Archive for February 11th, 2008

An Account of Angels

Monday, February 11th, 2008

I can’t remember where I read about this, but according to the authors of the publication, this account is true. I remember it quite well, so even though I’m paraphrasing, this should be very close to how the original document was written. If I can locate the original document, I will site it here.

A group of Christian missionaries were the first contact with a tribe of natives on a Pacific Island. The natives, who were “head hunters” at the time, allowed the missionaries to stay.
Several months into the missionaries visit, several young native warriors began to incite the rest of the village against the missionaries. One day, as the situation became more dangerous, the missionaries barricaded themselves into their hut and knowing that they were soon to be put to death, began praying fervently that God would deliver them.
As night fell on the village, the missionaries could hear the village warriors as they went through various rituals that were required before they could attack. The missionaries continued to plead with God, that His will would be done. If He decided not to deliver them, then please let their deaths be quick. Uncharacteristically, none of the missionaries were afraid.
When the warrior’s ceremonies were complete, the missionaries heard them surround the hut. Expecting them to break in and begin the slaughter, they were confused by the sounds of the warriors running around the hut and shouting, but not attacking.
Some time later, silence fell over the village. The missionaries waited.
As dawn broke, the missionaries stepped from the hut to find the village chief and his headmen kneeling outside. They had brought large baskets of fruit and meat to the missionaries, which they push forward to them while never lifting their eyes.
Later that day, the missionaries ventured into the village and found the rest of its population acting in much the same manner as the chief and headmen.
The missionaries preached the message of salvation through Jesus Christ over the next several months. Many villagers accepted Jesus as their Savior and were baptized.
Almost a year after their night of terror, the leader of the missionaries asked the chief why they did not attack and kill them.
The chief said, “The men who guarded your hut were bigger than our tallest warrior. Their eyes were as bright as the sun and their knives were long and looked like the sunlight on the water. We were very afraid of them. We knew that your God is more powerful than ours and that we could not kill you”.

In the Bible, every time a person met an angel, the angel had to tell them “Do not be afraid”. This is because an angel is an awesome sight.
Unlike what Hollywood and Hallmark Cards would have us believe, angels are not cute little fat children with wings. They are awesome and powerful, radiating God’s Holiness from their beings. They are frightful beings, yet they are the messengers of God, sent to do His Bidding. They are sent to help us.

Jesus died for our sins on the Cross. Three days later, He defeated death and rose from the dead. He is very much alive today and sits at the right hand of God.
If you do not know Jesus, please read this on how to have a person relationship with Him.

Chavez Threatens To Cut Off US Oil

Monday, February 11th, 2008

If you don’t already know it, Chavez is a nut!

President Hugo Chavez on Sunday threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States in an “economic war” if Exxon Mobil Corp. wins court judgments to seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets.
Exxon Mobil has gone after the assets of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in U.S., British and Dutch courts as it challenges the nationalization of a multibillion dollar oil project by Chavez’s government.

A British court has issued an injunction “freezing” as much as $12 billion in assets.

“If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we’re going to harm you,” Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, “Hello, President.” “Do you know how? We aren’t going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger.”

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela’s No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez’s warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government’s nationalization drive through lawsuits.

“I speak to the U.S. empire, because that’s the master: continue and you will see that we won’t sent one drop of oil to the empire of the United States,” Chavez said Sunday.

“The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us,” Chavez said, accusing the Irving, Texas-based oil company of acting in concert with Washington.

Exxon Mobil spokeswoman Margaret Ross said the company had no comment. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Caracas did not return a call.

Original Link

“The Battle for America Has Just Begun. A Conversation with Bat Ye’or” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler

Monday, February 11th, 2008

The eminent scholar, Bat Ye’or, is tiny in height only; she is a towering intellect and a fierce judge of both human character and history. Her work predicted and documented the Islamification of Europe. We both agree that the battle for America has only begun—although I believe that it is well underway.

Here we are, two friends, ladies of a certain age, sitting in the most pleasant of surroundings , (a private club, tres ancien regime), and conversing most seriously, not about children and grandchildren, not about the ballet or the opera, (under other circumstances, a conversation we might certainly like to have), but given our times, and our views, a luxury we cannot afford. Thus, we talk about War and Peace and the Clash of Civilizations. What could be more enjoyable and yet more pathetic? Yes, pathetic. We two should be having this conversation in a government office and our views should be leading to co-ordinated government actions. More’s the pity that this is not the case.

But please: Come and join us.

Phyllis: What do you see is happening at this moment?

Bat Ye’or: The West is engaged in a very careful exercise of self-censorship. We are trying not to offend Muslim sensibilities. Western governments want to impose respect for Muslim sensibilities in the hope that this will avoid jihad. They are ready to suppress the truth.

Phyllis: What do you think of an Obama Presidency?

Bat Ye’or: Obama and his supporters do not seem to understand that Europe has failed. Today, European dissidents are forming movements against the European Union whose policies have led to the Islamification of Europe. Europe is suffering from a huge Muslim immigration problem. The Muslim immigrants do not want to integrate into a modern, tolerant state and they want to impose Sha’ria law on us all.

Phyllis: What does this remind you of?

Bat Ye’or: All these Western gestures of appeasement reminds me of the dhimmi regulations. These are a whole set of regulations whose purpose is to respect Muslim sensibilities. Therefore, Christians must conduct “quiet” services and dhimmis (infidels) must wear special clothing so as not to shock or offend Muslims with their too-fashionable or too-expensive clothing. Long ago, infidels had to dismount from their donkeys when a Muslim approached and a dhimmi could only pass a Muslim on the left (or impure) side, not on the right side.

I am not in favor of inciting anyone but really, where will this all end? And why this super-sensitivity only to Muslims? There is only one answer. Our intellectuals and politicians want to have a good relationship with the Muslim world. They think they will always have the freedoms that they currently enjoy. They do not understand that those freedoms are at risk.

Phyllis: Where does Israel fit into this picture?

Bat Ye’or: Europeans have imagined that the problem is only Israel. They were committed to allowing the Arabs to destroy Israel if that kept them, the Europeans, safe. But these Europeans do not seem to remember that Islam persecuted and then destroyed Christianity in Muslim lands. We see a repetition of this in Europe today.

Phyllis: Such politicians and intellectuals are suicidal, don’t you think?

Bat Ye’or: Absolutely. But they want so much to be loved that they are reaching out to their enemy. This is the politics of self-destruction. They are making concessions about their basic security and freedom

Phyllis: Some people are already discouraged, almost in advance, about the battle for America. What do you think?

Bat Ye’or: This battle is not yet lost. The handful of us who are working to alert others to the dangers specific to the 21st century are doing heroic work against all odds. We—you—have not failed. I believe that we are planting seeds. When America battled communism it had whole organizations committed to doing so. We—you—have nothing like that today in the war against Islamic terror.

Phyllis: I know that your work was initially attacked or “disappeared.” How much has this changed?

Bat Ye’or: My work has been well received in Italy by the most prominent Italian intellectuals. I am, however, conspicuously avoided in the UK by the media and in universities—although I did speak before Parliament two years ago. In France, everyone’s speech is less free than elsewhere. It is the most intellectually repressive society.

After I returned home, I read that French intellectuals, headed by Bernard Henri-Levy are organizing to support Aayan Hirsi Ali’s request for French citizenship. Have the French finally begun to wake up? Or does this say something about Sarkozy’s future politics and his potential interest in a high-profile symbol?

TO BE CONTINUED.

———————————————-

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women’s studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women’s Health Network (1974). She is currently on the Board of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and lives in New York City. Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com.
We are delighted to have Dr. Chesler as a contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

Original Link.

California Supreme Court to Hear ‘Homosexual Marriage’ Case

Monday, February 11th, 2008

The California Supreme Court will decide whether to allow homosexuals to legally label their relationships as “marriages” in a case next month.

When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples in 2004, the Campaign for California Families filed suit to stop him. That led to a countersuit by homosexual activists, as well as the City and County of San Francisco. They claimed that the state’s one-man and one-woman marriage laws are discriminatory.

But Liberty Counsel founder Matt Staver argued and won the pro-family case before the California Court of Appeals and, next month he will present the same argument to the state supreme court. He argues that traditional marriages bring stability to communities.

Original Link.

Archbishop Called ‘Bonkers’ for His View of Shari’a

Monday, February 11th, 2008

The U.K. is still speeding full steam toward becoming an Islamic nation.

(CNSNews.com) – A call by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for Britain to adopt parts of Islamic law (shari’a) to help maintain social cohesion has provoked strong reaction.

In a lengthy academic lecture delivered in London Thursday night, the head of the Church of England and titular leader of the world’s 77-million strong Anglican/Episcopalian church challenged what he said were misconceptions about Islamic law.

Shari’a, he said, “is not intrinsically to do with any demand for Muslim dominance over non-Muslims.”

He laid out a case for the law of the land making some accommodation for minority communities that have “their own strongly entrenched legal and moral codes.”

Williams noted, for example, that laws on abortion make provision for the views of pro-life Christians and conscientious objection for medical professionals; and that Orthodox Jews have courts that handle some civil disputes.

In an interview with BBC radio, the archbishop acknowledged that the concept of a single body of law applying equally to all citizens is a foundational tenet of western democracy

But, he argued, the approach that says “there’s one law for everybody … and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts — I think that’s a bit of a danger.”

“There’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law.”

Williams made it clear in the interview that he was not endorsing extreme practices linked to shari’a in some parts of the world.

“Nobody in their right mind, I think, would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states – the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.”

Originally, he said, Islamic law was more enlightened in its provisions regarding women than other legal systems of its day.

With the whole area of rights and liberties of women having “moved on,” the principles behind Islamic legal provisions in that area need “broadening,” he added.

Reaction was swift — and harsh.

“Has the archbishop gone bonkers?” asked Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent at the London Times, saying that “incredulous commentators of every variety” had been stunned by Williams’ remarks.

“Is the Archbishop of Canterbury unaware of the history of the church he has been chosen to lead?” she asked. “The Church of England was born out of an express desire to rid Britain of a foreign, ecclesiastical jurisdiction [the Roman Catholic Church].”

And now, she said, Williams wants to introduce a new outside jurisdiction — “and an Islamic one at that!”

‘Monumentally stupid’

Catholic Herald editor Damien Thompson, writing on a Daily Telegraph blog, called the words “the most monumentally stupid thing I have ever heard an Archbishop of Canterbury say.”

He wondered how Williams’ views would go down with Anglicans in Africa – already angered by the homosexuality issue – particularly in parts of Nigeria where many live under totalitarian shari’a.

As the debate raged online, conservative Christian organizations weighed in.

“This is a Christian country with Christian laws,” said Stephen Green of Christian Voice. “If Muslims want to live under shari’a law then they are free to emigrate to a country where shari’a law is already in operation.”

“We would be alarmed at any proposal to incorporate any part of shari’a law into the British legal system,” said Mike Judge, spokesman for the Christian Institute, a non-denominational group that seeks to promote “Christian influence in a secular world.”

Original Link.

“I Challenge Noah Feldman to a Debate about the Islamic Headscarf. Will the New York Times Sponsor It?” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler

Monday, February 11th, 2008

On Friday, February 8th, I wrote about Professor Noah Feldman’s op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he viewed a long-standing Turkish ban on the wearing of headscarves in universities as a ban against religious “freedom.” On Saturday, February 9th, I noted here that on the very next day, February 9th, the New York Times (page A4) featured an interview with a Turkish woman lawyer, Fatma Benli, titled: “Under a Scarf, a Turkish Lawyer Fighting to Wear It.”

Why is the New York Times so invested in securing an Islamic religious right in Turkey?

Here’s an idea: In a gesture towards even-handedness, perhaps The Paper of Record might consider agitating for the right of European Jews to wear headcoverings (kipot or yarmulkes) without risking being cursed, beaten, or knifed to death? Better yet: How about some even-handed agitation for the religious rights, not only of Muslims in Turkey, but of Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Ba’hai, to practice their religions openly in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia—without being arrested and stoned to death?

Today, yet again, the New York Times, (page A3) featured another article about the Islamic headscarf in Turkey. Granted, this time they quoted some Turks who oppose lifting the ban. These secularists point out that “a woman’s right to resist being forced to wear head scarves by an increasingly conservative society—was under threat.” (I made this point in my blog here on this subject and would welcome Noah Feldman’s response to this point).

Further, today’ s piece, written by Sabrina Tavernise, quotes a member of the TUrkish Parliament. “This decision will bring further pressure on women…it will ultimately bring us Hezbollah terror, Al Qaeda terror and fundamentalism.” Finally, a former Turkish Justice Minister, Hikmet Sami Turk, says: “(Lifting the headscarf ban has) been presented as a liberty to cover the head, but in practice, it is going to evolve into a ban on uncovered hair.”

Noah Feldman, our Paper of Record: I implore you to listen to such voices. They know something about the Islamic headscarf, namely, that it is an augur of coercion, punishment, and the further subordination of women. Taking a “neutral” position, quoting both sides of the issue, is ultimately tantamount to siding with coercion.

The Islamic headscarf is the not the same as the Jewish kippah or wig or headcovering although I agree that there are troubling signs among a handful of religious Jews in Jerusalem in which the women are being coerced into wearing burqas! and in which long, wide, heavy, dark, and completely unattractive clothing is being forced upon Jewish women in certain ultra-religious sects, both in America and Israel. I view this as an Islamification of Judaism and I fear it both among Jews and among our Muslim cousins.

Speaking of cousins: When Muslim girls refuse to marry their first cousins they are usually honor-murdered. Ditto, when they refuse to wear the veil. The information coming out of the UK about this sets the number of honor murders yearly at 17,000 world-wide. (5,000 was the long-time number suggested by the United Nations).

As I’ve written before: I believe that mosque and state, church and state, synagogue and state should be separate and that religious women should be allowed to practice modesty and to wear the sign and symbol of their religion at home, and at worship. On the job, in the streets, and in the classrooms are more problematic—not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with wearing a headscarf or a religious headcovering but because of the unique and specific nature of Islam. (Christians do not kill their own who convert to another religion. Jews do not kill their own who break certain commandments). Muslims do.

Islam is a political ideology, not a religion, and should be treated as such—at least until such time that the moderates, reformers, and peace-loving Muslims have silenced the aggressive terrorists and haters of freedom who now speak for them.

———————————————-

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women’s studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women’s Health Network (1974). She is currently on the Board of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and lives in New York City. Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com.
We are delighted to have Dr. Chesler as a contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

Original Link.

“Not All Headcoverings are Equal: The Curious Case of Noah Feldman and the New York Times” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler

Monday, February 11th, 2008

Why has the NY Times published an article today (“Veiled Democracy”) written by Harvard Law Professor, Noah Feldman, in which Feldman explains that if Turkey allows Muslim women to wear the Islamic headscarf in universities that Turkey will be that much closer to a liberal democracy?

Pinch me. I must be dreaming.

Isn’t Feldman the very man who wrote a long, bitter, and rather shameful article in the Sunday New York Times magazine in which he excoriated his own Orthodox Jewish brethren for (accidentally, as it turns out), not including a photo of himself together with his non-Jewish, non-Orthodox, non-convert wife at a class reunion?

Oh, how he carried on about the hard-hearted prejudices of Orthodox Jews (some of whom also wear head coverings). And yet, here he is suggesting that an Islamic religious symbol—a head covering—might be the key to a liberal democracy and, as such, might also render Turkey a worthy entrant into the European Union.

Turkey—but not Israel.

More: Feldman says that allowing the Islamic headscarf is the “best possible refutation of the claim that Islam and democracy are incompatible” and would be a “case study of religious freedom against coercive secularism.”

So, Feldman is a passionate warrior for Islamic religious expression but an equally passionate warrior against similar Jewish religious expression.

Why? Does Feldman think that Islam is more liberal than Judaism? Does the Professor understand that Muslims are not allowed to convert, nor can they marry a non-Muslim who does not convert to Islam? Does Feldman understand that Muslim women are being killed for refusing to wear the headscarf? Do the editors at the New York Times “get” it? If not, why not?

Maybe I’m just a bit cranky, what with the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for Shari’a law in Britain—a first article of faith in the Church of fundamentalist Liberalism. By the way: Rest assured, Shari’a law has already been hard at work in settling many disputes in the UK, ranging from violent crimes to divorces.

Is Feldman entirely out of touch with Muslim-world realities? How about the American woman who was just arrested and strip-searched in Riyadh for the “crime” of sitting in Starbuck’s with a male non-relative business associate? How about the two sisters in Iran who were savagely lashed and who are now slated to be stoned to death for the alleged crime of “adultery?”

What is wrong with Noah Feldman?

———————————————-

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women’s studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women’s Health Network (1974). She is currently on the Board of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and lives in New York City. Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com.
We are delighted to have Dr. Chesler as a contributor to the Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog.

Original Link.

Hamas: We’re Allowed to Lie

Monday, February 11th, 2008

I wondering if there is any rational people left in the world who still believe a word these people say.

(IsraelNN.com) Hamas leaders spoke to the Arabic language Ash-Sharq il-Awsat newspaper recently and explained that as Muslims, they are allowed to lie. In an interview printed on Thursday, senior Hamas terrorists explained, “A Muslim is permitted to say things that oppose his beliefs in order to prevent damages or to be saved from death.”

This approach, known in Arabic as “taqiyya,” was behind several Hamas leaders’ recent public expression of support for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, they explained. Senior Hamas terrorists in Samaria, who were recently released from jail, publicly expressed disapproval with the Hamas takeover of Gaza and said they supported the PA forces. The sources quoted in Ash-Sharq il-Awsat explained that the Samarian terrorists’ announcement was not a sign of dissent within Hamas ranks, but rather a permitted use of “taqiyya” to deceive Abbas and avoid prison sentences.

Original Link.