Category Archives: religion

U.K. High Court Suggests Christian Beliefs Harmful to Children, Is the U.S. Next?

Posted on March 8, 2011 by | Leave a comment

In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.The Judges stated that Christian beliefs on sexual ethics may be ‘inimical’ to children, and they implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submission that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson’s judgment, handed down this afternoon (28 Feb), flies in the face of a statement, made less than a week ago, by Government Minister Michael Gove, who pledged that the Coalition would change the “culture of political correctness” related to adoption and fostering, and claimed that the Government wanted to increase the number of people who could offer a loving home to a child.

Today’s ruling relates to the dispute between married couple Eunice and Owen Johns and Derby City Council. The Johns applied to the Council in 2007 to foster a child but the Council blocked their application because they objected that the Johns were not willing to promote the practise of homosexuality to a young child. In November 2010 both parties jointly asked the Court to rule on whether the Johns were able to foster children, or whether they could be excluded from doing so under equality law because of their Christian beliefs.

Today (28th February) that judgment has been released. The judges declined to make the statement that the Johns, wanting to re-establish their fostering application, had sought. Instead, the judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience and leaves the Johns currently unable to foster a child as desired, despite their proven track record as foster parents. There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practise of homosexuality to small children.

The nature of the judgment means that Christians who hold orthodox Christian views on the family, marriage and sexuality will continue to face difficulties in the fostering and adoption process and the Courts will not intervene to stop this from happening. In fact, the summary contained in the judgment sends out the clear message that orthodox Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents.

In their judgment, the judges stated:

* That if children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views like the Johns “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”,[1]

* That there is a tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation. Yet, as regards fostering, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence”, [2]

* That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality, [3]

* That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs (This is incredible and very disingenuous as the Johns moral views cannot be separated from their religious beliefs), [4]and

* That “Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children”. [5] [5]

Equality and Human Rights Commission

The tax payer funded EHRC played an important role in this judgment. They intervened in the Johns case, and they suggested to the Court thata child should not, in their own words,be ‘infected’ with Christian moral beliefs. Suggesting that Christian moral beliefs on sexual ethics could ‘infect’ children is an extraordinary position for a statutory body to take. It is also deeply insulting both to the Johns, who have a proven track record of successfully raising children, and to Christians in general.

THE HIGH COURT IMPLICITLY UPHELD THIS SUBMISSION BY THE EHRC.

Johns Reaction

The judgment was greeted with disbelief and sadness today by Eunice and Owen Johns. In a statement, the couple said:

“We wanted to offer a loving home to a child in need. But because of this ruling we are unsure how we can continue the application process. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and a vulnerable child has probably now missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home. We do not believe that our ordinary Christian moral views are infectious, contrary to what the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes. Being a Christian is not a crime and should not stop us from raising children. Today, it looks as though a child has missed out on a home.”

Christian Legal Centre Reaction

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre said:

“The Johns are a mild mannered, ordinary Christian couple, yet they may never be able to foster children again. They were willing to love a child regardless of sexual orientation, but not willing to tell a young child that practising homosexuality was a positive thing. Now, a child has likely missed out on finding a home, at a time when there is a desperate shortage of willing parents.

“Eunice and Owen Johns have been humiliated and sidelined and told by a Government body (the EHRC) that their mainstream Christian views might “infect” children. They have also effectively been told by British Judges that their views may harm children.

“The Judges have claimed that there was no discrimination against the Johns as Christians because they were being excluded from fostering due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs. This claim that their moral beliefs on sex have nothing to do with their Christian faith is a clear falsehood made in order to justify their ruling. How can the Judges get away with this?

“What has happened to the Johns is part of a wider trend seen in recent years. The law has been increasingly interpreted by Judges in a way which favours homosexual rights over freedom of conscience. Significant areas of public life are now becoming out of bounds to Christians who do not want to compromise their beliefs. If Christian morals are harmful to children and unacceptable to the State, then how many years do we have before natural children start being taken away from Christians?

“At the Christian Legal Centre our clients have included, amongst many others, a nurse suspended for offering prayer; a Council worker suspended for talking about God to a client, a teacher suspended for offering prayer; a nurse forced off frontline nursing because she wouldn’t take off her cross. We have dealt with Civil Registrars who have been demoted because they did not want to officiate at civil partnerships, and a Christian counsellor who lost his job for not wanting to give sex therapy to homosexuals. In the last few years, several Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they refused to place children with homosexual couples.

“There is a great imbalance in the law at the moment, resulting in ordinary people suffering. The situation must be addressed by Parliament as the Judiciary have failed to stand for civil liberties but have capitulated to the agenda of the homosexual rights lobby. We cannot have a society where you are excluded just because you don’t agree with the sexual ethics of the homosexual lobby. Britain is now leading Europe in intolerance against religious belief.”

Xenia Citizen Journal Reaction

The differences between the problem faced by John’s in the U.K. and American parents are only the extent to which secular values drives the assault perpetrated by law against the rights of parents and families for the benefit of special interest groups (gays in John’s case) and those groups wrong behaviors. Ultimately, at issue is the morality of individuals (Johns) and the stigmatism of groups (Christians) over against the immorality of individuals (gays) and wrong behavior of their larger affiliations.

The absence of marriage, parents, children, family from both federal and most original state constitutions demonstrates that the rights of husband (male) and wife (female), parents and children are more fundamental than those political and legal documents and the institutions created by them. Because the family institution is naturally a sexually-oriented one, the gay political agenda is at root hostile to both nature and the natural family.

The great imbalance experienced by many parents and children in America is being redressed through litigation like Alford v Greene and the efforts by the Parental Rights organization to bring a constitutional amendment to a national vote. Pro-family organization like Mass Resistance, Washington State Extended Family, American Family Association, and many more are also fighting for the preservation of the family and their once unalienable rights.

Endnotes:

[1] [6]Para 93 of Judgment

[2] [7]Para 93 of Judgment

[3] [8]Para 101 of Judgment

[4] [9]Para 99 of Judgment

[5] [9]Para 102 of Judgment

Leave a comment

Posted in family, news, politics, religion

Tagged

Providence

Posted on March 5, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Paul Eidelberg

Jews and Christian believe, and without denying free will, that all that occurs in this world — both good and bad — is somehow providential and ultimately intended for our benefit. This belief poses an intellectual challenge, especially in view of all the bloodshed and suffering now going on in the world. We are compelled to think about or speculate on how that which we deem bad serves the good. Well, only the good Lord, by virtue of His Infinite Intelligence, can really answer this agonizing question. This kind of question goes back at least to Job, and the best we mortals can do is offer partial and no doubt inadequate answers.

So, with this qualification in mind, I will mention only one case that has deeply concerned me: “How does the election of Barack Obama, which I (and many others) deem bad serve the good?”

I will consider only one good consquence of his election. The fact that Mr. Obama declared early on that America is not a Christian nation, and the fact that he demoted Judaism in his Inaugural Address, have triggered a flood of new books on America’s Christian and Judaic foundations. I have even incorprated much of this material in my latest book on American Exceptionalism. I look at these new books as a providential sign for both America and Israel. Hence, even though we are concerned (and should be) about the shortcomings of those at the helm in America and Israel, this prompts us to think about what these two greatest of nations stand for, what makes them Exceptional, and what must be done to preserve their singular heritage.

Leave a comment

Posted in politics, religion

Tagged , , ,

Capital Punishment and Abortion

Posted on March 2, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

In the Mishna we read: “Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single soul to perish, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world.”

To avoid misunderstanding, let me state at the outset that, except in extreme cases, I do not advocate capital punishment in Israel at this time. Nor do I regard as correct the Catholic view of abortion. But there is something very curious about the liberal position on these two issues, especially by liberals who advocate the American practice of “abortion on demand.”

Among the arguments against capital punishment is the contention that society has no right to take the life even of the most savage murderer. Yet many if not most opponents of capital punishment assert the right of a woman, six and even more months pregnant, to snuff out, with the aid of a physician, the life of her unborn child. Murderers would thus be spared while the innocent would be murdered.

We have become “humane” and “progressive.” For now we feel compassion, perhaps some responsibility, for those who have taken life, not for those who have just begun to live. Without a twinge of moral doubt or remorse we execute the unborn and condemn as cruel and barbaric the execution of murderers.

That capital punishment should be called cruel and barbaric by its opponents is a nice commentary on our forefathers. Meanwhile, their humane descendants each year execute countless unborn babies whose only crime was to be unwanted.

An individual accused of murder receives due process of law. He is provided legal counsel to defend him, witnesses to testify on his behalf. In the United States a jury of twelve persons is empanelled to hear and weigh evidence bearing on his guilt or innocence. Let only one member of that jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and the accused is acquitted, his life spared.

Compare the plight of the unwanted, unborn child. He is utterly abandoned. Society affords him no defense, no legal counsel or friendly witness. Yet the life of the unborn child is on trial. He is on trial for being an inconvenient “fetus.” But we too are on trial, on trial in the courtroom of indifference called the “humane” and “progressive” society. We are not only spectators; we are also the jury. And we have been instructed by judges. They have told us that this unborn child is not a human being — which we are all the more ready to believe having been taught to regard it as a mere “fetus.”

Had we not been thus instructed, had we only harbored a reasonable doubt on this life and death issue, we would have acquitted the child rather than become his executioners. Only a reasonable doubt, nothing more than this, and we would have affirmed the child’s as well as our own humanity.

Liberal advocates of abortion intone the idea that a person has the right to control his or her own body. Some derive this right from British common law. To stretch the common law to justify “abortion on demand” is rather ironic. For the common law prohibited the arbitrary control of another person’s body and regarded a “fetus” as a “person”! This being so, it was impermissible to execute a pregnant murderess. But this is not the only irony.

The idea of “abortion on demand” actually violates the very nature of a woman’s body and the essence of motherhood. This can best be seen by reflecting on the Hebrew word for a woman’s womb — rechem. One cognate of the word rechem is “to feel pity or pain at another’s suffering.” Another is “to feel joy at another’s happiness.” Who feels more pain than a mother when her child is ill, or more joy when her child is well and successful. But this is not all.

The mother’s body nourishes the child in her womb. She gives of her own life’s substance to the child, a giving that signifies her selflessness. The very opposite character trait underlies “abortion on demand.”

The laws of our supposedly barbaric forefathers prohibited abortion unless the mother’s life was in danger. Many of our forefathers were doctors. Today many doctors, having added abortions to their repertoire of services, have also multiplied their yearly earnings. Because of this vested interest, the medical profession has become one of the principal supporters of abortion.

As for capital punishment, consider a few aspects of Judaic law on the subject. First, neither circumstantial evidence nor the confession of the accused is admissible under the Sanhedrin. Second, the murder had to be witnessed by two eligible persons, and they had to warn the would-be murderer of the consequences of his intended crime. For to be culpable the malefactor had to be sane, and the act of murder had to be deliberate. These qualifications made conviction for capital punishment exceedingly rare.

Clearly, these laws governing capital punishment do not depreciate the value of human life. To the contrary. Precisely because human life is sacred, those laws require the execution of convicted murderers, of those whose act of murder was itself a denial that human life is sacred.

By taking the life of a human being the murderer negates his own humanity; he reduces himself to the level of the beast. And it is more as a beast, homo lupus, than as homo civilis, that the murderer, after being duly tried and convicted, is executed. Imposing upon him the extreme penalty of death does not deny his humanity so much as it affirms the humanity or dignity of his victim. Perhaps, in the last analysis, the punishment of death is a profound public affirmation of the sanctity of life.

But these thoughts are not intended as a defense of capital punishment, else far more would have to be said on the subject. Let them rather stand as an argument against capital punishment: the capital punishment tolerated under the name of “abortion on demand” or its equivalent. If capital punishment is opposed on the ground that human life is so precious that even the life of the most vicious murderer must be spared, do we not cheapen life by the wholesale destruction of countless unborn children? Is the murderer more human than the unborn child?

One last word. In Alex Haley’s celebrated book, Roots, Omoro, one of the principal characters, tries to explain life and death to young Kunta Kinte: “He said that three groups of people lived in every village. First were those you could see — walking around, eating, sleeping, and working. Second were the ancestors, whom Grandma Yaisa had now joined.” “And the third people — who are they?” asked Kunta.

“The third people,” said Omoro, “are those waiting to be born.”

Leave a comment

Posted in politics, religion

Tagged , ,

Can American Values Radicalize Muslims?

Posted on February 18, 2011 by | Leave a comment

by Raymond Ibrahim

Recent comments by U.S. officials on the threat posed by “radicalized” American Muslims are troubling, both for their domestic and international implications. Attorney General Eric Holder states that “the threat has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.” The situation is critical enough to compel incoming head of the House Committee on Homeland Security Peter King to do all he can “to break down the wall of political correctness and drive the public debate on Islamic radicalization.”

To be sure, radicalized American Muslims pose a far greater risk than foreign radicals. For example, it is much easier for the former to get a job in the food industry and poison food — a recently revealed al-Qaeda strategy. American terrorists are also better positioned to exploit the Western mindset. After describing Anwar al-Awlaki as one of the most dangerous terrorists alive, Holder added that he “is a person who — as an American citizen — is familiar with this country and he brings a dimension, because of that American familiarity, that others do not.” (Likewise, American Adam Gadahn is al-Qaeda’s chief propagandist in English no doubt due to his “American familiarity.”)
Sue Myrick, a member of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote a particularly candid letter on “radicalization” to President Obama:

For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalization was not happening inside the United Sates. We believed American Muslims were immune to radicalization because, unlike the European counterparts, they are socially and economically well-integrated into society. There had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we paid them no mind. Today there is no doubt that radicalization is taking place inside America. The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident.

Myrick named several American Muslims as examples of those who, while “embodying the American dream, at least socio-economically,” still turned to radical Islam, astutely adding, “The truth is that if grievances were the sole cause of terrorism, we would see daily acts by Americans who have lost their jobs and homes in this economic downturn.”

Quite so. Yet, though Myrick’s observations are limited to the domestic scene, they beg the following, even more “cosmic,” question: If American Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits — including democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression — are still being radicalized, why then do we insist that the importation of those same Western benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more indigenous or authentic form of “radicalization”?
After all, the mainstream position, the only one evoked by politicians, maintains that all American sacrifices in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) will pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and happily slough off their Islamist veneer, which, as the theory goes, is a product of — you guessed it — a lack of democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression. Yet here are American Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West — and still do they turn to violent jihad. Why think their counterparts, who are born and raised in the Muslim world, where Islam permeates every aspect of life, will respond differently?

In fact, far from eliminating radicalization, there is reason to believe that Western values can actually exacerbate Islamist tendencies. It is already known that Western concessions to Islam — in the guise of multiculturalism, “cultural sensitivity,” political correctness, and self-censorship — only bring out the worst in Islamists. Yet even some of the most prized aspects of Western civilization — personal freedom, rule of law, human dignity — when articulated through an Islamist framework, have the capacity to “radicalize” Muslims.

Consider: the West’s unique stress on the law as supreme arbitrator, translates into a stress to establish sharia law, Islam’s supreme arbitrator of human affairs; the West’s unwavering commitment to democracy, translates into an unwavering commitment to theocracy, including an anxious impulse to resurrect the caliphate; Western notions of human dignity and pride, when articulated through an Islamist mindset (which sees fellow Muslims as the ultimate, if not only, representatives of humanity) induces rage when fellow Muslims — Palestinians, Afghanis, Iraqis, etc. — are seen under Western, infidel dominion; Western notions of autonomy and personal freedom have even helped “Westernize” the notion of jihad into an individual duty, though it has traditionally been held by sharia as a communal duty.

Nor should any of this be surprising: a set of noble principles articulated through a fascistic paradigm can produce abominations. In this case, the better principles of Western civilization are being devoured, absorbed, and regurgitated into something equally potent, though from the other end of the spectrum. Put differently, just as a stress on human freedom, human dignity, and universal justice produces good humans, rearticulating these same concepts through an Islamist framework that qualifies them with the word “Muslim” — Muslim freedom, Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice — leads to what is being called “radicalization.”

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

Originally published by Pajamas Media, February 10, 2011.

Leave a comment

Posted in politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Democracy in Egypt? Large Minority Groups Say They Are Being Excluded From The Negotiations

Posted on February 11, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Mary Abdelmassih

The uprising of the Egyptian Youth, both Copts and Muslims, has been dubbed as the “Facebook Uprising” mainly because it was started by modern and educated youth who depended on the social network “Facebook” and “Twitter” to organize themselves. Until now it appears that they are nondenominational, do not belong to any political party and without a leader, demanding the “ousting of the present corrupt regime and the octogenarian President Mubarak, to make way for a democratic and secular Egypt, with social justice and equality for all Egyptians. The uprising which is now called “January 25th Youth Movement” has gained support from Egyptians of all walks of life.

Several Coptic organizations have been taking part in the demonstrations, believing that change in Egypt is coming and they have to be there. They perceive their participation will put weight and balance the scales for a secular state.

Activist Rami Kamel, one of those responsible for the Coptic Youth Movement, said thousands of its members participated in all protests and in all areas, including the “Day of Departure” demonstrations on February 4, which called for the immediate ousting of Mubarak, and confirmed their intention to do so, until all demands of protesters are met. He added they joined the demonstrations the first day. “We have to get rid of the President, and his regime, which was the cause of the decline of Egypt economically, socially, and caused all the sectarian problems suffered by the Copts.”

After President Mubarak bowed to international pressure and the ongoing daily protests asking for his departure, he declared that he would not seek reelection but would finish his current term. Mubarak appointed a vice-president and brought in a new government which called on all parties to join in a dialogue for the future. All parties have been invited to take part in this dialogue except for the Copts.

This has angered Copts world-wide, especially since they believe their January demonstrations all over Egypt after the bombing of the Two Saints Church in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve (AINA 1-2-2011) was the spark that ignited the present uprising “by breaking down the barrier of fear.” This view is also held by the Coptic Church, whose Bishop Anba Suriel of Melbourne told “The Australian” on February 5 that “he believes the nascent revolution began with the New Year massacre of 23 Copts.”

For his part, Coptic Dr. Naguib Gabriel, head of the Egyptian Federation of Human Rights Organization, addressed Major Omar Suleiman, Vice-President of the Republic, urging him to include the Copts in the dialogue with the national authorities, initiated by the Vice President on Wednesday, on grounds that the Copts are part of the national community, and must participate in decision-making, particularly in the constitutional committee.

Gabriel stressed in his message to the Vice-President, which was aired on some TV channels this morning, that it is not possible under any circumstances to exclude Copts from the national dialog. He pointed out that many Coptic youth were killed and wounded since the beginning of the January 25th Youth Movement, demanding with their compatriots constitutional, legislative and social reforms. He wondered how could the Muslim Brotherhood can be invited for dialogue and not the Copts, who comprise 15-20% of Egypt’s population.

It was reported today that Islamist groups have asked Major Omar Suleiman to be included in the dialogue.

Rami Kamel told the Egyptian daily el Masry elYom the Coptic Youth Movement has legitimate demands consistent with those of the rest of the demonstrators, pointing out the regime has ruled out Coptic activists from the dialogue with the political authorities, which confirms the marginalization of the Copts.

Coptic Pope Shenouda III said on Egyptian state TV two years ago that the number of Copts in Egypt exceed 12 million. “This is based on baptisms and marriages in addition to lists of families in the church registers all over Egypt,” said Father Antonius Isaac of St. Mary’s Church in the Mohandeseen area of Cairo. “This number does not include Copts in small villages and hamlets who have no church and have never seen a priest, due to the government policies of limiting church building.”

The main Coptic demands are a new secular and democratic constitution without the second Article of the present Egyptian Constitution, which states that Islamic Sharia is the source of legislation, and which makes them second class citizens.

“We are at least 15-20% of the Egyptian population and we demand proportionate representation and definitely no restrictions on church building,” said activist Joseph Armanious. “We also demand what all other Egyptian protesters are asking for, but these demands come on top.”

The Coptic Church had called on its followers not to join in the protests, angering many Copts who decided not to follow the soft attitude of their church towards the regime, saying that it only has to limit itself to spiritual matters. Faced with the pressure of the defiant Coptic youth, the church was later forced to relax its stance and allowed Copts to join but only in “peaceful protests, in a civilized manner and within the law.”

Pope Shenouda gave his support for Mubarak at the beginning of the protests, which led many activists to accuse the church of believing Mubarak, “who managed to present himself to the Coptic Church and the Coptic people as the ultimate guardian of Copts in Egypt, despite this regime being responsible, first and foremost, of all sectarian terrorist incidents that took place against the Copts,” says Coptic activist Fawzy Hermina. He added: “The scandal and the straw that broke the camel’s back was what the British Embassy in Egypt said, that the Ministry of Interior is the organ which is responsible for planning and carrying out the bombing of the “Two Saints” Church in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve, which killed thirty and wounded ninety Copts.”

Many Copts share this view, including Coptic political analyst and activist Magdy Khalil, who said “Mubarak has been involved one way or another in the Alexandria church bombing.”

Reuters/Arabic carried out an interview with Coptic demonstrators in Tahrir Square, published on February 4. It reported that most of them said that they want to see Mubarak toppled and his regime gone “now more than ever.” One Coptic dentist explained that the New Year’s Eve Alexandria church bombing brought to an end the lie that the regime was protecting the Copts, and that was why the Copts went out demonstrating against Mubarak at the time, while another Copt who came from Nag Hammadi, where six Copts were shot by a Muslim on Christmas Eve 2010 (AINA 1-7-2010) said “We came here to show that every Egyptian should be here and want to be here, no difference between Christians and Muslims.”

Speaking about the fear of the Copts at the present moment, Coptic activist Wagih Yacoub said “Things are moving so fast and nobody knows what to expect next, everything is up in the air, however, Copts are desperate that an Islamic outcome should be avoided. We all say yes to change, but no to an Islamic state.”

Asked in a television interview with CNN on January 31, Coptic business Tycoon Naguib Saweiress, who has been appearing recently as a Coptic leader, praised the “Facebook Uprising” as he also called it, but cautioned that “one has to watch the Muslim Brotherhood of not hijacking this uprising.” This view is shared by all Copts and Muslims who do not agree with Egypt becoming an “Islamic Caliphate.”

Permission to reprint this article was granted by the Assyrian International News Agency.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Thomas More Law Center Appeals Conviction of Young Christian Missionary Arrested at Dearborn Arab Festival

Posted on February 9, 2011 by | Leave a comment

Standing barely 5 feet tall, 18-year old Negeen Mayel, whose parents escaped from Afghanistan after the Russian invasion, could not escape the clutches of the Dearborn, Michigan Police Department. Her crime: she was a Christian publicly filming her fellow Christian missionaries discussing the Gospel with Muslims at last year’s annual Dearborn Arab Festival, and she didn’t turn off her camera quick enough after a police officer ordered her to do so.

Negeen Mayel was convicted in the Dearborn District Court of failure to obey a police officer’s order. Astonishingly, at the trial, the officer admitted that the filming by Mayel was in fact not a crime.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) filed its opening brief with the Wayne County Circuit Court, seeking to overturn her conviction. Mayel was one of four Christian missionaries originally arrested for preaching the Gospel at the 2010 Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan.

All four Christians were charged with Breach of the Peace for discussing their faith with Muslims at the Festival. All four were acquitted by a jury. However, Negeen Mayel was also charged with “failure to obey” for not turning off her video camera when told to do so by a Dearborn police officer. The officer then forcefully grabbed Negeen’s arm and camera, placed her in handcuffs, and had her locked-up in the city jail.

Dearborn is considered home to the largest Muslim population in America. As a result, many City officials, including the Mayor, engage in official action solely to please this significant voting bloc. In this case, police effectively replaced our constitutional guarantees of Free Speech with Sharia law, which forbids Christians to proselytize Muslims.

The Law Center’s brief argues that the conviction must be overturned because the arresting police officer lacked any information that Mayel was involved in criminal activity when she was seized by the officer, in violation of the Constitution. According to the brief filed with the Circuit Court, the police officer’s order “to shut off her camera and remain with him for questioning directly violated constitutional rights. Consequently, cannot be criminally charged nor convicted for disobeying an unconstitutional—and thus unlawful—police order.”

Robert Muise, TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel who is handling the matter, stated, “The arresting officer’s actions and the actions of the Dearborn police department are textbook examples of civil rights violations of the highest order. Consequently, when a conviction is based on the actions of a police officer that violate fundamental constitutional rights, as in this case, that conviction must be reversed, lest our constitutional freedoms be rendered meaningless platitudes subject to the will of police officials.”

Read more about Negeen Mayel’s case by going here and here.

Leave a comment

Posted in news, politics, religion

Tagged , , , , ,

American Exceptionalism: Part I

Posted on January 27, 2011 by | Leave a comment

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

This report is the first of a series in which I am going to extract parts of my just-finished book America’s Unknown Hebraic Republic: A Goal for the Almost-Chosen People. The goal will be described at the end of the series. This book marks the conclusion of some fifty years of research and writing on the foundational principles and structure of the American Republic, beginning with a trilogy on the Statesmanship of America’s Founding Fathers. Allow me a personal note.

My intellectual odyssey began with my doctoral dissertation, The Philosophy of the American Constitution, which was published by the Free Press in 1968. Professors Leo Strauss and Herbert Storing of the University of Chicago were my dissertation advisers. This first book was followed by A Discourse on Statesmanship published by the Illinois University Press in 1984, which was the first theoretical work on statesmanship based on The Federalist Papers and Aristotle’s Politics. My third book On the Silence if the Declaration of Independence was published by the University of Massachusetts Press in 1976, the bicentennial of that foundational document.

In that year I immigrated to Israel where I taught political science at Bar-Ilan University. Israel was of course the best venue in which to study the Judaic roots of the American Constitution and the Declaration. Thus, in 2000, I wrote Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fail, a book that was translated into Hebrew and Russian. Alas, Israeli statesmanship was disheartening, even funereal. Israel’s government was not only dysfunctional; appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, the government had only the veneer of democracy. For example, the absence of constituency elections in Israel compels citizens to vote for national party lists rather than individual candidates, which enables Knesset Members, indeed the government, to ignore public opinion with impunity. If this were not enough to discredit the political system, the inordinate frequency of Israeli elections—the average duration of Israeli governments is only two years­—renders government policies haphazard and devoid of Jewish vision.

This prompted me in 1995 to establish The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, one purpose of which was to show how Israel could be made more democratic by means of Jewish principles, and more Jewish by means of democratic principles. To this end it would be necessary to import the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers on the one hand, and to revive the wisdom of the Jewish Sages on the other.

Hence, without ignoring the great merit of the founders of modern Israel (who facilitated the in-gathering of millions of Jews to the Promised Land), I proceeded to write several books on Judaic thought and institutions. Suffice to mention the most recent: A Jewish Philosophy of History (2004); The Myth of Israeli Democracy (2007); Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America (2009), An American Political Scientist in Israel (2010), and now the final book of this intellectual odyssey, America’s Unknown Hebraic Republic.

This last book has three interrelated objectives. One objective is to revive the foundational principles which made the United States of America the greatest nation on earth: the principles embodied in America’s Declaration of Independence and original Constitution. It is widely known that America is in a state of decline thanks largely to the multicultural relativism of its college-educated elite. This situation, however, is reversible. An uncorrupted and no longer silent majority of Americans has the will and spiritual values to restore American Exceptionalism, a concept discussed in the first chapter of my latest book.

The second objective is to revive the source of American Exceptionalism, namely Hebraic Exceptionalism. Unknown to most American, Christian Hebraists in Europe regarded the Hebraic Republic of antiquity as the most just and wisest polity in history, superior to those praised by Greek and Roman philosophers. This evaluation was shared by the presidents of various eighteenth-century American universities. It is extremely important for Jews to know this because their one and only homeland, Israel, is the only nation on earth threatened with extermination. The Jewish people need to know that what a matured Israel stands for, and what was manifested in the Hebraic Republic of antiquity, remains and will ever remain the fondest hope of mankind.

The third objective is to articulate the political and meta-political convictions that bond America and Israel, convictions concerning man’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—rights which necessitate limitations on the powers or functions of government. Public acknowledgement of these political and meta-political convictions will fortify the will of these two exceptional nations, not only to stand firm against their common foe—Islam’s global ambitions and its “we believe in death and you believe in life” mantra—but also prompt the West to roll back Islam’s deadly threat to civilization. I have written elsewhere about this common enemy, which can only advance by the default of decent nations. Hence ponder this prophetic epigram from Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm:

“It is my purpose … to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been avoided; how the malice of wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded together into larger organisms, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how even in matters of self-presentation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course, adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull’s-eye of disaster.”

Now let me mention Abraham Lincoln. On his way to his inauguration in Washington in February 1861, Lincoln stopped in Trenton and addressed the New Jersey State Senate. There he voiced these remarkable words: “I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be a humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost-chosen people …” This is the source of American Exceptionalism.

American Exceptionalism is rooted in the Declaration of Independence. Ponder these words of the Prologue:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The Preamble affirms the existence of a Creator-God, the God of the Hebrew Bible. The Preamble also affirms that all men are created equal, alluding to Genesis, which states that man is created in the image of God. This suggests that just as God is a creator in an infinite sense, man is a creator in a finite sense. This creativity made possible the political creativity of America’s Founding Fathers and American Exceptionalism.

I have yet to say a word about the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Viewed in the context of the Bible, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God was deemed the “moral law.” Christian Hebraists identified the Laws of Nature with the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality. We must also emphasize the “Peroration” of the Declaration of Independence, where its 56 signers appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions,” and whose final sentence speaks of their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” The Peroration clearly confirms that the Declaration is a theistic, not a Deistic document. The Declaration of Independence thus embodies not only a political philosophy, as is generally understood, but a political theology. This warrants our inquiry into the Hebraic roots of the American Republic from which blossomed its unknown Constitution or Hebraic Republic. God willing, I shall elaborate in next week’s report.

Leave a comment

Posted in politics, religion, research

Tagged ,

Sharia Law Gains Foothold in US

Posted on January 26, 2011 by | Leave a comment

Last week, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, a federal district court judge in Michigan, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Government’s bailout of AIG, which used over a hundred million dollars in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Sharia-compliant financing (SCF). SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law.

The challenge was brought by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and co-counsel David Yerushalmi, on behalf of Kevin Murray, a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraqi War. TMLC filed a notice of appeal immediately after the ruling and will be seeking review of the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented: “Judge Zatkoff’s ruling allows for oil–rich Muslim countries to plant the flag of Islam on American soil. His ruling ignored the uncontested opinions of several Sharia experts and AIG’s own website, which trumpeted Sharia-compliant financing as promoting the law of the Prophet Mohammed and as an ‘ethical product, ’ and a ‘new way of life.’ His ruling ignored AIG’s use of a foreign Islamic advisory board to control investing in accordance with Islamic law.”

Continued Thompson: “This astonishing decision allows the federal government as well as AIG and other Wall Street bankers to explicitly promote Sharia law ? the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Koran, which demands the destruction of Western Civilization and the United States. This is the same law championed by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; it is the same law that prompted the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks; and it is the same law that is responsible for the murder of thousands of Christians throughout the world. The Law Center will do everything it can to stop Sharia law from rearing its ugly head in America.”

The federal lawsuit was filed in 2008 against Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. It challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $70 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which is considered the market leader in SCF. According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Sharia-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG; and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated $70 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities, $47.5 billion of which was actually distributed to AIG. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in SCF, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities. AIG itself publicly describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .”

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG also employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee.” According to AIG, the role of its Sharia authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.”

Shortly after filing the complaint in 2008, attorneys for the Obama administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on behalf of the named defendants. In a written opinion issued in May 2009, the judge denied the request, holding that the lawsuit properly alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.
In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, DOJ argued that the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, who is a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action. And even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court disagreed….

Following this favorable ruling, the parties engaged in discovery. During discovery, TMLC took depositions, acquired numerous sworn affidavits from AIG and many of its subsidiaries, and acquired thousands of documents. This voluminous evidence was filed with the court in support of TMLC’s motion for summary judgment—a request that the court enter final judgment in its favor because there is no genuine issue of material fact and TMLC should prevail as a matter of law.

On January 14, 2011, the court reversed its earlier position and ruled against Plaintiff Murray, claiming that there was no evidence presented of religious indoctrination, and if there were such evidence, the indoctrination could not be attributed to the federal government and besides, the amount of federal money that was used to support SCF—$153 million—was “de minimus” (minimal) in light of the large sum of tax money the federal government actually gave to AIG—$47.5 billion.

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC, commented: “Based on the incredible amount of evidence presented, much of which DOJ could not refute , and in light of the strength of the court’s prior ruling, we expected the court to ultimately rule in our favor and hold that the federal government violated the U.S. Constitution by using federal tax money to fund Islamic religious activities. As soon as we read the court’s adverse opinion, we filed an immediate appeal.”

In addition to the court’s remarkable claim that $153 million in tax money is “de minimis, ” the court stated the following: “In the absence of evidence showing that AIG’s development and sale of SCF products has resulted in the instruction of religious beliefs for the purpose of instilling those beliefs in others or furthering a religious mission, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer could conclude that AIG has engaged in religious indoctrination by supplying SCF products.”

In the court filings, however, TMLC presented overwhelming and un-rebutted evidence from experts and AIG itself to demonstrate that AIG, with the direct support of the U.S. Government, was engaging in religious indoctrination. Specifically, in addition to AIG’s own description of its Islamic financing as based upon Sharia and Sharia in turn described as “Islamic law based on Quran and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH), ” AIG promotes Sharia and SCF as a way to proselytize non-Muslims through an “ethical product” and a “new way of life.” Indeed, in the U.S. Government’s filings in the case, it admitted that SCF involves “a theological proposition.”

Muise concluded: “Apparently, the court does not believe that the federal government violates the U.S. Constitution when it provides $153 million in taxpayer money to support Islamic religious activities. This is certainly more than the ‘one pence’ James Madison warned about when he helped craft the First Amendment, and I am sure this decision is news for all of the Christian and Jewish organizations and businesses that are prevented from receiving a dime of federal tax money to support their religious activities.”

The appeal is expected to take at least a year to complete.

From Thomas More Law Center January 19, 2011 email.

Leave a comment

Posted in business, economy, news, politics, religion, taxes

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Christmas and World Peace

Posted on December 23, 2010 by | Leave a comment

By Daniel Downs

“Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:12)

During the days of Jesus, Augustus Caesar was the acclaimed prince of peace. This praise was without critical comment. Peace in the Roman Empire was not won by reasoned negotiation but by the power of the sword. In the book of Revelation, John sees a rider on a white horse. The rider went conquering and to conquer. This vision describes Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and many other leaders whose peace was packaged for subjugated peoples in terms of existence. Peace meant “my way or else.” A more accurate way of putting it would be don’t make me come back to deal with rebellion or with disruption of the flow of taxes or trade. Maintain law and order as well as tax payments and all will be well. That was the peace of Pax Romana.

In our modern Pax Americanus, the substance behind rhetoric of world peace is often about conflict over trade and disputes about the flow of goods like wheat, oil, and weapons. It is true that concern about the health and well-being of others is debated and money spent to resolve perceived problems. Yet, such concerns remain secondary to the kind of peace necessary for the continued growth in the global economy.

The issue of Middle East peace is one example. The on-going conflict between Israel, Palestinians, and Arabs may be religious and territorial in nature but our contemporary Caesars see the problem as an unnecessary disruption to the flow of goods regionally and globally. The not-so-powerful see the achievement of peace in the Middle East as an end to poverty among Palestinians. Others see poor Palestinians as one weapon of war against the continued existence of the Zionist state, which also means Arabs could have ended Palestinian poverty long ago.

In Pax Americana, liberal special interest groups often criticize Christian conservatives for focusing on politics rather than on the moral reform of individuals in society. Although valid to a point, the criticism is based on the belief that religion is not relevant to public policy affecting all aspects of daily life. The source of this belief is humanism or enlightenment rationalism exemplified by French intellectuals. This view was not held by most early Americans, which is one reason the liberal belief is erroneous. Because religion is both a world view encompassing life now and hereafter as well as a means to resolving problems, religion is crucial to politics.

In fact, religion is likely the only source to genuine peace.

Some will find such as statement outrageous because they see religion as one of the primary sources of violent human abuses, global conflicts, and war. Yet, the same can be said of secularists who have followed Marx such as communist leaders around the world. To the credit of secular statists, hundreds of millions of citizens as well as enemies have been tortured, maimed, and killed.

The mantra of secularists has been “you cannot legislate morality,” which by the way is the basis of peace. The opposite was held by the founders who regarded legislating immorality as an anti-law act. America’s inheritance of the rule of law concept goes back at least to the biblical accounts of the legal and consensus covenant between God and Israel and the development of their law codes and governing institutions. These in turn influenced the development of constitutional law in the American colonies.

The American experiment was the application of previous centuries of the Protestant (Puritan) struggle for religious freedom constituted by culture and law. The testimony of history is religion and bureaucratic power always result in human injustice, institutional led violence, and war. As noted above, the problem is not limited to religion but to ideologies instituted through power of governance. As the horrible news reported daily by the media proves, Calvinist-Puritans are still right about inherent depravity of humanity. It was this self-evident truth that led to the development of written legal compacts of which the US Constitution is one part and contract laws.

As the early Americans understood, peace is achieved by doing what is right according to the law of God and of nature. When laws, public policy, and behavior conform to this law, the result has to be peace. Only then will there be peace on earth and perpetual good will toward men, women, boys, and girls. International terrorism, wars, domestic violence, poverty, greed, envy, revenge, and the like will subside. Goods and services naturally will flow unhindered and without imperialist manipulations. Populations will control themselves without a death culture operated by paternal elitists.

That is exactly why the human race requires salvation by the only real prince of peace—Jesus Christ. Jesus entered the world on a peace mission. Many then and now see his death as mission failure. However, his death accomplished terms of reconciliation between God and humanity that know one else could achieve. His death paid the eternal price required to satisfy God’s justice concerning all of our moral crimes. He was raised from death in order to officiate over its implementation for every human. By accepting God terms of peace, each and all people will learn the way of peace. That is the reason Jesus commissioned his apostles to make disciples of all nations. Only then could there possibly be lasting peace on earth.

Many religions pursue peace as at least one, if not, the primary goal. However, most religious never really obtain peace with God. They miss the requirements of divine justice by only focusing on the necessary behaviors for right standing under God’s rightful rule. The problem is God cannot acquit (forgive) moral crimes committed any more than human judges do. The penalty for crimes committed must be paid. Good behavior before or after a moral crime is not sufficient to pay for the crime committed against God’s law. As the prophets and apostles proclaimed, “The soul that sins it shall die.” That is the price Jesus paid. His lordship guarantees the resources necessary to live right before God and thereby achieve the peace we all desire. Peace with God–the starting point to world peace.

To those who seek peace, Merry Christmas.

Leave a comment

Posted in history, politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Santa’s Naughty-and Nice-List of American Business

Posted on December 18, 2010 by | Leave a comment

The previous post titled “Poll Shows Most American For Christmas” reported that 80% of Americans either celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday or think it should be. The same Americans also think it Christmas should publicly honored at our public institutions and businesses. Given this level of support for celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday, I suspect most Americans would favor the efforts of the American Family Association’s to pressure retailers and other businesses into treating Christmas as … well as … the birthday humanity’s redeemer as celebrated by Christians.

That is why XCJ again posts the <a href=Naught and Nice list created by the American Family Association. This year, the list includes companies who are FOR Christmas, those Marginalizing Christmas, and those AGAINST Christmas. It is hoped readers who are for Christmas will not patronize business who are attempting to marginalize it or who are flatly against Christmas.

Companies FOR Christmas Marginalizing Companies Companies AGAINST
Amazon.com
Bass Pro Shops
Bed Bath & Beyond
Belk
Best Buy
Big Lots
Books-A-Million
Cabella’s
Collective Brands
Costco
Dick’s Sporting Goods
Dilliards
Family Dollar
Dollar General
H.E.B. Stores
Hallmark
Harris Teeter Stores
Hobby Lobby
JC Penney
JoAnn Fabrics & Crafts Stores
Kmart
Kohl’s
Kroger
Lowe’s
Macy’s
Meijer
Menard’s
Michael’s Stores
Neiman Marcus
Nordstrom
Office Max
Petsmart
Pier One Imports
Publix
QVC
Rite Aid
Sears
Scheels Sporting Goods
Super D Drug Stores
Target
Toys R Us
Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club		 Bath & Body Works
Dollar Tree
Hy-Vee Stores
Old Navy
Limited Brands
Safeway
Starbucks
Walgreens
Whole Foods 		Banana Republic
Barnes & Noble
CVS Pharmacy
Foot Locker
Gap Stores
Hancock Fabrics
NASCAR
L.L. Bean
Office Depot
Radio Shack
Staples
SUPERVALU
Victoria’s Secret

Reviewing last year’s naughty and nice list, a number businesses have lost the spirit of Christmas while some others lost the spirit of the Grinch. For example, Kroger and Costco must have been visited by the spirit of Christmas because both are on the FOR Christmas list. Old Navy is a tough nut crack. Last year the Old Navy Corporation regarded religious connotations of the season as bad for business. This its retail stores are begrudgingly acknowledging Christmas exists, but the corporate retailer did move up from flat out against to marginalizing the Christian-oriented holiday. A few examples of retailers who acquired the secular bah-hum-bug spirit are Walgreen’s and Office Depot. Walgreen’s went from For to Marginal. This may have been the result of some problem faced during the past year or two. Not everyone handles economic recessions equally well either. The Christmas spirit among corporate leaders at Office Depot have been soured. This is reflected having become oppositional to Christmas as a non-secular holiday. Let’s hope bah-hum-bug soon changes to a merry Christmas perspective.

A positive development is the dwindling number of businesses oppositional to Christmas. The Examiner reported 80% of American retailers think being for Christmas is good for business. The National Federation of Retailers agrees. Because 91% of Americans celebrate his birth on Christmas, they believe being pro-Christmas will increase sales by about 2.3 percent.

At least the wise men from the East believed it was a good idea to give gifts to celebrate his birth. Hopefully, AFA’s efforts will inspire Americans and American businesses to advance the cause of the babe born in the manager on Christmas day.

Merry Christmas!

Leave a comment

Posted in business, Holidays, politics, religion, research

Tagged , , ,