Imagine a world in which the Children of Abraham were reunited.  It would have to be a much nicer and safer place than what it is at the moment.  All of the world’s problems would not be solved, but we would be well on the way.

 

Regrettably we have a long way to go before this will happen.  It could happen; there is no doubt about it.  Unfortunately we have too many misguided people in the world at the moment who seem to believe fighting is the complete answer to peace. Others seem to believe another solution is to alienate people and restrict their freedoms. To me there seems to be a lot of counter productive solutions to peace.

 

Here is an example and this is from people who claim that their religion is one of love and they make claims such as these in regards to what a real Christian is:

"They truly follow the tenets of Jesus. Things like "love your neighbor", "pray for them that despise you and say all manner of evil against you", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "if someone slaps you on the left cheek, turn your right cheek to him, also" and "if someone takes your cloak, give to him your tunic, also". Those are Jesus' words, and that is a religion full of love for your fellow man."

Currently here at Vox (thanks to paikea for highlighting this and posting a very interesting article titled: Muslim True/False) there is a petition being promoted to put forward a proposed US Constitutional Amendment.  This amendment would include that: 

 

“The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.”

 

Yes it does seem rather harsh.

 

The proposal also states:

“Whereas; the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a ‘religious test’ for participation in the body politic;

Whereas; Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supercedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;”

From what I can gather about the United States the first paragraph is correct, unless you listen to some of the people from America’s Religious Right and then it seems they would dearly love to change this paragraph.  We have all heard about the pillars of the 10 Commandments being set up in public areas on American soil and the big kerfufel that it has caused.  If there is no state sanctioned religion, then there should not be the establishment of such a practice.   But listen further to a statement from someone who stated they would sign this petition, but had doubts of its effectiveness due to the wording of the petition:

“I think a better possibility to enact an Amendment to the Constitution declaring America a nation with a Judeo-Christian heritage without establishing any particular Jewish sect (Orthodox, Conservative or ) or Christian Denomination (Variations of Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox etc.) as a State religion.  This would simultaneously deal with Secular Humanism war on Christianity and radical Islam.”

Now I could be totally wrong, but this statement doesn’t exactly match up with the statement:

“Whereas; the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a ‘religious test’ for participation in the body politic”

Although the comment doesn’t say there should be an official state religion, it does indicate there is intent to restrict freedom of religion and non-religion.   Let’s face it if it was possible, the Religious Right would declare the US a Christian nation in an instant if it had the power. 

This brings me to the next paragraph I included above,

Whereas; Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supercedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;”

This may or may not be the case in regards to Islam, however when it come to the Religious Right in the US, what sort of laws would we expect to see in the US.  The answer is simple we would see strict laws based on their version of Christianity.  To illustrate my point I only need to draw your attention to an article such as this, “God’s Choice for President”.  So who would the Religious Right’s God choose to be the next US President, well naturally McCain and why would God do such a thing, only two factors come to mind apparently, the issue of abortion and gay rights – yes that is it, I kid you not!  It seems God is not concerned about social justice issues, healthcare, poverty, the environment, racial harmony, equal rights and the endless list of things I thought were major concerns to a “Christian” God.

The Religious Right also seems to need to make up its mind.  I have noticed that when it suits, Christianity is described as a religion of peace and then they will do a back flip and bash the more socially conscious Christians over the head with their Bibles and say, "Christianity is not a religion of peace, because Jesus didn’t come to bring peace," and they will then go on and quote the following Bible passage:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

It is an interesting passage.  I actually like this passage, for me it means Jesus came here to shake the people up and get them thinking and get them out of their selfish and corrupt ways.  The church at the time needed a good kick in the pants. The people needed to start doing good work to help others and to become more loving and compassionate.  That at least is partly the meaning of the passage if it is read in conjunction with the other messages Jesus conveyed throughout the NT.  To me the sword is not to be taken literally.  However, I have heard Christians use that “sword” to defend the right to carry a gun, go to war, use violence, justify capital punishment, and a host of other violent acts. 

It is interesting how Islam is always portrayed as being spread by the sword, and yet here we have a quote in the Christian Bible and it is Jesus who is carrying a sword.  So it actually makes sense that when this passage is taken literally it has been used to spread the religion of Christianity throughout the world.  At present Islam is conveniently portrayed by Christians as being spread by the sword, and by making that claim they are inferring that Christianity has always been spread peacefully - I guess by some gentle process of osmosis.  But this is not true, the correct history of the world indicates otherwise.   Christianity has been spread throughout the world by the sword, by the gun, by oppressive tactics and  by an endless array of violent actions. In short, Christianity was spread by empire building throughout the world. 

I can now refer back to this quote mentioned earlier,

“I think a better possibility to enact an Amendment to the Constitution declaring America a nation with a Judeo-Christian heritage ............. ..... ....... ......"

There is an obvious flaw in this statement, an obvious omission.   Who were the people here before  the Judeo-Christian heritage was forced upon them?  Of course it was the Native Americans, who had their own heritage and their own beliefs systems. Were the Native Americans treated well by their Judeo-Christian conquerors?  No, in the main history also proves this to be incorrect.  

I am sure that if the Jews, the Moors, the “witches” and the “sodomites” could have put together a petition outlawing Christianity during the Spanish Inquisition they would have (So there is no bias here are two references one a Jewish perspective another a Catholic perspective).  I have heard modern day Orthodox Jews speaking of Christianity with utter disdain, and if you watch the video, “The Hidden Story of Jesus” which I have included below, you will actually witness how much disdain they have for Christianity and the wrongs they feel Christianity has done to them.

More from the proposal, “Whereas; Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion”

Of course no other religion has EVER proclaimed such an audacious statement has it.  I have been told many times that Christianity is the one true religion, and not only the Religious Right makes that claim.  In fact the scripture I quoted above from Matthew essentially says that Jesus is the ONLY way, and if you deviate away from Jesus then your life will be lost.  They are powerful words, powerful enough to make parents scared that their children's lives will be lost if they deviate away from the path, and that kind of "terror" can make people do terrible things to other people if they believe another is leading their child astray. It explains why so many Christian parents are devastated to find out their child is gay, for they believe their child is forever forsaken.

I would say that the majority of people belonging to all religions will make similar claims in regards to their religion being the one true way.  It stands to reason; otherwise they wouldn’t practice the religion.  But it shouldn't mean we shouldn't be able to get along.

Now for me the past is the past.  Terrible things have been done throughout history in the name of religion and also in the name of various political ideologies.  I have only brought up the past because some seem to like to bring up the past as a weapon against various religions, and my point is to say that no religion has an innocent past.  What matters to me is the present and the future, so I would love to move on.

This is my opinion for what it is worth.  I believe the Muslims who are being violent and intolerant in the name of Islam are misguided, as were the Christians/Jews/Hindus and other belief systems of the past who were violent and as are the Christians/Jews/Hindus and other belief systems who are violent or intolerant in the present.

This now brings me to the title of this post and that is, "Reuniting the Children of Abraham". This documentary is an interesting look at how it is possible to cross the barriers which impede peace on a personal level.  Petitions aimed at oppressing a whole people are not the answer to achieve peace in a country; projects such as these which aim to break down personal barriers to peace are the answer.  It is difficult to wage war against a friend or some one you know and respect.

“Abraham, of the Old Testament, was the founding patriarch of a new, monotheistic faith, which included Jews and later Christians and Muslims.  One of his two sons is historically tied to the founding of Judaism, the other to the founding of Islam.

The Children of Abraham Project, which is an effort by individuals and interfaith organizations in the Detroit Metro area, to educate Jews, Christians and Muslims as to their common ancestry, and encourages them to work together for tolerance, peace and civic betterment.  The process involves watching a play in which teenage actors, some who helped write the play, act out scenes from the Biblical story.  This is interspersed with contemporary accounts of religious and ethnic prejudice based on personal recollections.  The play has allowed audiences to speak freely about their fears and prejudices and to walk in another's shoes. 

The Project is a powerful experience that gives hope to the idea of these three religions being able to find their common heritage as a reason for mutual religious respect and spiritual healing in the future.”

 

.

.

.

Another interesting documentary is The Hidden Story of Jesus.  What really struck me about this documentary was by taking Jesus as an example; it was possible to see how much most of the religions have in common.  I believe looking for what we have in common, instead of looking at our differences; will in fact help us to become more closely connected as a society, and more accepting of our differences.

This is not a documentary for Christians to be afraid of, as I do not believe it would diminish your faith in anyway. 

For me personally it actually enhanced my faith in humanity.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't going to post anything controversial for a while but really sometimes things need to be said.

Seriously people when a US University bans a Nobel Peace laureate due to an accusation of anti - Semitism shouldn't you really have a damn hard look at who is really pulling the strings in your country. 

No, it seems not!

Remember never criticise Israel because you will be called anti-Semitic. 

Well you can call me anti-Semitic all you want because I will criticise Israel.  But don't think I will single out just Israel, I will criticise Australia (my country), America, Burma, China, France, UK, Palestine and any country I feel like if they need to be criticised and why will I do so, because I live in a democracy and I am entitled to speak out when things need to be said. 

So you can call me anti-Semitic all you want because it will be just like water rolling off a duck's back.   I will criticise Israel when it deserves to be criticised.  What gives Israel special permission where it thinks it is above criticism? Nothing it is a nation and therefore it can be criticised without the allegations of  Anti-Semitism being thrown at you or being called a 'self-hating Jew' if in fact you are Jewish.  That's right, not even a Jew is allowed to criticise Israel without being insulted with a derogatory name.

So why has Desmond Tutu been banned?

Well apparently it is because he said the following:

Israel is like Hitler and apartheid.

Here is some background into the situation:

Members of the St Thomas Justice and Peace Studies program were thrilled when Bishop Tutu agreed to speak at the University" but administrators did a scientific survey of the Jews of Minneapolis, which included querying exactly one spokesperson for Minnesota's Jewish Community Relations Council and several rabbis who taught in a University program" and concluded that Tutu is bad for the Jews and should therefore be barred from campus.

In a move that still has faculty members shaking their heads in disbelief, St. Thomas administrators--concerned that Tutu's appearance might offend local Jews--told organizers that a visit from the archbishop was out of the question.

 

"We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy," says Doug Hennes, St. Thomas's vice president for university and government relations. "We're not saying he's anti-Semitic. But he's compared the state of Israel to Hitler and our feeling was that making moral equivalencies like that are hurtful to some members of the Jewish community."

St. Thomas officials made this inference after Hennes talked to Julie Swiler, a spokeswoman for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas. "I told him that I'd run across some statements that were of concern to me," says Swiler. "In a 2002 speech in Boston, he made some comments that were especially hurtful."

(Source)

Tutu has been quoted as saying, "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid." in quite a number of sources, here are some just to name a few.

JTA

The David Project - Center for Jewish Leadership

David Horowitz from Front Page Magazine

National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel

So I guess based on all of this evidence well really there is only one thing that could be done, Tutu had to be banned in the land of free speech, so that he didn't upset some US citizens and possibly corrupt some young minds with ideas of the right to freedom for all.  Not very fair on the university students though when you think about it, I thought that one of the whole purposes of universities is to share and exchange information and be free to have open debate.  But I shouldn't be surprised after all many will remember just last month what happened to Prof Norman Finkelstein who is a critic of Israel, DePaul University declined to renew his tenure to teach at the University.  It seems even a son of two Holocaust survivors isn't allowed to speak out against Israel.

Anyway back to Desmond Tutu who has been banned from speaking at St Thomas University for saying, "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid."  If I was Desmond Tutu I would feel just a little hard done by, because he never actually said those words.  Now you would think that a university when conducting its scientific survey it just may have sourced exactly what Tutu said and not just rely on the hearsay of some Jewish groups who had a vested interest in not wanting him to speak.

So what did Desmond Tutu say that is so controversial, here is what he said and I have highlighted the part where he said "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid."

Apartheid in the Holy Land

Desmond Tutu
Monday April 29, 2002
The Guardian

In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: "Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews."

My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.

The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?

My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: "I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro-freedom. I am anti- injustice, anti-oppression."

But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgement.

We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God's dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. The full speech can be seen here.

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

There you have it, the offending quote!

What more can I say, not much as in my opinion it says it all.

Okay I came across this little article last night and I was going to leave it alone due to my health issues but really it ties in so well I can't ignore it.

Dawkins on the power of the Jews

Daniel Finkelstein

Times Online

October 05, 2007

I have just come across the most extraordinary statement by Richard Dawkins. It is right there on the Guardian website without a sentence even questioning it. Here it is:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened. 

All I can manage is Oh My God.

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

Well Daniel all I can manage is for a start Dawkins never said the Jews control world power and second, er, he may have a valid point and that is why some people haven't even raised an eyebrow at his remark.  I am frightened too, but not for the same reasons you are Daniel - I am frightened for free speech.

If those people in the Jewish lobby wish to stop the rise of genuine anti-Semitism then they need to have a serious look at themselves, because I am afraid they are not coming across in a very favourable light.

I will let Marv Davodov have his say:

The backlash has already begun. Marv Davidov, an adjunct professor within the Justice and Peace Studies program at St Thomas said:

"As a Jew who experienced real anti-Semitism as a child, I'm deeply disturbed that a man like Tutu could be labeled anti-Semitic and silenced like this," he says. "I deeply resent the Israeli lobby trying to silence any criticism of its policy. It does a great disservice to Israel and to all Jews."

To make matters worse, when Cris Toffolo, the chair of the Justice and Peace Studies program told Tutu what happened and warned him of a possible smear campaign, she was immediately demoted.

Davidov again:

"This is pure bullshit," says Davidov. "As far as fighting for civil rights, I consider Tutu to be my brother. And I consider Cris Toffolo to be my sister. They're messing with my family here. If Columbia permits a Holocaust denier [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to speak at their university, why are St. Thomas officials refusing to let Tutu, an apostle of nonviolence, speak at ours?"

"What happened at the University of St. Thomas is not an isolated event," says Toffolo. "Until we have an honest debate about U.S. policy related to Israel, and about Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories, the spiral of violence will continue."  (Source)

-------

Additions to this post 10/10/07 11.25am Australian EST

Petition

If anyone would like to sign a petition indicating that they believe Desmond Tutu should be allowed to speak at St Thomas and Prof. Totollo be reinstated as chair of Justice and Peace Studies program then please go to this link supported by Jewish Voice for Peace.

In Defense of Academic Freedom

A conference will take place at the University of Chicago on October 12th called In Defense of Academic Freedom. Several distinguished academics and public intellectuals will examine the threats to academic freedom posed by recent controversial tenure decisions and other campus developments which have stifled the free exchange of ideas. The conference will explore these issues in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict since some of the most contentious issues revolve around it.

DePaul Academic Freedom Committee, Verso Books and Discord Journal invite you to this public symposium.

Recent tenure denials at DePaul University and evidence of outside interference with academic selection have prompted leading scholars across the nation to speak out in defense of academic freedom.

American Jewish Lobby Groups

Last night I was wondering how up to date some American Jewish lobby groups are when it comes to Israeli policy and are they doing Israel more harm than good.  I was wondering could it possibly be a bit like say the situation in Australia where some migrants who have been here for say 50 years still hold on tightly to the same values and customs of their country of birth and actually become say for instance more Greek or Italian than those actually still residing in the original country of birth.  As their birth country has grown or changed in the way things are done, they have remained immersed in the old ways of their original country, so in fact they are out of touch.

It seems that this may in fact be the case with some American Jewish lobby groups they are out of touch with the latest situation in Israel.  This Democracy Now interview seems to indicate it is a possibility.  This is an extract, the full interview can be obtained by clicking on the title, I have also included a YouTube video of the interview.

Israeli Columnist Akiva Eldar on Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, Iran, Military Censorship in Israel and the Influence of the Israel Lobby in the United States

 

Monday, October 8th, 2007

Democracy Now

 

AMY GOODMAN: The University of St. Thomas in Minnesota has canceled Nobel Peace Prize-winning South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu's scheduled appearance next year. School officials say they’re barring Tutu because of previous statements he's made “against Israeli policy.” Tutu has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to South Africa under Apartheid.

Being able to voice criticism of Israeli government policy is becoming a major issue on university campuses across the United States. It’s also an issue in Congress. We now turn to a well-known Israeli journalist for a sense of what this and other debates look like inside Israel.

Akiva Eldar is the chief political columnist and senior analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, and he is co-author of a new book; it’s critical of Israeli settlement policy. It’s called Lords of the Land: The Settlers and the State of Israel. I interviewed Akiva Eldar last month and asked him how the so-called “Israel lobby" in the United States is perceived in Israel.

AKIVA ELDAR: They are a very important instrument in order to pursue Israel’s policy, but I’m afraid that they're a little bit behind the Israeli government and the Israeli people. We are in a different mode, which I think takes time for the American Jewish organizations to digest, the fact that we don't want to keep those territories. And probably the Israeli propaganda was so efficient that it's very hard now to change the mode and to convince them that it's a different era now. It's a different government. We have seventy out of 120 members of the Knesset who support a two-state solution based on the ’67 lines.

And, you know, if for forty years, you tell the Jewish community that Israel cannot afford to give up the territories, they are important for Israel’s security, just overnight to tell, “Sorry, we were wrong. Now, we don't need those territories,” it's probably -- I remember, you know, those groups that were taken to the Golan Heights, for instance, we didn’t mention Syria, but the Golan Heights, we told them we can't live without it, because look at the geography or topography, with us sitting there, and they were shelling the Kibbutzim down there, and now, after all this time that they spend going to Capitol Hill and using their leverage to convince the American people not to put any pressure on Israel to give up the Golan Heights, now all of a sudden the Syrians are the good guys and we can get down to business with them? It's very difficult. I think that we are paying the price of having our PR doing a very good job for many years.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you say then the American Jewish organizations are presenting an obstacle to peace?

AKIVA ELDAR: They are, I think, behind the Israeli people, and I think that the bottom line, if you measure this by their results, I don't think that the mainstream Jewish organizations -- there are others like Americans for Peace Now, IPF in America, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and other organizations who are doing a good job, and I think that they are getting more and more listeners.

AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think the -- would you say that the Israel lobby is more powerful?

AKIVA ELDAR: Because they're more committed. I think that they are very committed to the -- Israel’s security and well-being of the Israelis, and they are motivated to work and to invest.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think they're making Israel more secure?

AKIVA ELDAR: No. I think that they have good intentions, but you know sometimes where good intentions are taking people.