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.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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)