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 have an email program which has e-cards attached to it.  Today I decided to send a condolence card,  but I needed to download some as I didn't have any already downloaded.  So I went to choose an appropriate card and this is where I was dumbfounded with my choice, or should I say lack of choice!

Dictionary definition of condolence:

Often, condolences. expression of sympathy with a person who is suffering sorrow, misfortune, or grief.

 

1. Sympathy with a person who has experienced pain, grief, or misfortune: paid a visit of condolence to the grieving family.
2. An expression or declaration of such sympathy.

Now the above definition is what I always assumed condolence meant.  Well it seems that it must also have another meaning since 2001.  It also seems that in the main only a certain select few in the world wide population deserve a condolence card that has meaning.

I am unable to show you images so I will try and describe the selection of cards I had to choose from:

Card 1: A lit candle with the words, "In memory of our loved ones."  Not a bad card but it really didn't express what I wanted to say.

Card 2. A picture of the Statue of Liberty with the words, "We shall overcome."  No not really what I had in mind at all.

Card 3. A picture of the USA's flag with the words, "We will never forget".  Once again it really didn't fit the person's situation that I wanted to send this card to.

Card 4. This time a combined Statue of Liberty and the US flag picture with the words, "Freedom will prevail."  Obviously not in the condolence card industry!

Card 5. A pink rose, with two columns in the centre and then written in pink, "9.11" and underneath this image the words, "We'll Always remember."  I think you can see a theme developing.

Card 6.  Two red vertical columns with the following written in each respective column, "September" and "11"  and underneath this image, "A day of remembrance".

That is it!  They were the ONLY choices I had.  I kid you not.

So I now assume that the definition of condolence goes something like this:

Once a word mainly used to describe, sympathy with a person who has experienced pain, grief, or misfortune. However since the 11th September 2001 the main use of the word is in reference to the terrorist attacks committed against the United States of America on American soil.  The word condolence is now an American patriotic term which encompasses the themes of strength, remembrance of American loss on the 11th Sept 2001, freedom and ultimately American triumph.

Now don't get me wrong, what happened on the 11th September 2001 was a horrific event, however it is not the only event in world history that has caused loss of life.  Every life lost no matter what the circumstances or what country you hail from is worthy of sympathy and empathy and a suitable condolence card.

What I came across today is totally bizarre.
 

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all..." Michael Rivero.

While cruising YouTube today I came across a video which caught my attention and it is on YouTube under possibly two different users.  The videos are:

ATROCITIES,TESTIMONY OF A FORMER US ARMY RANGER IN IRAQ

 

TESTIMONY OF A FORMER US ARMY RANGER Part-1/2

Very damning stuff about US soldiers in Iraq.  But his whole story is a lie. In fact he has recently been released from prison because as well as his lies, he also tried to claim false Veterans Affairs benefits.  Jesse has apologised for his actions and now realises how serious his allegations were and the potentially dangerous consequences of his actions to others, including those currently serving in the armed forces.

How did I discover that his story is a lie?  Well it took quite a bit of investigation, but I eventually uncovered the truth - I Googled his name, yes it was that simple.   I did have an advantage though  which others before me didn't have, when Jesse first came out with his allegations there wasn't any concrete evidence to the contrary.

This sort of action does not help anyone.  Jesse has and is paying for what he did and I am sure he will be paying for it for quite some time yet.

Lakewood man wishes he could take back lies

What makes me angry at the moment is that there at two YouTube users who know that Jesse's story is fake and they are still airing it at YouTube and genuine caring people who are against the war are being sucked in.  I tried leaving comments but they were blocked, so I have reported them and I hope others do the same and these videos get banned.  There is another YouTube user who is trying to make people aware that Jesse's story is fake.

I am sure there are many soldiers with tragic stories to be told, but this is not one of them.

.
.
.

If the following comments were said in Australia’s Parliament House while parliament was in session would they be deemed to be anti-Semitic?

There are “too many Jewish temples in this country. MP. …………..

A Jewish member of parliament was not what was imagined when Australia became a federation.” MP. …………; he also objected to opening Parliament with a Buddhist prayer.

If Australians don’t wake up, there will likely be many more Jews elected to parliament and demanding the use of the Torah. MP ………..

They sound anti-Semitic to me, but what do you think?

 

I also find the following bits of news over the past week to be anti – Semitic.

Anti-Semitic remarks rankle Jews in probe of Australian Jewish mogul

SYDNEY (JTA) – Australian Jews are up in arms after an investigation into a major price-fixing scandal involving a Jewish mogul exposed a blatantly anti-Semitic exchange between two high-ranking business executives.

The transcript of remarks by two former executives of Amcor, one of the world’s biggest packaging companies, is among the evidence collected by a corporate watchdog group against the cardboard-recycling company of Jewish billionaire Richard Pratt, Visy Industries. Pratt has admitted that Visy illegally colluded with its main rival, Amcor, in a price-fixing scheme between 2000 and 2004.

According to the transcript, recorded in 2002 and published Tuesday by The Age newspaper, Amcor’s former managing director of Australasia operations, Peter Brown, was discussing Pratt’s company with his colleague, senior executive Jim Hodgson, when Brown allegedly said: “You know what the Jews are like. No wonder they own half the world.”

Hodgson apparently replied: “And you wonder why, ah, Hitler wanted to stitch them up, too.”

Hodgson then said of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “That whole thing is about oil, isn't it? And the New York Jewish lobby.”

(Source and full article)

 

Then of course Ann Coulter the satirical comedian who loves to make an absolute mockery of the right winged conservatives, got herself in a bit of trouble when she went a bit to far in her use of satire on "The Big Idea," a talk show aired on CNBC. At one point, Deutsch (the interviewer) asked her what an ideal country would be like, and she replied that it would be one in which everyone was "a Christian." Deutsch, who happens to be Jewish, protested that Coulter was advocating his people's elimination. She responded that she simply hoped to see Jews "perfected" through conversion to Christianity.

This televised conversation has rightly caused a stir and as displayed below, so it should have.

Coulter's anti-Semitic comment too dangerous to ignore

October 13, 2007

LA Times

Perhaps the best response came from the Anti-Defamation League, which called Coulter's comments "outrageous, offensive and a throwback to the centuries-old teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism. The notion that Jews are religiously inferior or imperfect because they do not accept Christian beliefs was the basis for 2,000 years of church-based anti-Semitism. While she is entitled to her beliefs, using mainstream media to espouse the idea that Judaism needs to be replaced with Christianity and that each individual Jew is somehow deficient and needs to be "perfected" is rank Christian supersessionism and has been rejected by the Catholic Church and the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations. Clearly, Ann Coulter needs a wake-up call about the power of words to injure others and fuel hatred. She needs an education, too, about the roots of anti-Semitism."

That she does. As the league points out, "supersessionism," the theological notion that Christianity "completes" or "perfects" Judaism is, along with the deicide libel, anti-Semitism's major theological underpinning. Indeed, in Central and Western Europe between the world wars, there was a substantial body of purportedly "respectable" intelle