka in The New York Times recently. "I was wrong. There is no freedom gene...."

History suggests that culture, not genetics, determines fitness for democracy. And history suggests we can pinpoint what kind of culture is required – a culture of the Enlightenment.

We in the West take the Enlightenment for granted. But it took centuries of brave, stubborn people, beginning in the 16th century, to push back against the ignorance and superstition in which all mankind had lived, to bring forth in isolated centers of learning a world based on reason and logic.

Here is a thought experiment to put things in perspective. Imagine a map of the world in 1800. Color in all the countries that took part in or were directly influenced by the Enlightenment (let us say, England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Switzerland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, the US, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries).

Now jump forward two centuries and color in all the countries with working democracies (as defined by the Economist Intelligence Unit). It is virtually the same map. Every one of those 22 nations (or their derivatives) today has a working democracy. And how many countries have a fully functional democracy but were not among, or did not spring from, those 22 countries? Just one – Japan.

What does this tell us about the Jefferson versus Hamilton question? In a Hamiltonian world, democracy will always be a precious commodity – sustained, and even desired, only by people whose cultural history includes an enlightened viewpoint, or something close to it. The Enlightenment was a kind of miracle, and not one we should take for granted.

Indeed, if Jefferson returned today, he would be shocked by the reemergence of self-styled Christians hacking away at the wall between church and state. Hamilton and Jefferson were both deeply affected by the Enlightenment's emphasis on reason, but Hamilton believed reason would always be under attack by demagogues who know hate and fear are stronger motivators than reason and rationality.

Why do I take a darker view than I did 16 years ago? Today, we have a coarser public discourse and lower standards, and we have suffered the consequences of a political party that quite openly set about to divide Americans into hostile camps because it believed that strategy would give them a narrow electoral advantage. The result is an atmosphere in which it is almost impossible to have a mature, adult, logical national debate about important issues.

Maybe Hamilton was on to something. Is democracy a natural state of mankind? Is the survival of democracy assured even in the United States? It is a sign of our times that we cannot be sure the answer to these questions is "yes."

• Tim Hackler, a freelance writer, served as press secretary for two Democratic senators in the 1980s and was a resident fellow at the International Center for Jefferson Studies in Charlottesville, Va.

Gratz, a pluralistic school

Hillel Gets $10.7 Million

Article follows my comments;

The words Pluralistic School caught my attention, which is clarifed at the end of the article “One of the things AJR has done over the last 50 years is emphasize a broad-based communal approach that respects and honors all people on the [Jewish] spectrum, and we honor that too.” “This will be an opportunity for Jews of all sorts of backgrounds to sit together and learn in a respected way and connect with other Jews who may not even be on the same continent,” he added.

Shall we call this internal Pluralism? I hope they publish all they talk and teach, and it should be a requirment of all schools in the United States to publish every word said in public forum on the campus. This is to prevent a platform for individuals who are chaos and hate mongers. http://hatesermons.blogspot.com/2008/03/hate-sermons-from-pulpit.html
Mike Ghouse

Hillel Gets $10.7 Million For Campuses Grant from Jim Joseph Foundation to support new breed of ‘universalist’ educators at universities.

Hillel President Wayne Firestone: “This generation wasn’t asking Jewish questions but universal ones. Courtesy of Hillel

by Carolyn Slutsky
Staff Writer

Washington, D.C. — At its second annual summit held here this week, Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life announced Monday its largest grant ever of $10.7 million from the Jim Joseph Foundation to support a new breed of educators on college campuses.

The money, payable over five years, will help create and expand Hillel’s Experiential Educator Exemplar (E3) program and the Campus Entrepreneurs Initiative on several yet-to-be-named campuses across the nation.

A recent Hillel finding showed that more than hip activities, free-flowing coffee or a cool building to hang out in, Jewish students not involved in Hillel said they wanted Jewishly knowledgeable staff in order to consider being active Jews on campus. Hillel, which hopes to double the one-third of Jews already engaged

on college campuses in the coming years, has responded with the creation of its E3 program, which will place on campuses knowledgeable Jewish educators who can offer answers not just to Jewish history or religious questions but to larger, more personal and global ones that are integral to today’s college students.
“This generation wasn’t asking Jewish questions but universal ones,” Hillel President Wayne Firestone told The Jewish Week, adding that the “millennial generation” of youth concerned with social justice and individualism is one of the most ethnically diverse in history, yet is more comfortable than ever with being distinctively Jewish. “[We thought we] could appeal through authentic Jewish answers.”

The Campus Entrepreneur Initiative, now in its second year, employs students on 12 campuses who receive money for programming and engage a further 60 people per campus, thus creating a dynamic, expansive group of engaged peers.

The announcement of the grant came at Hillel’s international summit, which carried the theme “Imagining a More Civil Society” and that looked at the relationship between the Jewish community, the university community and the bonds and bridges between them.

The opening plenary session featured, among other panelists, Michael Drake, the controversial chancellor of the University of California, Irvine, who has been criticized by many in the Jewish community for not doing enough to quash anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian sentiments on his campus.

When asked about hate speech and anti-Semitism on his campus, Drake replied, “It’s deplorable, and we reject it absolutely.” Hillel president Firestone later said that Hillel has been “very proud of how the Jewish community has convened and addressed the issue” at Irvine.

JESNA Study Of Teachers

A new study from the Jewish Education Service of North America surveys the Jewish educational landscape across the country and finds that, despite a lack of benefits, adequate professional development and high salaries, more than 80 percent of Jewish educators are satisfied with their careers.

The JESNA survey, a portrait of teachers’ satisfaction, preparation and struggles as they attempt to influence the next generation of Jewish learners, reached teachers in some 386 day schools and 1,098 part-time Hebrew school programs.
The Educators in Jewish Schools Study (EJSS) looked at the aspects of educators’ lives typically reported, such as retention rates and salary, but also focused on areas not generally central to studies of teachers’ careers including benefits, professional development and mentorship.

EJSS found that 79 percent of teachers in both day school and supplementary school settings are women, while 43 percent are 50 years of age or older, a finding touted as the “graying,” of Jewish educators but one that mirrors a national trend for public school teachers as well.

At a conference held last month to discuss the results of the study Robert Sherman, CEO of the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York, suggested that experienced teachers may have more to offer than younger ones, despite fears that they may age out of their careers sooner.

“Gray is the new black,” Sherman joked, then added more seriously, “at age 50 today you can be on the cusp of a new career, not at the end of your career.”
While the largest segment of educators (22 percent) earn between $40,000-$49,999 annually, less than 69 percent of full-time Jewish educators in either setting receive health insurance or a retirement plan.

The EJSS study found that paid time off for professional development was one of the few benefits a majority of teachers, some 65 percent, enjoyed.
At the conference Richard Marker, a senior fellow at New York University’s Center for Philanthropy and an independent adviser to philanthropists and foundations, said the question of benefits “should be a moral mandate,” within the Jewish community, a sentiment echoed by others in the group of some 200 educators and Jewish professionals.

Sherman and others put much stock in “tapping talent,” identifying promising potential educators when they are in school or youth groups and connecting them to mentors who will help guide them toward a career in Jewish education.
While respondents like Rabbi Joshua Elkin of the Partnership for Jewish Education and Saul Kaiserman, director of lifelong learning for Congregation Emanu-El in Manhattan, agreed that mentoring is imperative in grooming new leaders and teachers, they noted that teachers, particularly those in supplementary schools, often do not receive enough support and are often unable to keep up financially with peers in other professions, factors which may drive younger teachers away.

Charles “Chip” Edelsberg, executive director at the Jim Joseph Foundation in San Francisco, stressed that his organization, which has granted some $56 million over the past two years to Jewish education, is known for funding projects based on serious research and not mere anecdotal evidence, a growing trend among many philanthropists.
“We just aren’t smart enough to work without data,” he said.

New Pluralistic Partnership

The Academy of Jewish Religion, the nondenominational seminary in Riverdale, has announced a partnership to grant its rabbinical and cantorial students master’s degrees through Gratz College in Philadelphia.

Gratz, another pluralistic school, has a large, elaborate online master’s program in Jewish studies that AJR students will make use of, and leaders at both institutions hope the collaboration will benefit their home communities while teaching an important lesson about pluralism to the Jewish community at large.

“For awhile, when our students went out into the field, they were perceived as having had a different experience than someone who came out as a rabbi with an M.A.,” said Rabbi David Greenstein, rosh yeshiva and rabbinic dean at AJR. “In today’s world, anything that helps a rabbi or cantor be more effective in their job is good.”

AJR’s students are largely second-career rabbis and cantors, many of whom travel long distances to attend courses at the seminary two days a week. The new curriculum will fit perfectly with that spirit, say its planners, because it will be accessible online and therefore be available whenever and wherever students are.

Ora Horn Prouser, executive vice president and academic dean at AJR, said that students, faculty and alumni of the seminary are thrilled with the chance to earn a master’s degree and to partner with another, kindred institution. The program will begin this fall and will be mandatory for new students and optional for current students. It will bring with it a 7 percent tuition increase, a hike the administration sees as reasonable given the enhanced value of the education and the minimal tuition increases seen in recent years.

“Gratz and AJR have a good deal in common; we’re both deeply pluralistically committed to the community as a whole,” said Jonathan Rosenbaum, president of Gratz College. “One of the things AJR has done over the last 50 years is emphasize a broad-based communal approach that respects and honors all people on the [Jewish] spectrum, and we honor that too.”

“This will be an opportunity for Jews of all sorts of backgrounds to sit together and learn in a respected way and connect with other Jews who may not even be on the same continent,” he added.

Back to top

Sri Lanka Pluralistic Gov

Here is a good example of the efforts to run an inclusive government. He sounds like Barack Obama.
---------------------------------------------
Inclusiveness, Coupled with Pragmatism and Consensus Building, Key To Bring Country Back - Dr. Palitha Kohona
Tue, 2008-03-25 03:48
http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/10189

Dr. Palitha Kohona: "It is our firm belief that democratic inclusiveness must be the foundation of our efforts to being our country back together and heal our wounds."

Colombo, 25 March, (Asiantribune.com): Democratic inclusiveness is the foundation for Government’s efforts to bring the country back to normal. Inclusiveness, in that sense of the word, signifies the spirit of pragmatism and consensus building of President Rajapaksa’s style of governance. It was earlier thought a conflict that dragged on for over a quarter of a century could not be solved overnight. However it has been emphasized that any solutions to the conflict needed the widest endorsement from the Sri Lankan political spectrum. Dr. Palitha Kohona: "It is our firm belief that democratic inclusiveness must be the foundation of our efforts to being our country back together and heal our wounds."

The errors and the omissions made by successive governments in the past had also to be taken into account in formulating a solution. Dr. Palitha Kohona was Speaking at the regional conference on Pluralism in South Asia held on Monday in Colombo.

Dr. Kohona traced the meaningful steps taken so far by the by the Sri Lanka Government to bring about an understanding of the need to be united. He added that despite the many differences in ethnicity, culture, religion, economic standing and education, we are still Sri Lankans. Pluralism will be further strengthened as the country reaches towards the goal of a democratic union through inclusiveness, Dr. Kohona emphasized .

Here is the full text of his speech delivered at the Regional Conference on Pluralism in South Asia on 24 March at the Mount Lavania Hotel:

Let me start by quoting President John F. Kennedy: “Let us explore what unites us not belabor what divides us”. In the next few minutes, I will try to examine the measures adopted by the government to solve the conflict affecting the country through a process of inclusiveness, through embracing all our people. Despite the many differences in ethnicity, culture, religion, economic standing and education, we are still Sri Lankans.

Sri Lanka is at the threshold of a decisive phase in her contemporary history. While on the one hand, the security forces are engaging in daily operations to clear the last hideouts in the Northern Province of the LTTE, in Killinochchi and Mullaitivu, the Government has embarked upon a comprehensive programme to extend the governance that we take for granted to all parts of the country and restore democracy and civilian administration in the Eastern Province.

It is our firm belief that democratic inclusiveness must be the foundation of our efforts to being our country back together and heal our wounds. The balm for our wounds will not be in stirring up past passions, in opening old wounds or in emphasizing our differences but in reaching out in a healing embrace. The government’s efforts followed the successful military campaign to free the Eastern province from the LTTE stranglehold. It was also a meticulously organized military campaign which was designed to minimize civilian casualties. It is underlined that civilians are not the target of the campaign. Innocent Tamil civilians must not be its victims. Except for one unfortunate incident when an artillery salvo targeting an LTTE gun position fell in the midst of civilians, it was a model campaign.

The holding of local government elections in the Batticaloa district on 10 March 2008, in a peaceful atmosphere, marked by a high voter turnout, almost 60%, after a lapse of 14 years augurs well for the re-establishment of normalcy and the dawn of peace and stability in the region. There were over 800 candidates competing for approximately 100 seats. The Government is greatly encouraged by this positive development and believes that the process of restoration of democracy and strengthening of the institutions of civil administration will be further enhanced with the holding of elections to the Eastern Provincial Council on 10 May 2008. We also note that the election was held in an extraordinarily peaceful environment. In fact, the election was probably more peaceful than any other similar election in the past. Candidates campaigned intensely, the voters turned out in record numbers and now the winning candidates are busily preparing to assume their offices. This is a major victory for democracy.

Concomitantly with this process, the Government is determined to fully implement the recommendations of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), towards achieving a durable political settlement to the current conflict. The very fact that the APRC comprising 14 political parties represented in the Parliament have been able to debate a range of often contradictory proposals, in no less than 63 sittings over a period of 1 ½ years and arrive at a consensus, is testimony to the pragmatic and inclusive approach that the government has advocated in dealing with issues of national importance. Getting the widest possible consensus behind the APRC proposals was a key goal of the government. It was recognized early that a conflict that had dragged on for over a quarter of a century could not be solved overnight. Any solution needed the widest endorsement from the Sri Lankan political spectrum. The errors and the omissions made by successive governments in the past had also to be taken into account in formulating a solution.

Inclusiveness, in that sense of the word, signifies the spirit of pragmatism and consensus building of President Rajapaksa’s style of governance. It was in this spirit that soon after being elected President in November 2005, in his inaugural address to the Nation, he offered to meet the LTTE leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, face to face, at a place and time of the latter’s choice. He continues to make this offer. His government has continued to seek a negotiated settlement.

Notwithstanding the flaws inherent in the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) that was entered into between the LTTE and the administration of Prime Minister, Ranil Wickramasinghe in February 2002, the President even pledged to observe the CFA, despite grave and continued violations by the LTTE. The violations had rendered the CFA a nullity. The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) which initially consisted of 5 Nordic countries, and which was later reduced to Norway and Iceland, following the blank refusal by the LTTE to guarantee the safety of the three EU members (Denmark, Finland and Sweden) and with which refusal those countries meekly complied and withdrew, had also reported 3830 violations of the CFA by the LTTE as against 351 by government security forces. While the LTTE was making pious pronouncements of its commitment to the Peace Process, it cynically and diabolically abused the goodwill of the international community to recruit a large number of cadres, including thousands of children to its ranks, retrain its combatants, and procure weapons, including heavy artillery and aircraft under the protective cover of the CFA. The LTTE also occupied and consolidated its strength in areas where they were not present previously, including in the area south of Trincomalee and the Silvaturai area in the north west. The interdiction of the water supply for agriculture at Mavil Aru and the launching of massive attacks on civilians and government positions under the “Unceasing Waves – Eelam War IV” occurred during the CFA. Despite all their provocations, the government maintained the CFA till the beginning of 2008.

I believe that it would be superfluous for me to examine in closer detail the reasons which necessitated the Government to withdraw from the CFA on 16 January this year, after giving due notice to Norway as the facilitator of the Peace Process.

But I would like to underline that the denunciation of the CFA, which was no more than a dead letter and had been reduced to an elaborate fiction does not in any way restrain the Government from addressing the genuine grievances of all sections of the people of Sri Lanka, particularly the Tamil speaking population. It could be argued that the CFA in fact fettered the Government from engaging in a meaningful dialogue with all political entities representing the minority communities, towards achieving a political settlement.

By recognizing the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil people, all dissenting Tamil groups and all the Muslims were excluded from the peace process. The Muslims, in particular, being more than 33% of the population of the Eastern Province were marginalized. This went against the grain of the inclusive approach of the present government.

The LTTE had long demanded recognition as a sole representative of the Tamil people in the country, based on its military strength and its proven capacity to deploy unmitigated terror and mayhem as a political tool. This is anathema to any democratic government in the civilized world. In fact the world has long since expressed its utter abhorrence of terror as a legitimate political tool. Sri Lanka, being a country with a long established multi party democratic tradition and an abiding commitment to the rule of law could not continue to countenance such a demand. The LTTE should realize that this demand is unacceptable to the international community as well.

The Government is in a more comfortable position today to reach out to all parties and groups. In a manner of speaking, the Government of President Rajapaksa itself is a manifestation of his inclusive spirit, in that he has accommodated in his administration a large number of members who were elected to Parliament in April 2004 from opposition parties, including 24 members from the main opposition United National Party (UNP), as well as members of Muslim and Tamil parties and the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU). It is truly a rainbow coalition and it is a credit to the President that he has been able to implement Government policy, taking on board the divergent opinions of his Cabinet colleagues. In a nutshell, this approach underpins the President’s overall strategy of implementation of the Government’s 10 year development plan enunciated in the Mahinda Chinthanaya.

I am frequently questioned on whether the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution is the political solution to the conflict that the Government has in mind. To this I must say that it is an important point of departure. The implementation of the 13th Amendment is but the initial and tangible step that has been proposed by the APRC towards achieving a durable settlement, which we all hope will usher in a lasting and honourable peace, in line with the government’s electoral pledge to the people of this country. What many critics fail to realize is that although the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted more than 20 years ago, following the Indo-Lanka Accord of July 1987, the envisaged devolution of power, including to the Northern Province and the Eastern Province, never materialized in full, due to the unsettled conditions in these areas and the LTTE’s insistence on armed dominance.

This is what prompted me to mention at the outset that we are at a crucial juncture in our history. The Re-awakening of the East Programme (Negenahira Navodaya) that the Government has launched in the Eastern Province under which it has restored civil administration, settled internally displaced people (IDPs) in their original homes and undertaken immediate reconstruction of damaged vital infrastructure, is testimony to the Government’s sincerity and commitment to the people of the province that it will deliver Peace and Development. Many elements of this process, including military operations to clear areas formerly controlled by the LTTE, were carried out with minimal civilian impact and strict adherence to International Humanitarian standards by the security forces.

This is a shining example of a successful hearts and minds campaign, worthy of emulation by the armed forces of other countries, facing similar insurgencies. You will recall that the President was greeted by the Chief Hindu Priest of Vakarai himself following the entry of the security forces into the town. Unfortunately he was brutally gunned down by the LTTE. The re-settlement of IDPs was also carried out in a highly professional manner with the consent of the people. In fact, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP) have acknowledged that the re-settlement of IDPs was voluntary and conformed with international standards. I underline that fact that over 120,000 IDPs have returned to their homes - in some cases to better homes in less than a year. Areas which never had electricity have now been connected to the national grid. Livelihood issues are being addressed methodically. The livestock industry in the East is being revived. Vast acres allowed to lie fallow, are now being brought under the plough. We can expect a significant upturn in the economy of the East in the coming months.

The Government is also conscious of the paramount need to restore law and order in the areas that have been cleared of LTTE occupation. New Police Stations have been established while existing stations are being strengthened to provide a more efficient and friendly service to the public. Towards this end, the Government has initiated action to recruit 2000 Tamil speaking Police officers to serve in the province. Already, 175 Tamil speaking personnel, including 50 women police constables, have been recruited, trained and deployed. Given more resources, this program which is designed to normalize the situation in the East could be further accelerated.

The Ministry of Nation Building has allocated a sum of Rs 1.3 billion towards infrastructure and human resource development, livelihood support development programmes in other sectors such as education, health, irrigation and fisheries in the districts of Ampara, Batticaloa and Trincomalee in an equitable manner. The private sector has also been given generous tax breaks in order to encourage it to invest in employment generating projects in the East. The government recognizes that the paucity of economic opportunity was a prime cause for the disaffection of the youth. This is true not only of the Tamil youth, but at an earlier time, of the Sinhala youth in the South.

The development programme in the Eastern Province can be held out as a model for post-conflict development of countries emerging from situations of internal armed conflict. The experience that Sri Lanka is gaining from this process can be used effectively in other parts of the world. It is also important to note that our effort is to address the root causes of disaffection in their entirety. This may be the cause of dismay for some who thrive on human misery. But we will address these problems with a view to solving them. This being so, it is rather disconcerting for us to be preached human rights. These bromidic sermons are in many instances, a rehash of dated figures and information which is no longer relevant. The propensity to rely on yesterday’s statistics to prop up arguments of convenience is quite distressing and is quite unhelpful in the Government’s efforts to restore peace and normalcy.

The Government recognizes that language has been one of the most contentious issues underline the present conflict. Although Tamil has been recognized as an official language since 1987, it is a sad fact that the vast majority of Tamil speaking population, especially those living in areas outside the North and the East encounter numerous impediments in transacting business with government institutions, primarily due to the paucity of officers proficient in Tamil. In this respect, I too have to plead mea culpa for my own lack of total proficiency in the Tamil language. It is my belief that if citizens of this country had an understanding of Sinhala and Tamil, coupled with at least a working knowledge of English, the task of national integration would be that much easier. We have the successful examples of multilingual societies in Canada and Switzerland from which to draw inspiration. This would involve greater commitment of the Government to undertake serious reforms in the education system of the country, whereby all children will be taught the three languages at school. These efforts made by the government are producing encouraging results. Only this month, over 5500 Sinhala public servants sat the Tamil proficiency examination. 1065 Tamil public servants sat the Sinhala proficiency examination and some of them came from Killinochchi and Mullaitivu.

In the short term, the Government has made it mandatory for all persons who are recruited to the Public Service to be proficient in the two official languages.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as I conclude, I am tempted to quote the good book. “As we point one finger at another three fingers point back at us”. It is time to stop pointing fingers, passing judgments of convenience and preaching from the pulpit. We all have skeletons in the closet and some of them are gargantuan. Sri Lanka is making a concerted effort to deal with a brutal terrorist threat, re-establish a comfort level for all its people and return to normalcy. It needs to reestablish a confidence level throughout the country so that the entire country can be the homeland for every one of us. Our efforts to embrace each other and create hope in our future deserve your support.

Lahore Celebrates 4 festivals

Happy Eid Milaad, Good friday, Easter, Holi and Navoroz.
It is such a delight to see this happening in Pakistan, of course, they would say, it is nothing new. But good news like this is usually not covered by the media. Mike Ghouse

Lahore celebrates four religious occasions today.
By Nadia Usman

LAHORE: Religious fervour is at its peak today (Friday) as the dates on four different religious calendars coincide. Muslims are celebrating Eid Milad-un-Nabi, Christians are celebrating Good Friday, Hindus are celebrating Holi while Zoroastrians, Parsis, Bahais and several Shias who follow the Iranian calendar are celebrating Nauroz. Talking to Daily Times, Jacqueline Tressler, chairperson of the Inter Religious Peace Council (IRPC), said, "This is a coincidence and God's gift to promote religious harmony in the country." She said further that participation in each other's religious festivities would help people develop trust in each other and would play a vital role in creating a peaceful society.

Eid Milad-un-Nabi

Muslims celebrate Rabi-ul-Awwal 12 of the Muslim Calendar as Eid Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). On this day, the people remind themselves of the blessings of God. Special prayers are held and the people light up their houses and important buildings. In Pakistan, children participate in the celebrations by making Paharis. This tradition started in this part of the world many decades ago when the people started making models of a mountain to symbolise Mount Noor, which neighbours Mecca, the city where the prophet (PBUH) was born. The people also distribute sweets on this day. They also arrange gatherings where they recite excerpts from the Quran and naats.

Holi

The Hindus celebrate Holi over two days on Phalgun Purnima or Pooranmashi (Full Moon) in the later part of February or early March. Last year, it was celebrated on March 3. A special delegation of Hindus from Sindh, led by Sushila Anil, has reached the city to celebrate Holi at the Krishna Mandir. Talking to Daily Times, Sushila said, "Hindus celebrate the event just as Muslims celebrate Eid." She said that the people wear new clothes, traditionally white, and hold special poojas and bhajans (prayers) after which they playfully throw coloured powder or water on each other.

Nauroz

Nauroz is the traditional Iranian New Year. It is celebrated chiefly by Zoroastrians, Parsis and Bahais as it also marks the start of the Bahai calendar. Nauroz reflects the rich cultural heritage of Iran. Some people say that the event demonstrates the ancient Iranians' impressive understanding of science and astronomy. It begins precisely with the beginning of spring on vernal equinox, which is on or around March 21. In Iranian mythology, the day marks the renewal of life and the world. The main event in the city will be held at the Bahai Centre, near Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Tradition takes Nauroz about 15,000 years back – before the last Ice Age.

Good Friday

Good Friday or Holy Friday is the Friday before Easter, which always falls on a Sunday. It commemorates the crucifixion of Christ at Calvary. Good Friday services are being held at all churches in the city. Bishop of Lahore and Church of Pakistan Moderator Dr Alexander John Malik said the day stands out as a symbol of success against the forces of oppression and injustice. "Good Friday brings all those struggling against injustice and forces of evil, the good news that death is not the end of a struggle, rather a milestone for success." Some believe the name Good evolved from God or God's Friday. Others believe that the word Good represents the gift of salvation, brought forth by Christ's sacrifice. Good Friday is the day when Christ was crucified and Easter the day when he rose from the dead, three days after his crucifixion. Protestants hold their Good Friday services between 12pm and 3pm to commemorate Christ's hours on the cross.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C03%5C21%5Cstory_21-3-2008_pg13_1

True Religious Dialogue *****

True Religious Dialogue *****

Mike Ghouse: This article on dialogue gets five stars for its ability to communicate the essence of dialogue.

Rabbi David Gordis is a leading American Jewish scholar, and president of the Hebrew College, Boston. Here he speaks to Qalandar on prospects for Jewish-Muslim dialogue.

Q: What sort of inter-faith dialogue work have you been engaged in?

A: I was ordained as a rabbi by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York, in 1964. JTSA is the central institution of the Conservative branch of Judaism, a movement which embraces the principle of the authority of halakhah, traditional Jewish law, but views it as a dynamic system which draws on the authority of revelation but views its continuing interpretation and development as both central and legitimate. I have spent my entire career in the service of the Jewish community, working in two principal areas: education and public policy. I have served as Professor of Rabbinics and Dean as well as vice president at the Jewish Theological Seminary, at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, California, an institution founded by the JTSA in the early 1950s, and as the Executive Vice President of the American Jewish Committee, a major national Jewish organization devoted to human rights and Jewish and American public policy issues. I established a national Jewish “think tank” called the Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies in 1988 in California. I continue to direct the Institute and moved its center to Boston when I arrived there in 1993 to assume the presidency and Professorship of Rabbinics at Hebrew College, an eighty-year-old institution of higher Jewish learning. Hebrew College has just established a Rabbinical School, the first “religious” program in the school which is an institution open to people of all faiths which specializes in all aspects of Jewish culture and civilization as opposed to offering specifically religious training.

I have been involved in interfaith activities since my student days when I participated in the Jewish Theological Seminary’s Institute for Religious and Social Studies, an inter-religious graduate school program. In California, I served as vice-president of the Academy for Judaic, Christian, Islamic Studies, which held public “trialogue” conversations at universities as well as in synagogues, mosques and churches. I was co-author with Rev. Dr. George Grose and Imam Dr. Muzamil Siddiqi of a book called “The Abraham Connection, A Jew Christian and Muslim in Dialogue.” In Boston, I co-chaired with the Cardinal and Imam Talal Eid an Institute called the Archives for Historic Documentation, an off-shoot of the Harvard University Semitics Museum. Hebrew College recently built a new campus on land acquired from the Andover-Newton Theological School, the oldest independent Protestant Seminary in the United States. Hebrew College has a range of joint programs with ANTS. An important one, undertaken at my initiative, was the creation of the Interreligious Center on Public Life, whose purpose is the exploring of insights from Judaism, Christianity and Islam relating to matters of public policy, including such areas as human rights and bioethical issues.

A number of inter-religious teaching activities go on, including a course in the Qu’ran for Hebrew College faculty taught by a Muslim Scholar. I am also a participant in the Boston College Center for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations.

Q: How do you see the question of dialogue while still respecting the autonomy of the religion of the other?

A: Dialogue only has meaning if it respects the autonomy of the other; absent that respect we have monologue. It is for each religious community, or those from each community who choose to participate in inter-religious conversation, to determine the terms under which he or she enters that conversation, the goals of the conversation and expectations from the process. True conversation may uncover areas of convergence but is most important in helping to understand areas of divergence. The question for participants is: Is that divergence threatening or problematical, or can it be a source of enlightenment and enrichment by broadening the perspectives and insights on the experience of being human that one gains from one’s own religious tradition.

Q: What role do social liberation and spirituality that transcends confessional borders have to play in your understanding of inter-faith dialogue?

A: All religious traditions embody visions of a world transformed into something better than its current reality. Certainly, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are teleological and “messianic” in that they look forward to an ultimate redemption. In Jewish tradition, human beings are known as God’s partners in the work of redeeming the world and shaping a better and transformed reality. In my view the highest forms of religious activity are to seek to relate to the transcendent dimension of human experience and to work to redeem the world. I try to respond to this religious calling out of my tradition and culture, but I seek partners for this work from people of other traditions who inspire me, teach me, and remind me of the need for humility, the reality that none of us can legitimately claim exclusive access to truth which is God’s alone. In my view the spiritual and social transformation experiences of others are vital to my own spiritual strength.

Q: How do you think it is possible for missionary religions to genuinely respect the 'other' without simply seeking to convert the 'other' to oneself?

A: While openness to others who seek to join a religious tradition and community is no problem, active missionizing makes inter-religious conversation difficult if not impossible. Missionizing implies relegating the tradition of the other to an inferior position. It embodies an arrogation of truth to one’s own tradition and therefore a rejection of the otherness of the other. Each religious individual, and our religious communities, must decide what is more important: to view the otherness of the other as part of God’s plan for the world from which we all can learn, or as a challenge and an affront which we are commanded to work to remove by attempting to transform the other into a copy of one’s self. Only the first attitude allows for genuine inter-religious conversation. The second makes it impossible.

Q: Dominant forms of religion often stress the externalities of the law and ritual over the inner spiritual core. What barriers or challenges do you think this poses to inter-faith dialogue?

A: While some interpretations of halakhah in Judaism or shari’a in Islam suggest that inter-religious conversation is forbidden, other interpretations reject this view, and adherents of these traditions have found ways of dealing with legal impediments to inter-religious conversation. In Jewish tradition, non-Jews are not obligated to observe the halakhah but only certain fundamental ethical values such as rejecting idolatry and incest, formulated as the “Noachide laws.”

Life presents us with perceptions and experiences which sometimes appear to be, if not in conflict with one another, at least, in “tension” with one another. One of these “dyadic pairs” is independence-dependence. Our religious traditions and communities have separate histories and trajectories which have shaped powerful and impressive religious cultures and rich community life. But more than ever before, these independent religious communities and cultures must come to terms with the reality of the interdependence of all humanity. Prior to our identity as Jew, Christian or Muslim, prior to our identity as male or female, as Indian, British or American, is our fundamental human identity. Both the nobility and the tragedy of human experience are universal. They cross religious and national lines. This must be part of the religious insight and teaching of all religious traditions. Our very survival on this planet is dependent on our successfully navigating this dyadic pair.

Q: What sort of interactions have you had with Muslim groups, and what have their reactions been to your own inter-faith dialogue efforts?

A: Some of the most moving experiences of my life have come in the context of interacting with Muslims. I recall one of our trialogue programs at a mosque in California. A Muslim woman who was a member of the audience was in tears when she told me that she had not believed that such a program was possible and that if she had not known that I was a rabbi she would have thought she was hearing an Imam. I would often ask my colleague and friend Imam Siddiqi what he as a Muslim would like me to know and feel about Islam, knowing as he did that I was not going to embrace Islam as my faith. My friendships with Muslims (and Christians, for that matter) have been meaningful and nurturing (I hope for both sides) not in spite of our differences but precisely because of these differences. The principal challenge: See difference as a potential blessing and not as a problem and challenge.

Q: How do you see contemporary Jewish-Muslim relations and prospects for dialogue between the two?

A: The current state of Jewish-Muslim relations is mixed. There are serious efforts to build bridges of understanding and mutual respect in Israel, Europe and the United States, but political controversy, particularly over Israel-Palestine, compounded by continued violence and a lack of quality leadership on both sides, all contribute to a troubled relationship. While efforts to build human bridges must continue, so that the other is viewed as a person and not simply as a disembodied political adversary, our religious traditions themselves have a great responsibility in this area. Judaism and Islam must begin to teach a different view of the other than that which has characterized their teaching in the past. Instead of sustaining exclusive claims to truth and virtue, our religious leadership and educational institutions must attune their constituents and students to being able to hear, understand and respect competing narratives. The past can not be undone, but a future must be constructed which is sensitive to these competing narratives, both of which are true! A two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine issue appears to be the only approach but the objective should not be isolating the two communities even if that is necessary for the moment to deal with violence and passions on both sides, but rather creating interrelationships, economic, social and cultural, which can be enriching and ennobling on both sides. Religious leadership has a major role to play in encouraging the respective communities to seek this resolution, which can not only ease the current catastrophic relationship, but which can bring us closer to the fulfillment of a redeemed world in which we can live together in mutual respect and be enhanced by the presence of the other

A National Model of Peace

A National Model of Peace:
An Interview With Rev. Rita Marie Johnson
http://www.unityonline.org/publications/unityMagazine/archives/01january08.html
by Kimberly Morrow
January 2008

Rev. Rita Marie Johnson speaks about her involvement in developing a national model of peace in Costa Rica. The Unity minister was one of three prominent, modern-day peacemakers invited to address participants of Unity’s World Day of Prayer last September.

Unity Magazine’s Kimberly Morrow sat down with Rita Marie Johnson, founding director of the Rasur Foundation, whose main project is the Academy for Peace of Costa Rica (previously known as the “Peace Army”). The mission of this academy is to ensure that the skills of “feeling peace” and “speaking peace” will be passed from generation to generation. These skills are transmitted through the school system using the practice of “BePeace,” an approach based on Johnson’s discovery of the synergy between the social and learning methodologies HeartMath® and Nonviolent Communication.

In 2005 the Academy for Peace received the prestigious Changemakers’ Innovation Award: Building a More Ethical Society. The Academy for Peace supports the goals of the National Plan for Peace Promotion, an initiative of Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Prize winner and currently Costa Rica’s President.

Unity Magazine: Please tell us about yourself.

Rita Marie Johnson: I grew up on a farm in Belton, Missouri, just 20 miles south of Unity Village. I had a vivid experience at the age of ten that has guided my efforts toward world peace. It was the Fourth of July, and my brother, sister, and I were waiting for it to get dark so that we could begin the fireworks. Suddenly I got the idea to walk down our country road. I strode off by myself and soon was captivated with the beauty of the sunset as it filled me with peace. I started talking aloud to Spirit, saying, “I wish all people around the world could have this feeling of peace.” Then I found myself listening as Spirit whispered to me, “You will work for world peace.” My ten-year-old mind couldn’t fathom how I could do that and still have a husband. Then Spirit reassured me, “You will have a man by your side who will be your equal and will support this work.”

As it’s turned out, I am working for peace, and I do have my beloved husband, Juan Enrique Toro, by my side. Juan Enrique has served as president of the Association of Unity Churches International and is the minister of Unity-Costa Rica.

I received my B.A. in psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Eventually I served as the chief of volunteer services for the Texas Department of Health, and from this service-oriented job moved on to attend ministerial school at Unity Village, Missouri.

I met my future husband in our ministerial class. When we were about to graduate, Juan Enrique told me about a country that had no army and identified with peace—Costa Rica. At Juan Enrique’s words, the prayer for world peace that had been asleep in my heart awakened. I knew that somehow I would be involved in supporting this national model of peace. That evening Juan Enrique and I celebrated our newfound dream of life in Costa Rica. And 16 years later, here we are. We were ordained as Unity ministers in 1991 and moved to Costa Rica in 1993. Now Unity is located just 20 minutes west of San Jose, Costa Rica’s capital, and the Academy for Peace is located next door.

Unity Magazine: How did the practice of BePeace become established?

Rita Marie Johnson: It grew out of my own desire to be an authentic peacemaker. I found it was easy to talk about peace, but I lacked clarity about the how-to of peaceful living. I was also motivated by the lack of peace with which I had handled some issues in my own life. So I researched social and emotional learning methodology for over ten years looking for the best methods for “feeling peace” and “speaking peace.”

I founded a small school and tried the HeartMath method with the children. I was profoundly impacted at the way it worked with one boy who had been hitting his classmates, and I began using it in my own life. Ultimately, I chose it as the most effective method for consistently “feeling peace.”

Later, at a time when I was in despair over the increasing violence in the world, I took Nonviolent Communication training with Dr. Marshall Rosenberg. I found hope again and chose this method for its reliable approach to “speaking peace.” Once I was clear on the two methods, I tried combining them into a practice for “being peace” and was surprised at the way this enhanced them both. Therefore, this discovery evolved into the method that we now call ”BePeace.”

Unity Magazine: Define “HeartMath.”

Rita Marie Johnson: HeartMath is a way to tap our heart’s intelligence. This scientific approach is supported by in-depth research studies, but I will explain it here in the most basic way. Institute of HeartMath research has revealed that when we generate a positive feeling from our heart, the heart pulls the brain into a state of coherence with it so that we can more readily access our heart’s intelligence.

HeartMath is taught verbally or with software that allows you to view your heart rate variability on the screen. By practicing the program’s method of heart focus, heart breathing, and heart feeling, you can shift your heart rate variability from an erratic pattern to an even pattern, indicating that you have achieved coherence between the brain and the heart.

Through HeartMath tools, we are able to increase our impulse control, improve our anger management, and make wiser choices. Once you become aware of the power of your heart, you realize that it is more efficient to “change your feelings, change your life” than to “change your thinking, change your life.”

HeartMath is not difficult to learn, but it takes commitment to practice it all day long so that you stay in a peaceful mode. To help us along, HeartMath produced the emWave®, a new product the size of a cell phone that gives us a reading of our coherence through an ear sensor so we can practice throughout the day.

Unity Magazine: What is Nonviolent Communication?

Rita Marie Johnson: Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is a way to discover our feelings and needs and to understand how they drive our actions. With this new awareness, we can speak to each other with respect and compassion and build strategies for getting everyone’s needs met. In NVC, we express our empathy and honesty using four steps: observation, feeling, need and request. Our main intention in using NVC is to stay connected to ourselves and to the other person. When we are connected at that level, conflicts are much easier to resolve and positive strategies for enriching our lives emerge naturally. NVC was developed by Marshall Rosenberg more than 25 years ago and is now taught in over 50 countries. It has transformed my life.

Unity Magazine: How does the practice of BePeace work in the lives of children who learn it?

Rita Marie Johnson: One example is a sixth-grader I will call “Jose” who came to one of our Saturday trainings. He was very restless and having a difficult time paying attention. As the day wore on and Jose began to grasp what we were teaching, he calmed down.

During the last exercise of the day, I asked Jose to describe a conflict he had experienced earlier in the week. He said that he had failed an exam and after that he dragged a child across the playground by her hair. I began to process this event with him, utilizing BePeace.

We first achieved the state of peace in his heart through HeartMath. Then I began using NVC by guessing what Jose’s feelings were around this event. In this process, we discovered that he was feeling angry because of failing the exam. As we dug deeper, he realized that he was really feeling despair around having failed many exams. He was also very lonely as he didn’t have many friends.

We then looked at the needs underneath those feelings: needs for learning, achievement, belonging, and a greater sense of connection with his classmates. As we touched upon those needs, a big tear slid down his cheek. Then I knew that his heart had opened through my empathy, and Jose was now in touch with himself.

After the session was over, I asked him, “The next time you fail an exam, do you think you’ll still want to pull a girl’s hair?” Jose said “No, because now I understand my own feelings and needs.” Instead of projecting uncomfortable feelings as violence in the future, this student will have a tool to own them and grow from them. He will be able to connect with his feelings and name his needs so that he can come up with better strategies than violence for getting those needs met.

Unity Magazine: Is the use of HeartMath coupled with Nonviolent Communication a guarantee for resolving every conflict?

Rita Marie Johnson: There is no guarantee. A lot depends on the person’s skill in applying the two methods. It also depends in large degree on our authenticity: Do we really want to be connected to this other person, heart to heart? However, more than any other tools I have learned, using the skills of HeartMath and Nonviolent Communication together as BePeace has prepared me to be a peacemaker in every moment.

Unity Magazine: After you discovered the practice of BePeace, how did you establish the Academy for Peace of Costa Rica?

Rita Marie Johnson: I wanted to find a way to give BePeace to teachers so that they would be supported to have peaceful, creative classrooms. I gathered people together who had passion for this vision. At the time, I wasn’t well enough established to start a peace academy so I called the individuals that were learning these skills the “Peace Army.” Now with the credibility we have established by working in schools for almost four years, the facilities that we have to offer and the endorsement of the government, we have become the Academy for Peace of Costa Rica.

The Academy for Peace is the main project of the Rasur Foundation, which I founded in 1997. The foundation’s mission is to inspire, educate, and facilitate a culture of peace in Costa Rica.

Unity Magazine: What does Rasur mean?

Rita Marie Johnson: The name Rasur came from a Costa Rican poem written in 1946 by Roberto Brenes Mesén. This poem is the story of Rasur, the god of children, and it has inspired all my work in Costa Rica. Rasur comes to the mountains of Costa Rica and he silently calls the children from the village of Quizur into a mountain. He begins to teach the children about the divinity within their hearts and their connection with all creation. He explains that they are caretakers of the universe, from the stars in the sky to the fruits of the earth. When the children come out of the mountain, they greet their worried parents and begin to tell them what they learned. Soon the entire village of Quizur is alive with creativity and is transformed into a culture of peace.

This epic poem is brilliantly written. My favorite quote from it has become the Academy for Peace motto: “Before directing the lightning in the sky, we must first harness the storms in our own hearts.” The poem implies that Costa Rican children have a special role to play as peacemakers to the world. In 1948, two years after this prophetic poem was written, the Costa Rican army was unexpectedly abolished. Costa Rica’s peace story has continued to unfold. We added a new chapter by creating the Academy for Peace.

Unity Magazine: What has been your biggest challenge?

Rita Marie Johnson: Since Costa Rica is still a developing country that has its own challenges, we are always faced with the question of how to fund this work. Historically we have moved forward through the dedicated work of a handful of people and what seem to be miracles. I never know where the next funds will come from to keep us going, but they always come. One way that Unity churches are helping to create these “miracles” is by bringing groups on our BePeace Tour, where you get to see the best of Costa Rica while learning our methods.

Unity Magazine: Precisely what does the Academy for Peace do?

Rita Marie Johnson: We teach trainers the practice of BePeace. The trainers then go into schools where they train teachers, parents and students to use BePeace, especially whenever mediation is needed for a conflict. We also have training at our headquarters. By December 2007, we will have trained all of the teachers in our county. We are working diligently to upgrade to the national level by May 2010 when President Arias leaves office. In this way, we will have the first national peace academy in the world firmly established so that it can be duplicated in other countries.

Unity Magazine: I understand that Costa Rica began identifying with peace when its army was abolished in 1948. How does Costa Rica get along without an army?

Rita Marie Johnson: Costa Rica has an extraordinary sense of purpose. Just as I had a prayer in my heart for world peace when I was ten years old, I truly believe that Costa Rica has a collective prayer in its heart to model peace to the world. Somehow our prayers have intersected in time and space.

For example, in 2006, I wrote an initiative for a Ministry for Peace in Costa Rica that was based on the collective wisdom of those involved in the Rasur Foundation. It was embraced by President Arias and is now a bill in the Legislative Assembly that will pass very soon, as it has no opposition.

A country like this that lives from an identity with peace does not attract enemies. Costa Rica is the only country in the world with no army and no defense arrangement. In its defenselessness is its strength. That is not to say that Costa Rica has no problems with violence, as there has been an increase in domestic violence. But over time the Academy for Peace will impact every citizen so that peace can prevail in every corner of this precious country.

Unity Magazine: What is the position of the Academy for Peace on the current war in the Middle East?

Rita Marie Johnson: The Academy for Peace does not take sides. We do not take a political stance because we are simply for every individual being empowered to become a peacemaker. We understand that, at the heart of any situation, all human beings are just trying to get their needs met. Sometimes we utilize tragic strategies for getting those needs met but, through BePeace, we can learn to make new choices.

Unity Magazine: What does Unity mean to you in terms of what you practice every day?

Rita Marie Johnson: In Unity, we sing, “Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.” Unity motivated me to become an authentic peacemaker—to take the calling that I received when I was ten years old and deepen it. Now I finally know how to walk the talk of peace.

For further information on the Academy for Peace of Costa Rica, contact info@rasurfoundation.org; for the BePeace Tour, tourcostarica@yahoo.com
This article is from the January/February 2008 iss

Jefferson, Islam and State

Thomas Jefferson, Islam and the State
By: Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im

The above article follows my comments;

- Abdullah An-Naim is through in his research.

- Prophet Muhammad ran a secular state, as a head of the state where he initiated and signed the Madinah treaty with Jews, Christians and others - giving liberty to practice one's faith.

- He walked up to a Jewish procession and kissed the Torah they were carrying, to show respect to the revered books of others.

- He offered the visiting Christians of Najran to pray in his Mosque... Had he believed that their prayers were not divine, he would not have offered them that opportunity.

- Individual responsibility is the key - the description of the Day of Judgment is that, you are on your own, neither your family members, nor the prophet will rescue you, what rescues you is your deeds - how you treated others.

- He told his own daughter that she isn't going to get a free pass to the blessed place because she is his daughter, she has to earn it the old fashioned way- by doing good things to others.

- which include do unto others as you would want others to treat you.

- Share whatever you have with the hungry around you.

- Whether one is king or poor, they all stand in the same line in God's majestic presence.

MikeGhouse
##

Thomas Jefferson, Islam and the State
Posted by Julaybib Ayoub on March 21, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdullahi-ahmed-annaim/thomas-jefferson-islam-a_b_92533.html

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im
The Huffington Post, 20 March 2008

When Congressman Keith Ellison took his oath of office in January 2007 he placed his hand on a Qur’an once owned by Thomas Jefferson. As Congressman Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress explained, he borrowed Jefferson’s Qur’an from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress because it showed that “a visionary like Jefferson” learned from many sources. Is it at all surprising that the founders of the American republic would have studied the foundational text of Islam as a major world religion of their time? Americans leaders should do the same today.

What could our third president have learned about the state and religion from Islamic sources?

Today it is hard for us to imagine a Muslim world where political and religious leaders do not justify the state and their power based on Divine will. In the Iranian elections last week, the conservative Guardian Council actually decided who could run, arguing they needed to ensure greater obedience to true Muslim values.

This type of authoritarian censorship exposes the true nature of the clerics of Guardian Council as a totalitarian clique intent on falsifying Islam and negating the free will of all Iranians. The fundamental principle of individual personal responsibility that can never be abdicated or delegated is one of the recurring themes of the Qur'an.

This contradiction is inherent to the claim that Iran is an Islamic republic. How can it be either Islamic or a republic at all when this Council of fallible human beings pretend to ensure "the Islamicity of the State" against the free choice of its own citizens?

As Jefferson wrote in 1802, "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Jefferson could have been paraphrasing chapter and verse of the Qur'an, like 6:94 and 164, 7:39, 17:15, 18:35, 19:95, 35:18, and many others which all emphatically confirm the individual personal responsibility of every Muslim for what she or he does or fail to do. All founding scholars of Islam agree that no act has any religious value unless done freely and without any coercion.

Just as Jefferson believed that the newly formed United States should not be a Christian state, for Muslims the notion that the state can be Islamic is false from a religious point of view, and has no support in 15 centuries of Islamic history. It is true that Muslims everywhere, whether minorities or majorities, are bound to observe Shari'a as a matter of religious obligation. Some practices are collective in form, but always individual in substance. Any observance of Shari'a can be best achieved when the state is neutral regarding all religious doctrines. Enforcing a Shari'a through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims.

The notion of an Islamic state is in fact a post-colonial innovation based on a European model of the state and a totalitarian view of law and public policy. There is no mention whatsoever of the state in the Qur'an, and Islam does not prescribe a form of government. Instead, the emphasis has always been on the community of Muslims and their responsibility for conducting their own public affairs. A true and valid return to Islamic values anywhere must allow individuals to practice religion unfettered by religious leaders who claim to speak in the name of the Divine. This is the clear demand of Muslims everywhere, like all other human beings and their societies.

Jefferson's oft quoted comment regarding refreshing the tree of liberty from time to time (he suggested every twenty years) is also fully consistent with the imperative of renewal and rejuvenation of the faith and its relevance to daily life which is a recurrent theme throughout Islamic history. To have any religious value, this renewal must happen within individual Muslims and their communities, freely and without coercion, and not through violence at home or abroad.

Every generation of citizens, whether religious or not, should renew and reaffirm their commitment to democracy and the rule of law as essential for human dignity and social justice everywhere. These values cannot be inherited from preceding generations, and must be personally accepted with true conviction if they are to be effective in practice.

I would not doubt President Jefferson's word that he was not a Muslim (and appreciate that he did not have to deny it in his day). I am not suggesting that he was actually influenced by the teachings of the Qur'an. What is significant for me is the fact that his conclusions about the relationship between religion and state are fully consistent with mine as a Muslim and as a scholar of the Qur'an. Jefferson speaks for me and the clear majority of Muslims around the world (as shown by the global Gallup poll published in Feb. 2008) that the only true relationship to the Divine must be of the individual believer, unfettered by religious or political leaders who claim to speak in the name of the Divine.

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is professor of law, Emory University, and author of Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a (Harvard University Press, 2008)

The science of religion

The science of religion
Where angels no longer fear to tread

Mar 19th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Illustration by Stephen Jeffrey



http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2008/03/science-of-religion.html

Science and religion have often been at loggerheads. Now the former has decided to resolve the problem by trying to explain the existence of the latter


BY THE standards of European scientific collaboration, €2m ($3.1m) is not a huge sum. But it might be the start of something that will challenge human perceptions of reality at least as much as the billions being spent by the European particle-physics laboratory (CERN) at Geneva. The first task of CERN's new machine, the Large Hadron Collider, which is due to open later this year, will be to search for the Higgs boson—an object that has been dubbed, with a certain amount of hyperbole, the God particle. The €2m, by contrast, will be spent on the search for God Himself—or, rather, for the biological reasons why so many people believe in God, gods and religion in general.
“Explaining Religion”, as the project is known, is the largest-ever scientific study of the subject. It began last September, will run for three years, and involves scholars from 14 universities and a range of disciplines from psychology to economics. And it is merely the latest manifestation of a growing tendency for science to poke its nose into the God business.

Religion cries out for a biological explanation. It is a ubiquitous phenomenon—arguably one of the species markers of Homo sapiens—but a puzzling one. It has none of the obvious benefits of that other marker of humanity, language. Nevertheless, it consumes huge amounts of resources. Moreover, unlike language, it is the subject of violent disagreements. Science has, however, made significant progress in understanding the biology of language, from where it is processed in the brain to exactly how it communicates meaning. Time, therefore, to put religion under the microscope as well.


I have no need of that hypothesis
Explaining Religion is an ambitious attempt to do this. The experiments it will sponsor are designed to look at the mental mechanisms needed to represent an omniscient deity, whether (and how) belief in such a “surveillance-camera” God might improve reproductive success to an individual's Darwinian advantage, and whether religion enhances a person's reputation—for instance, do people think that those who believe in God are more trustworthy than those who do not? The researchers will also seek to establish whether different religions foster different levels of co-operation, for what reasons, and whether such co-operation brings collective benefits, both to the religious community and to those outside it.

It is an ambitious shopping list. Fortunately, other researchers have blazed a trail. Patrick McNamara, for example, is the head of the Evolutionary Neurobehaviour Laboratory at Boston University's School of Medicine. He works with people who suffer from Parkinson's disease. This illness is caused by low levels of a messenger molecule called dopamine in certain parts of the brain. In a preliminary study, Dr McNamara discovered that those with Parkinson's had lower levels of religiosity than healthy individuals, and that the difference seemed to correlate with the disease's severity. He therefore suspects a link with dopamine levels and is now conducting a follow-up involving some patients who are taking dopamine-boosting medicine and some of whom are not.
Such neurochemical work, though preliminary, may tie in with scanning studies conducted to try to find out which parts of the brain are involved in religious experience. Nina Azari, a neuroscientist at the University of Hawaii at Hilo who also has a doctorate in theology, has looked at the brains of religious people. She used positron emission tomography (PET) to measure brain activity in six fundamentalist Christians and six non-religious (though not atheist) controls. The Christians all said that reciting the first verse of the 23rd psalm helped them enter a religious state of mind, so both groups were scanned in six different sets of circumstances: while reading the first verse of the 23rd psalm, while reciting it out loud, while reading a happy story (a well-known German children's rhyme), while reciting that story out loud, while reading a neutral text (how to use a calling card) and while at rest.

Dr Azari was expecting to see activity in the limbic systems of the Christians when they recited the psalm. Previous research had suggested that this part of the brain (which regulates emotion) is an important centre of religious activity. In fact what happened was increased activity in three areas of the frontal and parietal cortex, some of which are better known for their involvement in rational thought. The control group did not show activity in these parts of their brains when listening to the psalm. And, intriguingly, the only thing that triggered limbic activity in either group was reading the happy story.

Dr Azari's PET study, together with one by Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania, which used single-photon emission computed tomography done on Buddhist monks, and another by Mario Beauregard of the University of Montreal, which put Carmelite nuns in a magnetic-resonance-imaging machine, all suggest that religious activity is spread across many parts of the brain. That conflicts not only with the limbic-system theory but also with earlier reports of a so-called God Spot that derived partly from work conducted on epileptics. These reports suggested that religiosity originates specifically in the brain's temporal lobe, and that religious visions are the result of epileptic seizures that affect this part of the brain.

Though there is clearly still a long way to go, this sort of imaging should eventually tie down the circuitry of religious experience and that, combined with work on messenger molecules of the sort that Dr McNamara is doing, will illuminate how the brain generates and processes religious experiences. Dr Azari, however, is sceptical that such work will say much about religion's evolution and function. For this, other methods are needed.

Dr McNamara, for example, plans to analyse a database called the Ethnographic Atlas to see if he can find any correlations between the amount of cultural co-operation found in a society and the intensity of its religious rituals. And Richard Sosis, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut, has already done some research which suggests that the long-term co-operative benefits of religion outweigh the short-term costs it imposes in the form of praying many times a day, avoiding certain foods, fasting and so on.


Leviticus's children
On the face of things, it is puzzling that such costly behaviour should persist. Some scholars, however, draw an analogy with sexual selection. The splendour of a peacock's tail and the throaty roar of a stag really do show which males are fittest, and thus help females choose. Similarly, signs of religious commitment that are hard to fake provide a costly and reliable signal to others in a group that anyone engaging in them is committed to that group. Free-riders, in other words, would not be able to gain the advantages of group membership.

To test whether religion might have emerged as a way of improving group co-operation while reducing the need to keep an eye out for free-riders, Dr Sosis drew on a catalogue of 19th-century American communes published in 1988 by Yaacov Oved of Tel Aviv University. Dr Sosis picked 200 of these for his analysis; 88 were religious and 112 were secular. Dr Oved's data include the span of each commune's existence and Dr Sosis found that communes whose ideology was secular were up to four times as likely as religious ones to dissolve in any given year.

A follow-up study that Dr Sosis conducted in collaboration with Eric Bressler of McMaster University in Canada focused on 83 of these communes (30 religious, 53 secular) to see if the amount of time they survived correlated with the strictures and expectations they imposed on the behaviour of their members. The two researchers examined things like food consumption, attitudes to material possessions, rules about communication, rituals and taboos, and rules about marriage and sexual relationships.

As they expected, they found that the more constraints a religious commune placed on its members, the longer it lasted (one is still going, at the grand old age of 149). But the same did not hold true of secular communes, where the oldest was 40. Dr Sosis therefore concludes that ritual constraints are not by themselves enough to sustain co-operation in a community—what is needed in addition is a belief that those constraints are sanctified.

Dr Sosis has also studied modern secular and religious kibbutzim in Israel. Because a kibbutz, by its nature, depends on group co-operation, the principal difference between the two is the use of religious ritual. Within religious communities, men are expected to pray three times daily in groups of at least ten, while women are not. It should, therefore, be possible to observe whether group rituals do improve co-operation, based on the behaviour of men and women.

To do so, Dr Sosis teamed up with Bradley Ruffle, an economist at Ben-Gurion University, in Israel. They devised a game to be played by two members of a kibbutz. This was a variant of what is known to economists as the common-pool-resource dilemma, which involves two people trying to divide a pot of money without knowing how much the other is asking for. In the version of the game devised by Dr Sosis and Dr Ruffle, each participant was told that there was an envelope with 100 shekels in it (between 1/6th and 1/8th of normal monthly income). Both players could request money from the envelope, but if the sum of their requests exceeded its contents, neither got any cash. If, however, their request equalled, or was less than, the 100 shekels, not only did they keep the money, but the amount left was increased by 50% and split between them.

Dr Sosis and Dr Ruffle picked the common-pool-resource dilemma because the communal lives of kibbutz members mean they often face similar dilemmas over things such as communal food, power and cars. The researchers' hypothesis was that in religious kibbutzim men would be better collaborators (and thus would take less) than women, while in secular kibbutzim men and women would take about the same. And that was exactly what happened.


Big father is watching you
Dr Sosis is not the only researcher to employ economic games to investigate the nature and possible advantages of religion. Ara Norenzayan, an experimental psychologist at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, has conducted experiments using what is known as the dictator game. This, too, is a well-established test used to gauge altruistic behaviour. Participants receive a sum of money—Dr Norenzayan set it at $10—and are asked if they would like to share it with another player. The dictator game thus differs from another familiar economic game in which one person divides the money and the other decides whether to accept or reject that division.

As might be expected, in the simple version of the dictator game most people take most or all of the money. However, Dr Norenzayan and his graduate student Azim Shariff tried to tweak the game by introducing the idea of God. They did this by priming half of their volunteers to think about religion by getting them to unscramble sentences containing religious words such as God, spirit, divine, sacred and prophet. Those thus primed left an average of $4.22, while the unprimed left $1.84.

Exactly what Dr Norenzayan has discovered here is not clear. A follow-up experiment which primed people with secular words that might, nevertheless, have prompted them to behave in an altruistic manner (civic, jury, court, police and contract) had similar effects, so it may be that he has touched on a general question of morality, rather than a specific one of religion. However, an experiment carried out by Jesse Bering, of Queen's University in Belfast, showed quite specifically that the perceived presence of a supernatural being can affect a person's behaviour—although in this case the being was not God, but the ghost of a dead person.
Illustration by Stephen Jeffrey

Dr Bering, too, likes the hypothesis that religion promotes fitness by promoting collaboration within groups. One way that might work would be to rely not just on other individuals to detect cheats by noticing things like slacking on the prayers or eating during fasts, but for cheats to detect and police themselves as well. In that case a sense of being watched by a supernatural being might be useful. Dr Bering thus proposes that belief in such beings would prevent what he called “dangerous risk miscalculations” that would lead to social deviance and reduced fitness.

One of the experiments he did to test this idea was to subject a bunch of undergraduates to a quiz. His volunteers were told that the best performer among them would receive a $50 prize. They were also told that the computer program that presented the questions had a bug in it, which sometimes caused the answer to appear on the screen before the question. The volunteers were therefore instructed to hit the space bar immediately if the word “Answer” appeared on the screen. That would remove the answer and ensure the test results were fair.

The volunteers were then divided into three groups. Two began by reading a note dedicating the test to a recently deceased graduate student. One did not see the note. Of the two groups shown the note, one was told by the experimenter that the student's ghost had sometimes been seen in the room. The other group was not given this suggestion.

The so-called glitch occurred five times for each student. Dr Bering measured the amount of time it took to press the space bar on each occasion. He discarded the first result as likely to be unreliable and then averaged the other four. He found that those who had been told the ghost story were much quicker to press the space bar than those who had not. They did so in an average of 4.3 seconds. That compared with 6.3 seconds for those who had only read the note about the student's death and 7.2 for those who had not heard any of the story concerning the dead student. In short, awareness of a ghost—a supernatural agent—made people less likely to cheat.


Who is my neighbour?
It all sounds very Darwinian. But there is a catch. The American communes, the kibbutzim, the students of the University of British Columbia and even the supernatural self-censorship observed by Dr Bering all seem to involve behaviour that promotes the group over the individual. That is the opposite of Darwinism as conventionally understood. But it might be explained by an idea that most Darwinians dropped in the 1960s—group selection.

The idea that evolution can work by the differential survival of entire groups of organisms, rather than just of individuals, was rejected because it is mathematically implausible. But it has been revived recently, in particular by David Sloan Wilson of Binghamton University, in New York, as a way of explaining the evolution of human morality in the context of inter-tribal warfare. Such warfare can be so murderous that groups whose members fail to collaborate in an individually self-sacrificial way may be wiped out entirely. This negates the benefits of selfish behaviour within a group. Morality and religion are often closely connected, of course (as Dr Norenzayan's work confirms), so what holds for the one might be expected to hold for the other, too.

Dr Wilson himself has studied the relationship between social insecurity and religious fervour, and discovered that, regardless of the religion in question, it is the least secure societies that tend to be most fundamentalist. That would make sense if adherence to the rules is a condition for the security which comes from membership of a group. He is also interested in what some religions hold out as the ultimate reward for good behaviour—life after death. That can promote any amount of self-sacrifice in a believer, up to and including suicidal behaviour—as recent events in the Islamic world have emphasised. However, belief in an afterlife is not equally well developed in all religions, and he suspects the differences may be illuminating.

That does not mean there are no explanations for religion that are based on individual selection. For example, Jason Slone, a professor of religious studies at Webster University in St Louis, argues that people who are religious will be seen as more likely to be faithful and to help in parenting than those who are not. That makes them desirable as mates. He plans to conduct experiments designed to find out whether this is so. And, slightly tongue in cheek, Dr Wilson quips that “secularism is very maladaptive biologically. We're the ones who at best are having only two kids. Religious people are the ones who aren't smoking and drinking, and are living longer and having the health benefits.”

That quip, though, makes an intriguing point. Evolutionary biologists tend to be atheists, and most would be surprised if the scientific investigation of religion did not end up supporting their point of view. But if a propensity to religious behaviour really is an evolved trait, then they have talked themselves into a position where they cannot benefit from it, much as a sceptic cannot benefit from the placebo effect of homeopathy. Maybe, therefore, it is God who will have the last laugh after all—whether He actually exists or not.

Obama - Politics unusual

Politics Unusual: Obama Abandons Blame Game in Sophisticated Discussion of Race
By David Corn

With racial sentiments swirling in the 2008 campaign -- notably, Geraldine Ferraro's claim that Barack Obama is not much more than an affirmative action case and the controversy over his former pastor's over-the-top remarks -- Senator Obama on Tuesday morning responded to these recent fusses with a speech unlike any delivered by a major political figure in modern American history. While explaining -- not excusing -- Reverend Jeremiah Wright's remarks (which Obama had already criticized), he called on all Americans to recognize that even though the United States has experienced progress on the racial reconciliation front in recent decades (Exhibit A: Barack Obama), racial anger exists among both whites and blacks, and he said that this anger and its causes must be fully acknowledged before further progress can be achieved. Obama did this without displaying a trace of anger himself.

Speaking in Philadelphia, Obama celebrated his own racial heritage but also demonstrated his ability to view the black community with a measure of objectivity and, when necessary, criticism -- caring criticism. But this was no Sister Souljah moment. He did not sacrifice Wright for political ends. He hailed the good deeds of his former minister, noting that Wright's claim that America continues to be a racist society is rooted in Wright's generational experiences. And Obama identified the sources of racial resentment held by whites without being judgmental. With this address, Obama was trying to show the nation a pathway to a society free of racial gridlock and denial. Moreover, he declared that bridging the very real racial divide of today is essential to forging the popular coalition necessary to transform America into a society with a universal and effective health care system, an education system that serves poor and rich children, and an economy that yields a decent-paying jobs for all. Obama was not playing the race card. He was shooting the moon.

Obama delivered his speech in a stiff manner. The melodious lilt and cascading tones that typically characterize his campaign addresses were not present. This was a speech in which the words -- not the delivery -- counted. He began with a predictable notion: slavery was the original sin of the glorious American project. Removing that stain has been the nation's burden ever since, and he tied his campaign to that long-running endeavor: "This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign -- to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America." And he proclaimed that due to his own personal story -- "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas" -- he both recognizes the need to heal this divide and possesses an "unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people." Unlike the black leaders of recent years, Obama identified with both the winners and losers of America: "I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible." He is E Pluribus Unum.

Without being coy about it, Obama declared that race has been an issue in the campaign. "Some commentators have deemed me either 'too black' or 'not black enough,'" he said. "We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well. And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn."

He was referring to the remarks of Ferraro and Wright. About his onetime pastor, Obama said, "For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed." Yet Obama did not leave it at that. He didn't dismiss Wright as another pissed-off black person stuck in racial conflict:

The truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a United States Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Obama went on to explain what moves Wright and those in the pews who cheered his now-controversial remarks:

Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity Church embodies the black community in its entirety -- the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger....The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and, yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

Obama added that he could "no more disown" Wright "than I can disown the black community" or "my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me...and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."

As Obama noted, he was not taking the "politically safe" route of denouncing Wright and moving on, hoping the controversy would fade. He embraced the Wright matter to address uncomfortable truths about race: In fact, in assessing America's ills and needs, Obama declared, references to race are unavoidable. "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," he said. "But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist between the African-American community and the larger American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow." Obama recited the list of past grievances: segregated schools, legalized discrimination, the exclusion of blacks from unions, obstacles to black homeownership, etc. Not ducking a point that does peeve some whites, Obama noted that all this history "helps explain" the present wealth and income gap between blacks and whites:

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families -- a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement -- all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continues to haunt us.

Obama noted, that "this is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." Consequently, for Wright and his peers, "questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways." As if he was taking White America on a guided tour of Black America, Obama was saying very gently, this is how it works over there:

For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or the beauty shop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings. And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews.

Not that this makes it right. Obama did not let Wright and others off the hook: "That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."

This is as sophisticated a discussion of race as any American politician has sought to present to the public. And Obama was not done. He turned to whites:

A similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Obama was not condemning anyone. His key to post-racial transformation? End the blame game. In the end, he argued, black-and-white matters less -- or should matter less -- than issues of class and economic power:

And just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns -- this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

His bottom line: "This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years." How to climb out of this hole? Obama offered no ten-point plans or facile answers. Heavy lifting has to happen on both sides. African Americans must embrace "the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances -- for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs -- to the larger aspirations of all Americans: the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for our own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."

As for the white community, he added, "the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds -- by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

Obama ended up at an obvious point: can't we all just get along and "do unto others as we would have them do unto us." But the path he took was not without some courage. He dared to explain -- and somewhat justify -- black anger that can lead to comments that upset whites, while calling for blacks to move past such anger. And he did not dump Wright. He also dared to understand white resentment, but he chided whites (without castigating them) for dismissing or ignoring black anger. Events beyond Obama's control pushed him to make this speech. And, no doubt, political foes and conservative antagonists will continue their crusade to tar Obama with Wright's words. But with this address, Obama presented a candid approach to race. Still, there's no telling if this will help him in his fierce battle with Hillary Clinton -- let alone in a general election, should he secure the Democratic presidential nomination.

While discussing his years of worship at the Trinity Church, Obama noted that by attending services there and imagining "the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones," he came to realize that "our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black." With this speech -- and throughout his campaign -- as he merges his own story with the story of race in America, he is presenting himself also as "black and more than black." And that is a story with no ending yet.

Listen to full speech by clicking video, above right.

David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation and the co-author of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush. He writes a blog at davidcorn.com.

Is Happiness Preordained?

Is Our Happiness Preordained?

Mike Ghouse - Article follows my comments;

It is consoling to the soul who is down and under "oh, it was to be this way" and kind of accept the happenings of life. It mitigates the suffering. As everything in nature is planned - the DNA research is indicating that the eyes, hair color, hair and a lot of elements of physical body are programmed in the genes. Is what we do and what we think is pre-planned as well? We can argue both ways depending on the state of mind we are in. Personally I believe we have the freedom to determine where we go, what we do, if we do not put the required effort, we may default to the position we are in.

Is Our Happiness Preordained?
By Laura Blue
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1721954,00.html

Though most of us spend a lifetime pursuing happiness, new research is showing that that goal may be largely out of our control. Two new studies this month add to a growing body of evidence that factors like genes and age may impact our general well-being more than our best day-to-day attempts at joy.

In one study, researchers at the University of Edinburgh suggest that genes account for about 50% of the variation in people's levels of happiness — the underlying determinant being genetically determined personality traits, like "being sociable, active, stable, hardworking and conscientious," says co-author Timothy Bates. What's more, says Bates, these happiness traits generally come as a package, so that if you have one you're likely to have them all.

Bates and his Edinburgh colleagues drew their conclusions after looking at survey data of 973 pairs of adult twins. They found that, on average, a pair of identical twins shared more personality traits than a pair of non-identical twins. And when asked how happy they were, the identical twin pairs responded much more similarly than other twins, suggesting that both happiness and personality have a strong genetic component. The study, published in Psychological Science, went one step further: it suggested that personality and happiness do not merely coexist, but that in fact innate personality traits cause happiness. Twins who had similar scores in key traits — extroversion, calmness and conscientiousness, for example — had similar happiness scores; once those traits were accounted for, however, the similarity in twins' happiness scores disappeared.

Another larger study, released in January ahead of its publication in Social Science & Medicine this month, shows that whatever people's individual happiness levels, we all tend to fall into a larger, cross-cultural and global pattern of joy. According to survey data representing 2 million people in more than 70 countries, happiness typically follows a U-shaped curve: among people in their mid-40s and younger, happiness trends downward with age, then climbs back up among older people. (That shift doesn't necessarily hold for the very old with severe health problems.) Across the world, people in their 40s generally claim to be less happy than those who are younger or older, and the global happiness nadir appears to hit somewhere around 44.

What happens at 44? Lots of things, but none that can be pinned down as the root cause of unhappiness. It's not anxiety from the kids, for starters. Even among the childless, those in midlife reported lower life satisfaction than the young or old, says study co-author Andrew Oswald, an economics professor at the University of Warwick in Britain. Other things that didn't alter the happiness curve: income, marital status or education. "You can adjust for 100 things and it doesn't go away," Oswald says. He and co-author David Blanchflower, an economist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, also adjusted their results for cohort effects: their data spanned more than 30 years, making them confident that whatever makes people miserable about being middle-aged, it isn't related, say, to being born in the year 1960 and growing up with that generation's particular set of experiences.

At first glance, the new studies may appear at odds with some previous ones, largely because in happiness research, a lot depends on how you ask the question. Oswald and Blanchflower looked at responses to a sweeping, general question: "Taken all together, how would you say things are these days — would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?" (The wording changes slightly depending on where the survey was conducted, but the question is essentially the same.) In a 2001 study, Susan Charles at University of California, Irvine, measured something slightly different: changes in positive affect, or positive emotions, versus negative affect over more than 25 years. Charles found that positive affect stayed roughly stable through young adulthood and midlife, falling off a little in older age; negative affect, meanwhile, fell consistently with age.

Charles thinks that feelings like angst, disgust and anger may fade because as we get older we learn to care less about what others think of us, or perhaps because we become more adept at avoiding situations we don't like. (The Edinburgh researchers, too, found that older study participants scored lower than younger ones on scales of neuroticism — worry and nervousness — and higher on scales of agreeableness.) Oswald chalks up the midlife dip in happiness shown in his study to people "letting go of impossible aspirations" — first, there's the pain of fading youth and the realization that we may never accomplish all that we had dreamed, then the contentment we gain later in life through acceptance and self-awareness. "When you're young you can't do that," Oswald says.

An oft-cited finding from other happiness research suggests, however, that neither very good events nor very bad events seem to change people's happiness much in the long term. Most people, it seems, revert back to some kind of baseline happiness level within a couple years of even the most devastating events, like the death of a spouse or loss of limbs. Perhaps that kind of stability is due to heredity — those happiness-inducing personality traits that identical twins have been shown to share.

Still, lack of control doesn't necessarily mean lack of joy. "The research also shows that most people consider themselves happy most of the time," says University of Edinburgh's Bates. "We're wired to be optimistic. Most people think they're happier than most [other] people." And even if you aren't part of that lucky majority, Bates says, there's always that other 50% of overall life satisfaction that, according to his research, is not genetically predetermined. To feel happier, he recommends mimicking the personality traits of those who are: Be social, even if it's only with a few people; set achievable goals and work toward them; and concentrate on putting setbacks and worries in perspective. Don't worry, as the saying goes. Be happy.

Dialogue König and Dupuis

Fr. Jacques Dupuis Cardinal Franz König
Dialogue between König and Dupuis

Mike Ghouse/ Article follows my commentary;

Of course, we cannot expect a gatekeeper of a religion with political boundaries, rather than spiritual boundlessness to acknowledge the otherness of others. Although at times superficial attempts are made, but deep down, as human as one is, there is arrogance that my faith is complete, my faith is the true faith and my way is the only way to this elusive salvation.

This arrogance prevents a true dialogue between the two, and thus breeds conflict, as one is geared up to convince the other that he should think up, and never give an inch to the other in matters of faith. Ah, faith it is.

Jesus is indeed the true savior; to the believers. Just as other faiths have their theology of salvation, and without a shade of doubt, true to them.

Indeed, God (Cause or source of creation or creator to include our Atheist/ Agnostic idea of creation) is the truth. Every which way you believe in that creator should be fine. The Ten Commandments or its equivalent ought to be the goals of the civilization to march forward for peaceful co-existence. I like this particular sentence in the article “. We seek God’s truth in our fellow human beings -- who are all his creatures -- through dialogue.”

And this makes sense too “D: Dialogue must be theologically founded. An open theology of dialogue must recognize the real values -- the elements of divine truth and grace -- which are found in the other religious traditions, and that is where the [congregation] is still very much behind the times.”

We should consider the effects of getting hung up in the words and the individuals be it Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Krishna, Buddha, Mahavir, Nanak, Zoroaster, Bahaulla, Joseph Smith and other great teachers. We should focus on their message and not them or their words. As focusing on the teachers makes us take the position of support to the individual as opposed to their message. We should not negate one for the other; they were all great teachers with a common theme – to create a world of peace through Justice and love.

One should be free to choose what one wants to believe, but we should seriously consider holding off making conversion a business. Do unto others… Let others believe and live their life to their satisfaction. Real conflict emerges from three tangible things – your space, food and family, all others are imaginary conflicts.

Let’s learn to give full value to the otherness of other, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.

### And now the article
Fr. Jacques Dupuis Cardinal Franz König Dialogue between König and Dupuis

Following is a transcript of the König-Dupuis dialogue, which took place in Vienna, Austria, July 16, 2003. The NCR staff has excerpted it for space considerations. For the full dialogue, see the Special Documents section, NCRonline.org.

Jesuit Fr. Jacques Dupuis: As we were saying at coffee just now, it is so important to consider interreligious dialogue in the Asian context. The big question is how to proclaim Jesus Christ in a country like India today. Once you start talking about proclaiming -- I mean using the actual word proclaim -- that somehow suggests an obligation to tell everyone that Jesus Christ is the only universal savior and that the people you are proclaiming to must convert to Christianity. ... One must make it quite clear that evangelization is not mere proclamation. Evangelization first of all means bearing Christian witness. Secondly it means involvement for justice in the world and the liberation of people from unjust practices. Then, thirdly, comes interreligious dialogue -- and finally -- that is fourth in order of importance, as laid down by the Secretariat for Non-Christians -- comes proclamation. In the Indian context what is most important is involvement for human liberation and interreligious dialogue. ...

That is why John Paul II’s words were dangerous when he came to Delhi to publish the exhortation on the Church in Asia after the Rome synod on the subject. You remember he recalled that the first millennium had been that of the evangelization of Europe, the second of Africa and America and the third millennium would be the evangelization of Asia and of India. By referring to the evangelization of Africa and America, he conjured up memories of just how those two continents were evangelized -- evangelization as missionizing in the colonial sense. In the Indian context one must make clear, as I have just done, that what is important is involvement in human liberation and interreligious dialogue -- and that proclamation comes last. Talking of “the evangelization of Asia” as if it was similar to the evangelization of America and Africa is a very dangerous way of speaking in India.

Cardinal Franz König: Of course -- exceedingly dangerous. One must never forget the burden of history -- in this case the colonial burden. ... It’s like the word missionaries. To many Asians, Africans and Latin Americans the very word recalls white European missionaries forcefully converting thousands of indigenous people by immediately and often very superficially baptizing them.

D: The present Indian government is against Christianity, very strongly against it. ... When I asked my provincial in Calcutta if it would be possible for me ... to come back to Calcutta and stay in my province, he said, “Forget about it! You’ll never get permission to stay -- not ever again.” And that although I’d lived in India for 36 years! ... One thing you could perhaps mention in the article, Your Eminence, is the importance of interreligious dialogue in this context. Genuine interreligious dialogue, that is, without any ulterior motives, is the only way to make contact.

K: The thing is that the word dialogue has become so hackneyed. ... I think one would have to explain very carefully what genuine dialogue involves. It is a matter of getting closer to the truth by asking one another questions and by diminishing false truths.

D: Does everyone in Rome want that kind of dialogue?
K: They should since the Second Vatican Council. The church used to be far too afraid of questions. ... The council changed all that. We no longer, less today than ever, believe that there is no truth outside the church. We have become a little more humble. God alone is the final truth. We seek God’s truth in our fellow human beings -- who are all his creatures -- through dialogue.

D: Please, you must write on all this.
K: Did the pope [John Paul II] just a fortnight ago -- when he met the Indian bishops in Rome -- did he mention this problem of using the word proclaim?

D: He again insisted on proclaiming Jesus Christ. Bishop [Joseph Robert] Rodericks, who is bishop emeritus of Jamshedpur -- he’s a Jesuit and a dear friend of mine -- came to see me when the Indian bishops were in Rome and he told me about their meeting with Cardinal [Joseph] Ratzinger and their meeting with the pope. And he said they both insisted on proclaiming Jesus Christ.
And Rodericks said to the Holy Father, “Yes, Holy Father, but you must see this in the Indian context, you cannot proclaim straight away -- directly as it were. You have to make your message acceptable through Christian witness first.”
K: Of course.
D: And secondly through dialogue. And dialogue presupposes a positive, open theology.
K: Naturally.

D: Dialogue must be theologically founded. An open theology of dialogue must recognize the real values -- the elements of divine truth and grace -- which are found in the other religious traditions, and that is where the [congregation] is still very much behind the times.
K: Isn’t the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples also involved?
D: Of course. The prefect, Cardinal Jozef Tomko, was one of the cardinals who denounced my book.
K: Tomko, of course, has a very Western approach to all this.

D: Take the first Assisi meeting in 1986. The pope [John Paul II], Cardinal [Roger] Etchegaray and all those responsible insisted that they went to Assisi together to pray, but they emphasized afterward, “We did not pray together.” Praying together with non-Christians -- really praying together, that is -- was not possible, it was said. At the second meeting in Assisi they prayed separately -- even more separately in 2002 than in 1986. I devote the last chapter of my book Christianity and the Religions ... to interreligious prayer, and in this last chapter I explain what the official position in Rome was in 1986 at the time of the first Assisi meeting. Then I quote the Indian bishops’ conference’s document on dialogue in which the Indian bishops say praying together is not only possible but an obligation. So where is the truth? The Indian bishops are surely also a part of the world episcopate, aren’t they?
K: ... Could we perhaps take Assisi -- the 1986 meeting -- as a starting point in the article and begin by pointing out that there are lot of things behind Assisi?

D: The 1986 Assisi meeting was most important but ...
K: Cardinal Ratzinger was against it.
D: Yes, Cardinal Ratzinger was against it. But I just want to go back to what the Indian bishops said. ... The bishops say: “A third form of dialogue goes to the deepest levels of religious life and consists in sharing in prayer and contemplation. The purpose of such common prayer is primarily the corporate worship of the God of all who has created us to be one large family. We are called to worship God not only individually but also in community, and since in a very real and fundamental manner we are one with the whole of humanity, it is not only our right but our duty to worship him together with others.”
And “with others” means very clearly also with non-Christians. Now when the pope talks of evangelizing in India it must first be made clear that he primarily means interreligious dialogue. But in the [congregation’s] declaration Dominus Iesus, at the end, when they speak of interreligious dialogue they still pooh-pooh it. ... If you remember, the last part of Dominus Iesus says something to the effect that while interreligious dialogue is part of the church’s evangelizing mission, the church must be primarily committed to proclaiming the truth -- and there we are again with the chief emphasis on proclamation.

K: But what sense would dialogue have then? Genuine dialogue must be honest. There must be no ulterior motives. Of course each partner has an aim. It’s not meant to be a pointless chat, after all. The aim is to convince one’s partner of the soundness of one’s arguments. But the opposite also applies. One must equally be prepared to allow oneself to be convinced of the soundness of one’s partner’s arguments -- one must want to gain an insight into them. Dialogue is not an attempt to persuade or convert -- the aim is to get to know your partner and why he or she believes what they do.
D: But for Rome the all-important thing is proclamation. ...

K: My impression is that at the beginning Pope John Paul II was very close to your position but that later he gradually allowed himself to be corrected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
D: Yes, yes. This pope has played a very important role in stressing the travels of the Holy Spirit -- the universal travels of the Holy Spirit ...
K: Yes, I see it that way too ...
D: ... not only in the religious life of individual Christians ...
K: but also in communities ...
D: and also in cultures and in other religions. He believes the Holy Spirit is present in Hinduism ...
K: Yes ...
D: And in Islam and Buddhism.
K: Yes.

D: My question is what is the Holy Spirit doing there? Is this not what the council meant when it spoke of those elements of truth and grace in other religions?
K: Yes, that is the point.

Christa Pongratz-Lippitt: Are there no cardinals in Rome who think like you?
D: That’s a good question. Personally I have very few contacts with cardinals. ... As far as my order is concerned, the Jesuit order, my father general has always been on my side from the very beginning. Thank God I had him. otherwise I don’t know what I would have done or what would have become of me.

K: Couldn’t we mention the Jesuits -- the great ideas they have and their activities in this field -- how they have now taken up your ideas and that they are now a big issue for them? Father General told me when I spoke to him about you that the Jesuits would try to press on in your direction -- very carefully at the beginning -- but that they wanted to discuss your problems. Do you feel that they are waiting, as it were?
D: They are careful and wouldn’t take risks. That is the mentality of many of them. It’s sad, because theologians must be able to publish. ... But to go back to your question as to whether there were cardinals in the Vatican who were on my side. I can tell you that Father General once told me, “You know there are more people in the Vatican on your side than you think -- but they can’t say so openly. Even important people.”
K: He is quite right. That is so.

D: Even important people in the Vatican, however, cannot contradict the [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith], you see. I can only tell you that I have no contacts on high. No cardinal phoned me to say, “I am with you on this.” All I know is what Father General told me -- that there were more people on my side than I realized. But to get back to your article, I think you could emphasize the Asian context, especially the Indian context and the importance of interreligious dialogue as the constitutive element of the church’s evangelizing mission. As far as the theology of dialogue is concerned, the answer obviously is an open theology of dialogue which recognizes the divine values present in other religious traditions and that even as Christians and as Catholics our faith can be enriched by entering into interreligious dialogue, which is the whole point and context of my book.
K: We could highlight certain chapters in your new book. I’m thinking particularly of Chapter 9 on dialogue and Chapter 10 on prayer.

D: And go into what has already been published in the way of important documents such as “Dialogue and Mission” issued by the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions in 1984, which -- in No. 13 -- actually spells out the mission of the church -- that is, witness, involvement in justice, dialogue and, only finally, proclamation. ... Some years ago, you know, Cardinal Tomko gave the keynote address at the beginning of a full assembly of the [Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences], and he said, not in these exact words but in the equivalent, “You Asian bishops are not doing your job because there are no or very few conversions to Christianity in Asia.” The Asian bishops took this very badly indeed and reacted very strongly, with the result that next morning Cardinal Tomko immediately took the plane back to Rome. You see it’s this obsession that evangelization is proclamation and means baptizing. But this is not according to certain official documents, which give a much broader view of the church’s mission.

K: What you’re saying is most important. Which chapter in your second book do you consider the best or condenses the whole problem best? The beginning and the end perhaps?
D: That is difficult to say. Certainly the question of dialogue -- that is Chapter 9 of Christianity and the Religions, but possibly also the second to last chapter of the previous book, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, Chapter 14, where I explain how dialogue is evangelization and go into the theology of dialogue. ...

D: It’s Page 366 [and the following pages]. That’s where I discuss the document “Dialogue and Proclamation,” but also the important contribution Pope John Paul II has made through his constant affirmation of the presence and action of the Spirit of God among the members of other religions and of course at Assisi where he laid down the theological foundation for interreligious dialogue.
K: Fr. [Karl] Rahner called the idea of dialogue and religion the supernatural existential, you remember.
D: Yes, of course. I was actually much inspired by Rahner. ...

K: If I said religion belongs to or is a part of human existence, would you say that was the same as what Rahner says when he talks of a/the supernatural existential?
D: I think so. Rahner’s “existential” means that man is already always in creation itself ... That means ... that salvation history doesn’t start with Abraham. It starts with creation. And throughout human history God has been seeking [strongly emphasized] the human beings he created and therefore there is divine revelation -- the divine act of salvation -- throughout human history. But of course this line is not accepted by everybody.

K: In the end -- if I accept your ideal -- it gives a lot of positive aspects to the Christian religion -- I mean Christianity comes out in a very positive light? ...
D: And it is the Christian message which should make us develop this positive and open attitude instead of presenting the Christian faith as a sort of closed faith -- closed within itself as “the only true religion” and so on.

K: And all this is a very important question for Europe. What is the meaning of revelation? What is the meaning of religion? The European way of practicing religion -- of religious belief -- has undergone so many changes over the ages.
D: Yes. And you know one thing strikes me ... I’ve been giving lectures everywhere and presenting in so many countries what I’ve written about and what I believe, and everywhere I’ve seen how happy people are to discover a way of presenting the faith that makes sense to them because it is open and they can breathe -- instead of being told that outside the church there is no salvation.
K: Always that idea of fighting against others ...
D: Yes. Unfortunately there is no doubt that the church is moving backward at the moment. Dominus Iesus is a big step back. They [the congregation] say that revelation in Jesus Christ is complete, final, definitive and all the rest -- but that is impossible [voice rising] -- the New Testament says that God will be fully revealed at the end of time.
K: Yes.

D: What is true is that revelation in Jesus Christ is unsurpassed and unsurpassable as divine revelation in history.
K: Yes.
D: But the full, definitive revelation of God -- according to the New Testament -- will be at the end of the world. So how can they [the congregation] say what they say?
K: They study books, not reality.

D: They want to say “absolute,” “definitive” and all the rest because they don’t want to accept that revelation may be found outside Christianity.
K: That is a very important aspect. Of course we have to accept that revelation in Jesus Christ is finished but the thing is: Have we understood it all correctly? We must go on discussing this extensively and continue to try and clear up points that are not yet clear. As I see it, although divine revelation is finished, isn’t there perhaps a possibility that some people may yet get special, personal, new insights -- a mixture of revelation and interpretation, a sort of inspiration? We believe in the activity of the Holy Spirit -- and I’m inclined to think that the Holy Father agrees with me in this but does not say so to the [congregation] -- we believe in the activity of the Holy Spirit in the whole world and that all the world religions are trying to find answers to the final questions. Perhaps human insights and the Holy Spirit working together, as it were, will reveal a new approach. Cardinal Ratzinger and most theologians in Rome are Westernized; they don’t know enough about Asia or about the Asian or Indian mentality. But do the Hindus -- at the moment -- want dialogue?

D: One thing is obvious at the moment -- the Hindus are on the defensive. They fear that dialogue is perhaps just a sort of way round to try and convert them to Christianity. ... But once they realize that you are intent on open dialogue, open to their own religious traditions, then the atmosphere changes and they are most interested. I was recently at a meeting in Sicily ... between Christian, Muslim and Jewish scholars. As soon as they heard that Christianity was open to admitting that there is something in their religions -- in the Quran for instance -- or as the pope [John Paul II] said so clearly recently that the covenant of God is Moses’ covenant -- their fears disappeared. ... If we take this attitude toward interreligious dialogue, there is no question whatsoever of diminishing the mystery of Jesus Christ, but it must be understood correctly, and not as excluding that God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are also present and active outside the boundaries of the church. That is of course what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not prepared to accept.

K: Are there theologians from the Eastern world in the [congregation]? My fear is that they are all Western.
D: That is true. The bulk are Western. The result is that these matters are then discussed by people who all think alike. And the different theological schools of thought in the world are not represented. So it’s not surprising things are dealt with as they are in the [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

K: Was there no contact before Cardinal Tomko went to India to address the [Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences]? No contact with Indian bishops or with the Jesuits at de Nobili College in Pune for instance?
D: Absolutely none. The Indian bishops are rejected -- like Indian theologians and like Fr. Dupuis! I think one could say this goes for many Asian bishops and certainly theologians. You remember the lineamenta the Vatican published -- in English and French I think it was -- before the Synod on Asia. It was quite a thick booklet ... it more or less said that the Asian church must make greater efforts to evangelize. And you remember how the Japanese bishops completely rejected it [the lineamenta] and efforts by the Vatican to lay down the rules.

K: ... The next pope must work on the collegiality issue. You can’t just ignore the opinion of the Asian bishops before an Asian synod. I feel the history of the religions of mankind is a European product, a European way of thinking, of exploring. In recent centuries it has often reflected a tension between the Christian religion and science and the concept has changed as a result of the Christian religion’s stance against science. So we must go back to the natural situation -- man trying to find answers to the last big questions --
D: Nostra Aetate puts that very nicely, doesn’t it? It shows how all religions ask those decisive questions about man and the meaning of life, and so on. ... Over the centuries, there was an increasing tendency to exclusiveness -- Christianity as the only true religion, and so on. In a sense this started with Constantine once Christianity was not only accepted in the Empire but became the religion of the state. Now the Vatican II document on religious liberty did not use that expression -- that Christianity is the only true religion. Wouldn’t it be possible to state clearly and without ambiguity what is unique and new and original in Christianity without having to use exclusivist expressions such as “the only true religion”? That phrase sounds as if we have the monopoly and that is not true. ...

K: ... The Vatican II text that states that human beings are always looking for answers to the final questions could be our starting point.
D: It is very important to take what Pope John Paul II has said about the universal presence of the Holy Spirit very seriously. The conclusion follows that there must be salvific values in other religions. ... Fr. [Gerald] O’Collins, my dear friend and mentor, asked in a Tablet letter whether condemning Fr. Dupuis didn’t actually amount to condemning Pope John Paul II. I, naturally, consider this a very appropriate question, as to a certain extent it is surely true. ... If you take John Paul II’s very strong affirmation of the Holy Spirit seriously, then dialogue must be open. When in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio [1990] the pope says that the two elements -- dialogue and proclamation -- must retain their distinctiveness and should not be manipulated, that surely means that dialogue cannot be reduced to an instrument for proclamation as Cardinal Tomko would seem to see it.
K: Dialogue must be open. Fear is always a bad counsellor. An open attitude and not a closed mentality will help to give new depths to the Christian message. ...

[Here Cardinal Koenig refers to Jesuit Fr. Waldenfels in Bonn, Germany, who had “spent a long time in Japan” and who, in an article about Dupuis’ case in a German-language journal, had quoted Gottlieb Söhngen, a teacher of Cardinal Ratzinger, writing on a future Chinese theology: “The Chinese and other East Asians will have to analyze Western Christian theology from their Far Eastern point of view and not end up with a 50 percent Western and 50 percent Eastern mixture, which resembles a sort of chicken goulash. They will have to produce a new essence of Christian theology -- namely a Far Eastern theological view whose Far Eastern characteristics will really strike us hard so that we won’t know what day it is -- for the very reason that since the Greek philosophers, the eyes and ears of Western thinkers have developed differently.”]
D: [That] shows how well Waldenfels knows the situation in Asia. That is what so many curia cardinals lack -- they have no experience of living in the reality of the non-Christian world. Cardinal Tomko, Cardinal Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger, what do they know about India? Have they ever even studied any of the great works of other religions -- with the exception of the Old Testament, which is not another religion but our elder brother as it were? Have they ever gone into Hindu religious literature in any detail? Quite apart from having entered into dialogue with Hindu religious leaders? It underlines the unfairness of Dominus Iesus.

K: I don’t think Dominus Iesus was carefully enough prepared. Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that when he said the [congregation] had not been prepared for the worldwide reactions. Before you compose a document like that, you have to take so much into consideration, particularly the language and the tone. Words like “deficient” for other religions, [words] which are derived from the Latin but have taken on a pejorative meaning in modern English, for instance. And, of course, it has a lot to do with psychology. You must consider who will read the Vatican document. Theologians shouldn’t address general audiences and Dominus Iesus was certainly intended for a general audience -- for bishops, theologians and for Catholics in general.
I think it’s time for a glass of wine. We’ve had a long day. And don’t worry, I’ll do my best to write on all this.

National Catholic Reporter, March 21, 2008
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008a/032108/032108r.htm

A Church in Saudi Arabia

S. Arabia, Vatican in talks over churches
http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/19/top16.htm

Mike Ghouse: Three article follows my comments.

I have lost track of a Saudi minister who had asked me to put together an interfaith meeting with about 20 people, comprising Jews, Christians and Muslims. I fought with him to include all faiths, but finally agreed to work in stages, from familiar to unfamiliar ones. It was some where around 2005. I am pleased to see at least a dialogue is emerging between Vatican and Saudi's. Neighboring Dubai has just opened up a mega church this month.

I recall some Mormon friends of mine who had a congregation in Saudi Arabia way back in 1978-80 headed by a Houstonian by name Norman Powell, and of course my buddy Everett Blauvelt of Richardson was a Mormon as well, who first went to Saudi in early 40's and had worked there for nearly 30 years and made a come back in late seventies. There were several others who attended the Baptist and Catholic mass on Sundays. The Indian, Pakistani and Filipion christians groups had their own gatherings as well.

### Now the article

LONDON, March 18: The Vatican and the Saudi Kingdom are holding secret talks on lifting the age-old ban on building churches in Saudi Arabia, the Guardian reported on Tuesday.

The newspaper quoted one of Pope Benedict’s most senior Middle East representatives, Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hashem, as saying: “Discussions are under way to allow the construction of churches in the kingdom. We cannot forecast the outcome.”

There are said to be around three or four million Christians in Saudi Arabia.

At the Vatican, the Pope’s spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said: “If we manage to obtain authorisation for the construction of the first church, it will be an outcome of historic dimensions.”

The opening last Friday of the first church in Qatar left Saudi Arabia as the only country in the region that still bans the building of churches and all forms of open Christian worship.

Diplomats in Rome said talks on the building of churches would be consistent with recent developments.

Saudi Arabia is among the few countries that do not have diplomatic links with the Vatican, but sources in Rome say the Saudis are keen to establish formal relations.

In Qatar last Saturday, some 15,000 people attended an inaugural mass at the country’s first church. Our Lady of the Rosary in Doha is one of five Christian places of worship planned in the state.

Addressing the reciprocity issue, Qatar’s deputy prime minister, Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, said: “We are enjoying the construction of mosques and Islamic centres in the West, so we must be fair (to Christians).”

The Pope is expected later this year to meet representatives of 138 Muslim scholars who wrote a letter to Christian leaders last October calling for peace between the two religions.


First Catholic church for Saudi Arabia
Published: March 18, 2008

Negotiations are underway to build the first Catholic church in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah lending his support for its construction.

Vatican Radio reports the Vatican and the Saudi government are currently in talks to allow the church despite the kingdoms ban on allowing the construction of any non-Muslim place of worship.

No religion other than Islam is allowed to schedule public services, and even the possession of bibles, rosaries, and crucifixes is forbidden.

Saudi Arabia is the only country on the Arabian Peninsula without a Catholic church despite the 800,000 Catholics - virtually all of who are foreign workers.

While Saudi Arabia does not have formal diplomatic relations with the Holy See, King Abdullah became the first reigning Saudi monarch ever to visit the Vatican last November.

Commenting after his meeting with the Pope Vatican officials confirmed the Pontiff pressed for permission to open a Catholic church in the kingdom.

Holy See spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi said that opening a Catholic parish in the Islamic land would be "a historic achievement" for religious freedom and a major step forward for inter-religious dialogue.

The apostolic nuncio to Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hachem, is reportedly the lead Vatican negotiator in talks with Saudi officials.

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=6247



Vatican-Saudi talks on churches

Archbishop Hashem discussed the Saudi talks whilst visiting Qatar
The Vatican is holding talks with Saudi Arabia on building the first church in the kingdom, where some 1.5m Christians are not allowed to worship publicly.
Archbishop Paul-Mounged el-Hachem, one of Pope Benedict XVI's most senior Middle East representatives, said the discussions had begun a few weeks ago.

But the archbishop cautioned that the Vatican could not predict the outcome.

The discussions come in the wake of King Abdullah's historic meeting with the Pope at the Vatican last November.

A Catholic-Muslim Forum was also set up by the Pope two weeks ago to repair relations between the two faiths after the crisis caused by a speech he gave in Germany in 2006, in which he appeared to associate Islam with violence.

'Reciprocity'

The disclosure of talks between the Vatican and Saudi Arabia, which do not have diplomatic ties, came soon after the first Roman Catholic church in the Qatari capital, Doha, was opened in a service attended by 15,000 people.

Archbishop Hachem, the Apostolic Nuncio to Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Bahrain and the UAE, who attended the inauguration, said he hoped there would soon be a similar church for the many Christians in neighbouring Saudi Arabia.

If we manage to obtain authorisation for the construction of the first church, it will be an outcome of historic dimensions

Father Federico Lombardi
Spokesman for Pope Benedict

"Discussions are under way to allow the construction of churches in the kingdom," he said.

Although he made clear the outcome was uncertain, the archbishop added that a church in Saudi Arabia would be an important sign of "reciprocity" between Muslims and Christians.

The Vatican has noted that Muslims are free to worship openly in Europe and demands religious freedom as a condition for the opening of diplomatic relations.

About a million Catholics, many of them migrant workers from the Philippines, live in Saudi Arabia.

They are allowed to worship in private, mostly in people's homes, but worship in public places and outward signs of faith, such as crucifixes, are forbidden.

The last Christian priest was expelled from the kingdom in 1985.

Christians complain that rules are not clear and that the Saudi religious authorities, who enforce the kingdom's conservative brand of Islam, Wahhabism, sometimes crack down on legitimate congregations.

The authorities cite a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad that only Islam can be practised in the Arabian Peninsula.

A spokesman for Pope Benedict, Father Federico Lombardi, said: "If we manage to obtain authorisation for the construction of the first church, it will be an outcome of historic dimensions."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7302378.stm



The Times

March 17, 2008

Saudi Arabia extends hand of friendship to Pope
Richard Owen in Rome
The Vatican is believed to be holding talks with Saudi authorities over opening the first Roman Catholic church in the Islamic kingdom, where Christian worship is banned and even to possess a Bible, rosary or crucifix is an offence.

The disclosure came the day after the first Catholic church in Qatar was inaugurated in a service attended by 15,000 people and conducted by a senior Vatican official.

The Vatican and Saudi Arabia do not have diplomatic relations. However, Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hachem, the Papal Nuncio to Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Yemen and Bahrain, who attended the Doha inauguration, said that moves towards diplomatic ties were under way after an unprecedented visit to the Vatican last November by King Abdullah. This would involve negotiations for the "authorisation of the building of Catholic churches" in Saudi Arabia, he said.

The move would amount to a potential revolution in Christian-Muslim relations, since Saudi Arabia adheres to a hardline Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam and is home to Mecca and Medina, the most holy sites of the religion. No faith other than Islam may be practised.

Related Links
Analysis: Saudi Arabia and the Vatican
Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said that he could not confirm that the two sides were in negotiations. However, he added: "If, as we hope, we reach an agreement authorising the construction of the first church in Saudi Arabia, it will be a step of historic importance."

Saudi religious police search the homes of Christians regularly; even private prayer services are forbidden in practice. Foreign workers have to observe Ramadan but are not allowed to celebrate Christmas or Easter.

La Stampa, the Italian daily, said that the talks would have been "unthinkable" until recently. The way was paved by King Abdullah's talks with the Pope and by the recent setting up of a permanent Catholic-Muslim forum to repair relations between the two faiths after the Pope's controversial remarks on Islam at the University of Regensburg in 2006.

The Pope said that his apparent reference to Islam as inherently violent had been misunderstood and he made amends by praying at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul soon afterwards.

Of the Saudi Arabian population, 94 per cent are Muslim and less than 4 per cent - nearly a million people - Christian, nearly all of them foreign workers. The last Christian priest was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1985.

Qtar, which hopes to bid to host the Olympic Games in 2016, has approved five churches for other Christian denominations, including the Anglican Communion.

Land of one faith

— Saudi laws do not recognise or protect freedom of religion. Non- nationals are severely restricted in practising different faiths

— Missionaries are banned and face imprisonment if caught. Sunni Muslims face severe repercussions from the Mutawwain, or religious police, for breaking Muslim law

— The official policy of allowing non-Muslims to worship freely at home is not reliably enforced

— In the courts, once fault is determined, a Muslim receives all of the amount of compensation determined, a Jew or Christian half, and all others a sixteenth

Sources: US State Department; Conference of Catholic Bishops

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3571835.ece

Obama - A perfect Union

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'

Philadelphia, PA March 18, 2008
As Prepared for Delivery

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

The Atheist delusion

Mike Ghouse: The article follows my note.

.

Humans have always wondered about God, its existence and its appearance. We go through the phase of being a disbeliever, particularly when we cannot understand the injustices to us and to the world around us. Many of us have had the delusions about God as presented one time or the other.

.

The Atheist reject the notion of God as presented to them by the organized religion, which is based on having faith, whereas they look for a physical evidence.

.

It took me a long time to develop my own understanding of it, he or she. When I got closer to understing the concept of Justice and balance built-in by the causer's automated system, I felt like screaming Eureka. I found God!

.

The cause and source of all life, whatever form that cause may have been and is, can be called the creator, God or any identfier like - Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Jesus, Guru, Buddha, Mahavir or Ahura Mazda. The Jewish understanding of God may be the first anchor for atheist to catch on understanding G-d. Give me the time, I am researching on just what I have said above to give more clarity.

.

####

.

The atheist delusion

The Guardian.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html#article_continue

'Opposition to religion occupies the high ground, intellectually and morally,' wrote Martin Amis recently. Over the past few years, leading writers and thinkers have published bestselling tracts against God. John Gray on why the 'secular fundamentalists' have got it all wrong.

An atmosphere of moral panic surrounds religion. Viewed not so long ago as a relic of superstition whose role in society was steadily declining, it is now demonised as the cause of many of the world's worst evils. As a result, there has been a sudden explosion in the literature of proselytising atheism. A few years ago, it was difficult to persuade commercial publishers even to think of bringing out books on religion. Today, tracts against religion can be enormous money-spinners, with Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great selling in the hundreds of thousands. For the first time in generations, scientists and philosophers, high-profile novelists and journalists are debating whether religion has a future. The intellectual traffic is not all one-way. There have been counterblasts for believers, such as The Dawkins Delusion? by the British theologian Alister McGrath and The Secular Age by the Canadian Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor. On the whole, however, the anti-God squad has dominated the sales charts, and it is worth asking why.

The abrupt shift in the perception of religion is only partly explained by terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers saw themselves as martyrs in a religious tradition, and western opinion has accepted their self-image. And there are some who view the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as a danger comparable with the worst that were faced by liberal societies in the 20th century.
For Dawkins and Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Martin Amis, Michel Onfray, Philip Pullman and others, religion in general is a poison that has fuelled violence and oppression throughout history, right up to the present day. The urgency with which they produce their anti-religious polemics suggests that a change has occurred as significant as the rise of terrorism: the tide of secularisation has turned. These writers come from a generation schooled to think of religion as a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, which is bound to dwindle away as knowledge continues to increase. In the 19th century, when the scientific and industrial revolutions were changing society very quickly, this may not have been an unreasonable assumption. Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest may still believe that, over the long run, the advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life, but this is now an article of faith rather than a theory based on evidence.

It is true that religion has declined sharply in a number of countries (Ireland is a recent example) and has not shaped everyday life for most people in Britain for many years. Much of Europe is clearly post-Christian. However, there is nothing that suggests the move away from religion is irreversible, or that it is potentially universal. The US is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago, when De Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its all-pervading religiosity. The secular era was in any case partly illusory. The mass political movements of the 20th century were vehicles for myths inherited from religion, and it is no accident that religion is reviving now that these movements have collapsed. The current hostility to religion is a reaction against this turnabout. Secularisation is in retreat, and the result is the appearance of an evangelical type of atheism not seen since Victorian times.

As in the past, this is a type of atheism that mirrors the faith it rejects. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights - a subtly allusive, multilayered allegory, recently adapted into a Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass - is a good example. Pullman's parable concerns far more than the dangers of authoritarianism. The issues it raises are essentially religious, and it is deeply indebted to the faith it attacks. Pullman has stated that his atheism was formed in the Anglican tradition, and there are many echoes of Milton and Blake in his work. His largest debt to this tradition is the notion of free will. The central thread of the story is the assertion of free will against faith. The young heroine Lyra Belacqua sets out to thwart the Magisterium - Pullman's metaphor for Christianity - because it aims to deprive humans of their ability to choose their own course in life, which she believes would destroy what is most human in them. But the idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story). The belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of faith, and like most varieties of atheism today, Pullman's is a derivative of Christianity.

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism practice tends to have priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam. Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into an explanatory theory.

The notion that religion is a primitive version of science was popularised in the late 19th century in JG Frazer's survey of the myths of primitive peoples, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. For Frazer, religion and magical thinking were closely linked. Rooted in fear and ignorance, they were vestiges of human infancy that would disappear with the advance of knowledge. Dennett's atheism is not much more than a revamped version of Frazer's positivism. The positivists believed that with the development of transport and communication - in their day, canals and the telegraph - irrational thinking would wither way, along with the religions of the past. Despite the history of the past century, Dennett believes much the same. In an interview that appears on the website of the Edge Foundation (edge.org) under the title "The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion", he predicts that "in about 25 years almost all religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe that it does today". He is confident that this will come about, he tells us, mainly because of "the worldwide spread of information technology (not just the internet, but cell phones and portable radios and television)". The philosopher has evidently not reflected on the ubiquity of mobile phones among the Taliban, or the emergence of a virtual al-Qaida on the web.

The growth of knowledge is a fact only postmodern relativists deny. Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science, for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.

Dawkins's "memetic theory of religion" is a classic example of the nonsense that is spawned when Darwinian thinking is applied outside its proper sphere. Along with Dennett, who also holds to a version of the theory, Dawkins maintains that religious ideas survive because they would be able to survive in any "meme pool", or else because they are part of a "memeplex" that includes similar memes, such as the idea that, if you die as a martyr, you will enjoy 72 virgins. Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors.

Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril. Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the risk of it being used in this way is greater.

Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognises that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany. Dawkins dismisses any suggestion that the crimes of the Nazis could be linked with atheism. "What matters," he declares in The God Delusion, "is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." This is simple-minded reasoning. Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarised Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible.

Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline. But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the US than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church. Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts he deploys - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.

AC Grayling provides an example of the persistence of religious categories in secular thinking in his Towards the Light: The Story of the Struggles for Liberty and Rights That Made the Modern West. As the title indicates, Grayling's book is a type of sermon. Its aim is to reaffirm what he calls "a Whig view of the history of the modern west", the core of which is that "the west displays progress". The Whigs were pious Christians, who believed divine providence arranged history to culminate in English institutions, and Grayling too believes history is "moving in the right direction". No doubt there have been setbacks - he mentions nazism and communism in passing, devoting a few sentences to them. But these disasters were peripheral. They do not reflect on the central tradition of the modern west, which has always been devoted to liberty, and which - Grayling asserts - is inherently antagonistic to religion. "The history of liberty," he writes, "is another chapter - and perhaps the most important of all - in the great quarrel between religion and secularism." The possibility that radical versions of secular thinking may have contributed to the development of nazism and communism is not mentioned. More even than the 18th-century Whigs, who were shaken by French Terror, Grayling has no doubt as to the direction of history.

But the belief that history is a directional process is as faith-based as anything in the Christian catechism. Secular thinkers such as Grayling reject the idea of providence, but they continue to think humankind is moving towards a universal goal - a civilisation based on science that will eventually encompass the entire species. In pre-Christian Europe, human life was understood as a series of cycles; history was seen as tragic or comic rather than redemptive. With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs. One does not want to deny anyone the consolations of a faith, but it is obvious that the idea of progress in history is a myth created by the need for meaning.

The problem with the secular narrative is not that it assumes progress is inevitable (in many versions, it does not). It is the belief that the sort of advance that has been achieved in science can be reproduced in ethics and politics. In fact, while scientific knowledge increases cumulatively, nothing of the kind happens in society. Slavery was abolished in much of the world during the 19th century, but it returned on a vast scale in nazism and communism, and still exists today. Torture was prohibited in international conventions after the second world war, only to be adopted as an instrument of policy by the world's pre-eminent liberal regime at the beginning of the 21st century. Wealth has increased, but it has been repeatedly destroyed in wars and revolutions. People live longer and kill one another in larger numbers. Knowledge grows, but human beings remain much the same.

Belief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history as a universal narrative, and an intellectually rigorous atheism would start by questioning it. This is what Nietzsche did when he developed his critique of Christianity in the late 19th century, but almost none of today's secular missionaries have followed his example. One need not be a great fan of Nietzsche to wonder why this is so. The reason, no doubt, is that he did not assume any connection between atheism and liberal values - on the contrary, he viewed liberal values as an offspring of Christianity and condemned them partly for that reason. In contrast, evangelical atheists have positioned themselves as defenders of liberal freedoms - rarely inquiring where these freedoms have come from, and never allowing that religion may have had a part in creating them.

Among contemporary anti-religious polemicists, only the French writer Michel Onfray has taken Nietzsche as his point of departure. In some ways, Onfray's In Defence of Atheism is superior to anything English-speaking writers have published on the subject. Refreshingly, Onfray recognises that evangelical atheism is an unwitting imitation of traditional religion: "Many militants of the secular cause look astonishingly like clergy. Worse: like caricatures of clergy." More clearly than his Anglo-Saxon counterparts, Onfray understands the formative influence of religion on secular thinking. Yet he seems not to notice that the liberal values he takes for granted were partly shaped by Christianity and Judaism. The key liberal theorists of toleration are John Locke, who defended religious freedom in explicitly Christian terms, and Benedict Spinoza, a Jewish rationalist who was also a mystic. Yet Onfray has nothing but contempt for the traditions from which these thinkers emerged - particularly Jewish monotheism: "We do not possess an official certificate of birth for worship of one God," he writes. "But the family line is clear: the Jews invented it to endure the coherence, cohesion and existence of their small, threatened people." Here Onfray passes over an important distinction. It may be true that Jews first developed monotheism, but Judaism has never been a missionary faith. In seeking universal conversion, evangelical atheism belongs with Christianity and Islam.

In today's anxiety about religion, it has been forgotten that most of the faith-based violence of the past century was secular in nature. To some extent, this is also true of the current wave of terrorism. Islamism is a patchwork of movements, not all violently jihadist and some strongly opposed to al-Qaida, most of them partly fundamentalist and aiming to recover the lost purity of Islamic traditions, while at the same time taking some of their guiding ideas from radical secular ideology. There is a deal of fashionable talk of Islamo-fascism, and Islamist parties have some features in common with interwar fascist movements, including antisemitism. But Islamists owe as much, if not more, to the far left, and it would be more accurate to describe many of them as Islamo-Leninists. Islamist techniques of terror also have a pedigree in secular revolutionary movements. The executions of hostages in Iraq are copied in exact theatrical detail from European "revolutionary tribunals" in the 1970s, such as that staged by the Red Brigades when they murdered the former Italian prime minister Aldo Moro in 1978.

The influence of secular revolutionary movements on terrorism extends well beyond Islamists. In God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens notes that, long before Hizbullah and al-Qaida, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka pioneered what he rightly calls "the disgusting tactic of suicide murder". He omits to mention that the Tigers are Marxist-Leninists who, while recruiting mainly from the island's Hindu population, reject religion in all its varieties. Tiger suicide bombers do not go to certain death in the belief that they will be rewarded in any postmortem paradise. Nor did the suicide bombers who drove American and French forces out of Lebanon in the 80s, most of whom belonged to organisations of the left such as the Lebanese communist party. These secular terrorists believed they were expediting a historical process from which will come a world better than any that has ever existed. It is a view of things more remote from human realities, and more reliably lethal in its consequences, than most religious myths.

It is not necessary to believe in any narrative of progress to think liberal societies are worth resolutely defending. No one can doubt that they are superior to the tyranny imposed by the Taliban on Afghanistan, for example. The issue is one of proportion. Ridden with conflicts and lacking the industrial base of communism and nazism, Islamism is nowhere near a danger of the magnitude of those that were faced down in the 20th century. A greater menace is posed by North Korea, which far surpasses any Islamist regime in its record of repression and clearly does possess some kind of nuclear capability. Evangelical atheists rarely mention it. Hitchens is an exception, but when he describes his visit to the country, it is only to conclude that the regime embodies "a debased yet refined form of Confucianism and ancestor worship". As in Russia and China, the noble humanist philosophy of Marxist-Leninism is innocent of any responsibility.

Writing of the Trotskyite-Luxemburgist sect to which he once belonged, Hitchens confesses sadly: "There are days when I miss my old convictions as if they were an amputated limb." He need not worry. His record on Iraq shows he has not lost the will to believe. The effect of the American-led invasion has been to deliver most of the country outside the Kurdish zone into the hands of an Islamist elective theocracy, in which women, gays and religious minorities are more oppressed than at any time in Iraq's history. The idea that Iraq could become a secular democracy - which Hitchens ardently promoted - was possible only as an act of faith.

In The Second Plane, Martin Amis writes: "Opposition to religion already occupies the high ground, intellectually and morally." Amis is sure religion is a bad thing, and that it has no future in the west. In the author of Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million - a forensic examination of self-delusion in the pro-Soviet western intelligentsia - such confidence is surprising. The intellectuals whose folly Amis dissects turned to communism in some sense as a surrogate for religion, and ended up making excuses for Stalin. Are there really no comparable follies today? Some neocons - such as Tony Blair, who will soon be teaching religion and politics at Yale - combine their belligerent progressivism with religious belief, though of a kind Augustine and Pascal might find hard to recognise. Most are secular utopians, who justify pre-emptive war and excuse torture as leading to a radiant future in which democracy will be adopted universally. Even on the high ground of the west, messianic politics has not lost its dangerous appeal.

Religion has not gone away. Repressing it is like repressing sex, a self-defeating enterprise. In the 20th century, when it commanded powerful states and mass movements, it helped engender totalitarianism. Today, the result is a climate of hysteria. Not everything in religion is precious or deserving of reverence. There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share. There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace.

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach.

· John Gray's Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia will be out in paperback in April (Penguin)

Muslim Jewish Relationship

Muslim Jewish Relationship

Muslim leaders issue letter to improve relations with Jewish community
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3426682.ece?Submitted=true

Muslim leaders from around the world will tomorrow issue a statement to the world's Jewish Community in "a call for positive and constructive action that aims to improve Muslim - Jewish relations."

In the letter, which has emerged from the Muslim-Jewish study centre at the Woolf Institute of Abrahamic Faiths in Cambridge, Muslim scholars admit: "Many Jews and Muslims today stand apart from each other due to feelings of anger, which in some parts of the world, translate into violence.

"It is our contention that we are faced today not with ‘a clash of civilizations’ but with ‘a clash of ill-informed misunderstandings’."

Signatories include Professor Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington DC and former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain. Professor Ahmed also signed the recent letter from Muslim scholars to Christian leaders around the world, which has led to plans for Muslim leaders to visit the Vatican in an attempt to continue to improve relations between the faiths.

Related Links
Muslims appeal to Pope to make peace
Comment: Muslim plea well-meaning but flawed
The latest letter states: "Deep-seated stereotypes and prejudices have resulted in a distancing of the communities and even a dehumanizing of the ‘Other’. We urgently need to address this situation. We must strive towards turning ignorance into knowledge, intolerance into understanding, and pain into courage and sensitivity for the ‘Other’."

The Muslims note that Judaism and Islam share core doctrinal beliefs, the most important of which is strict monotheism.

"We both share a common patriarch, Ibrahim/Abraham, other Biblical prophets, laws and jurisprudence, many significant values and even dietary restrictions. There is more in common between our religions and peoples than is known to each of us," they state. "It is precisely due to the urgent need to address such political problems as well as acknowledge our shared values that the establishment of an inter-religious dialogue between Jews and Muslims in our time is extremely important.

"Failure to do so will be a missed opportunity. Memories of positive historical encounters will dim and the current problems will lead to an increasing rift and more common misunderstandings between us."

The Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, is understood to have seen a copy of the letter. Responses from him and other Jewish leaders are expected this week.

The aim is to show that Muslims are willing to engage in dialogue with the Jewish community about issues other than the conflict in Israel-Palestine.

Sheikh Michael Mumisa, lecturer at the Woolf Institute, descibed the letter as the first in modern times sent to the Jewish community with the backing of scholars and Muslim leaders. "The message in this letter conveys to the Jewish community a genuine desire for mutual respect, for dialogue and deeper understanding," he said

Was Jesus a Buddhist?

WAS JESUS A BUDDHIST?

A sermon by Rev. Jim Sanderson of the Jenkins Unitarian Universalist Fellowship

Buddhists and Christians have sometimes, in a search for common ground, pointed out some intriguing parallels between the "life stories" of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, and Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha. Jesus' mother Mary was visited by a divine being, Gabriel, who told her how she, a virgin, would conceive and give birth to the divine Son of God. Maya, Gautama's mother, had a dream vision in which a white elephant approached her and entered into her to emerge nine months later as the future enlightened one. The white elephant was a symbol of holiness. Jesus was born in a poor setting but his birth was attended by angels and kings. Buddha came into the world in a sacred garden. He emerged from his mother's side. His birth was attended by goddesses. His mother was herself a queen so the royalty angle was there too. Jesus was hailed by Simeon, an elderly devout man as the future savior when he was taken to the temple for circumcision. Similarly an elderly holy man came to visit the newborn prince Siddartha and burst into tears on meeting the boy.

He wept because Siddartha would grow up to end suffering in the world. Both Jesus and Siddartha deserted their families to seek their truths. Both spent time in the wilderness. Both had teachers who they followed for a while and who eventually came to follow them. Both were tempted by evil supernatural beings. Even some sayings of each bear similarities. These are interesting of themselves. Perhaps the stories are similar because one story influenced the other? More likely they are similar because they grow out of similar needs and questions. Perhaps as Joseph Campbell would point out they reflect the common mythic threads that run through the human unconscious.

Could the teaching of the Buddha have touched the life of Jesus? Actually yes, they could have, which is not the same as saying that they did. Jesus lived about five hundred years after Guatama and in an area thousands of miles removed. Jesus lived in a very different culture from Gautama and was of a different social standing. Yet he shared, it would seem, a thirst for truth with Gautama. Moreover, despite our image of Jesus as a poor man, that was not necessarily the case. In his time and place the term "carpenter" could refer to any skilled artisan including some fairly well compensated ones. Further we are given to understand from the Gospels that Mary was related to the temple priesthood Jesus could thus have grown up in an intellectually enriched atmosphere, one in which the deep questions were seriously explored. Far from being a simple peasant Jesus may well have been a well-educated theologically bent young man. What however does this have to do with Buddhism?

Well, the ancient world was not quite as benighted or as fragmented as we sometimes think. Ideas have a way of spreading out. Remember that Jesus' Israel was part, albeit reluctantly, of the great Roman Empire. The Empire maintained trading and cultural relations with the East and in particular India. India had been the goal of Alexander the Great's last aborted campaign. Cleopatra may have considered fleeing to India after Actiun. In short, India was far from an unknown place in Jesus' world. Some two and a half centuries before Jesus, a remarkable Emperor reigned in India. His name was Ashoka and he converted to Buddhism. Ashoka sent out missionaries to carry the Buddha's message far and wide. We know some of those missionaries made it as far west as Syria.

There is also a tradition that holds that Jesus traveled to the East in the years not discussed in the Bible. There are local traditions of Jesus' presence in Afghanistan, Iran, and even Pakistan and India. However there is no way to know when these traditions arose. Some stories go so far as to claim that Jesus survived crucifixion and returned to the East, dying in Kashmir many years later. However, all of these stories are based on little or no real evidence. We simply do not know what Jesus was doing before his ministry, nor is there any reason why we should expect there to be any records of those years.

The intriguing thing, however, is to realize the possibilities inherent in a much wider ancient world than we generally consider.

There are other points of similarity, of course. Jesus emphasized non-violence, turning the other cheek as did Gautama. Jesus lived simply as did Gautama. Jesus taught through parables as did Gautama. Jesus emphasized the need to be active in the world but to also be not of the world. Gautama taught the need for non-attachment.

But does all or any of this make Jesus a Buddhist? Of course not. It does point to similar spiritual needs among humans. However, there is far from enough historical evidence to be too very sure of the actual teachings of either man. there also seems no need for a strong Buddhist influence at work on Jesus. He does not do or say anything that is not understandable for a Jew. Most of all though there is the fact that the central teachings of Buddhism and Jesus are not in accord. Buddhism teaches that all apparent reality is transient and conditional; that nothing exists in and of itself. All is dependent in all. Nirvanah is the ultimate realization of the non-permanence, non-duality, and indeed non- existence of reality. It can not be described or even thought of. It can be grasped by the truly enlightened. Strongly allied with this is the concept of atatman, or "non-soul". No being has a soul; there is no unconditional eternal cause to any of us or any thing or to the universe itself.

Jesus on the other hand taught the Kingdom of God. This is also a difficult concept to grab rationally. In essence it teaches the dependence of all things in the Creator Father God and the emergence of that God's rule here on Earth. Jesus saw himself as an agent of the coming of this Kingdom. It does violence I feel to both concepts to try to identify The Kingdom with Nirvanah. Not that it stops people. The Kingdom centers on a personal deity; one whose being is the source and cause of all and to whom all is owed. Nirvanah is impersonal. Buddhism posits no non-created creator. In Buddhism divinities too are conditional beings, also transitory. Buddhists see no real need to talk much about God. For Jesus, God the Father was the only thing worth talking about. True happiness was in relationship with this God who he called "Abla", meaning "Daddy". Buddhism and Jesus may have points of agreement but here in their fundamental assumptions there could hardly be more difference.

What intrigues me is the time and energy people have spent trying to show otherwise. Just why would they want to do that? There has long been a movement to show that fundamentally all the world's religions are the same, that at heart they all teach the same lessons. Unitarian-Universalists have played no small part in all this. Recognizing the imperative of religion as both a motivating and dividing force in human history it has been a dream to harness that power in the cause of unity. To show that fundamentally our religions are all the same would go a long way to showing that fundamentally we are all the same. However it just does not work out that, does it?

It should come as no real surprise that there are points of similarity between faiths. All faiths seek to address the human condition, our awareness of our existence and of our mortality. So some insights will be shared. However it seems to me to require a selective blindness not to see the fundamental differences that also exist. Buddhism and Confucianism posit no Creator God. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam insist upon one. Hinduism has no central theology. Taoism believes in a central force that is impersonal in nature. Christianity insists on one true path through Jesus to God. Judaism claims a special relationship to the Universal God. Native American religions are closely tied to the physical world; Islam and Christianity seek to transcend that world. Islam and Christianity have sealed revelations - sacred texts that are eternally true. Shinto sees a continuous revelation in the flow of life. There is no way I can see to make all of these, and so many other faiths, at heart the same.

Nor is it necessarily a good aim to have. We do have similar needs and questions but we also have different responses. Different faiths point in different directions, cause us to explore different roads and different aspects. Because faiths differ they can dialog with me and others, revealing different insights. There is after all no point in talking to someone who agrees with you all the time. We learn nothing that way.

We also fail to see others as they truly are if we concentrate only on discovering our likeness. We can not understand another culture, country, or faith if we seek out only what we share. Down that road lies dangerous assumptions. Failing to appreciate differences leads us to assume we can act towards others as we would to "one of our own". We fail to see that we could cause offense or miss a key treasure because we looked past difference to sameness.

So Jesus might have been exposed to Buddhist ideas, It could be that some of Gautama's ideas were vaguely in the air of first century Palestine. Sort of a part of the marketplace of ideas, probably with the source long forgotten.

Yet it is to Jesus' ideas and life that Buddhists point when connecting the two traditions. On learning of Jesus and his life, many Buddhist monks and thinkers have identified him as a boddhisatva. In Buddhism a boddisatva is one who has achieved enlightenment but puts off leaving the plane of illusions, puts off entering into Nirvanah in order to help fellow beings. For Buddhists this is the greatest form of compassion and they see in Jesus' life and death an act of compassion. Like the compassion Gautama taught, Jesus' is non-attached. That is, it is directed towards all beings, not just those close to one. This is the Buddhist interpretation of the story of Jesus turning away from his family, much as Gautama had done.

Now as a UU I do make certain faith assumptions. I do assume the equal worth of all humans, that as humans we share a fundamental biological unity. However I also value the many ways we express that humanness. Just as it would be boring to live in a world where everyone agreed with my politics so it would be a very dull world if we all shared the same religious assumptions. It is the subtle interaction of our differences that leads us to growth.

Jesus was Jesus; he was not a Buddhist or a Hindu or anything else. He showed a common humanity with Gautama. But found his own expression of it. Both have inspired evolving traditions. It should be noted that each of those traditions have evolved many differing manifestations. Those who see a Buddhist in Jesus seek to find unity, to humanize traditions. Unity however for us humans can only come from an acceptance of, even a celebration of, differences as well as similarities. We are one but we are also each unique. We celebrate each vision, each dreamer.

Turkey: survival of fittest

Turkey: survival of fittest

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18752

The Islamic anti-Darwinism movement in Turkey is being helped by an unlikely source -US Christian conservatives, Dorian Jones writes for ISN Security Watch.

By Dorian L Jones in Istanbul for ISN Security Watch (12/03/08)

War makes strange bed fellows, especially in Turkey, where a dispute over creationism vs Darwinism has created an unusual alliance between the country's Islamists and conservative Christians in the US.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution, in layman's terms, proposes that life descended from organisms through "survival of the fittest." Creationism holds that life was created by an all-knowing being, that is, God.

Creationism advocates from the US traveled to Istanbul May 2007 to meet with their counterparts, seeking to galvanize their link in the fight to bring creationism to schools and universities in their respective countries. The meeting was endorsed by Istanbul mayor Kadir Topbas, a member of the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP).

"There are outstanding figures within Islamic theology who have participated in this discussion [of creationism]. There is no reason to be surprised, there is a very rich tradition," David Berlinski, keynote speaker for the meeting and an analyst for the US-based Discovery Institute, a Christian creationist organization, told ISN Security Watch.

"This is a hot issue. We are in the midst of a worldwide religious revival. Historians 500 years from now will talk about the religious revival of the late 20th century and early 21st century."

The meeting appeared to be well received by the audience of college and high school students, drawn from the city's elite education institutions.

"Darwinism is, of course, against Muslim belief system as well," Ayse Sayman, a 20-year-old student at Istanbul's Bosphorus University told ISN Security Watch. "That is why it makes sense that it is debated here as well. And counter-arguments should be developed to the theory. That is why I am interested in this."

Planting the seed in fertile minds
The May meeting is part of a growing battle for the hearts and minds of Turkey's youth. In fact, conference organizer Mustafa Akyol told ISN Security Watch, in Turkey the creationism-evolution debate is more extensive than it is anywhere in the world.

Akyol is also a member of the Journalists and Writers Foundation, established by Fethullah Gulen, leader of a wealthy Islamic sect that bears his name, the Gulen Movement. Gulen lives in self-imposed exile after fleeing charges of subverting the state, or more specifically, of attempting to "undermine secularism" in Turkey. After long trial, he was acquitted in 2006 but the case has since been reopened, despite the fact that he is said to actually be in the good graces of the current government.

Gulen has an influential network of TV and newspaper interests in Turkey along with close ties to the government. It is rumored he even has the ear of Turkish President Abdullah Gul.

The Gulen Movement, along with other creationist advocates, has been lobbying with increasing success for school textbooks to put creationism on equal footing with Darwinism.

Their efforts are causing increasing concern among Turkey's academic community. Last year, 600 academics presented a petition to the Education Ministry citing alarm over the growing presence of creationist ideas in biology text books.

"Here it explains how life evolved, this part is quite scientific, but then right after that, it starts with the creationist ideas. This should really not be in a scientific book, because this is a religious view," Molecular biology professor Asla Tolon told ISN Security Watch as she perused a state biology textbook.

Tolon, a professor at Bosphorus University, has been monitoring what she says is the encroachment of creationist ideas in school textbooks, which she says is leading her students to increasingly challenge the basic tenets of biology.

"Students sometimes get the idea that I am trying to teach them my own personal views, but this is not [true], because evolution is one of the basic theories," she said.

Teachers caught in between
Education Minister Huseyin Celik, an AKP member, said he has an open mind over the debate about evolution, but in 2005, the Ministry reportedly suspended five teachers for advocating evolution too strongly.

As the battle for ideas deepens they are finding themselves increasingly caught in the middle.

"In my school three out of five science teachers only teach creationism and I face pressure from them everyday. They also try to turn the children against us in their classes, saying we are atheists," a teacher told ISN Security Watch on the condition of anonymity.

"There are also religious groups who are always giving out creationist material both outside and inside school premises. These people also send petitions to the authorities complaining about teachers who support evolution. The pro-Islamic-controlled local authorities send faxes telling headmasters to send children to creationism meetings," she said.

The Turkish-based Knowledge Research Foundation, part of the Harun Yahya Islamic sect, is also at the forefront of the fight to promote creationism in schools.

"Evolution is a theory that has collapsed in scientific terms. Countless branches of science, such as genetics, microbiology and paleontology, have revealed that the claims of Darwinism are invalid," Adnan Oktan, the Foundation's leader, told ISN Security Watch.

"The reason why evolution is still espoused in the face of this scientific defeat is ideological. What science reveals is that the universe and life are the work of Allah."

Oktan's group distributed free copies of "The Atlas of Creation," a weighty and expensively produced 700-page textbook that claims to be scientifically based. The book says that Darwinism is "flawed" and that "God created the world." The Atlas was also sent to French, UK and Scandinavian schools and universities. A copy was also sent to ISN Security Watch.

Harun Yahya members regularly distribute creationist DVDs and literature at Turkish schools. In shopping malls across the country, they organize attractive and colorful exhibitions with displays of fossils and models of dinosaurs standing next to humans, with the message "God created the world." Young men dressed in sharp suits hand out leaflets warning that Darwinism is "corrupting children's minds."

"Our scientific activities revealing the false nature of the theory of evolution are having a profound impact all over the world. Twenty years ago, 80 percent of people in Turkey believed in evolution, but nowadays nearly 90 percent of the public believe in creation," Oktan told ISN Security Watch.

With a little help from their friends
Much of the material Oktan's members use draws heavily on the writings of US-based creationist organizations.

The involvement of US Christian groups in Turkey in the battle against Darwinism has a long history. In 1985, the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research collaborated with the then-Turkish government to introduce creationism into the country's school curriculum.

According to Dr Ozgur Genc, a professor at Bosphorus University and a leading opponent of creationism, its introduction was part of a wider state policy called the "Turkish Islamic synthesis."

The country's military rulers at the time, who had seized power in a 1980 coup, wanted to encourage religion to undermine the then-strong support in the country for left-wing ideas.

"They purged universities and high schools of thousands of liberal-minded teachers, replacing them with more religiously minded people. This opened the way to include creation in the curriculum," Genc told ISN Security Watch.

But Genc's opponents see the controversy as an indication that Turkey is becoming a more tolerant and open society.

"The secular camp has a very old idea of westernization in which it says religion is fully incompatible with modern life. But the West left that idea behind decades ago. I think through this debate we will have a more healthy Turkey," Akyol told ISN Security Watch.

"Over time we are steadily progressing towards a stage in which we can have a pluralistic society, in which the faithful, the people with a headscarf, the people with a mini-skirt [...] can all live together in a society. And when we reach that I think it will be a good example to the Muslim world."

But critics, such as the teacher interviewed by ISN Security Watch, argue that the methods being employed by Islamic creationist advocates raise questions about how tolerant a future Turkish society would be if the country's Islamic movement has its way.

"Of course, all teachers like myself worry about what can happen to our careers and lives, but I am not afraid. I will keep on struggling to teach evolution and not religion in my science classes[...] I believe it is the right of children to have a science-based education."

Terrorism is anti-Islamic

TERRORISM IS ANTI-ISLAMIC, A declaration by 10,000 Clerics

I am pleased to see this statement aka Fatwa by one of the World's largest Islamic learning centers. It is good to see the establishment take action. I welcome this wholeheartedly.

Bush's war on terrorism is a dismal failure because it does not target the individual criminals who can be reached, accessed and punished. Instead he blames the religion, which is intangible, meaning cannot punish the religion, as it is not a target, or gives birth to terrorists. He and his advisors fail to understand that it is not the religion, it is the individuals that need to be targeted, then we will have success. (article on why the war on terror failed http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html )

The President and his men, do not have the guts to deal with issue head on, i.e., going after the terrorist individuals, instead they run amuck, blazing the gun in every direction hoping something will come in its way and gets killed. On the other hand the declared war on terrorism may be a sham, it may be really a war to control the energy resources, we are the beneficiaries not doubt, but I would rather focus on alternate sources than have the means on some one else's blood.

Mike Ghouse

The Deoband Declaration on Terrorism: Why Now?
Dost Mittar March 10, 2008
http://www.chowk.com/articles/13709
Darul Uloom of Deoband is the second most important institute of Islamic learning in the world after the Al Azhar University of Cairo. On February 25, 2008, it held a large “All India Terrorism Conference” in its hometown, which was attended by over 10,000 Islamic clerics, scholars, muftis and teachers of Madrasas owing allegiance not only to Deobandi but also Barelavi and Shia schools of Islamic thought. The conference issued a statement that included the following declaration:

"Islam is the religion of mercy for all humanity. It is the fountainhead of eternal peace, tranquility [and] security. Islam has given so much importance to human beings that it regards the killing of a single person [as] the killing [of] the entire humanity, without differentiation based on creed and caste. Its teaching of peace encompasses all humanity. Islam has taught its followers to treat all mankind with equality, mercy, tolerance [and] justice. Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and terrorism. It has regarded oppression, mischief, rioting and murdering among [the] severest sins and crimes.
"This All India Anti-Terrorism Conference, attended by the representatives of all Muslim schools of thought, organised by Rabta Madaris Islamiah Arabia (The Islamic Madrasas Association) Darul Uloom Deoband, condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms.
"The Conference expresses its deep concern and agony [over] the alarming global and national conditions [presently prevailing in the world], in which most of the nations are adopting an attitude against their citizens - especially the Muslims - that cannot be justified in any way, in order to appease the tyrant and colonial master of the West. It is a matter of [even] greater concern that the internal and external policies of our country are becoming heavily influenced by these forces. Their aggression, barbarism and state-sponsored terrorism - not only in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Bosnia and various South American countries - have surpassed all records known to human history. Our great nation, [on the other hand], has always been known for impartiality and [for] its moral and spiritual values.
"Now the situation has worsened [to such an extent] that every Indian Muslim - especially those associated with madrasas, who are innocent with good record of character - are always gripped by the fear that they might be trapped by the administrative machinery anytime. Today countless innocent Muslims are spending their lives behind bars, and are forced to bear many intolerable tortures. [At the same time], those spreading terror, attacking police stations, killing police [officers] in broad daylight and [carrying] illegal arms are roaming about freely, while the government takes no effective and preventive steps to check their acts of terrorism and violence.
"This [discriminatory] attitude has put a big question mark on the secular character of the government, posing a great threat to the country. The All India Anti-Terrorism Conference strongly condemns this attitude, expresses its deep concern [over] this partiality of the government officials, and declares its continuous joint struggle for [rule] of law, justice and [secularism].”


The above declaration does not refer to specific acts of terrorism, such as against the World Trade Centre or the Indian Parliament and the emphasis seems to be on the effect of negative publicity against Muslims in gerneral and on Indian Muslims in particular. It has been hailed as a strong condemnation of acts of terrorism in the name of Islam by the authoritative religious body. Leaders of both the Congress and the BJP parties have praised this statement.

Ever since the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre, Muslim religious organizations have been under persistent demands by the West to denounce such acts of terrorism. Such Western pressures have been especially intense on Darul Uloom of Deoband as many jihadi organizations have identified themselves as Deobandi. Jamiat Ulema Islami of Maulan Fazalul Rehman owes its allegiance to Deoband and Mullah Umar of Taliban was trained in a Deobandi madrassa. Al Qaida operatives are described as Wahabis who can be described as ideological twins of Deobandis. All these years, the religious leaders of Deoband have resisted the call for a denunciation of terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam. So, why this sudden need to issue this fatwa?

I think that the timing of the statement is related to the internal political dynamics of India. The Deobandis could earlier ignore the Western call for a religious edict against terrorism as Indian Muslims had by and large remained outside the influence of the international Islamic Jihad. On the other hand, they were paraded as an example of how Muslims can be peaceful under a democracy and democracy was prescribed as a cure-all against the influence of Islamic jihadists. Influential writers, such as Thomas Freedman of New York Times, attributed India’s democracy to the fact that no Indian Muslim was found in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba for the Al Qaida suspects. They were also helped by the fact that Indian governments of all political persuasions routinely blamed Pakistan and Pakistani agencies for all acts of terrorism committed in India.

The situation has changed in recent months. Indian Muslims have been involved in international acts of terrorism, including suicide bombing. The thaw in the Indo-Pak relations has resulted in Indian officials not blaming Pakistan in a routine manner for all acts of terrorism in India. More and more of the recent attacks have been traced to homegrown terrorists and to members of organizations such as SIMI. This has increased pressure of the Indian security agencies on Indian Muslims, leading to the difficult situation of hapless Indian Muslims alluded to in the Deobandi declaration.

Another domestic development is the possibility of a general election for the Indian Lok Sabha. The UPA government has been busy clearing the decks for a possible general election later this year. It has brought in a popular Railways budget which has reduced passenger fares for all and provided free passes and further concessions for students and senior citizens. In a populous general buget, it has waived Rs. 60,000 crores worth of loans to farmers and substantially raised income tax exemptions which affect the middle class.

The Congress Party also wants to be in the good books of Indian Muslims. It is quite conscious of losing its hold on its Muslim vote bank, following the demolition of the Babri Masjid and has been working assiduously in recent years to rehabilitate itself as their natural party once again. It instituted the Sachar Commission to examine the state of Indian Muslims. The Commission came out with a significant set of recommendations to improve the conditions of Indian Muslims and to bring them into the national mainstream. The government has decided to implement many of those recommendations and has set aside a substantial amount for this purpose in the current budget.

The UPA government is also aware of the fact that the BJP is planning to make national security a major election issue in the next election and hopes to repeat the success it had with that issue in the Gujarat state elections last year. To blunt such an attack, the Congress and Left Parties, who are deemed to be friendly towards Indian Muslims, have been pleading with Darul Uloom, Deoband and other Muslim organizations to come out openly against terrorism in the name of Islam. I believe that this conference and its declaration are the result of this pressure. This is also the reason why the statement lays emphasis on the adverse impact of the charge of terrorism on Indian Muslims.

Will there be an election in India this year? I think that the Congress Party has taken the decision to go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal despite the staunch opposition to it by the Communist parties who have made it loud and clear that they will withdraw their support to the government in such an eventuality. If the Communists withdraw their support, the government is bound to fall, leading to an election. Another variable in determining the likelihood of elections this year will be the outcome of state elections in important states, such as Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. If the Congress Party does well in these elections, there would be an extra incentive for it to call an election, regardless of the outcome of the nuclear deal.

As a screaming headline in the Times of India proclaimed, All Voting Lines Are Clear!

Two other articles: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/03/terrorism-un-islamic.html

Tags: terrorism , Indian Muslims , Deoband , madrassas , India

PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO : Foundationforpluralism@gmail.com

SUBJECT LINE : Terrorism is anti-Islamic

Jewish Billionaire

WE need Judaization
By Anshel Pfeffer
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961664.html
Tags: Israel, London, Tycoon

Mike Ghouse: I can relate with this story, as an immigrant, as an Indian, as a Muslim and also from a Hindu view point.

MOSCOW - Two weeks ago oligarch Boris Spiegel, a senator and an influential figure in Russian politics, who is also the president of the World Congress of Russian Jewry, celebrated his 55th birthday at a well-attended party in a luxurious venue in this city. In honor of Lev Leviev's arrival, the organizers arranged for a special table with kosher food only.

Leviev claims that Jews have to demonstrate their Judaism proudly, and is convinced that most Israelis are ashamed of their Jewishness. He even attributes the rise in anti-Semitism to that.

"We're ashamed of what we are," he says. "That's why we feel that we have to get rid of the values of our glorious history and run to learn from other, new nations. Don't I look to you like a man of the world? Don't I speak to the leading businessmen in the world? And it's no problem that I'm a Jew, and a proud Jew who wears a skullcap everywhere, and that's my symbol and my identity. There were Jews who told people here [in Russia]: Don't wear a tallit (prayer shawl), don't walk around like Jews, keep quiet. But that's what brings anti-Semitism: when a Jew tries to resemble a goy. When a Jew behaves like what he is - a Jew - a goy begins to respect him, too. When he is not ashamed, then he is respected. I come to eat with very important people in the world, and I say 'only kosher,' and always with a skullcap. I don't recall that my business ever suffered from that."
Advertisement

Two months ago the Israeli media were full of reports about Leviev leaving the country. He did, in fact, buy a palace in London for 35 million pounds sterling, and moved his wife Olga and his three youngest children (out of nine) there. But for over a decade it has been hard to say that Leviev was truly living in Israel. At most he's there on weekends. The main "victims" of his family's move to London are a handful of Israeli aides who traveled around the world with him. Now on their way home on Fridays they are forced to fly on scheduled flights instead of in the boss' private plane. For Leviev business is business, and now he has to supervise at first hand the huge Africa-Israel stock issue on the London Stock Exchange.

How did you feel about the media preoccupation with your move to London?

Leviev: "I don't feel anything. I know that I have my own mission and I know that life, unfortunately, is short: I have a limited time and we have to get as much done as possible, and that's that. And we have to preserve our health."

The media have bestowed on Leviev the title of the richest man in Israel: On the Forbes magazine list of billionaires he is located, with $1.4 billion, after Shari Arison and Stef Wertheimer, but that list refers only to his public holdings, in the context of Africa-Israel; the diamond and gold businesses he controls further increase his wealth, which TheMarker estimates at $5.6 billion.

Leviev is not satisfied with just being wealthy, he also has a public role: president of the Association of Jewish Communities in Russia. The offices of the association are located in a place that is still an important center of his life, and where a large part of this interview was conducted: the Moscow headquarters of the educational organization Or Avner, named after his father. At a time when the new Israeli billionaires are discovering philanthropy and are starting to donate money to Israeli society, Leviev focuses his donations and his time on Russia and other countries that have arisen on the ruins of the Soviet Union.

Don't you feel that you are swimming against the tide?

"Our worldview is mistaken. First of all, it is written that 'All Jews are responsible for one another,' and a Jew who lives in Siberia or in Kamchatka is just as good as a Jew who had the good fortune to be born in Jerusalem. The person who was born and grew up in Kamchatka, because Stalin didn't like his father and sent him there, grew up as a child who didn't know he was Jewish. We as Jews are obligated to take care of every one of our own, including him. It is written that all of Israel is part of God above, we are part of the Holy One, blessed be he - so for me there's no difference between a Jew in Israel and a Jew abroad. I give money for which I work very hard, and I believe that as a Jew I am obligated to do so. We have dozens of institutions, associations, areas in which we are active, and it costs us hundreds of millions of shekels of our own money. We did not take public money."

Covering a wall in the room where the interview is taking place, which senior staff at Or Avner call the "war room," is a map of the former Soviet Union. With the pressing of a switch hundreds of green bulbs light up, extending from the island of Sakhalin in the Far East, near Japan: Each represents a place where representatives of the organization live. Red bulbs symbolize the 75 Jewish schools that have already been built. Leviev, a reserved person, has difficulty concealing a smile of satisfaction.

Is it possible that because of your large investment the lives of Jews here are so comfortable now that they have no desire to come to Israel?

"That question reflects a mistaken worldview, because the moment a Jew's Jewish soul is poor, of course he won't come to Israel. We want to give him content. My dream is for that to be the job of the Israeli Education Ministry. If not, we have to call it the Ministry of Knowledge. Because there's a big difference between education and knowledge: The moment we don't invest in educating Jewish children according to the roots that were the basis of our education for thousands of years, we are knowledge-givers rather than educators. My vision is that we will live in a Jewish state where 'the Jewish state' won't be written only on the flag, because soon they'll be saying that we have an Arab majority and it won't be nice to write that we're a Jewish state. Just as a Muslim studies Islam, the Jew has to study Judaism. Everyone has to learn the heritage of his family and the history that dates back thousands of years.

"Arik [former prime minister Ariel] Sharon said to me: 'You're giving the Jews a good life and they won't come to Israel.' I was very surprised. I said to him: 'I didn't come to get a medal for my investment in Diaspora Jewry, when I'm actually doing your job, but at least you should express your gratitude rather than criticizing us.' The fact that he spoke that way shows that Arik Sharon didn't receive a Jewish education either."

But in the 1990s millions of immigrants came here, without any of the Jewish education that you're talking about.

"They came because the gates were closed, and then they opened. And the State of Israel missed the opportunity and didn't absorb them properly, and then they stopped coming even when the gates remained open. There is almost no Jew here who hasn't visited Israel; they saw that the absorption is not good, that there's no work, etc. When the aliyah stopped 10 years ago, and they made such a major effort to bring over non-Jews from here, too, I was opposed."

Don't 300,000 Jews who are not Jews according to halakha [Jewish law] deserve to have a solution found for them?

"Prime minister Sharon asked us at the time to set up conversion institutes. I told him, what are we, a factory? Go to the rabbis. If you need a donation I'm here. But to decide who is a Jew and who isn't a Jew - I'm not qualified for that. Just as I'm not qualified to fly the plane to Russia, even if I think I may have the ability. Who is a Jew? Neither a prime minister nor a president can determine that; for that there are experts in the rabbinate."

In the business world Leviev is described as a creative person, a revolutionary. The man who turned the international diamond industry on its head when he made alliances with the Russian government and with African countries for the mining and polishing of diamonds, to break the monopoly of the De Beers corporation. This is how he made the billions that enabled him to acquire the Africa-Israel company and through it establish an intercontinental real-estate empire. He thinks that we are all losing because we don't follow his Jewish path: "Why aren't we in the State of Israel living in peace? Why do we have problems and wars, and all this mess? If we were to live as Jews, according to the Torah, we would be the wealthiest, the most peaceful people, in the safest country," he says.

And why doesn't that happen?

"Because of our behavior, our assimilation, our denial of our Judaism. Every Jew in Israel or in the Diaspora has to know what our roots are, what his ancestors' tradition is, and anyone who thinks otherwise - I say he's simply unfortunate."

But Jews have always tried to be part of a wider world. You in effect want to combat globalization.

"We have become completely confused. We are discussing something that we don't have to discuss - globalization, democratization. We need Judaization. First of all to know that we're Jews and that Jews have to live. And the moment we understand what our internal values are, everything will work out for us."

But who decides what Jewish values are?

"What do you mean? We have our sacred books. We have our history and our tradition."

And what about secular Jewish culture?

"What is secular Judaism? Are you familiar with such a thing?"

An entire encyclopedia, "Zman yehudi hadash" ("New Jewish Time," in Hebrew) has recently been published, about secular Jewish culture.

"As far as I'm concerned, what was now published and what was published in Cuba are the same thing. There a writer wrote and here a writer wrote, I don't pay any attention to it."

Is there a future for the secular version of Zionism?

"The moment you ask a child in Israel what Yom Kippur means to him, and he answers the Yom Kippur War, or a fun day on a bicycle - then I don't know if that is Zionism or whatever you call it, but it has certainly become bankrupt. And for that we are to blame, first and foremost, the moment we try to import the new American religion, and concentrate only on the new things that are being invented in our generation, and shrug off our Judaism."

What is your opinion of the Zionist attempt to create a new Jew who will not arouse anti-Semitism?

"The books left to us by our ancestors tell us exactly how a Jew should live and behave, what kind of insurance we should prepare for ourselves and our families. It says 'And Esau hated Jacob.' The nations of the world don't need a reason. Even if we walk around with a skullcap, without a skullcap, with long hair, if we paint ourselves in different colors - we are Jews, and Esau hated Jacob, that is apparently the way of the world. We're talented, we're good-looking, we're diligent, we're pioneers in everything - and they don't like us, that's a fact. Everywhere in the world Jews arrived last and they are always the first in economics, in education and in everything; it's our genes. We have to understand where these things come from, we don't have to be ashamed. The same younger generation that thinks it will change the face of Judaism - you have to understand that it is destroying Judaism: Anyone who denies faith will not remain a Jew in the coming generations."

Lev Leviev, who considers himself a man of the world, was never involved in the Israeli business community, and expresses uncomplimentary opinions of his colleagues-rivals only after announcing "this is off the record." In London he is not involved either, not even in the Jewish community. The neighborhood of Hampstead, where he lives, is full of synagogues, but he prefers to pray in one that he built inside his new house. Even in Moscow, where he fits into the business community in the most natural way, he does not behave like an oligarch.

Two weeks ago, a bar-mitzvah ceremony was held in the Jewish community center in Moscow, for the son of Russia's chief rabbi, Berel Lazar. One after another, Rolls Royces, Bentleys and Maybachs crowded into the narrow street, each of them accompanied by a black security jeep. One by one, the oligarchs and the "minigarchs" - those worth only a few hundred million dollars - got out, carrying presents in elegant wooden crates, surrounded by black-clad bodyguards. Although Rabbi Lazar is considered his protege, Leviev did not arrive early to rub shoulders. He wears conservative suits and travels on the city streets in a black Mercedes; he also has a pair of bodyguards, but they don't wear dark suits and they manage to blend into the crowd.

He refuses to disclose how much money he has invested to date in his philanthropic activity, or the annual operating cost of his 75 schools in the former Soviet Union, to which additional institutions have been added in recent years in Israel, Eastern Europe, Germany and even in areas in which Russian Jews live in the United States.

"I'm not asking the country to join me," smiles Leviev when asked about it. "I'm not asking for money. Thank God, every year it grows and I'm very happy."

For Leviev, Judaism has one meaning: Chabad. Before he began to develop his diamond business in Russia in the late 1980s, he traveled to New York to ask for the blessing of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The rebbe gave his blessing, but told him that he also had to take care of the Jews. Since then he sees his business and his philanthropy as intertwined. His most loyal aides are hundreds of Chabad emissaries who are scattered today all over the former Soviet Union, and who operate the educational institutions he funds.

In the ultra-Orthodox community they say that not a single yeshiva student has emerged from all your schools.

"You are confusing two things: You are used to the ultra-Orthodox man in Israel, who never works and studies in yeshiva all the time, and says that one needs only study, from childhood. There is no religious Jew abroad who doesn't work. I support professional training for the ultra-Orthodox, I've given a lot of money for that and I will continue to help establish such programs and to provide work, because in my opinion a Jew has to make a good living and not be in need of donations."

But the ultra-Orthodox rabbis are opposed to letting the yeshiva students go out to work.

"It's not all the rabbis, it's a certain segment; these are not mainly Hasidim, they're Lithuanians. If a Jew thinks that a good Jew can only be an ultra-Orthodox Jew, then he has to repent: He has wasted his time all his life in vain if he hasn't understood that. If a Jew who calls himself ultra-Orthodox thinks that a Jew who is not ultra-Orthodox is not a Jew, then he has to be reborn, because in my opinion he is a damaged Jew."

Does the ultra-Orthodox public bear part of the blame for the fact that many Israelis take no interest in their Judaism?

"There are closed Hasidic courts, which have decided to isolate themselves and to concern themselves with the internal growth of their own population. They marry one another, they have their own institutions. That is exactly the opposite of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who said that we are not permitted to take care only of ourselves, but are responsible for all the Jews everywhere in the world. That's why he sent his finest sons around the world, the young guys that you meet everywhere, who run around and work for the sake of heaven."

Do you feel that you are an emissary of Chabad?

"I feel like a Jew who is obligated to do this and I thank the Lubavitcher Rebbe who told me to do what I'm doing. I didn't believe that it would grow to such dimensions, all the businesses. I'm a very big believer in the idea that if a Jew lives like a Jew and, as it is written, sets aside tithes or a fifth of his income - then the Holy One, blessed be he pays him back. I know that from my personal experience. The more I give every year, the more I have. I give charity, the Holy One blessed be he pays me back. I give 100, I get back 1,000."

Leviev was born in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan. His father, a Chabad Hasid, was a mohel (ritual circumciser) in secret. He himself immigrated to Israel at the age of 15. "It's true that Eretz Israel is acquired through suffering, as it is written. My father of blessed memory used to say that you have to perspire a lot. When they threw us into Kiryat Malakhi, on the fourth floor, and we had to live 11 people in 60 meters, my father would sit and kiss the floor tiles and say, 'Eretz Israel, the holy land.' But that's because he was a devout Jew all his life. What will a professor from Novosibirsk who lands in Israel think, when he has no work and he has to sweep streets?"

The Association of Jewish Communities in Russia, of which Leviev is president, was established 10 years ago and is considered very close to the administration, and particularly to former president and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The chief rabbi of the association, Berel Lazar, has been criticized for this in Jewish circles all over the world. This week presidential elections were conducted in Russia. The success of Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's candidate, was guaranteed in advance.

You have excellent relations with outgoing president Putin, although he is seen in the West as a kind of dictator. How would you sum up his term in office?

"I think that Putin was a wonderful leader when it comes to faith and freedom of religion, for all the nations here. He encouraged Islam and Judaism and Buddhism, and in every statement always said that every nation has to respect its values and its roots, and if it doesn't, that's a sign that it doesn't respect itself. I think we should be happy that the leader of such a big country thinks and speaks in such a way. After all, let's not forget that Putin is a product of a Soviet school, and in spite of the education he received, he speaks like that, and everyone follows his example and helps the Jewish communities."

What is your opinion of his designated successor Medvedev?

"Just as Putin was a wonderful president for the Jews, I think that Medvedev will be one, too. On his own initiative he asked to visit the Jewish center, spent two and a half hours there and showed great interest. And because he was raised on the ideal of democracy, I don't think that we'll feel any difference in attitude, but will continue in the same way."

What do you think of the rumors that he's Jewish?

"If you weren't recording me, I would give you an answer. But he is a creature of God, a wonderful man. By the way, Putin always says: I'm proud of the fact that I have so many Jewish acquaintances. I wish the Jews themselves would appreciate the Jews the way Putin knows how to appreciate them. That's our problem in Israel."

As an Israeli citizen, do you accept with equanimity the way in which elections in Russia are run?

"I don't live in equanimity with the fact that in Israel we don't have a prime minister, because he's under investigation all the time. Not this prime minister, not the previous one and not the next one. That's a result of the fact that we have become somewhat confused in our democracy, we've forgotten that in order to have a prime minister in the country, we have to let him lead the country. When he finishes his term, investigate and try him, he's not running away anywhere. He's a prime minister, you elected him, the people elected him, for good or for ill you have to respect that. He's a king, you have to let him work and not drink his blood day and night in investigations."

If you're so concerned about the way in which the government in Israel is run, why don't you enter the political arena, or contribute to one of the parties or to a candidate who will promote your ideas?

"If I even try to do that, I'll immediately be called in for an investigation for giving bribes to get some business, or some falafel stand. That's why I don't plan to be there."

You have solid political opinions, but you have always refused to spell them out.

"I still refuse. I have no political opinions about how to run a city, or how to run some ministry or other. I'm talking about matters of principle for the Jewish people."

You are accused of making all kinds of deals with local leaders to promote your Jewish education network in the former Soviet Union.

"Of course, if a Jew in any country has a problem, I'm proud to help and to be at the forefront, why not? In Israel you don't have to make deals? Besides, I have long since stopped getting upset about what people say. I know that we have a goal, that our deeds have to be for the sake of heaven, and I don't do it to get a prize. I don't intend, as opposed to what they wrote about me, to be a prime minister or a mayor or a member of the local council in some city or other. It doesn't interest me. I don't want any position, and I don't want any honor. I do what I do and invest a great deal in it, thank God, because I believe that is the right way, that a Jew has to do justice with his money - that's tzedakah (charity). They're always searching for reasons [and asking] why does he help? Why does he act?"

Leviev's anger, among other things, stems from Education Minister Yuli Tamir's refusal to implement an agreement he says was made about introducing into dozens of secular elementary schools a curriculum, developed by his foundation and that of his wife Olga, called Zman Masa (Travel Time). The program includes explanations of prayers and of Jewish history and values, from an Orthodox point of view. The chair of the Education Ministry's pedagogical secretariat, Prof. Anat Zohar, decided that the program is not suitable for state schools, because it does not include pluralistic views of Judaism that are appropriate for students who come from nonobservant homes. In spite of the opposition, the program is being used in state schools in Givatayim and Petah Tikva, and is taught by religious women who are studying to be teachers.

Leviev claims that he has not encountered any opposition to the program. "I saw that 99 percent, even more, of the students and the parents are all happy," he says. "Everything continues to operate as usual. Why reject an act of patriotism? Because we are proud Jews, we didn't ask to introduce Buddhism into the school. Had I asked for that, they would have welcomed it. Nor is it a religious program at all. The goal is to teach each child concepts in Judaism. To make him proud of the fact that he's a Jew, to understand our tradition. To know what to say when they ask what a Jew is. Some people think that our ancestral tradition is like dangerous drugs for a child; there are parents who are simply unfortunate, who think that if a child studies [Jewish] tradition, it drives him crazy. That if the child comes home and says, Mom, let's recite kiddush on Shabbat, let's wash our hands before meals - they're shocked and begin to send letters everywhere, and the journalists encourage them and say that something bad has happened: A child washed his hands before meals."

As a person who considers the Jews in Jerusalem and those in Kamchatka equal, what is your opinion of the proposal by the president of the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor, to give every Jew in the world the right to vote in Israel?

"In my opinion, a Jew who doesn't live in Israel has no right to decide its future. Only Jews who live in Israel do, for good or for ill."

Recently several leading Jewish personalities said that a discussion of basic issues such as the future of Jerusalem is a matter for all the Jews in the world.

The prime minister apparently thinks otherwise.

"Then he has a problem. It's a betrayal of the Jewish people if the prime minister thinks so."

In recent weeks there have been pro-Palestinian demonstrations in New York and London, calling to boycott Leviev's jewelry stores because of the construction being done on the other side of the Green Line by the Danya Sibus firm, which is owned by Africa-Israel. Leviev suspects that financial interests are behind the demonstrations. "I don't know what this is - after all, if they want to demonstrate, why against us? After all Dor Alon, in which Africa-Israel owns 26 percent, is the only company that sells fuel to the Palestinians. I think that it's more groups that are funded by business competitors."

Do you have a problem with building in the territories?

"Not if the State of Israel grants permits legally. But Danya Sibus is only a subcontractor; I didn't even know it was building there."W

Yes we can - Peace in Gaza

YES WE CAN BRING PEACE TO GAZA
Mike Ghouse, March 8, 2008

Justice is the basis for peace, and the responsibility to bring justice falls squarely on the powerful shoulders of the al-mighty nations.

Israel owes peace and security to her citizens and it is directly dependent on the security and peace needs of the Palestinians. You cannot live in peace, when your neighbor's aren't. Finding a balance is the most difficult thing to do and both the nations are trying and failing. No wonder the phrase "love thy neighbor" plays such a crucial role in every society.

When Hamas does not rein in those who are shelling the rockets into Israeli territory, Israel finds tempting to avenge it out and the world takes a back step as well.

Hamas can earn the moral high grounds by holding the shelling, and if Israel continues the attacks, then the world will empathize with the Palestinians and most likely the peace process gets a chance. The unfortunate reality is that every time Israelis and Palestinians are inclined to talk, we mess it up badly with a veto against the consensus of the world, and shamelessly it is against the long term interests of Israel. Neither the Hawks in Israel, nor our administration is willing to refresh their thinking. Ultimately, the parties have to figure out how to co-exist.
Mother Teresa said, "If you want peace, go talk with your enemies, you don't make peace with your friends". I do hope the state department genuinely attempts to assess the policies that would work. Right now, they are chasing their own tails.

A few basics need to be addressed and understood by all the parties.

Jews have a need to be understood and be acknowledged for their eternal security needs, not the military, but mental security where they can put their guards down and live their life in peace.

Palestinians have suffered immeasurably; no human should be stripped of his or her hope and dignity; hopes to have a family, work and own a house and call a place their homeland and live a life of dignity.

The end game of our policy should be peace. Our Presidents need to seriously look at what works and develop a vision for peace. They must understand that it may be going against the general opinion and perhaps against their very supporters; AIPAC. We need to take bold steps and produce peace for the people of Israel and Palestine.

Our foreign policy has relied on our gun powder and our ability to dole out alms to shove nations around the World to achieve our goals. The state department has forgotten that 'lasting relationships' hinge on a dialogue based on treating all parties on an equal footing.
If protection of Israel is based on injustice to either Palestinians or the Jews, our integrity has become questionable. We need to be above reproach. Mighty empires can crush the weak for a short term; in the long run every one goes down the tube. We cannot rob anyone and live with a good conscience.

The ways adopted by Israel and Hamas leaders has not worked and most likely will not produce the desired results; peace. We need to listen to average Israelis and Palestinians, we need to encourage the peace makers on both sides and give peace a chance.

I urge both the Moderate Jews and Palestinians to speak up; they need to put justice above the fear of repercussion from the neighbors and members of their communities. Right now, the shots are called by extremists on both sides, it needs to change. It is the fear of what the next Muslim or next Jew will tell them that frightens the moderates. They need to speak up and rein in, they are the absolute majority on both sides, otherwise the evil will persist, if the good people do nothing about it.



Write your comments to: CommentstoMike@Gmail.com
In the subject line please write :: Yes we can bring peace to Gaza

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com or (214) 325-1916

© MIKE GHOUSE 2001- 2008 :: ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Gender Equality Now

A peace maker constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. His or Her words and actions do not make things worse, but bring some sense and understanding to the situation. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; indeed that is the purpose religion. – Mike Ghouse

Special issue: International Women’s day 20 Articles from around the World

GENDER EQUALITY NOW
Mike Ghouse, March 8, 2008

The great poet Philosopher Sir Mohammad Iqbal had said "Wajood-e-zan say hai kayanaat may khushboo" in his beautiful Poetry in Urdu. The essence of which is presence of a woman makes the universe beautiful and complete and vice verse.

Men and women are each others protectors, saviors and serve each other in living a purposeful life. One is incomplete without the other, adds the Qur'aan, "Men and Women are each others garments". Just as the garments shield one from the cold and heat, the metaphor encompasses every aspect of life including the vows; in happiness and sorrow, sickness and health, poverty or wealth, weakness or strength, difficulties and comforts, men and women are indeed each other's garment. No matter what faith or culture you follow, the essence of the vows is the same; justice.
Justice is the basis for peace, be it between spouses, family members, business partners, stockholders and consumers, president and the public, minorities and majorities, communities, nations or the globe. Whenever one takes advantage of the other, the balance is lost and the unit is crippled. In personal relationships, the disadvantaged ones are patiently waiting for the moment to get even or get justice. It is the hope that keeps the life moving forward.

A disgruntled couple was traveling in the country side; neither was speaking with the other. As they drove by a preserve, both of them spotted the wild boars on the roadside fighting each other. The spouting Husband opens his murderous mouth and looks at his wife "Your relatives?" She retorts right back "Yes, in-laws".
It is time for men and women to pledge to be fair and just, there is joy in it. When there is justness, peace is the outcome.

Men need to outgrow their insecurities. To feel secure, some men scream, shout, suppress and oppress the other, deep down that makes them even more insecure. Men need to learn that to be secure; they have to learn to be equal with their partner in life. Accept it when you or she is wrong, there is no need to pretend and feed the insecurity. She is there to protect you and vice versa. You are each others respect and dignity.

From an Afghan to a Texan to a Zulu; from an Atheist to a Muslim to a Zoroastrian and every one in between, men have not been just to women. No one needs to rejoice as no one group can cast the first stone. The problem is with individuals and not with education, ethnicity, religion or race. So, let's treat this is an individual problem one family at a time.

Mothers have more influence with the kids than the fathers; it behooves them to train their kids to grow up respecting every human regardless of their gender, age, race, face or faith. Let the kids learn that work is genderless; with a few well defined exceptions, each person is capable of doing every work. Two generations from now, you can expect the men and women to be true partners and true garments of each other.

Change does not have to happen with a Tsunami, it should happen with each single effort. We should not demand others to do it, we have to do it ourselves first, and let others do it with their own volition. At least we can we say, we have don our part and it will serve us well.

I will do my part.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

ROUND UP FROM AROUND THE WORLD
Available at: http://www.mikeghouse.net/

1. Best countries to be a woman
2. Ten best countries for women
3. Ten worst countries for women
4. Income gaps
5. Literacy gaps
6. Political gender bar still high
7. Women are still victims!
8. Harassed South African women: 'Leave our miniskirts alone'
9. Canada's women must share their success with the world
10. Israel marks Int'l Women's Day with music, drama and art
11. Fund-raising starts in Beijing to help disfigured low-income women
12. New Zealand -Women still fill traditional roles
13. Is Islam Really Stuck in the 12th Century on Women's Rights?
14. Karzai Urges More Freedoms for Women
15. Iraqi women demand equality, end to violence
16. Rallies, Celebrations Mark International Women's Day
17. India - Women more equipped with skills
18. If you want more sex, do the dishes
19. UN chief calls for end of violence against women
20. 'Support and protect our women'