In America’s Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies, George Friedman, chairman and founder of Stratfor, has written an excellent book on the history behind the current war on terror, tracing its roots back to the Carter administration and explaining the reasons things are the way they are. Stratfor provides strategic intelligence on global business, economic, security and geopolitical affairs. According to their website, “Stratfor - the world's leading private intelligence firm -- provides corporations, governments and individuals with geopolitical analysis and forecasts that enable them to manage risk and anticipate political, economic and security issues vital to their interests.” As Stratfor’s founder and chairman, Friedman is highly qualified to write on this topic.
Friedman sees this current war as the fourth modern global conflict. Just as World War II grew out of World War I, and the Cold War grew out of World War II, the current global war on terror has grown out of the Cold War. The situation we face today is the direct result of the geopolitical changes that occurred as a result of the fall of the Soviet Empire. Both the events leading up to the collapse and the resulting global situation after the collapse set the stage for the conflict between radical Islam and the West.
One of the Soviet’s favorite techniques to weaken American power around the world was to support insurgents and guerillas in order to bog down U.S. forces. One of the most successful was the support of the North Vietnamese, ultimately driving the U.S. from the region. America, on the other hand had a lousy track record with supporting guerillas. When the Soviets attacked Afghanistan, it was an opportunity for the U.S. to use this technique against them. This was an opportunity to “make the Soviets bleed” like they made us bleed. President Carter authorized the recruitment, organization and supplying of guerilla warfare in Afghanistan by utilizing indigenous forces that were already rising to resist the Soviets. Carter signed the first “Intelligence Finding” authorizing covert military operations in Afghanistan in order to “harass” soviet troops. It was this “Finding” that served as the legal basis for the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. It was also this “Finding” that would culminate, via a long, circuitous and unpredictable route, in September 11.
The first problem was how to fund the covert war. Ever since senator Church passed legislation requiring the CIA to get authorization for such funding, it would impossible to get money from Congress, and if it tried, then the operation would no longer be secret. Saudi Arabia realized that an America weakened by the oil embargo of the 1970s was dangerous to its national security, because if the Soviets or Iran won out in the region, they would be destroyed as a nation. Therefore, Saudi Arabia had a greater interest in what was happening in Afghanistan than America did. The United States was worried that the Soviets were attacking Afghanistan in order to push into the Middle East and capture the oil fields for itself.
Second, the United States had very little intelligence on Afghanistan, and what we did have was only from the CIA agents monitoring the narcotics trade and the poppy fields in the country. Therefore, America had to turn to Saudi Arabia for money and intelligence, making an alliance with the Wahabis in order to gain what we needed.
The U.S. structure a deal with the Saudis to provide funding and personnel to work with the CIA to build a guerilla force to bog down the Soviets in Afghanistan. This was the beginning of an alliance between the U.S. and Muslim fundamentalists.
The third fractor was Pakistan, a long-term American ally. It was torn between the secularism of its founders and the radical Islam of the majority of its population. It was also afraid of being trapped between a Soviet dominated Afghanistan and a pro-Soviet India. Pakistan had a lot of intelligence on Afghanistan and a long contiguous border where training camps, logistic systems, and bases of operations could be set up. The North Vietnamese had Laos and Cambodia; the U.S. had Pakistan.
A three-way alliance was formed. The United States would provide training, coordination and strategic intelligence; the Saudis would provide the money and the guerillas; the Pakistanis would provide the territory and the intelligence needed.
Jimmy Carter was the one who presided over this alliance. Yet, his goal was not to destroy the Soviet Union but to find a balance while restoring America’s power in the world after its decline over the last decade. Carter had no idea that the war in Afghanistan would lead to the destruction of the Soviet Union and the rise of Al Qaeda. When Reagan took office in 1981, he intensified Carter’s alliance and wove it into a larger plan to destroy the Soviet Union and intensify America’s global power.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Al Qaeda was well-trained and well-equipped, possessing many Soviet and American weapons along with the expertise to use them. The Soviets were brutal in their attempts to squash the guerillas, killing many, so that those who lasted the decade-long war were well-trained, experienced, hardened and determined. These radical Islamic fighters saw the fall of the Soviet Union as a Muslim victory, as it was the first victory a Muslim army had achieved against a non-Muslim force in centuries. After the war, these Islamic fighters were irate at America because it threw them away without any hint of gratitude.
The United States saw the war in Afghanistan differently. The war in Afghanistan was only a part in a larger plan that brought the Soviet Union down. America felt it also played the major role, providing the support and training needed for victory. Without the U.S. backing, the guerillas would have been completely annihilated by the Soviets. Because the U.S. ignored their allies and expected them to maintain some kind of bond with us after the war, a rift was created between the Jihadists and America.
In the same way, the first Bush administration mistakenly believed that the Arab countries would be happy with America for helping them free Kuwait and a bond would be created between us and the Arab states. President Bush expected gratitude; he never expected rage. It is clear that the United States was ignorant of the Islamic world and made some serious blunders that caused so much anger and hatred that laid the foundation for Al Qaeda.
While Shiite Muslims are a minority in the whole Arab world, they are the majority in the Gulf region, especially in Iran. The Saudis, by contrast, are not only Sunni, but they are Wahabi, the most radical of the Sunnis. So the Saudis saw the Shiites of Iran not only as a threat to their religion but also a threat to their oil fields. The problem for Saudi Arabia was how to contain Iran and the Soviets at the same time, and the answer was Iraq. Both nations wanted to contain Iran and the Soviets, so America felt is was the best policy to back them as well. Unwittingly, however, the U.S. ended up supporting the most radical form of Islam as a negative unintended consequence. And this radical Wahabi Islam has proved to be even more dangerous to the United States than Shiite Iran.
In order to bog down Iran, the United States sent signals to Iraq that it wouldn’t oppose them if they decided to attack Iran. The resulting war tied up both countries for a decade, costing millions of lives and billions of dollars on both sides. The United States kept shifting its policy towards Iraq to keep it destabilized and to prolong the war. The United States knew that Iraq could not beat Iran, and the Saudis gladly backed the war in order to keep both armies bogged down for nearly ten years.
American foreign policy has chosen to make alliances of necessity with evil states in order to oppose even more evil states. The U.S. made alliances with Stalin and Mao in order to counter worse leaders. America also tends to create solutions that solve the short-term problem at the risk of creating greater problems down the road.
Saddam Hussein wanted to take over Iran and Kuwait in order to become the dominant power in the region. The U.S. quietly assured him, with deniability, that if he won the war we would allow him to have Kuwait as well. Then for the next ten years the U.S. kept shifting the balance of power to make sure Iraq never accomplished its goal and achieved its prize. After ten years, Iraq was less exhausted than Iran, and Saddam declared victory and demanded his prize. The American Ambassador, unaware of the intricacies and policy shifts, assured Saddam Hussein that while the U.S. was opposed to his taking Iraq, they would do nothing to stop him. As soon as Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. worked with the Saudis to launch Operation Desert Shield and then Desert Storm.
The soldiers returning to Saudi Arabia from Afghanistan were outraged by the presence of non-Muslim forces on holy soil. They believed that Muslim states were not naturally weak and could defend themselves if they were willing to sacrifice and persevere. But they also believed that the current Muslim leaders were corrupt and incapable of defending their countries. Therefore, they felt that America had to be humiliated in order to break the psychological dependency on the United States and to generate confidence among the Islamic masses.
These fighters knew America’s strengths, but they also knew its weaknesses. They knew how the American intelligence agencies worked and how they carried out covert operations. These returning fighters were not the poor and disposed, but many were from wealthy families, educated and some even had advanced degrees in secular fields. They also had financial backing from the Saudi royal family and other wealthy Saudis. The financial network that had supported the guerillas in Afghanistan had never been shut down and now it was being used to fund Al Qaeda long after America had lost interest in it.
They knew they needed to take a long time to prepare to strike hard at the United States in order to pull it into a full-scale war against the Islamic world. By doing this they hoped to discredit secular Islamic states in the region and to sap American strength. Through a series of increasing attacks on American targets, the Embassies in Africa, the barracks in Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, they hoped to illicit a hard response from America. Bill Clinton, however, didn’t want to seem impotent and make Al Qaeda look powerful, nor did he want to be drawn into a full-scale war, so he chose to respond in a half-hearted way.
The first mistake America made was to pull the plug on the resistance fighters in Afghanistan and not give them back their papers so they could return home. This was not solely America’s fault, since most of the governments didn’t want these fighters to come back and cause trouble at home. Stranded in a strange land, scarred by war, this band of about 1,000 soldiers united and became a fierce fighting force in the battles for supremacy after the war with the Soviets was won. Most ended up going back home, but the bond between them was strong. Being abandoned by the U.S. and rejected by their home governments was not only seen as a personal affront but as endemic of the malaise that shrouded all the Islamic governments in the Middle East. They viewed the outside threats to Islam, America and the Soviet Union, as manageable and insignificant compared to the inner threats of corrupt Islamic governments.
The first major incident leading up to the current situation goes way back to the Crusades and the loss of the Caliphate. At the height of its power, the Muslim Empire was actually larger than the Roman Empire. The goal of Al Qaeda was to take over one Islamic state in order to set an example and to establish a base of operations. Afghanistan became that base, with the Taliban running the internal affairs and Al Qaeda operating around the world. Al Qaeda hoped to sweep the Muslim world and establish fundamentalist governments throughout the Middle East, unifying the Islamic world and reestablishing the Caliphate.
The key element in their strategy was to show that America is weak and vulnerable in order to break the illusion of the super power’s dominance and remove the Muslim world’s fear and subservience. They felt that the United States lacked to power and moral character to assert its will in the long run. Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis, Beirut, Somalia, and failure to depose Saddam Hussein all seemed to demonstrate the fact that America could strike a hard first blow but could not sustain a prolonged conflict.
Al Qaede realized that it had to strike a blow to the United States that was enormous and for which there was no easy defense, in order to send a clear message to the Islamic masses. The plan was to draw the United States into a prolonged conflict with multiple Islamic states to solidify the Islamic world and to drain the U.S. military dry.
In a society with many unguarded targets, a small group with explosives is very difficult to stop. The fewer the operatives, the more difficult it is to find them. The nearly infinite number of targets and the sparsity of operatives is what makes defending against terrorism a nightmare. The physical damage caused by terrorists is minimal while the psychological damage is extraordinary, making it a powerful political tool.
Al Qaeda’s strategy and ideology were different, and it wasn’t trying to send a message to the United States but to the Islamic world. They saw the United States as an actor that could be manipulated into behaving as they wanted it to behave.
After the end of the Cold War, America didn’t have a major enemy that could threaten its security. Attention was focused on rogue states, such as North Korea, Libya, Yugoslavia, Iran and Cuba, and these were not allied together against the United States. The major threat was threat was that they might develop nuclear weapons. The secondary threat was that they might invade their neighbors. The third level of threat was that they might violate the human rights of their own citizens. All of these were considered containable and manageable through international organizations, such as the United Nations.
The way the United States responded to the small crises throughout the world was triggering unexpected responses in the Islamic world. While the United States saw itself as neutral, impartial and doing good, the Islamic world saw America encroaching on Islamic territory and siding with those who were against Muslims. The intervention by the United States in Kosovo and Somalia, for example, were considered by the Muslim world as struggles between America and Muslims. The United States failed to realize that there was no such thing as a neutral intervention. The United States also saw the fact that these nations were Islamic as incidental while the rest of the Muslim world saw it as fundamental. Al Qaeda used these incidents to mobilize support against Americal Confusion was also created when the United States declined to get involved in other conflicts, making it seem as if America had no coherent foreign policy in place.
The United States also wrongly assumed that nations would be willing to trade a little bit of their sovereignty in order to have stability and security. This was true for many countries, but it infuriated the Muslim nations. The great powers in Europe were also uneasy about America’s growing power and unpredictability, and many were hoping, and even helping, that America would trip and fall, in order to limit America’s power and make us easier to predict and control. After the Cold War ended, America saw the global economy as the most important issue and assumed everyone else did too. However, most nations, especially Islamic countries, viewed national autonomy as more important than prosperity and security. The United States thought that all countries would welcome transnational prosperity, but some Islamic countries were ready to resist, even to the death.
When Al Qaeda started its global terrorism operation, most analysts either ignored it or misunderstood it. They viewed Al Qaeda like any other Palestinian terrorist organization, with limited political goals and operations. The term “terrorist” tended to obscure the issue, since there are vast differences between different organizations as to their ideology and strategy. They didn’t understand how different Al Qaeda was from any other terrorist organization. Al Qaeda wasn’t interested in symbolic gestures and affecting local politics but had a much more complex ideology that drove its global strategy to implement their international political goals. While most other terrorist organizations were based on Arab ethnicity and were trained by the Soviets to further local political agendas, Al Qaeda was based on Islam and they had a global religious agenda that was based on centuries of Islamic history and tradition. By merely focusing on its attacks and not its ideology, the United States totally misunderstood what Al Qaeda was about.
While the United States didn’t create Al Qaeda, we created the atmosphere and climate for it to grow and flourish. When Bill Clinton responded in a half-hearted manner to the embassy bombings and the attack on the Cole, he unwittingly empowered and emboldened Al Qaeda.
This is a summary of the first few chapters of the book which I found extremely helpful in understanding these events. Friedman goes on to dissect the problems with the American intelligence system and why it missed 9/11. He then goes on to explain how America’s military had been stripped down after the Cold War and was totally unprepared for a major military conflict on the scale that was needed to confront Al Qaeda. Friedman’s detailed analysis of what was involved in the September 11 attacks is impressive and chilling, clearly showing that Al Qaeda is highly trained, extremely disciplined and very determined to destroy the United States. He then shows how it is impossible to defend against such attacks and explains why most of what is being done in response to 9/11 is worthless.
I thought Friedman’s detailed account of how the United States prepared for and implemented a major military offensive against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in less than a month was amazing. While Al Qaeda knew we would attack, they expected a massive assault in the following spring, but Operation Enduring Freedom was totally unconventional and unexpected, catching Al Qaeda by surprise. He goes on to describe how America fought the war, the alliances that had to be made with former, and current, enemies, and the problems of working with nationalistic forces within Afghanistan.
The book goes on to cover the war in Iraq up to the end of July, 2004. Friedman concludes that the United States is winning the war. Al Qaeda has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals. There has been no uprising in the Islamic world, no regimes toppled. In fact, most Islamic governments have increased their cooperation with the United States. Al Qaeda has been backed against a wall. The game is far from over, but the U.S. certainly has the lead -- in spite of an extraordinary array of blunders, some inexplicable.
You can read chapter summaries and learn more about the book at: http://www.americassecretwar.com/index.html
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Pulling out of Iraq
A letter sent between high level Al Qaeda leaders in July, 2005 clearly outlines their four step strategy in Iraq for establishing a Caliphate within the heart of the Islamic world:
First, expel the Americans from Iraq.
Second, establish a fundamentalist Islamic government in Iraq.
Third, extend the Jihad wave to the secular Islamic countries in the region.
Fourth, initiate a clash with Israel.
It is clear that even if we pull out of Iraq, it will not be the end of Jihadist activity. As long as they are able, they will carry on this war until they have unified the Muslim world under the control of a fundamentalist Caliph.
Al Qaeda has always had a long-term strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as for the whole region. Osama bin Laden is convinced that the American military, government and people are incapable of sustaining a long war and will quickly withdraw when it gets inconvenient. The current push to withdraw troops from Iraq within a year plays right into Al Qaeda’s hands. Those calling for the withdrawal are short-sighted and playing with America’s security in order to win political points for the upcoming election.
Check out this website for some excellent analysis of what is going on in the war on terror: http://www.stratfor.com/
First, expel the Americans from Iraq.
Second, establish a fundamentalist Islamic government in Iraq.
Third, extend the Jihad wave to the secular Islamic countries in the region.
Fourth, initiate a clash with Israel.
It is clear that even if we pull out of Iraq, it will not be the end of Jihadist activity. As long as they are able, they will carry on this war until they have unified the Muslim world under the control of a fundamentalist Caliph.
Al Qaeda has always had a long-term strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as for the whole region. Osama bin Laden is convinced that the American military, government and people are incapable of sustaining a long war and will quickly withdraw when it gets inconvenient. The current push to withdraw troops from Iraq within a year plays right into Al Qaeda’s hands. Those calling for the withdrawal are short-sighted and playing with America’s security in order to win political points for the upcoming election.
Check out this website for some excellent analysis of what is going on in the war on terror: http://www.stratfor.com/
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Love for God
"To show great love for God and our neighbor we need not do great things. It is how much love we put in the doing that makes our offering something beautiful for God."
Mother Teresa
Mother Teresa
Monday, March 26, 2007
Companions of Life: The Church Around the World Today
Philip Jenkins in his article, “Companions of Life,” Books & Culture, March/April, 2007, pages 18-20, does an excellent job describing the current state of world missions and many of the misconceptions Westerners have about missions and the church around the world. This article is “must read” for anyone interested in missions, church history, cross-cultural ministry, or anyone who wants to have a better perspective on the church.
Jenkins begins by showing how our prayers for world missions have been very effective, with over 40% of Africa converted, and church growth in Asia and Latin America exploding. Jenkins says, “Already, we do not represent the norm within Christianity, whether in racial, social or economic terms, and we will over time be even further marginalized. By 2050, white non-Hispanics could represent just 15 or 20 percent of the world’s Christians.”
Because of this massive shift in Christian demographics, it is imperative that we reorient our priorities in missions. The primary obligation of Western Christians, according to Jenkins, should not be on conversion but on helping the Christians who are already here, many of whom are in dire circumstances.
First, Western Christians need to evaluate the current situation to determine what it is that “we” have that “they” need. Jenkins suggests that the Western church should use its material riches, technological brilliance, and political influence to help the newer churches to grow.
Second, Western churches should take advantages of opportunities created by globalization and global mass migration. For example, churches in the America should strategically target specific ethnic groups already present in our country. By reaching immigrants already within our own borders, we can influence their home countries more effectively and efficiently. Immigrants are much more open to the gospel and they will spread the message to their home country through the more effective means of peer-to-peer evangelism. In fact, some of the largest churches in the west are pastured by Africans or Asians. By working with immigrant churches already present in our country, we can help build the church back in their home country.
Third, we need to reconsider which parts of the world have the greatest need, including Europe. Jenkins suggests that “reconversion” of post-Christian countries is just as important as converting ethnic groups that have not yet had the opportunity to hear the Gospel.
Jenkins also suggests that we study “dechristianization” and how it has occurred throughout history in order to understand how it is occurring today. He also suggests that we should consider the Muslim strategy of “calling” or “inviting” others to the faith instead of “sending out” missionaries.
Jenkins suggests there are many things we need to “unlearn” if we are to be effective in the twenty-first century. First, we need to unlearn the traditional view of church history of expansion from Palestine to the Mediterranean, to western Europe to North America. In reality, Christianity spread eastward as well as westward, establishing thriving centers as far east as India and China. In 1290 a Chinese-born bishop, Rabban Bar Sauma came to Europe as an ambassador from Mongolia. Christians throughout Europe were amazed to discover that there were Christians living in the East. In the same way, the Chinese Christian was astounded to discover that there were Christians living in the West. Western Christians today are also ignorant of the rich historical legacy of Christianity in Asia and Africa.
Second, western Christians need to unlearn geography. Our globes have the north on the top and the south on the bottom. Simply by turning the globe upside down we can unlearn a lot of prejudices and relearn important truths. Maps should also be redrawn, since many countries appear larger or smaller than they really are, causing us to unconsciously give undue attention to some countries while failing to give proper attention to others. It would also be helpful to visually represent population density and Christian to non-Christian ratios of the world’s populations. While most of the mission activity in the past two centuries has been from North to South, much activity today is South to South, with the North’s influence diminishing.
Third, we need to unlearn our politics. In the past we have separated spiritual freedom from political freedom, pitting one against the other. However, we need to see freedom as entailing both freedom from the oppressive forces of this world and the other world.
“Christians of European descent should learn that they are not necessarily the norm within the Christian tradition, still less the authentic core; nor, perhaps, have they ever been.”
You can read this article at: http://www.christianvisionproject.com/2007/03/companions_of_life.html
Jenkins begins by showing how our prayers for world missions have been very effective, with over 40% of Africa converted, and church growth in Asia and Latin America exploding. Jenkins says, “Already, we do not represent the norm within Christianity, whether in racial, social or economic terms, and we will over time be even further marginalized. By 2050, white non-Hispanics could represent just 15 or 20 percent of the world’s Christians.”
Because of this massive shift in Christian demographics, it is imperative that we reorient our priorities in missions. The primary obligation of Western Christians, according to Jenkins, should not be on conversion but on helping the Christians who are already here, many of whom are in dire circumstances.
First, Western Christians need to evaluate the current situation to determine what it is that “we” have that “they” need. Jenkins suggests that the Western church should use its material riches, technological brilliance, and political influence to help the newer churches to grow.
Second, Western churches should take advantages of opportunities created by globalization and global mass migration. For example, churches in the America should strategically target specific ethnic groups already present in our country. By reaching immigrants already within our own borders, we can influence their home countries more effectively and efficiently. Immigrants are much more open to the gospel and they will spread the message to their home country through the more effective means of peer-to-peer evangelism. In fact, some of the largest churches in the west are pastured by Africans or Asians. By working with immigrant churches already present in our country, we can help build the church back in their home country.
Third, we need to reconsider which parts of the world have the greatest need, including Europe. Jenkins suggests that “reconversion” of post-Christian countries is just as important as converting ethnic groups that have not yet had the opportunity to hear the Gospel.
Jenkins also suggests that we study “dechristianization” and how it has occurred throughout history in order to understand how it is occurring today. He also suggests that we should consider the Muslim strategy of “calling” or “inviting” others to the faith instead of “sending out” missionaries.
Jenkins suggests there are many things we need to “unlearn” if we are to be effective in the twenty-first century. First, we need to unlearn the traditional view of church history of expansion from Palestine to the Mediterranean, to western Europe to North America. In reality, Christianity spread eastward as well as westward, establishing thriving centers as far east as India and China. In 1290 a Chinese-born bishop, Rabban Bar Sauma came to Europe as an ambassador from Mongolia. Christians throughout Europe were amazed to discover that there were Christians living in the East. In the same way, the Chinese Christian was astounded to discover that there were Christians living in the West. Western Christians today are also ignorant of the rich historical legacy of Christianity in Asia and Africa.
Second, western Christians need to unlearn geography. Our globes have the north on the top and the south on the bottom. Simply by turning the globe upside down we can unlearn a lot of prejudices and relearn important truths. Maps should also be redrawn, since many countries appear larger or smaller than they really are, causing us to unconsciously give undue attention to some countries while failing to give proper attention to others. It would also be helpful to visually represent population density and Christian to non-Christian ratios of the world’s populations. While most of the mission activity in the past two centuries has been from North to South, much activity today is South to South, with the North’s influence diminishing.
Third, we need to unlearn our politics. In the past we have separated spiritual freedom from political freedom, pitting one against the other. However, we need to see freedom as entailing both freedom from the oppressive forces of this world and the other world.
“Christians of European descent should learn that they are not necessarily the norm within the Christian tradition, still less the authentic core; nor, perhaps, have they ever been.”
You can read this article at: http://www.christianvisionproject.com/2007/03/companions_of_life.html
A Short Trip to the Edge
In his article, “A Short Trip to the Edge,” in Books & Culture, March/April, 2007, pages 16ff, Scott Cairns describes his trip to an ancient monastery in Greece. The article is full of colorful descriptions of the monastery and its history, as well as its spiritual ethos. If you are passionate about prayer, then you will benefit from this article.
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/4.16.html
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/4.16.html
Disaster Man
In “Disaster Man: A conversation with William Langewische,” Books & Culture, March/April, 2007, pages 14-15, Wendy Murray interviews a leading journalist who specializes in airplane disasters. Langewische is also a pilot, so his love for airplanes and aviation comes through in his articles and books about air disasters. If you are interested in this topic, then this is a good article to read.
I liked his analogy of how flying gives you a perspective on the world:
“It's all about looking at the ground. All the patterns of life on earth are very exposed to the view from above. When you're in an airplane and you're looking down on the ground from above, it's very difficult for anybody to bullshit you. People build their front porches or plantations trying to impress the neighbors. Nobody is trying to impress pilots flying by. There is very little pretentiousness directed toward the sky. So you see things which are grand and glorious and wonderful, and things that are despicable. And you see them in their real relationship to one another.”
I also found his explanation of what he calls “suspended disbelief” interesting:
“I said in my book that pilots must learn against all contradictory sensations the discipline of absolute belief in their instruments. Our greatest weakness is that we still lack an instinctive sense of bank. It can induce deadly spirals. Instinct is worse than the useless in the clouds. The first challenge is to suspend disbelief and trust your instruments over instinct.
“In the chapter I wrote about the crash of Air India 885, a flight to Bombay in 1978, the pilots were disagreeing about which instrument was failing. I read the transcript of the black box. They had no horizon. It was a black night. Only one instrument was failing. They weren't all failing. There were other instruments that indicated which was right. The two main pilots were locked on their primary instruments, like tunnel vision, and a third pilot sitting behind them was looking at the instrument that was correct. He was saying, "No, that one!" The other guys should have seen it.”
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/13.14.html
I liked his analogy of how flying gives you a perspective on the world:
“It's all about looking at the ground. All the patterns of life on earth are very exposed to the view from above. When you're in an airplane and you're looking down on the ground from above, it's very difficult for anybody to bullshit you. People build their front porches or plantations trying to impress the neighbors. Nobody is trying to impress pilots flying by. There is very little pretentiousness directed toward the sky. So you see things which are grand and glorious and wonderful, and things that are despicable. And you see them in their real relationship to one another.”
I also found his explanation of what he calls “suspended disbelief” interesting:
“I said in my book that pilots must learn against all contradictory sensations the discipline of absolute belief in their instruments. Our greatest weakness is that we still lack an instinctive sense of bank. It can induce deadly spirals. Instinct is worse than the useless in the clouds. The first challenge is to suspend disbelief and trust your instruments over instinct.
“In the chapter I wrote about the crash of Air India 885, a flight to Bombay in 1978, the pilots were disagreeing about which instrument was failing. I read the transcript of the black box. They had no horizon. It was a black night. Only one instrument was failing. They weren't all failing. There were other instruments that indicated which was right. The two main pilots were locked on their primary instruments, like tunnel vision, and a third pilot sitting behind them was looking at the instrument that was correct. He was saying, "No, that one!" The other guys should have seen it.”
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/13.14.html
How to Read
Alan Jacobs in “How to Read” in Books & Culture, March/April, 2007, page 12, reviews The Things That Matter: What Seven Classic Novels Have to Say About the Stages of Life, by Edward Mendelson. Mendelson sees Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Middlemarch, Mrs. Dallow, To the Lighthouse, and Between the Acts as representative of the seven stages of life: birth, childhood, growth, marriage, love, parenthood, and “the future”. Jacobs believes that “the rise of the novel from an uncertain, fumbling, and generally despised form of cheap popular entertainment to the central and dominant genre of Western literature, all in little more than a century, is one of the more remarkable events in the history of human sensibility.”
When you read a novel and identify with the characters, you are, according to Mendelson, “performing one of the central acts of literary understanding.” If we do this poorly, the answer is not to abandon this way of reading, but to learn how to do it better.
Mendelson tries to show how each of these seven novels signifies one of the seven stages of life. For example, Frankenstein signifies birth as Dr. Victor Frankenstein gives life to his creature. However, Victor Frankenstein’s traits show that his is not only an abortive father but also incapable of becoming a husband. Thus, as we read great literature, it opens up to us the great themes of life, and opens up a variety of interpretations of the life stage we are going through, showing us how we might live our lives or how we shouldn’t. How we read is a moral and emotional exercise and should be done with passion.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/6.12.html
When you read a novel and identify with the characters, you are, according to Mendelson, “performing one of the central acts of literary understanding.” If we do this poorly, the answer is not to abandon this way of reading, but to learn how to do it better.
Mendelson tries to show how each of these seven novels signifies one of the seven stages of life. For example, Frankenstein signifies birth as Dr. Victor Frankenstein gives life to his creature. However, Victor Frankenstein’s traits show that his is not only an abortive father but also incapable of becoming a husband. Thus, as we read great literature, it opens up to us the great themes of life, and opens up a variety of interpretations of the life stage we are going through, showing us how we might live our lives or how we shouldn’t. How we read is a moral and emotional exercise and should be done with passion.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/6.12.html
The Merry Wives of Windsor
The Merry Wives of Windsor, a romantic comedy written by William Shakespeare, was first performed in 1600. The play centers on the attempts of Falstaff to seduce the wives of Ford and Page in order to gain control of their money. Mrs. Page is infuriated by Falstaff’s letter asking for an liaison and she seeks the help of Mrs. Ford, who has received an identical letter from Falstaff, to find a way to ruin Falstaff without destroying her honor and reputation. Both husbands are told of Falstaff’s intentions and Mr. Page is not worried, since he doesn’t think his wife will fall for Falstaff, while Mr. Ford becomes jealously irate and seeks to capture Falstaff.
Mrs. Ford invites Falstaff over for a liaison, and while they are talking, Mrs. Page rushes in, forcing Falstaff to hide. She announces that Mrs. Ford’s husband is about to return and Falstaff panics. Mrs. Page and Mrs. Ford hide him in a laundry basket and the servants sneak him out under Mr. Ford’s nose. However, he nearly suffocates in the dirty laundry, gets all dirty, and then is thrown into the river.
Even though he has been humiliated, Falstaff returns again to Mrs. Ford and seeks to seduce her. This time Mrs. Page enters and again acts angry to discover Falstaff there. She warns them that Mr. Ford is almost home, so they disguise Falstaff as a fat old woman who has come as a fortuneteller. Mr. Ford hates witches and kicks Falstaff out of his house, unaware that he is the woman in disguise.
Even though humiliated a second time, Falstaff agrees to meet Mrs. Ford in the haunted forest at night. While he tries to seduce her, the children and slaves dressed up like fairies and elves attack Falstaff, pinching and burning him until he is completely terrified. As the children leave, Mr. Ford and Mr. Page arrive and Falstaff realizes he has been fooled. Falstaff is urged to give up his lustful pursuits and Mr. Ford is admonished to trust his wife. In the end, the merry wives of Windsor have won.
Shakespeare has effectively dealt with the issue of immorality and jealousy, playfully showing the foolishness of men. The wisdom of the two wives turned a potentially destructive situation into a learning occasion for the men. Shakespeare’s main objective was to show that wives can be merry, that is have a full, exciting, and meaningful lives, while remaining true to their husbands. This is a much more constructive and wholesome philosophy than what is being taught through our popular culture today.
Mrs. Ford invites Falstaff over for a liaison, and while they are talking, Mrs. Page rushes in, forcing Falstaff to hide. She announces that Mrs. Ford’s husband is about to return and Falstaff panics. Mrs. Page and Mrs. Ford hide him in a laundry basket and the servants sneak him out under Mr. Ford’s nose. However, he nearly suffocates in the dirty laundry, gets all dirty, and then is thrown into the river.
Even though he has been humiliated, Falstaff returns again to Mrs. Ford and seeks to seduce her. This time Mrs. Page enters and again acts angry to discover Falstaff there. She warns them that Mr. Ford is almost home, so they disguise Falstaff as a fat old woman who has come as a fortuneteller. Mr. Ford hates witches and kicks Falstaff out of his house, unaware that he is the woman in disguise.
Even though humiliated a second time, Falstaff agrees to meet Mrs. Ford in the haunted forest at night. While he tries to seduce her, the children and slaves dressed up like fairies and elves attack Falstaff, pinching and burning him until he is completely terrified. As the children leave, Mr. Ford and Mr. Page arrive and Falstaff realizes he has been fooled. Falstaff is urged to give up his lustful pursuits and Mr. Ford is admonished to trust his wife. In the end, the merry wives of Windsor have won.
Shakespeare has effectively dealt with the issue of immorality and jealousy, playfully showing the foolishness of men. The wisdom of the two wives turned a potentially destructive situation into a learning occasion for the men. Shakespeare’s main objective was to show that wives can be merry, that is have a full, exciting, and meaningful lives, while remaining true to their husbands. This is a much more constructive and wholesome philosophy than what is being taught through our popular culture today.
Friday, March 23, 2007
A Darkness More Than Night
Detective Harry Bosch is a key witness in a murder trial seeking to convict a movie producer for the strangulation death of a young actress. While he is testifying he is also being investigated for a gruesome murder of a man who had been arrested by Bosch several years earlier for murdering a prostitute but was released. Bosch becomes the main suspect as the FBI suspects he has crossed the line and has become an avenging angel.
Harry enlists the help of a retired FBI profiler, Terry McCaleb, who actually was helping the Sheriff’s department with the stalled investigation. While McCaleb was the one who initially identified Bosch as the most likely suspect, he is kicked off the case and then persuaded by Bosch to help him find the real killer before the news breaks and destroys his credibility in the murder trial for which he is the key witness. Pressed for time, McCaleb looks at the evidence from a new perspective and begins to track down the real killer.
I won’t reveal any more because it will ruin the suspense of the story. What I found interesting about this story was watching McCaleb, as a topnotch profiler, tease valuable information out of seemingly useless clues. It was also interesting to see that McCaleb’s initial conclusions were wrong, showing that psychological profiling is not an exact science.
Much of the evidence in the case revolves around the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch, a 15th century Dutch painter known for his dark portrayals of judgment and damnation. McCabe makes the link to Detective Harry Bosch, whose first name is actually Hieronymus as well, because the crime scene was set up to resemble Bosch’s paintings. Connelly gives us some good art history and appreciation as McCabe investigates the connection between the paintings and the murder.
Michael Connelly is a good writer and knows how to keep the pace moving, revealing important clues at just the right time while adding enough twists to keep you guessing. The heroes are also very human, well rounded and believable. Harry Bosch has enough dark tendencies to keep his halo from glowing too brightly. Connelly clearly shows the demands of police work and how they can destroy relationships, especially marriages. When an officer becomes consumed by his work, those closest to him, especially his family, suffer.
It is easy to see how police and those who deal in the dark underside of society can become jaded, disillusioned and bitter. It is not easy living half of your life in the “darkness” of the streets of our cities and the criminal justice system, so we shouldn’t take what our public defenders do for granted. Nor should we vilify then or put them on pedestals since they are regular human beings like us thrust into extraordinary circumstances that most of us would not put up with.
This is the seventh novel in the Harry Bosch series which includes the following books(“x” indicates those I have read so far):
The Black Echo (1992) (x)
The Black Ice (1993)
The Concrete Blonde (1994)
The Last Coyote (1995)
Trunk Music (1997)
Angels Flight (1999)
A Darkness More Than Night (2001) (x)
City Of Bones (2002)
Lost Light (2003)
The Narrows (2004)
The Closers (2005)
Echo Park (2006)
The Overlook (2007)
Harry enlists the help of a retired FBI profiler, Terry McCaleb, who actually was helping the Sheriff’s department with the stalled investigation. While McCaleb was the one who initially identified Bosch as the most likely suspect, he is kicked off the case and then persuaded by Bosch to help him find the real killer before the news breaks and destroys his credibility in the murder trial for which he is the key witness. Pressed for time, McCaleb looks at the evidence from a new perspective and begins to track down the real killer.
I won’t reveal any more because it will ruin the suspense of the story. What I found interesting about this story was watching McCaleb, as a topnotch profiler, tease valuable information out of seemingly useless clues. It was also interesting to see that McCaleb’s initial conclusions were wrong, showing that psychological profiling is not an exact science.
Much of the evidence in the case revolves around the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch, a 15th century Dutch painter known for his dark portrayals of judgment and damnation. McCabe makes the link to Detective Harry Bosch, whose first name is actually Hieronymus as well, because the crime scene was set up to resemble Bosch’s paintings. Connelly gives us some good art history and appreciation as McCabe investigates the connection between the paintings and the murder.
Michael Connelly is a good writer and knows how to keep the pace moving, revealing important clues at just the right time while adding enough twists to keep you guessing. The heroes are also very human, well rounded and believable. Harry Bosch has enough dark tendencies to keep his halo from glowing too brightly. Connelly clearly shows the demands of police work and how they can destroy relationships, especially marriages. When an officer becomes consumed by his work, those closest to him, especially his family, suffer.
It is easy to see how police and those who deal in the dark underside of society can become jaded, disillusioned and bitter. It is not easy living half of your life in the “darkness” of the streets of our cities and the criminal justice system, so we shouldn’t take what our public defenders do for granted. Nor should we vilify then or put them on pedestals since they are regular human beings like us thrust into extraordinary circumstances that most of us would not put up with.
This is the seventh novel in the Harry Bosch series which includes the following books(“x” indicates those I have read so far):
The Black Echo (1992) (x)
The Black Ice (1993)
The Concrete Blonde (1994)
The Last Coyote (1995)
Trunk Music (1997)
Angels Flight (1999)
A Darkness More Than Night (2001) (x)
City Of Bones (2002)
Lost Light (2003)
The Narrows (2004)
The Closers (2005)
Echo Park (2006)
The Overlook (2007)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Susanna Wesley
“Help me, O Lord, to make a true use of all disappointments and calamities in this life, in such a way that they may unite my heart more closely with you. Cause them to separate my affections from worldly things and inspire my soul with more vigor in the pursuit of true happiness.”
Susanna Wesley
Susanna Wesley
Seeds of Success
Everyone has the seeds for success already planted in them by God. No one is incapable of becoming what God intends him or her to be. But those seeds must be nurture till they reach maturity.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Help other people win
25. Help other people win.
In order to get unbelievable results from someone you need to have unbelievable expectations for that person. People know immediately when someone does not believe in them; they can see through pretense and insincerity. Hope is one the most powerful assets we have because it enables us to keep going even in the toughest of times. If you want to help people to win, become a purveyor of hope. Focus on the process of winning, not just the final outcome of winning. Don’t just hand someone a win, but help them to win so that you give them the tools for them to win many futures victories. When you help others win you also win.
To apply this principle: Forget about approaching life as a competition where you must beat everyone else in order to win. Ask whom would I most like to help win and how can I do it. Make a game plan and chart the course you will travel together to achieve the victory.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
In order to get unbelievable results from someone you need to have unbelievable expectations for that person. People know immediately when someone does not believe in them; they can see through pretense and insincerity. Hope is one the most powerful assets we have because it enables us to keep going even in the toughest of times. If you want to help people to win, become a purveyor of hope. Focus on the process of winning, not just the final outcome of winning. Don’t just hand someone a win, but help them to win so that you give them the tools for them to win many futures victories. When you help others win you also win.
To apply this principle: Forget about approaching life as a competition where you must beat everyone else in order to win. Ask whom would I most like to help win and how can I do it. Make a game plan and chart the course you will travel together to achieve the victory.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Write notes of encouragement
24. Write notes of encouragement.
A kind word given from the heart is always well received, and it may change the course of the person’s life, and even history. John Wesley wrote a letter to William Wilberforce four days before dying, and Wilberforce credited that letter with enabling him to endure all the failure and opposition until he finally ended the slave trade in England.
Only one out of twenty-five pieces of mail is personal correspondence, so a personal handwritten note is unique and powerful.
To apply this principle: Forget about being a perfect writer and focus on writing from the heart. Ask what you can say that will be an encouragement now as well as in the future. Take one hour today to write notes of encouragement to those who are closest and dearest to you.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
A kind word given from the heart is always well received, and it may change the course of the person’s life, and even history. John Wesley wrote a letter to William Wilberforce four days before dying, and Wilberforce credited that letter with enabling him to endure all the failure and opposition until he finally ended the slave trade in England.
Only one out of twenty-five pieces of mail is personal correspondence, so a personal handwritten note is unique and powerful.
To apply this principle: Forget about being a perfect writer and focus on writing from the heart. Ask what you can say that will be an encouragement now as well as in the future. Take one hour today to write notes of encouragement to those who are closest and dearest to you.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Point out people’s strengths
23. Point out people’s strengths.
Don’t waste shoring up your weaknesses; invest your time and energy by maximizing your strengths. In the same way, don’t focus on the weaknesses of others but focus on their strengths. People are motivated and energized when they work in their areas of strengths. People add the most value in their areas of strength. All players have a place where they add the most value, so find your niche and help others find theirs. Stick to the three or four things you do best and help others do the same.
To help others, first look for the best in others. Second, speak up and tell others what their strengths are. Look at people and ask what is their success seed, and then water, fertilize and nurture it.
To apply this principle: Forget about others weaknesses. Ask what does this person do exceptionally well. Tell at least one person a strength you see in him or her.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Don’t waste shoring up your weaknesses; invest your time and energy by maximizing your strengths. In the same way, don’t focus on the weaknesses of others but focus on their strengths. People are motivated and energized when they work in their areas of strengths. People add the most value in their areas of strength. All players have a place where they add the most value, so find your niche and help others find theirs. Stick to the three or four things you do best and help others do the same.
To help others, first look for the best in others. Second, speak up and tell others what their strengths are. Look at people and ask what is their success seed, and then water, fertilize and nurture it.
To apply this principle: Forget about others weaknesses. Ask what does this person do exceptionally well. Tell at least one person a strength you see in him or her.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Learn your mailman’s name
22. Learn your mailman’s name.
Here is how to SAVE a person’s name: Say the name three times, Ask a question about the name, such as its spelling or origin. Visualize the person’s prominent physical or personality feature. End the conversation with the person’s name.
To apply this principle: Forget about blaming your bad memory and expend some effort to learn how to remember people’s names. Use the SAVE method with every new person you meet this week.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Here is how to SAVE a person’s name: Say the name three times, Ask a question about the name, such as its spelling or origin. Visualize the person’s prominent physical or personality feature. End the conversation with the person’s name.
To apply this principle: Forget about blaming your bad memory and expend some effort to learn how to remember people’s names. Use the SAVE method with every new person you meet this week.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Give with no strings attached
21. Give with no strings attached.
Giving has very little to do with one’s circumstances; it has everything to do with one’s attitude. First, givers have an abundance mentality. There is plenty to go around so feel free to give it away. People are either takers or makers. If you believe in abundance, that’s what life gives you; if you believe in scarcity, that’s what life gives you. Second, givers see the big picture. They realize that they have received help along the way and the progress they have made is the result of the help they have received along the way. When we give something we will gain something in return.
To apply this principle: Forget about scarcity and focus on abundance. Ask whom you can help who will give nothing in return. Purposely be kind today to someone who is not able to pay you back.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Giving has very little to do with one’s circumstances; it has everything to do with one’s attitude. First, givers have an abundance mentality. There is plenty to go around so feel free to give it away. People are either takers or makers. If you believe in abundance, that’s what life gives you; if you believe in scarcity, that’s what life gives you. Second, givers see the big picture. They realize that they have received help along the way and the progress they have made is the result of the help they have received along the way. When we give something we will gain something in return.
To apply this principle: Forget about scarcity and focus on abundance. Ask whom you can help who will give nothing in return. Purposely be kind today to someone who is not able to pay you back.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Share a good story
20. Share a good story.
Stories stick longer than principles and grab people’s attention. Storytelling is a skill that comes with practice and anyone can learn it. First, share something you have personally experienced. Second, tell the story with the intent of connecting with others and not impressing them. Third, put your heart into it. Fourth, assume others want to hear your story and tell it with confidence and energy.
To apply this principle: Forget about being a professional storyteller before telling a story. Ask how you can get your point across more effectively with a story. Tell a story instead of just relaying facts.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Stories stick longer than principles and grab people’s attention. Storytelling is a skill that comes with practice and anyone can learn it. First, share something you have personally experienced. Second, tell the story with the intent of connecting with others and not impressing them. Third, put your heart into it. Fourth, assume others want to hear your story and tell it with confidence and energy.
To apply this principle: Forget about being a professional storyteller before telling a story. Ask how you can get your point across more effectively with a story. Tell a story instead of just relaying facts.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Remember a person’s story
19. Remember a person’s story.
By listening to other people’s stories not only do you add value to them but you also gain valuable insight into the keys that open their hearts. Remembering a person’s story and building on it is the best way to build a relationship.
Requesting a person’s story says he may be special; remembering a person’s story says you are special. Reminding a person of his story says you are special to me. Repeating a person’s story to others says that he should be special to them.
How to find a person’s story: First, ask to hear his story. Second, listen attentively and uncritically. Encourage them to keep going on and let them know you understand. Focus on the other person. Third, remember his story.
To apply this principle: Forget about telling your own story and listen to other people’s stories. Ask what is your story. Bring up some aspect of a person’s story next time you see him.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
By listening to other people’s stories not only do you add value to them but you also gain valuable insight into the keys that open their hearts. Remembering a person’s story and building on it is the best way to build a relationship.
Requesting a person’s story says he may be special; remembering a person’s story says you are special. Reminding a person of his story says you are special to me. Repeating a person’s story to others says that he should be special to them.
How to find a person’s story: First, ask to hear his story. Second, listen attentively and uncritically. Encourage them to keep going on and let them know you understand. Focus on the other person. Third, remember his story.
To apply this principle: Forget about telling your own story and listen to other people’s stories. Ask what is your story. Bring up some aspect of a person’s story next time you see him.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Add value to people
18. Add value to people.
Nothing is more important people, so adding value is the most important thing you can do. We manipulate people when we move them for our own personal advantage; we motivate people when we move them for mutual advantage.
Do you view people as potential recipients of value that you can give or do you see them as nuisances on your path to success?
People want to be appreciated, not impressed. They want to be regarded as human beings, not sounding boards for other people’s egos. They want to be treated as ends in themselves and not as means for the gratification of another person’s vanity.
If you want to add value to people, you must value them first. You must also make yourself more valuable. When you improve yourself you increase your ability to add value and help others. You must also know what other people value if you are to add value to their lives.
To apply this principle: Forget about becoming a person of success and become a person of value. Ask who adds value to your life and to whom you can add value. Make a list of the people you value in your life and make a list of what the important people in your life value.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Nothing is more important people, so adding value is the most important thing you can do. We manipulate people when we move them for our own personal advantage; we motivate people when we move them for mutual advantage.
Do you view people as potential recipients of value that you can give or do you see them as nuisances on your path to success?
People want to be appreciated, not impressed. They want to be regarded as human beings, not sounding boards for other people’s egos. They want to be treated as ends in themselves and not as means for the gratification of another person’s vanity.
If you want to add value to people, you must value them first. You must also make yourself more valuable. When you improve yourself you increase your ability to add value and help others. You must also know what other people value if you are to add value to their lives.
To apply this principle: Forget about becoming a person of success and become a person of value. Ask who adds value to your life and to whom you can add value. Make a list of the people you value in your life and make a list of what the important people in your life value.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Be the first to help
17. Be the first to help.
First, make helping others a priority on your agenda. Second, make yourself aware of other people’s needs. Pay attention to what is going on around you and put yourself in the other person’s place. Third, be willing to take a risk.
To apply this principle: Forget about thinking only of what is in it for you. Ask the other person how you can help. Be the first to offer assistance and lend a hand.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
First, make helping others a priority on your agenda. Second, make yourself aware of other people’s needs. Pay attention to what is going on around you and put yourself in the other person’s place. Third, be willing to take a risk.
To apply this principle: Forget about thinking only of what is in it for you. Ask the other person how you can help. Be the first to offer assistance and lend a hand.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Find the keys to the other person’s heart
16. Find the keys to the other person’s heart.
Make it a goal to know what is important to the other person. We all have major gaps in our gifts, abilities, knowledge and skills and everyone is able to become successful. Therefore, don’t get hung up on other people’s weaknesses but work together to bring about greater success. Celebrate the differences in people.
Ask the right questions in order to find the keys to the other person’s heart. What do they dream about, cry about, sing about, and value? What does he see as his strengths? What is his temperament? Stay in continual heart-level conversation because people change and their dreams and values change. Once you found a key to someone’s heart you must act with integrity. Never use it to manipulate them; only turn the key when it will add value to their lives.
To apply this principle: Forget about that everyone is or should be just like you. Ask what change indicators you have seen in the other person that might indicate a shift in values or dreams in the other person. Purposely try to find the keys to the hearts of all those who are in your inner circle.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Make it a goal to know what is important to the other person. We all have major gaps in our gifts, abilities, knowledge and skills and everyone is able to become successful. Therefore, don’t get hung up on other people’s weaknesses but work together to bring about greater success. Celebrate the differences in people.
Ask the right questions in order to find the keys to the other person’s heart. What do they dream about, cry about, sing about, and value? What does he see as his strengths? What is his temperament? Stay in continual heart-level conversation because people change and their dreams and values change. Once you found a key to someone’s heart you must act with integrity. Never use it to manipulate them; only turn the key when it will add value to their lives.
To apply this principle: Forget about that everyone is or should be just like you. Ask what change indicators you have seen in the other person that might indicate a shift in values or dreams in the other person. Purposely try to find the keys to the hearts of all those who are in your inner circle.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Listen with your heart
15. Listen with your heart.
Find a way to remind yourself to listen and master this skill. Listen between the lines to find clues to how the other person feels. First, focus on the person, not simply the ideas he is sharing. Fight the tendency to be impatient and put your agenda first. Force yourself to slow down so you can focus on the individual. Second, unclog your ear by getting rid of barriers to effective listening, such as distractions, phone calls, TV, other conversations. Get rid of psychological barriers, such as: defensiveness, close-mindedness, projecting your own thoughts and feelings on others, assumptions and jumping to conclusions, pride and thinking you have little to learn from others. Put yourself in a good physical environment and a helpful psychological mindset. Third, listen aggressively. Determine to pick up every good idea that you can from everyone around you. Fourth, listen to understand. Most communication breaks down because most people listen in order to reply and not to understand. When people feel that they are understood they are more likely to try to understand you.
To apply this principle: Forget about trying to get your own point across and listen to the other person. Ask how you can better understand what this person is feeling and thinking. Listen aggressively by focusing on the other person.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Find a way to remind yourself to listen and master this skill. Listen between the lines to find clues to how the other person feels. First, focus on the person, not simply the ideas he is sharing. Fight the tendency to be impatient and put your agenda first. Force yourself to slow down so you can focus on the individual. Second, unclog your ear by getting rid of barriers to effective listening, such as distractions, phone calls, TV, other conversations. Get rid of psychological barriers, such as: defensiveness, close-mindedness, projecting your own thoughts and feelings on others, assumptions and jumping to conclusions, pride and thinking you have little to learn from others. Put yourself in a good physical environment and a helpful psychological mindset. Third, listen aggressively. Determine to pick up every good idea that you can from everyone around you. Fourth, listen to understand. Most communication breaks down because most people listen in order to reply and not to understand. When people feel that they are understood they are more likely to try to understand you.
To apply this principle: Forget about trying to get your own point across and listen to the other person. Ask how you can better understand what this person is feeling and thinking. Listen aggressively by focusing on the other person.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Do for others what they cannot do for themselves
14. Do for others what they cannot do for themselves.
Ambassador and poet Henry Van Dyke said, “There is a loftier ambition than to merely stand high in the world; it is to stoop down and lift mankind a little higher.” Whatever you have been given is to be shared with others. Have an abundance mindset; the more you give away the more you have for yourself. Four areas to work on: First, introduce people to other people that they would not be able to get to know on their own. Be the bridge in people’s relationships with others; help them make connections. Second, take others to places that they cannot go on their own. Third, give someone an experience that is inaccessible on their own. Offer others opportunities they cannot reach on their own. Finally, share ideas with others that they could not get on their own.
To apply this principle: Forget on what you can get from others and instead focus on what you can do for others. Ask what person, opportunity, experience, place or idea can I give to someone that they otherwise would not have access to. Make a list of your unique skills, resources, experiences, connections that other people do not have access to.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Ambassador and poet Henry Van Dyke said, “There is a loftier ambition than to merely stand high in the world; it is to stoop down and lift mankind a little higher.” Whatever you have been given is to be shared with others. Have an abundance mindset; the more you give away the more you have for yourself. Four areas to work on: First, introduce people to other people that they would not be able to get to know on their own. Be the bridge in people’s relationships with others; help them make connections. Second, take others to places that they cannot go on their own. Third, give someone an experience that is inaccessible on their own. Offer others opportunities they cannot reach on their own. Finally, share ideas with others that they could not get on their own.
To apply this principle: Forget on what you can get from others and instead focus on what you can do for others. Ask what person, opportunity, experience, place or idea can I give to someone that they otherwise would not have access to. Make a list of your unique skills, resources, experiences, connections that other people do not have access to.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Keep your eyes off the mirror
13. Keep your eyes off the mirror.
“The entire world, with one minor exception, is composed of other people.”
You will never be great if you cannot take your eyes off the mirror and serve others with dignity.
“Success is not what you gain for yourself in life but what you do for others.”
Continually focusing on yourself will drain your energy while focusing on others will give you energy. Serving others will make you more healthy, psychologically balance and emotionally content.
To apply this principle: Forget about trying to find happiness by attending to your own needs first. Ask what you can do to forget about yourself and focus on others. Set your needs aside and do something specific today to meet the needs of someone else.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
“The entire world, with one minor exception, is composed of other people.”
You will never be great if you cannot take your eyes off the mirror and serve others with dignity.
“Success is not what you gain for yourself in life but what you do for others.”
Continually focusing on yourself will drain your energy while focusing on others will give you energy. Serving others will make you more healthy, psychologically balance and emotionally content.
To apply this principle: Forget about trying to find happiness by attending to your own needs first. Ask what you can do to forget about yourself and focus on others. Set your needs aside and do something specific today to meet the needs of someone else.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Mine the gold of good intentions
12. Mine the gold of good intentions.
Give people the benefit of the doubt. Don’t jump to conclusions; never assume the worst but always assume the best. Be honest, not everyone has good intentions and someone eventually will take advantage of you. When you are suspicious of others you convey this by your actions and body language. The blessings you gain by trusting others will outweigh any losses from those who take advantage of you.
First, check your attitude; how do you see others? Do you see them as people who sincerely desire to do good. Second, see things from the other person’s perspective. Third, give people the benefit of the doubt.
“Forgiveness is not an occasional act but a permanent attitude.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
To apply this principle: Forget about justice but focus on grace and forgiveness. Ask how you would feel if you were in the other person’s shoes. Practice the golden rule by treating others by what they intended not by what they did.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Give people the benefit of the doubt. Don’t jump to conclusions; never assume the worst but always assume the best. Be honest, not everyone has good intentions and someone eventually will take advantage of you. When you are suspicious of others you convey this by your actions and body language. The blessings you gain by trusting others will outweigh any losses from those who take advantage of you.
First, check your attitude; how do you see others? Do you see them as people who sincerely desire to do good. Second, see things from the other person’s perspective. Third, give people the benefit of the doubt.
“Forgiveness is not an occasional act but a permanent attitude.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
To apply this principle: Forget about justice but focus on grace and forgiveness. Ask how you would feel if you were in the other person’s shoes. Practice the golden rule by treating others by what they intended not by what they did.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Share a secret with someone
11. Share a secret with someone.
No matter what it is, whenever you share something for the first time it is a secret. So whenever you share something for the first time, let the person know that it is a secret. This requires two things: reading the context of the situation and sincerely desiring to build up the other person. First, sharing a secret means giving valuable information. It needs to be something the person you are talking to cares about by fulfilling a felt need or playing to an interest he has. Second, sharing a secret makes people feel special. Third, sharing a secret includes others in your journey.
To apply this principle: Forget about hoarding information for yourself but share it when appropriate to make others feel special. Ask who you can benefit by letting in on some private information. Find someone to let in on a secret today.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
No matter what it is, whenever you share something for the first time it is a secret. So whenever you share something for the first time, let the person know that it is a secret. This requires two things: reading the context of the situation and sincerely desiring to build up the other person. First, sharing a secret means giving valuable information. It needs to be something the person you are talking to cares about by fulfilling a felt need or playing to an interest he has. Second, sharing a secret makes people feel special. Third, sharing a secret includes others in your journey.
To apply this principle: Forget about hoarding information for yourself but share it when appropriate to make others feel special. Ask who you can benefit by letting in on some private information. Find someone to let in on a secret today.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Offer your very best
10. Offer your very best.
You are most likely to give your best to those you love and respect. If you see everyone as important, you will always offer your best. Most moments in life become special only if we treat them that way. The best way to elevate an experience is to give it your best.
“My potential is God’s gift to me; what I do with my potential is my gift to God.”
I am accountable to God, others and myself for the gifts, talents, abilities and resources that I have. If I don’t do my best I am shirking my God-given responsibility.
To apply this principle: Forget about doing the minimum required to get by but always give your maximum effort. Ask what you can do for someone who can never repay you. Voluntarily give beyond what anyone expects.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
You are most likely to give your best to those you love and respect. If you see everyone as important, you will always offer your best. Most moments in life become special only if we treat them that way. The best way to elevate an experience is to give it your best.
“My potential is God’s gift to me; what I do with my potential is my gift to God.”
I am accountable to God, others and myself for the gifts, talents, abilities and resources that I have. If I don’t do my best I am shirking my God-given responsibility.
To apply this principle: Forget about doing the minimum required to get by but always give your maximum effort. Ask what you can do for someone who can never repay you. Voluntarily give beyond what anyone expects.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Pass the credit on to others
9. Pass the credit on to others.
Say thank you to people who help you, especially thank them publicly. Fist, check your ego at the door. Put your focus on others instead of yourself. Second, don’t wait but give credit as soon as possible. Third, say it in front of others. Fourth, put it in print. Finally, only say it if you mean it.
To apply this principle: Forget about your ego and focus on other people. Ask who has made me more successful than I could have been on my own. Pass along the credit.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Say thank you to people who help you, especially thank them publicly. Fist, check your ego at the door. Put your focus on others instead of yourself. Second, don’t wait but give credit as soon as possible. Third, say it in front of others. Fourth, put it in print. Finally, only say it if you mean it.
To apply this principle: Forget about your ego and focus on other people. Ask who has made me more successful than I could have been on my own. Pass along the credit.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Encourage the dreams of others
8. Encourage the dreams of others.
Be careful, if someone takes the time to share his dream he is in a very vulnerable position. Never become a dream killer but a dream nurturer.
“Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside of us while we are still alive.”
First, ask people to share their dreams with you. Second, affirm the person as well as the dream. Third, ask about the challenges they must overcome to achieve their dreams. Fourth, offer your assistance. Fifth, revisit their dream with them on a consistent basis. Sixth, determine to be a dream booster, not a dream buster.
To apply this principle: Forget about destroying someone’s dream. Ask who can I encourage today to reach his dream. Offer specific help to help someone fulfill his dream.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Be careful, if someone takes the time to share his dream he is in a very vulnerable position. Never become a dream killer but a dream nurturer.
“Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside of us while we are still alive.”
First, ask people to share their dreams with you. Second, affirm the person as well as the dream. Third, ask about the challenges they must overcome to achieve their dreams. Fourth, offer your assistance. Fifth, revisit their dream with them on a consistent basis. Sixth, determine to be a dream booster, not a dream buster.
To apply this principle: Forget about destroying someone’s dream. Ask who can I encourage today to reach his dream. Offer specific help to help someone fulfill his dream.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Say the right words and the right time
7. Say the right words and the right time.
Saying the right words is important, but timing is crucial. Sometimes the best policy is to say nothing; to remain silent at the right time. Be sensitive to time and place. Pay attention to the context. Say it from the heart; how you say it is just as important as what you say.
To apply this principle: Forget about what you want to say and focus on what the other person needs to hear. Ask what you would want to hear if you were in this person’s shoes. Say the right words at the right time from the heart.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Saying the right words is important, but timing is crucial. Sometimes the best policy is to say nothing; to remain silent at the right time. Be sensitive to time and place. Pay attention to the context. Say it from the heart; how you say it is just as important as what you say.
To apply this principle: Forget about what you want to say and focus on what the other person needs to hear. Ask what you would want to hear if you were in this person’s shoes. Say the right words at the right time from the heart.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Give others a reputation to live up to
6. Give others a reputation to live up to.
Speak to people’s potential, what they can be. First, have a high opinion of people. People will perform consistently with what you expect them to do. If you expect them to fail and disappoint you, they will; if you expect them to succeed they will. Second, back up your high opinions of others with action; put your money where your mouth is. Third, forget their past and give them reputations for their future. Fourth, give people new names that speak to their potential.
To apply this principle: Forget what the person has done in the past and look to his future potential. Ask what is unique, special and wonderful about this person and what can I do to show him. Back up your words with action.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Speak to people’s potential, what they can be. First, have a high opinion of people. People will perform consistently with what you expect them to do. If you expect them to fail and disappoint you, they will; if you expect them to succeed they will. Second, back up your high opinions of others with action; put your money where your mouth is. Third, forget their past and give them reputations for their future. Fourth, give people new names that speak to their potential.
To apply this principle: Forget what the person has done in the past and look to his future potential. Ask what is unique, special and wonderful about this person and what can I do to show him. Back up your words with action.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Complement people in front of other people
5. Complement people in front of other people.
First, people want to feel worthwhile in life. Second, compliments affirm people and make them feel stronger. Compliments in front of others are the most effective that you can give.
To apply this principle: Forget about only giving compliments in private but start giving them in public as well. Ask who can I spotlight in front of others. Compliment someone in front of others today.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
First, people want to feel worthwhile in life. Second, compliments affirm people and make them feel stronger. Compliments in front of others are the most effective that you can give.
To apply this principle: Forget about only giving compliments in private but start giving them in public as well. Ask who can I spotlight in front of others. Compliment someone in front of others today.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Create a memory and visit it often
4. Create a memory and visit it often.
Shared memories bond people together. How to create memories: 1. Make something happen. Be intentional about making memories. 2. Set aside time to make something happen. 3. Plan for something to happen. 4. Show that something has happened. When you help create a memory for someone, give him something to remember it by. 5. Relive the memory by talking about what happened.
To apply this principle: Forget about finding quality time if you don’t set aside quantity time for making memories. Ask what memories you have already made in other people’s lives that you can relive together. Plan a memory that will commemorate an achievement that people will remember for years to come. And then create a memento of it.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Shared memories bond people together. How to create memories: 1. Make something happen. Be intentional about making memories. 2. Set aside time to make something happen. 3. Plan for something to happen. 4. Show that something has happened. When you help create a memory for someone, give him something to remember it by. 5. Relive the memory by talking about what happened.
To apply this principle: Forget about finding quality time if you don’t set aside quantity time for making memories. Ask what memories you have already made in other people’s lives that you can relive together. Plan a memory that will commemorate an achievement that people will remember for years to come. And then create a memento of it.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Let people know you need them
3. Let people know you need them.
Learn to say, “I can’t do it without you.” Whenever to tell people that they know something that you don’t you give them an ego boost. Everyone likes to feel that he’s an expert, even if it’s only for a moment. People need a sense of significance, that they are helping and are at the center of what is going on. This gives their work meaning and purpose.
To apply this principle: Forget about your pride and the attitude that makes you feel that you don’t need other people. Ask who can help me do a better job than I can do alone. Sincerely ask other people for help and listen carefully to what they say.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Learn to say, “I can’t do it without you.” Whenever to tell people that they know something that you don’t you give them an ego boost. Everyone likes to feel that he’s an expert, even if it’s only for a moment. People need a sense of significance, that they are helping and are at the center of what is going on. This gives their work meaning and purpose.
To apply this principle: Forget about your pride and the attitude that makes you feel that you don’t need other people. Ask who can help me do a better job than I can do alone. Sincerely ask other people for help and listen carefully to what they say.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
The 30 second rule
2. The 30 second rule: Within the first 30 seconds of a conversation say something to encourage the other person.
Instead of thinking of ways to make yourself look good when you meet someone, think of ways that you can make them look good. Before you meet someone stop and think about what you know about that person and what he or she might need. Encouragement instills motivation.
To apply this principle: Forget about finding ways to make yourself look good; instead, find ways to make others look good. Ask what positive or encouraging thing you can say to each person you are going to meet today. Give everyone you meet the AAA treatment: Attention, Affirmation, and Appreciation.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
Instead of thinking of ways to make yourself look good when you meet someone, think of ways that you can make them look good. Before you meet someone stop and think about what you know about that person and what he or she might need. Encouragement instills motivation.
To apply this principle: Forget about finding ways to make yourself look good; instead, find ways to make others look good. Ask what positive or encouraging thing you can say to each person you are going to meet today. Give everyone you meet the AAA treatment: Attention, Affirmation, and Appreciation.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
In order to win with people you must first be a winner yourself
1. In order to win with people you must first be a winner yourself.
You can’t be happy unless you are healthy. Being healthy is more than not just being sick but includes being physically, emotionally and psychologically healthy and strong. You can’t give what you don’t have. Being a winner is more than being kind, warm, mature, stable or any other character quality. It comes down to one thing: your value. You must own your value. If you are secure in who you are, then you have become a winner.
First, to be a winner, you must recognize your value, so that no matter what may happen to you, you still have the same value. Second, you must accept your value. Change what you can change but accept what you cannot change. Third, increase your value. Solve as many of your own problems as you can. Fourth, believe in your value. Fifth, bank on your value. Who you are is the greatest asset you will ever possess.
To apply this principle: Forget about what makes you feel insecure. Ask how you can increase your value to benefit yourself and others. Act to make yourself more valuable to others.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
You can’t be happy unless you are healthy. Being healthy is more than not just being sick but includes being physically, emotionally and psychologically healthy and strong. You can’t give what you don’t have. Being a winner is more than being kind, warm, mature, stable or any other character quality. It comes down to one thing: your value. You must own your value. If you are secure in who you are, then you have become a winner.
First, to be a winner, you must recognize your value, so that no matter what may happen to you, you still have the same value. Second, you must accept your value. Change what you can change but accept what you cannot change. Third, increase your value. Solve as many of your own problems as you can. Fourth, believe in your value. Fifth, bank on your value. Who you are is the greatest asset you will ever possess.
To apply this principle: Forget about what makes you feel insecure. Ask how you can increase your value to benefit yourself and others. Act to make yourself more valuable to others.
From: 25 Ways to Win with People, by John Maxwell and Les Parrott.
25 Ways to Win with People
In their book, 25 Ways to Win with People, John Maxwell and Les Parrott teamed up to make an excellent little book filled with some practical wisdom for making an impact in the lives of other people. Each chapter is brief enough to be read in a few minutes, yet holds the seed for incredible growth and change if you apply the principles. I will post the outline of the book chapter by chapter.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Global Warming
If you are interested in the issue of global warming, read this article by Regis Nicoll, "Some Inconvenient Truths: Global Warming and Al Gore's Film." If you have seen Al Gore’s docudrama An Inconvenient Truth, then you should interact with the points made by Nicoll.
As Christians we have been given stewardship of this planet and God expects us to use it wisely. We need to find a balance between worshiping nature and abusing nature. We have a responsibility to reduce pollution and save endangered species. However, we also must be wise and not allow ourselves to be manipulated or driven by hysteria.
Here is Regis Nicoll’s conclusion:
“Having said all this, let me add that I agree with many of the recommendations in An Inconvenient Truth. Recycling more, driving less, adjusting our thermostats, reducing consumables, planting trees, and the like, are the right things to do. All are in keeping with biblical stewardship, regardless of global warming.”
You can read this article at: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6294
As Christians we have been given stewardship of this planet and God expects us to use it wisely. We need to find a balance between worshiping nature and abusing nature. We have a responsibility to reduce pollution and save endangered species. However, we also must be wise and not allow ourselves to be manipulated or driven by hysteria.
Here is Regis Nicoll’s conclusion:
“Having said all this, let me add that I agree with many of the recommendations in An Inconvenient Truth. Recycling more, driving less, adjusting our thermostats, reducing consumables, planting trees, and the like, are the right things to do. All are in keeping with biblical stewardship, regardless of global warming.”
You can read this article at: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6294
Windows to God's Grace
Do you believe that God is present in the smile of a child, in the tears of a parent's grief over a suffering adolescent, in the sudden breakthrough of understading between quarreling spouses? Eternal truths can be learned by observing the most common elements of life: nursing an infant may be a window into God's nurturing care for each of us; bandaging a cut can help us know the healing desire of God; playing games may speak of the divine playfulness that knows our need for recreation; tending a garden may teach us the dynamics of growth. Families learn that they are sacred communities when they begin to name and claim the many forms of God's grace in their daily life.
Marjorie J. Thompson
from "Family: The Forming Center"
Marjorie J. Thompson
from "Family: The Forming Center"
The Taming of the Shrew
The Taming of the Shrew, a romantic comedy, is one of William Shakespeare’s earlier plays, first performed in 1593-94. It is a play within a play, with the first act setting the stage for the second play. The first play is a comedy where a wealthy lord plays a joke on a drunken peasant, Christopher Sly, by taking him to his home while he is passed out and instructing everyone to treat him like a lord when he comes to. Sly refuses to believe he is a lord even though all the servants and attendants tell him that he has suffered amnesia and has mistakenly claimed to be a poor peasant for the last several years. He finally believes them when he meets his “wife” who is a young page dressed up as a woman. When he wants to go to bed with his wife, the staff force him to watch a play instead. The play we watches becomes the main focus for the rest of the play.
Lucentio, a rich young man, and his two servants arrive in Padua in order to attend the university. However, when Lucentio sees a beautiful young woman, Bianca, he decides to pursue her instead. There are several barriers that threaten to make his desires impossible. First, Bianca’s father refuses to let anyone marry Bianca until her older sister Katherine is married. Unfortunately, Katherine is an ill-tempered woman with a bitter tongue and no one wants her. The second problem is that there are two other young men already seeking to win Bianca’s love.
Lucentio poses as a Latin tutor and is allowed to teach Bianca Latin. He quickly uses the Latin lessons to declare his love for Bianca and she begins to fall in love with him. However, another young man poses as a music teacher and also wins the right to teach Bianca music. In the end, Lucentio wins her heart but still must wait for Katherine to be married first.
This problem is solved when Petruccio, a rich man from Verona, arrives to find a rich woman to marry. Upon hearing about Katherine, he immediately sets out to marry her in spite of her bad reputation. Since he doesn’t care what kind of character his wife has, as long as she has a large dowry, Petruccio sets out to tame the shrew right from the start. When he meets her father, he declares his intentions to marry Katherine, and her father thinks he is crazy. Nevertheless, he meets with Katherine and they have a bitter exchange of words, but Petruccio is ready and follows his plan to break her will. He tells Katherine’s father that she loves him and wants to marry him on Sunday.
On the wedding day Petruccio is late and arrives poorly dressed riding a worn out old horse. After the wedding, he refuses to stay for the banquet and commands Katherine to come away immediately to his house. At home Petruccio refuses to let Katherine eat or sleep for several days, pretending he loves her too much to let her eat his poor food or sleep in his poor bed.
On the way back to Padua, Petruccio forces Katherine to agree that the sun is the moon and that an old man is a young maiden. Through his cunning plan, Petruccio has broken Katherine’s willfulness and has brought her under his control. At a banquet Petruccio bets the other two men that they cannot get their wives to come them before he can get Katherine to come. Since they know how strong-willed Katherine is, they agree to the bet. The first man’s wife refuses to come because she “is busy” and the second man’s wife demands that he “come to her.” When Petruccio sends word to Katherine, she comes immediately and asks what he wants. The other men are shocked, and Petruccio commands Katherine to make the other two women to come as well. When she returns with them, Petruccio tells Katherine to remove her hat because it makes her look silly. She quickly complies to the astonishment of all. He then commands her to rebuke the other two women for not obeying their husbands, which she aptly does. Everyone then fully realizes that Petruccio has truly tamed the shrew.
Lucentio, a rich young man, and his two servants arrive in Padua in order to attend the university. However, when Lucentio sees a beautiful young woman, Bianca, he decides to pursue her instead. There are several barriers that threaten to make his desires impossible. First, Bianca’s father refuses to let anyone marry Bianca until her older sister Katherine is married. Unfortunately, Katherine is an ill-tempered woman with a bitter tongue and no one wants her. The second problem is that there are two other young men already seeking to win Bianca’s love.
Lucentio poses as a Latin tutor and is allowed to teach Bianca Latin. He quickly uses the Latin lessons to declare his love for Bianca and she begins to fall in love with him. However, another young man poses as a music teacher and also wins the right to teach Bianca music. In the end, Lucentio wins her heart but still must wait for Katherine to be married first.
This problem is solved when Petruccio, a rich man from Verona, arrives to find a rich woman to marry. Upon hearing about Katherine, he immediately sets out to marry her in spite of her bad reputation. Since he doesn’t care what kind of character his wife has, as long as she has a large dowry, Petruccio sets out to tame the shrew right from the start. When he meets her father, he declares his intentions to marry Katherine, and her father thinks he is crazy. Nevertheless, he meets with Katherine and they have a bitter exchange of words, but Petruccio is ready and follows his plan to break her will. He tells Katherine’s father that she loves him and wants to marry him on Sunday.
On the wedding day Petruccio is late and arrives poorly dressed riding a worn out old horse. After the wedding, he refuses to stay for the banquet and commands Katherine to come away immediately to his house. At home Petruccio refuses to let Katherine eat or sleep for several days, pretending he loves her too much to let her eat his poor food or sleep in his poor bed.
On the way back to Padua, Petruccio forces Katherine to agree that the sun is the moon and that an old man is a young maiden. Through his cunning plan, Petruccio has broken Katherine’s willfulness and has brought her under his control. At a banquet Petruccio bets the other two men that they cannot get their wives to come them before he can get Katherine to come. Since they know how strong-willed Katherine is, they agree to the bet. The first man’s wife refuses to come because she “is busy” and the second man’s wife demands that he “come to her.” When Petruccio sends word to Katherine, she comes immediately and asks what he wants. The other men are shocked, and Petruccio commands Katherine to make the other two women to come as well. When she returns with them, Petruccio tells Katherine to remove her hat because it makes her look silly. She quickly complies to the astonishment of all. He then commands her to rebuke the other two women for not obeying their husbands, which she aptly does. Everyone then fully realizes that Petruccio has truly tamed the shrew.
Which Islam is the True Islam
In an excellent review of Lawrence Wright’s book, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, Stephen Prothero claims that Islam is not simply at war with the West but it as war with itself. Prothero traces the current political situation in radical Islam back to the Egyptian cleric Sayyid Qutb, executed in 1966, who began calling all Muslims who didn’t believe as he did as apostates and idol-worshippers. In this way, killing women and children became acceptable, and even mandatory, since the Qur’an calls for true Muslims to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them.”
Not only are Jews and Christians under this sentence of death, but all Muslims who do not hold to the radical view of Islam found in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other fundamentalist Islamic countries. While we might think that no true Muslim would fly an airplane into a skyscraper in order to kill thousands of innocent women and children, a radical Muslim would think that no true Muslim would refuse such an honor.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/books/features/bookwk/070319.html
Not only are Jews and Christians under this sentence of death, but all Muslims who do not hold to the radical view of Islam found in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other fundamentalist Islamic countries. While we might think that no true Muslim would fly an airplane into a skyscraper in order to kill thousands of innocent women and children, a radical Muslim would think that no true Muslim would refuse such an honor.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/books/features/bookwk/070319.html
Thomas Merton on Peace
"Peace demands the most heroic labor and the most difficult sacrifice. It demands greater heroism than war. It demands greater fidelity to the truth and a much more perfect purity of conscience."
Thomas Merton
Thomas Merton
Monday, March 19, 2007
Greatest Light Saber Duel Ever (2)
Check out round 2 in the Ryan Vs. Dorkman light saber duel. Its better than the first one!
Watch it at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-is63goeBgc
Watch it at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-is63goeBgc
Ender's Game (2)
I just finished the last book in the first series of Ender’s Game, Children of the Mind. This was the most philosophical of the whole series while Xenocide was the most religious. Orson Scott Card plans to write one more novel that will tie the first and second series together, most likely set mainly on the planet Lusitania where most of the action has taken place in the last three books. Lusitania is the planet where Ender Wiggin finally settled, got married, and died.
While it is unusual for the hero to die half way through a novel, Ender isn’t really dead, at least not fully. This is Card’s attempt to explain his philosophy of man’s nature. His views are interesting and thought-provoking and he deals with many of the major issues in this philosophical debate. Card sees man as possessing an immaterial soul that takes on a body at birth. Humans are not defined solely by their memories or their soul; rather, both memories and soul are essential to personhood.
Children of the Mind also tackles other major philosophical issues. One of the main themes is the human tendency to fear that which is different, leading humans to be quick to judge others. Humans tend to jump to conclusions about others without taking the time to really understand them. The whole series revolves around the issue of the fear of alien species which appear to pose a serious threat to the survival of the human race. Cards point is that we need to take the time to understand those who fear and seek to communicate fully instead of defending ourselves as a knee-jerk action. This principle is also applied to inter-human personal relationships.
This issue was also dealt with in great detail in The Hive Queen, Ender’s first book, where Ender tries to atone for his act of xenocide by seeking to understand the enemy he nearly annihilated. As a Speaker for the Dead, he seeks to communicate the history, culture and true intentions of the alien race that had attacked earth and which he nearly blew into oblivion in a preemptive strike on their home planet. By seeking to fully understand an alien species that nearly destroyed earth, Ender becomes the chief paradigm for empathy and love for those who are different and seemingly dangerous.
While the first book, Ender’s Game, is appealing to a wide audience, the later books in the series have a narrower appeal. Children of the Mind is probably the least appealing of the series since it has less action and more philosophizing and psychologizing. I also recommend that the first three books be read first, since much of the Children of the Mind depends on all that has happened in the first three books.
Here are the books in the Ender’s Game series with the books I have read marked with an (x):
ENDER’S GAME
FIRST SERIES:
Ender's Game (x)
Speaker for the Dead (x)
Xenocide (x)
Children of the Mind (x)
Ender in Exile: Ganges (working title)
SECOND SERIES:
Ender's Shadow (x)
Shadow of the Hegemon (x)
Shadow Puppets
Shadow of the Giant (x)
Shadows in Flight
Other:
First Meetings
While it is unusual for the hero to die half way through a novel, Ender isn’t really dead, at least not fully. This is Card’s attempt to explain his philosophy of man’s nature. His views are interesting and thought-provoking and he deals with many of the major issues in this philosophical debate. Card sees man as possessing an immaterial soul that takes on a body at birth. Humans are not defined solely by their memories or their soul; rather, both memories and soul are essential to personhood.
Children of the Mind also tackles other major philosophical issues. One of the main themes is the human tendency to fear that which is different, leading humans to be quick to judge others. Humans tend to jump to conclusions about others without taking the time to really understand them. The whole series revolves around the issue of the fear of alien species which appear to pose a serious threat to the survival of the human race. Cards point is that we need to take the time to understand those who fear and seek to communicate fully instead of defending ourselves as a knee-jerk action. This principle is also applied to inter-human personal relationships.
This issue was also dealt with in great detail in The Hive Queen, Ender’s first book, where Ender tries to atone for his act of xenocide by seeking to understand the enemy he nearly annihilated. As a Speaker for the Dead, he seeks to communicate the history, culture and true intentions of the alien race that had attacked earth and which he nearly blew into oblivion in a preemptive strike on their home planet. By seeking to fully understand an alien species that nearly destroyed earth, Ender becomes the chief paradigm for empathy and love for those who are different and seemingly dangerous.
While the first book, Ender’s Game, is appealing to a wide audience, the later books in the series have a narrower appeal. Children of the Mind is probably the least appealing of the series since it has less action and more philosophizing and psychologizing. I also recommend that the first three books be read first, since much of the Children of the Mind depends on all that has happened in the first three books.
Here are the books in the Ender’s Game series with the books I have read marked with an (x):
ENDER’S GAME
FIRST SERIES:
Ender's Game (x)
Speaker for the Dead (x)
Xenocide (x)
Children of the Mind (x)
Ender in Exile: Ganges (working title)
SECOND SERIES:
Ender's Shadow (x)
Shadow of the Hegemon (x)
Shadow Puppets
Shadow of the Giant (x)
Shadows in Flight
Other:
First Meetings
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Its a Whole New World
“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.” Abraham Lincoln
A new reality has emerged, a new economy, a new challenge.
We must think anew and develop a new mind-set and a new skill-set and a new tool-set that flows from it.
Adapted from The 8th Habit, by Stephen Covey.
A new reality has emerged, a new economy, a new challenge.
We must think anew and develop a new mind-set and a new skill-set and a new tool-set that flows from it.
Adapted from The 8th Habit, by Stephen Covey.
Self-knowledge
“Self-knowledge is best learned, not by contemplation, but by action. Strive to do your duty and you will soon discover of what stuff you are made.” Johann Goethe
Greatness or Mediocrity
Every person has an inner longing for greatness and contribution. Our souls are not satisfied with mediocrity or failure. We desire to make a difference. It is only when we let the world beat this passion out of us that we settle down for less than what we can be.
When asked why he was willing to work hard to change his organization after 30 years of military service instead of retiring, a Colonel said that when his father died he made him promise not to waste his life like he did but to make a difference. The Colonel had been planning to retire and relax, but his father’s dying words inspired him to be a change catalyst.
We all must choose whether to have a good life or a great life, a good day or a great day.
Robert Frost wrote, “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.”
Everyone chooses one of two roads in life: the broad, well-traveled road to mediocrity or the other road to greatness and meaning. The path to mediocrity straightjackets human potential while greatness unleashes and realizes human potential. You either live out the cultural software of ego, indulgence, scarcity, comparison, competitiveness, and victimism or you rise above the negative cultural influences and choose to become the creative force of your life.
Adapted from The 8th Habit, by Stephen Covey.
When asked why he was willing to work hard to change his organization after 30 years of military service instead of retiring, a Colonel said that when his father died he made him promise not to waste his life like he did but to make a difference. The Colonel had been planning to retire and relax, but his father’s dying words inspired him to be a change catalyst.
We all must choose whether to have a good life or a great life, a good day or a great day.
Robert Frost wrote, “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.”
Everyone chooses one of two roads in life: the broad, well-traveled road to mediocrity or the other road to greatness and meaning. The path to mediocrity straightjackets human potential while greatness unleashes and realizes human potential. You either live out the cultural software of ego, indulgence, scarcity, comparison, competitiveness, and victimism or you rise above the negative cultural influences and choose to become the creative force of your life.
Adapted from The 8th Habit, by Stephen Covey.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Farthest Galaxy to Date Discovered
The Hubble Space Telescope has found a galaxy that is about 13 billion light years away. If you are interested in these types of things, read the article at: http://www.seds.org/hst/97-25.html.
Love Your Muslim as Yourself
This article, "Love Your Muslim as Yourself", is one of the best Christian articles I have read about the situation in the Middle East. Most Christians (including myself) are woeful ignorant of what is really going on and what is motivating all of the violence. If we are going to love our neighbor as ourselves, we need to spend more time getting to know our neighbor. You can’t love someone you don’t understand, and we need to deepen our understanding of the world’s second-largest religion.
Here are a few quotes that I found convicting and helpful:
One reason is that Middle East conflicts are complex. In a press conference, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the violence in Iraq cannot be described as a civil war. “I think that the words civil war oversimplify a very complex situation in Iraq,” he said. “I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq. “One is Shi'a on Shi'a, principally in the south; second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is attacking, at times, all of those targets.” And that's just Iraq. Equally complex conflict characterizes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, and, of course, Israel and Palestine. While few would argue that Middle East issues are solely religious, there are strong religious dimensions to which our military and diplomatic efforts must pay attention.
“We have little, if any, ability to deal with religious differences in a hostile setting,” Johnston says. To be clear: It's not that Sunnis and Shi'as are killing each other over doctrine or worship practices—politics, revenge, culture, religion, and ethnicity have all come together to create an explosive, hate-filled atmosphere. But knowing more about Islam can provide the basic understanding needed to begin addressing such issues.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that evangelicals hold as many stereotypes and misunderstandings about Muslims as does our broader culture. We need to use Sunday school classes and sermons to communicate more about who Muslims really are and how we can love them as ourselves.
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/april/11.27.html
Here are a few quotes that I found convicting and helpful:
One reason is that Middle East conflicts are complex. In a press conference, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the violence in Iraq cannot be described as a civil war. “I think that the words civil war oversimplify a very complex situation in Iraq,” he said. “I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq. “One is Shi'a on Shi'a, principally in the south; second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is attacking, at times, all of those targets.” And that's just Iraq. Equally complex conflict characterizes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, and, of course, Israel and Palestine. While few would argue that Middle East issues are solely religious, there are strong religious dimensions to which our military and diplomatic efforts must pay attention.
“We have little, if any, ability to deal with religious differences in a hostile setting,” Johnston says. To be clear: It's not that Sunnis and Shi'as are killing each other over doctrine or worship practices—politics, revenge, culture, religion, and ethnicity have all come together to create an explosive, hate-filled atmosphere. But knowing more about Islam can provide the basic understanding needed to begin addressing such issues.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that evangelicals hold as many stereotypes and misunderstandings about Muslims as does our broader culture. We need to use Sunday school classes and sermons to communicate more about who Muslims really are and how we can love them as ourselves.
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/april/11.27.html
Is Ending the War a Matter of Faith
In his blog on Friday, March 16, 2007, Jim Wallis wrote an article entitled: “Ending the War is a Matter of Faith” in which he argued that the War in Iraq is morally wrong and cannot be justified. He says that it cannot be justified by the teachings of Jesus or by Augustine’s just war doctrine. He feels that not only is the war un-Christian, but it is an offense to all the young men who have been sent to fight, to the Iraqis, and to all who have been shortchanged by the diversion of funds from more important projects and concerns. Jim calls for all Christians to pray and seek the end of the war by mobilizing the faith community in our country to change the current wind of public opinion.
St. Augustine said that protection of one’s own life or property is never a just reason for killing one’s neighbor. However, this applies only to individuals and not to the leaders of nations who have the obligation to maintain peace and order. He states, “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” He continues, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” The intention of the war is very important for St. Augustine. He says, “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” So in St. Augustine's thinking a war "was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct.”
Preemptive strikes are not considered justified by this doctrine. Iraq never attacked the United States or threatened our security. However, President Bush claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction that he intended to give to terrorists to use against the United States and its allies. The prospect of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons being used against American civilians is a scary prospect, and unfortunately it is very likely to happen in the near future. It is debatable whether the war in Iraq has reduced or increased the chances of this kind of attack happening, but the ends don’t justify the means.
With such a real and imminent threat our government has the moral obligation to act to deter such an attack to protect its citizens. Attacking Iraq was put forth as an essential element in our government’s plan to end global terrorism. The questions that needs to be asked are: Is ending global terrorism within the moral and legal rights of the United States and is it just to pursue military action to secure that objective? Is attacking another sovereign nation justified if it harbors and aids global terrorists that have clearly declared war on the United States? Is military action the best course of action to secure these objectives? Can diplomacy, sanctions and other nonviolent means be used effectively to stop global terrorism?
While I agree with Jim Wallis that indiscriminate war is unchristian and unjustifiable, I am not sure that the war on global terrorism fits that label. International terrorist organizations have clearly and repeatedly declared war on the United States. These organizations have carried out numerous deadly attacks on U.S. citizens, military and civilian, around the world. These organizations have attacked and killed thousands of civilians and military personnel on our own soil. These organizations have publicly vowed to carry out more of such attacks in the future. These organizations are actively seeking out nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use against civilian and military targets overseas and within our own borders. Whether we like it or not, we are at war. Even if we do not strike back, we are still at war.
The difficulty comes not in determining whether we are at war and if we should defend ourselves, but how doe we defend ourselves against attacks against our civilians that come not from other nation states with clearly defined borders, armies, and governments but are transnational and often are indistinguishable from the civilian populations around them. There are not clear military targets, definitive armies or simple borders as in the past. Our understanding of warfare needs to be updated and changed to reflect the new realities. We cannot evaluate wars in the same way as we have in the past. As Christians, we need to spend more time studying these realities and evaluating what biblical responsibilities a government has towards its citizens and how Christian principles should guide decision-making in this new situation.
I agree with most of what Jim Wallis says, yet I feel that his evaluation of the current situation is too limited. I agree that Jesus has clearly laid down principles of non-violence and Christians must not strike back at those who strike them. However, governments have the moral obligation to protect their citizens and to maintain order. The Apostle Paul says, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-4). The context is concerned about Christians obeying the government, yet there are some principles in this passage that are applicable to war. Governments are divinely appointed to maintain order and peace and have been invested with the authority to punish wrongdoers. It would be immoral for a government to not punish crime or to allow wrongdoers to continue to hurting citizens. The government has been given divine authority to “bear the sword” both in civil and international affairs. Therefore, it is not always wrong to go to war. In fact, there are times it is wrong to not go to war.
Therefore, the question we should be asking is whether the war in Iraq is essential to bringing criminals to justice and to prevent these criminals from committing future crimes against our citizens. Jim Wallis doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq meets these criteria and therefore should be stopped. I am very sympathetic to his call to peace, but I am still doing more research on the current situation before I make a final decision about the legitimacy of the war. Since I am coming at this years later that Jim, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hold my judgment in humility. However, I must still do my own research and make my own decision based upon as much correct information that I can obtain.
So, is the war in Iraq a matter of faith? Definitely. Should we pray for it to end? Yes. Was it a political and military blunder? Maybe. Is it a just war?
You can read Jim Wallis' article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/jim-wallis-ending-war-is-matter-of.html
St. Augustine said that protection of one’s own life or property is never a just reason for killing one’s neighbor. However, this applies only to individuals and not to the leaders of nations who have the obligation to maintain peace and order. He states, “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” He continues, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” The intention of the war is very important for St. Augustine. He says, “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” So in St. Augustine's thinking a war "was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct.”
Preemptive strikes are not considered justified by this doctrine. Iraq never attacked the United States or threatened our security. However, President Bush claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction that he intended to give to terrorists to use against the United States and its allies. The prospect of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons being used against American civilians is a scary prospect, and unfortunately it is very likely to happen in the near future. It is debatable whether the war in Iraq has reduced or increased the chances of this kind of attack happening, but the ends don’t justify the means.
With such a real and imminent threat our government has the moral obligation to act to deter such an attack to protect its citizens. Attacking Iraq was put forth as an essential element in our government’s plan to end global terrorism. The questions that needs to be asked are: Is ending global terrorism within the moral and legal rights of the United States and is it just to pursue military action to secure that objective? Is attacking another sovereign nation justified if it harbors and aids global terrorists that have clearly declared war on the United States? Is military action the best course of action to secure these objectives? Can diplomacy, sanctions and other nonviolent means be used effectively to stop global terrorism?
While I agree with Jim Wallis that indiscriminate war is unchristian and unjustifiable, I am not sure that the war on global terrorism fits that label. International terrorist organizations have clearly and repeatedly declared war on the United States. These organizations have carried out numerous deadly attacks on U.S. citizens, military and civilian, around the world. These organizations have attacked and killed thousands of civilians and military personnel on our own soil. These organizations have publicly vowed to carry out more of such attacks in the future. These organizations are actively seeking out nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use against civilian and military targets overseas and within our own borders. Whether we like it or not, we are at war. Even if we do not strike back, we are still at war.
The difficulty comes not in determining whether we are at war and if we should defend ourselves, but how doe we defend ourselves against attacks against our civilians that come not from other nation states with clearly defined borders, armies, and governments but are transnational and often are indistinguishable from the civilian populations around them. There are not clear military targets, definitive armies or simple borders as in the past. Our understanding of warfare needs to be updated and changed to reflect the new realities. We cannot evaluate wars in the same way as we have in the past. As Christians, we need to spend more time studying these realities and evaluating what biblical responsibilities a government has towards its citizens and how Christian principles should guide decision-making in this new situation.
I agree with most of what Jim Wallis says, yet I feel that his evaluation of the current situation is too limited. I agree that Jesus has clearly laid down principles of non-violence and Christians must not strike back at those who strike them. However, governments have the moral obligation to protect their citizens and to maintain order. The Apostle Paul says, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-4). The context is concerned about Christians obeying the government, yet there are some principles in this passage that are applicable to war. Governments are divinely appointed to maintain order and peace and have been invested with the authority to punish wrongdoers. It would be immoral for a government to not punish crime or to allow wrongdoers to continue to hurting citizens. The government has been given divine authority to “bear the sword” both in civil and international affairs. Therefore, it is not always wrong to go to war. In fact, there are times it is wrong to not go to war.
Therefore, the question we should be asking is whether the war in Iraq is essential to bringing criminals to justice and to prevent these criminals from committing future crimes against our citizens. Jim Wallis doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq meets these criteria and therefore should be stopped. I am very sympathetic to his call to peace, but I am still doing more research on the current situation before I make a final decision about the legitimacy of the war. Since I am coming at this years later that Jim, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hold my judgment in humility. However, I must still do my own research and make my own decision based upon as much correct information that I can obtain.
So, is the war in Iraq a matter of faith? Definitely. Should we pray for it to end? Yes. Was it a political and military blunder? Maybe. Is it a just war?
You can read Jim Wallis' article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/jim-wallis-ending-war-is-matter-of.html
Electra
Euripides’ version of the Electra story differs from Sophocles’ in both setting and focus. The story tells the revenge Electra and her brother Orestes take on their mother and step-father for murdering their father, Agamemnon. Clytemnestra, and her lover Aegisthus, murdered Agamemnon on his return from the Trojan war, and then plotted to kill both Electra and Orestes. The head servant hid Orestes and took him to safety where he lived as an exile. Clytemnestra pleaded with Aegisthus not to kill Electra, so he forced her to marry an old peasant so that any children she might bear would be poor and of ignoble birth, making it unlikely that they would threaten his usurped throne.
Orestes now returns in disguise to avenge his father’s death. He reveals himself to his sister, Electra, and they plot to kill Aegisthus and their mother. Orestes hacks down Aegisthus with a meat cleaver while he is offering a sacrifice to the nymphs. He hides the body in Electra’s house and they wait for their mother to complete their task. Clytemnestra comes and tries to justify her murder of Agamemnon by claiming it was revenge for his offering their daughter as a sacrifice before leaving for Troy, as well as for bringing back Cassandra as a concubine from Troy. The dialogue between Electra and her mother highlights the differences in their values; Electra values justice while Clytemnestra values expediency.
Electra then invites her mother into the house and is slaughtered by Orestes who is waiting for her. She cries out for mercy and tries to play on Orestes’ instincts for loving his mother, but he refuses to listen to her desperate cries for mercy. Orestes and Electra emerge from the house, covered in blood and gore, shocked at the horror of their deed.
Electra must atone for her deed by marrying Orestes’ companion and Orestes must go to Athens to stand trial, most likely to be acquitted. Euripides clearly sees the two as innocent for seeking vengeance but still realizes the horror of killing one’s mother. The end of the play is a graphic description of how revenge wreaks havoc on those who pursue it. While contemplating revenge, Electra and Orestes are convinced of the justice of their actions, but after the deed is done, they are forever changed by the horror of their actions. You cannot get revenge without affecting the core of your being.
One quote from the play that I found profound was the line Electra speaks to Aegisthus, condemning him for marrying her mother: “Who so fixes his gaze on wealth or noble birth and weds a wicked woman, is a fool; better is a humble partner in his home, if she be virtuous than a proud one.” Great advice.
Orestes now returns in disguise to avenge his father’s death. He reveals himself to his sister, Electra, and they plot to kill Aegisthus and their mother. Orestes hacks down Aegisthus with a meat cleaver while he is offering a sacrifice to the nymphs. He hides the body in Electra’s house and they wait for their mother to complete their task. Clytemnestra comes and tries to justify her murder of Agamemnon by claiming it was revenge for his offering their daughter as a sacrifice before leaving for Troy, as well as for bringing back Cassandra as a concubine from Troy. The dialogue between Electra and her mother highlights the differences in their values; Electra values justice while Clytemnestra values expediency.
Electra then invites her mother into the house and is slaughtered by Orestes who is waiting for her. She cries out for mercy and tries to play on Orestes’ instincts for loving his mother, but he refuses to listen to her desperate cries for mercy. Orestes and Electra emerge from the house, covered in blood and gore, shocked at the horror of their deed.
Electra must atone for her deed by marrying Orestes’ companion and Orestes must go to Athens to stand trial, most likely to be acquitted. Euripides clearly sees the two as innocent for seeking vengeance but still realizes the horror of killing one’s mother. The end of the play is a graphic description of how revenge wreaks havoc on those who pursue it. While contemplating revenge, Electra and Orestes are convinced of the justice of their actions, but after the deed is done, they are forever changed by the horror of their actions. You cannot get revenge without affecting the core of your being.
One quote from the play that I found profound was the line Electra speaks to Aegisthus, condemning him for marrying her mother: “Who so fixes his gaze on wealth or noble birth and weds a wicked woman, is a fool; better is a humble partner in his home, if she be virtuous than a proud one.” Great advice.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
300
If you are squeamish and don’t like violence, then don’t see the movie “300”. Three fourths of the movie is dedicated to all-out warfare, brutality and gore. And the added sexual content doesn’t make it any easier to watch. Decapitation, severing of arms, legs, hands and other body parts flood the screen in stylized battle scenes shot in stop-action, slow motion and choreographed with dance-like moves. And then there is blood spurting all over with plenty of dead bodies hung up, stuck on posts, made into walls and just lying around.
But beside the gore, there are some good features to 300. First, courage and bravery reign supreme. This movie is about Sparta and the elite fighting force that culture produced. Leonidas, the king of Sparta, illegally takes 300 of his elite personal guard to defend Sparta from the million man Persian army, composed of armies from 100 nations. Brutally bred and trained as professional soldiers, Spartans feared nothing and were willing to sacrifice their lives for their city. Facing overwhelming odds, Leonidas and his 300 warriors don’t flinch but actually look forward to the battle. One Spartan hopes out loud to perhaps find one warrior out the million who would prove to be worthy of his death. Queen Gorgo tells Leonidas, “Come back with your shield or on it.” Wimping out is not an option.
Second, Spartans work as a unit, so that one’s strength is found in one’s companion. Leonidas says, “A Spartan's strength is the warrior next to him.” Spartan military strategy depends on coordinated defense and offense, so victory depends entirely on the whole army working together as a single unit. Leonidas is selfless and willingly puts himself in the thick of the battle to aid his comrades. In contrast, Xerxes, the Persian emperor, watches from a distance and doesn’t take part in the battle but merely sends army after army into battle without regard for their lives.
Third, Spartans believe in freedom and are willing to die for it. “Freedom is never free,” says Queen Gorgo. King Leonidas is ready and willing to lay down his life so that his city might remain free from the tyranny of Xerxes and the Persians. There are many times that Leonidas and his captains remind the rest that they are fighting for freedom. Leonidas refuses to bow to Xerxes, even after Xerxes offers to make him the warlord of all Greece if he would merely bow before him. In the end, Leonidas pretends to bow but only so that he can get a final chance to throw a spear at Xerxes.
While Sparta’s bravery and fighting prowess are impressive, there were some major drawbacks to Spartan culture. First, it was cruel, brutal and uncaring. In order to create brave soldiers many children had to be thrown away at birth because they were unfit (survival of the fittest to the max).
Second, the Spartans were incapable of sharing their feelings. Whenever you work to block out the negative emotions of fear and other weakness, you also make it impossible to feel the positive emotions of love and joy. Leonidas couldn’t even tell his wife, Queen Gorgo, that he loved her when he left for battle, nor could he relay a message of love when he sent his friend back to tell their story. When asked what he wanted to say to his wife, Leonidas replied, “Nothing. She already knows how I feel.” In fact, when Leonidas’ captain sees his son killed in the fighting he handles his grief by filling his heart with hate. Sparta might be cool and macho, but most intelligent men wouldn’t want to live there.
Third, Sparta didn’t develop much of a culture. In contrast, Athens developed one of the richest cultures of the ancient world. Athens’ philosophy, art and writings still influence us today, but very little of Sparta’s culture affects us today. A culture built around war cannot produce much of lasting value.
There are some similarities between king Leonidas and Jesus. Leonidas willingly laid down his life for his brothers. One soldier says, as he lies dying, “It is an honor to die at your side.” Leonidas replies, “It was an honor to live at yours.” Leonidas would rather die with his men than betray them and his city for his own personal gain. Xerxes tempts Leonidas by offering to make him the warlord of all Greece if he would simply bow down to him. The scene echoes Satan’s temptation of Christ in the wilderness, where Satan offered all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would simply bow down and worship him. The temptation of power and glory at the expense of truth, virtue and obedience to God confronts many men even today. It takes strong character and values to withstand this temptation, especially if the alternative is personal loss, pain or even death. To Leonidas’ credit, he refuses to accept personal gain at the expense of his values.
But beside the gore, there are some good features to 300. First, courage and bravery reign supreme. This movie is about Sparta and the elite fighting force that culture produced. Leonidas, the king of Sparta, illegally takes 300 of his elite personal guard to defend Sparta from the million man Persian army, composed of armies from 100 nations. Brutally bred and trained as professional soldiers, Spartans feared nothing and were willing to sacrifice their lives for their city. Facing overwhelming odds, Leonidas and his 300 warriors don’t flinch but actually look forward to the battle. One Spartan hopes out loud to perhaps find one warrior out the million who would prove to be worthy of his death. Queen Gorgo tells Leonidas, “Come back with your shield or on it.” Wimping out is not an option.
Second, Spartans work as a unit, so that one’s strength is found in one’s companion. Leonidas says, “A Spartan's strength is the warrior next to him.” Spartan military strategy depends on coordinated defense and offense, so victory depends entirely on the whole army working together as a single unit. Leonidas is selfless and willingly puts himself in the thick of the battle to aid his comrades. In contrast, Xerxes, the Persian emperor, watches from a distance and doesn’t take part in the battle but merely sends army after army into battle without regard for their lives.
Third, Spartans believe in freedom and are willing to die for it. “Freedom is never free,” says Queen Gorgo. King Leonidas is ready and willing to lay down his life so that his city might remain free from the tyranny of Xerxes and the Persians. There are many times that Leonidas and his captains remind the rest that they are fighting for freedom. Leonidas refuses to bow to Xerxes, even after Xerxes offers to make him the warlord of all Greece if he would merely bow before him. In the end, Leonidas pretends to bow but only so that he can get a final chance to throw a spear at Xerxes.
While Sparta’s bravery and fighting prowess are impressive, there were some major drawbacks to Spartan culture. First, it was cruel, brutal and uncaring. In order to create brave soldiers many children had to be thrown away at birth because they were unfit (survival of the fittest to the max).
Second, the Spartans were incapable of sharing their feelings. Whenever you work to block out the negative emotions of fear and other weakness, you also make it impossible to feel the positive emotions of love and joy. Leonidas couldn’t even tell his wife, Queen Gorgo, that he loved her when he left for battle, nor could he relay a message of love when he sent his friend back to tell their story. When asked what he wanted to say to his wife, Leonidas replied, “Nothing. She already knows how I feel.” In fact, when Leonidas’ captain sees his son killed in the fighting he handles his grief by filling his heart with hate. Sparta might be cool and macho, but most intelligent men wouldn’t want to live there.
Third, Sparta didn’t develop much of a culture. In contrast, Athens developed one of the richest cultures of the ancient world. Athens’ philosophy, art and writings still influence us today, but very little of Sparta’s culture affects us today. A culture built around war cannot produce much of lasting value.
There are some similarities between king Leonidas and Jesus. Leonidas willingly laid down his life for his brothers. One soldier says, as he lies dying, “It is an honor to die at your side.” Leonidas replies, “It was an honor to live at yours.” Leonidas would rather die with his men than betray them and his city for his own personal gain. Xerxes tempts Leonidas by offering to make him the warlord of all Greece if he would simply bow down to him. The scene echoes Satan’s temptation of Christ in the wilderness, where Satan offered all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would simply bow down and worship him. The temptation of power and glory at the expense of truth, virtue and obedience to God confronts many men even today. It takes strong character and values to withstand this temptation, especially if the alternative is personal loss, pain or even death. To Leonidas’ credit, he refuses to accept personal gain at the expense of his values.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Don’t Circle the Wagons
If you got most of your history of the American West from cowboys and Indian movies, or from left-wing hate America first literature, then you should read P.J. Hill’s article, “Don’t Circle the Wagons” in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, page 10. Hill reviews the book, Indians and Emigrants: Encounters on the Overland Trails, and debunks the notion that there was a lot of conflict between the Indians and the settlers because they came from very different cultures. He also debunks the myth that today there must be clashes of cultures as well. On the contrary, history shows that two widely different cultures can coexist amiably if they want to.
Contrary to modern myths, “Indians and settlers interacted rather peacefully for a long period of time.” The prairie became a vast cooperative meeting ground where commerce and exchange were carried out for mutual profit. Much of the land was settled in a peaceful manner and wagon trains heading to Oregon or California were rarely attacked by Indians. Both sides saw incredible opportunities for potential gain through repeated peaceful interaction. Indians even settled along the trail to act as middle men in this exchange system.
While there was some misunderstanding between the two cultures, most of the misunderstanding came from the side of the settlers, not the Indians. There were a few skirmishes, and these “stories” were repeated numerous times, until they became well-embedded in the consciousness of those heading west. As a result, many settlers expected to be attacked, and so they began to treat all Indians with suspicion and fear. And even though there were very few attacks and Indians willingly offered themselves as guides, even putting their own lives in danger to help and rescue settlers, the fear grew.
From 1840 to 1860, only 362 emigrants were killed by Indians, a mere 18 deaths per year. By contrast, 426 Indians were killed by whites. Yet these were small skirmishes, usually as the result of the settlers misunderstanding the intentions of the Indians. There were few major incidents or organized plans of attack. Instead, there were only eight “massacres” between 1840 and 1870.
I like Hill’s conclusion: “We ought not to be too quick to assume that people of very different backgrounds will always find their interactions laden with conflict.”
As Christians, we need to be leaders in reducing fear and promoting peaceful interaction between groups with different backgrounds and worldviews. Fear leads to mistrust and misunderstandings, resulting in conflict. Love conquers fear and leads to trust, understanding and cooperation.
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/3.10.html
Contrary to modern myths, “Indians and settlers interacted rather peacefully for a long period of time.” The prairie became a vast cooperative meeting ground where commerce and exchange were carried out for mutual profit. Much of the land was settled in a peaceful manner and wagon trains heading to Oregon or California were rarely attacked by Indians. Both sides saw incredible opportunities for potential gain through repeated peaceful interaction. Indians even settled along the trail to act as middle men in this exchange system.
While there was some misunderstanding between the two cultures, most of the misunderstanding came from the side of the settlers, not the Indians. There were a few skirmishes, and these “stories” were repeated numerous times, until they became well-embedded in the consciousness of those heading west. As a result, many settlers expected to be attacked, and so they began to treat all Indians with suspicion and fear. And even though there were very few attacks and Indians willingly offered themselves as guides, even putting their own lives in danger to help and rescue settlers, the fear grew.
From 1840 to 1860, only 362 emigrants were killed by Indians, a mere 18 deaths per year. By contrast, 426 Indians were killed by whites. Yet these were small skirmishes, usually as the result of the settlers misunderstanding the intentions of the Indians. There were few major incidents or organized plans of attack. Instead, there were only eight “massacres” between 1840 and 1870.
I like Hill’s conclusion: “We ought not to be too quick to assume that people of very different backgrounds will always find their interactions laden with conflict.”
As Christians, we need to be leaders in reducing fear and promoting peaceful interaction between groups with different backgrounds and worldviews. Fear leads to mistrust and misunderstandings, resulting in conflict. Love conquers fear and leads to trust, understanding and cooperation.
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/3.10.html
What Ever Happened to English Studies
In this article, “The English Professor’s Tale,” Tom Shippey reviews the recent book The Yale Companion to Chaucer in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, page 11. If you enjoy Chaucer’s book, The Canterbury Tales, then some of the discussion in this article might appeal to you.
What I thought was illuminating has little to do with Chaucer and more to do with modern academics, especially English Studies. Shippey notes that 25 years ago there were 65,000 undergraduate majors in English Studies in the United States. Since then, the population has doubled but five years ago there were only 49,000 undergraduate majors in English Studies. English Studies have lost nearly one third of their market share. Since one would have expected 130,000 with the doubling of the population, this is even a greater loss.
Shippey wryly suggests that perhaps the reason is that English Studies professors are churning out politicized treatments in books and lectures like they have in this poorly produced group of essays. Who wants to waste their life churning out politicized garbage?
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/5.11.html.
What I thought was illuminating has little to do with Chaucer and more to do with modern academics, especially English Studies. Shippey notes that 25 years ago there were 65,000 undergraduate majors in English Studies in the United States. Since then, the population has doubled but five years ago there were only 49,000 undergraduate majors in English Studies. English Studies have lost nearly one third of their market share. Since one would have expected 130,000 with the doubling of the population, this is even a greater loss.
Shippey wryly suggests that perhaps the reason is that English Studies professors are churning out politicized treatments in books and lectures like they have in this poorly produced group of essays. Who wants to waste their life churning out politicized garbage?
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/5.11.html.
Preachers of Hate
Kenneth Timmerman is a journalist who has spent most of his life covering the news in the Middle East. In Preachers of Hate he traces the roots of anti-Semitism and how it is growing around the world, especially in the Middle East. He covers much of the same ground as other books I have read recently, but he uses a lot of primary source materials, interviews, and quotes to illustrate first-hand the hatred and racism of leaders and major figures not only in the Middle East but around the world.
One of the main sources of modern anti-Semitism is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fictional document published by the secret police in Russia around 1890 to 1900 to stir up hatred toward the Jews. The book pretends to be the minutes of secret meetings by Jewish leaders where they plot to take over the world. This document has been published in many languages and spread around the world. Even today, the lie that there is a worldwide conspiracy of Jews to take over the world is rampant in many countries.
Every fanatical Islamic radical is familiar with this document and they believe it is true. Islamic religious leaders use this work to indoctrinate young men and stir up in them a hatred for the Jews. Millions of copies are available in Arabic in every Arabic language bookstore around the world. It is one of the primary texts used to stir up animosity towards Israel and all Jews living around the world.
Another interesting fact is the alliance between Hitler and radical Islamists before and during World War II. Because of their mutual hatred of the Jews, an agreement was made to work together to eradicate the Jews from the earth. Prominent Nazi leaders had high level meetings with Arab leaders in order to facilitate the murder of millions of Jews not only in Europe, but throughout the Middle East during the war.
I also found the story behind how Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize in 1994. The prize was shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in order to quell public outrage. How any of these men could be considered candidates for a peace prize is beyond belief, especially Arafat. Yasser Arafat was adept at manipulating public opinion, mainly by promoting peace in English to the Western press and then turning around in Arabic and promoting the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. If his statements in English were taken at face value without any consideration of his actions or true beliefs, it might be possible for him to be seen as a peacemaker. However, his actions and undeniable public statements leave no doubt that he had no intention of making peace with Israel. Instead, he worked tirelessly for Israel’s destruction and would settle for nothing less than complete annihilation of the Jews.
Here are some quotes from the book that clearly illustrate this point.
Here is a quote that clearly shows the message Arafat publicly declared he wanted to send to Palestinian children:
In an interview with Arafat broadcast on TV he was asked what message he wanted to share with the Palestinian children he quickly replied, “A Child who is grasping a stone, facing a tank, is it not the greatest message to the world when that child becomes a martyr. We are proud of him. Such a child will be given a new life.”
In addition to this, children are taught how to achieve martyrdom. One of the main roles of religious clerics is to educate young children in the art of suicide bombing. In Palestine, religious leaders are not men called by God but appointed by Arafat. They have no interest in religious education unless it is useful for stirring up hatred for the Jews. They are commanded to preach Jihad against Israel or be damned as the very word of God. This is a direct call to murder Jews for no other reason than hate. Killing Jews is not a political need but a religious requirement, and it is not an order from Arafat but the word of God Himself.
This is the message that has been pounded into them at the mosques week after week, year after year; if they want to be good Muslims they have to kill Jews. This is an important lesson we in the west have to heed. The enmity being preached against America and the West has nothing to do with politics or support for Israel but the simple fact that we are not Muslims.
Arafat’s top appointed cleric in Gaza preached: “The Jews are the allies of the Americans and the Americans are the allies of the Jews, and they are against you, Oh Muslims. Wherever you are, kill the Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them. They are all in one trench against the Arabs and the Muslims.
At the end of a video for children urging them to become martyrs, the official seal of the Palestinian Authority comes on at the end with a written message in Arabic and English: “Ask for death; the life will be given to you.”
Timmerman points out that not even Hitler’s youth were urged to commit suicide; they were taught to kill, not be killed. This is the ultimate in child abuse. That young children are being indoctrinated to hate Israel and the West and commit suicide in order to murder them still hasn’t been fully understood by the West.
Another important distinction to be made is that the present political conflict in Israel today is not the cause of the hatred of the Jews. Rather, it is the hatred of the Jews that is causing all the violence in the Middle East. It is not a matter of Israel’s political policies or defensive measures. No matter what Israel does, the only solution for the radical Muslim extremists is the total annihilation of Israel and the death of all Jews.
What Arafat and other Muslim leaders have done is take a minor border conflict in Palestine and have transformed it into a global conflict between Islam and non-Muslims, an eternal battle between Good and Evil. The Muslims have taken the position of no peace, no accommodation, no compromise, no coexistence. Muslims are being taught that the conflict between Muslims and Jews is total and eternal, and it will end only when the Muslims have murdered the last Jew hiding behind a tree or a stone.
Timmerman also gives some important information on Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Saudi support of global terrorism through the takeover of mosques around the world by radical Wahhabi teachers.
Osama bin Laden boasted about his terrorist training camps, saying that “the only expense for a new trainee is the cost of travel to the camp. Everything else is paid for by Al Qaeda. We are building an international army, Mohammed’s army, to combat occupying governments. There are 26 million Muslims in Europe, and in the United Kingdom we have over 385 Islamic fundamentalist organizations, 1,200 mosques, and 800 fundraising organizations. We form a fifth column and we will create chaos. We won’t stop until we see the Muslim flag flying over Number 10 Downing Street.”
According to CIA former head George Tenet, “Al Qaeda’s terrorist network is present in over 60 countries. An estimated 20,000 men have received military and intelligence training in their camps before returning to their home countries. They form the backbone of a deadly worldwide Jihad.”
One of the main sources of modern anti-Semitism is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fictional document published by the secret police in Russia around 1890 to 1900 to stir up hatred toward the Jews. The book pretends to be the minutes of secret meetings by Jewish leaders where they plot to take over the world. This document has been published in many languages and spread around the world. Even today, the lie that there is a worldwide conspiracy of Jews to take over the world is rampant in many countries.
Every fanatical Islamic radical is familiar with this document and they believe it is true. Islamic religious leaders use this work to indoctrinate young men and stir up in them a hatred for the Jews. Millions of copies are available in Arabic in every Arabic language bookstore around the world. It is one of the primary texts used to stir up animosity towards Israel and all Jews living around the world.
Another interesting fact is the alliance between Hitler and radical Islamists before and during World War II. Because of their mutual hatred of the Jews, an agreement was made to work together to eradicate the Jews from the earth. Prominent Nazi leaders had high level meetings with Arab leaders in order to facilitate the murder of millions of Jews not only in Europe, but throughout the Middle East during the war.
I also found the story behind how Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize in 1994. The prize was shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in order to quell public outrage. How any of these men could be considered candidates for a peace prize is beyond belief, especially Arafat. Yasser Arafat was adept at manipulating public opinion, mainly by promoting peace in English to the Western press and then turning around in Arabic and promoting the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. If his statements in English were taken at face value without any consideration of his actions or true beliefs, it might be possible for him to be seen as a peacemaker. However, his actions and undeniable public statements leave no doubt that he had no intention of making peace with Israel. Instead, he worked tirelessly for Israel’s destruction and would settle for nothing less than complete annihilation of the Jews.
Here are some quotes from the book that clearly illustrate this point.
Here is a quote that clearly shows the message Arafat publicly declared he wanted to send to Palestinian children:
In an interview with Arafat broadcast on TV he was asked what message he wanted to share with the Palestinian children he quickly replied, “A Child who is grasping a stone, facing a tank, is it not the greatest message to the world when that child becomes a martyr. We are proud of him. Such a child will be given a new life.”
In addition to this, children are taught how to achieve martyrdom. One of the main roles of religious clerics is to educate young children in the art of suicide bombing. In Palestine, religious leaders are not men called by God but appointed by Arafat. They have no interest in religious education unless it is useful for stirring up hatred for the Jews. They are commanded to preach Jihad against Israel or be damned as the very word of God. This is a direct call to murder Jews for no other reason than hate. Killing Jews is not a political need but a religious requirement, and it is not an order from Arafat but the word of God Himself.
This is the message that has been pounded into them at the mosques week after week, year after year; if they want to be good Muslims they have to kill Jews. This is an important lesson we in the west have to heed. The enmity being preached against America and the West has nothing to do with politics or support for Israel but the simple fact that we are not Muslims.
Arafat’s top appointed cleric in Gaza preached: “The Jews are the allies of the Americans and the Americans are the allies of the Jews, and they are against you, Oh Muslims. Wherever you are, kill the Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them. They are all in one trench against the Arabs and the Muslims.
At the end of a video for children urging them to become martyrs, the official seal of the Palestinian Authority comes on at the end with a written message in Arabic and English: “Ask for death; the life will be given to you.”
Timmerman points out that not even Hitler’s youth were urged to commit suicide; they were taught to kill, not be killed. This is the ultimate in child abuse. That young children are being indoctrinated to hate Israel and the West and commit suicide in order to murder them still hasn’t been fully understood by the West.
Another important distinction to be made is that the present political conflict in Israel today is not the cause of the hatred of the Jews. Rather, it is the hatred of the Jews that is causing all the violence in the Middle East. It is not a matter of Israel’s political policies or defensive measures. No matter what Israel does, the only solution for the radical Muslim extremists is the total annihilation of Israel and the death of all Jews.
What Arafat and other Muslim leaders have done is take a minor border conflict in Palestine and have transformed it into a global conflict between Islam and non-Muslims, an eternal battle between Good and Evil. The Muslims have taken the position of no peace, no accommodation, no compromise, no coexistence. Muslims are being taught that the conflict between Muslims and Jews is total and eternal, and it will end only when the Muslims have murdered the last Jew hiding behind a tree or a stone.
Timmerman also gives some important information on Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Saudi support of global terrorism through the takeover of mosques around the world by radical Wahhabi teachers.
Osama bin Laden boasted about his terrorist training camps, saying that “the only expense for a new trainee is the cost of travel to the camp. Everything else is paid for by Al Qaeda. We are building an international army, Mohammed’s army, to combat occupying governments. There are 26 million Muslims in Europe, and in the United Kingdom we have over 385 Islamic fundamentalist organizations, 1,200 mosques, and 800 fundraising organizations. We form a fifth column and we will create chaos. We won’t stop until we see the Muslim flag flying over Number 10 Downing Street.”
According to CIA former head George Tenet, “Al Qaeda’s terrorist network is present in over 60 countries. An estimated 20,000 men have received military and intelligence training in their camps before returning to their home countries. They form the backbone of a deadly worldwide Jihad.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)