eChurch Blog

By James Lewis – American Thinker

Israel’s high rise buildings in Jerusalem are built out of Jerusalem stone, a beautiful natural building material that makes even the new city look gloriously resurrected from the very hills themselves. Obama is a Third World socialist, meaning that he sees everything through the lens of revenge against Western colonialism of the 19th century. Where Obama sees “settlements,” Israelis see 900 units of beautiful high-rise buildings made out of the living rock of the land.

Almost all Israelis serve in the army, and when you look at those stone buildings from a tactical viewpoint, as soldiers do, you see rank upon rank of defensive positions. Bullets don’t penetrate those Jerusalem stone walls. Even radiation weapons only penetrate one or two ranks of buildings, allowing for defensive positions to be erected behind them. While nothing is impermeable to high explosives and powerful rockets, each row of high rises in Jerusalem can serve as a tactical fortification: a tank ditch, or a tactical position for a team of soldiers. Having seen a century of attacks from Arabs, the Israelis can’t avoid thinking like that.

Fifty miles south, Hamas still fires rockets at surrounding Israeli villages every week. A hundred miles north, Hezbollah has now been resupplied with tens of thousands of fresh, long-range missiles from Tehran. So where Obama looks at Israel like the Dutch settlers of South Africa, the Israelis see the battle of Stalingrad: A place where Israel may take its last stand against another wave of tanks and RPGs, and still turn the tide.

The normally fractious Israelis have finally discovered a common enemy, and it’s Obama. Politics in Israel is about as contentious as it gets without members of parliament coming to regular fisticuffs, Taiwanese-style. But now Obama has done the quarrelsome Israelis a favor, sort of. Ninety-six percent of the Israeli population believes that Obama is a threat to their survival. Israel is uniting against a common threat. Thank you, Mr. Obama.

The other day an Israeli archeologist presented a discovery of Biblical coins going back to the fall of Jerusalem in 67-70 CE.  It was the Roman Emperor-to-be Titus Flavius Vespasianus who conquered Jerusalem that year, and razed it to the ground.

That was a long time ago, you say. In Jerusalem it’s right there in a never-ending flow of archeological discoveries. It’s here and now. Most of those Second Temple shekels went molten in the fire that swept the city when the Romans finally brought down the walls, killing indiscriminate numbers of Jews. Genocide was official Roman policy for rebels against Rome. In the city of Rome today you can still see the triumphal arch Titus built for himself, depicting his celebratory parade through Rome, followed by the defeated Jews in chains. They are carrying an enormous Menorah carved in the marble on the top of Titus’ triumphal arch.

American military people can still understand that, but most Americans can’t. We live only in the present moment. The average American has even forgotten Pearl Harbor, not to mention all the other bloody American sacrifices that still make us safe today. Third World Socialists like Obama can never, never understand it. Obama was quoted sanctimoniously honking that “More settlement building don’t make Israel safer.” That lofty and typically arrogant platitude is contradicted for Israelis when they look at rows upon rows of those Jerusalem stone buildings, every row another fortification against an enemy that has never stopped attacking. The “settlers” are those people who are putting their bodies and their children’s bodies on the line of defense.

There’s not a single family in Israel that hasn’t lost relatives in war and genocide — usually whole generations in the Holocaust. Or a beloved son or father in the constant warfare waged against Israel by Syria, Egypt, Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Iran. Obama has no idea. Millions of Israelis who hail from Muslim lands look back to two thousand years of miserably inferior dhimmi status, where every Muslim act of oppression was meant to wound and crush the morale of Jews who lived there.  Israel has traded land for peace for a hundred years. It has never satisfied the militant Arabs. Obama is trying to nibble away at the next major concession, and this one is the newly walled and fortified city of Jerusalem. Meanwhile Hamas TV is indoctrinating Arab toddlers to prepare them for another genocide, and Ahmadinejad is promising to do it with nukes.

And yet the Israelis yearn for peace. They are like us. War seems an anomaly to them; but in the long reach of history warfare is the norm, and it is peace that is the exception. Europeans have been protected by the United States for sixty years, and by now they have come to expect our protection as an entitlement, like Obama’s Mob-O-Care. When the United States fails to deliver on those defensive installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, Leftist Europeans who have been screaming at George W. Bush for years suddenly turn scared. Where the hell is Uncle Sam when they need him? That’s so-called American imperialism.

In fact, it’s just hostile-dependent rage, like a teenager unwilling to leave home. The anger is real and constant, all right, but he still won’t clean his bedroom or earn his own living. That’s Europe today,  just like it is our dependent domestic populations that live on welfare. It’s their right, dammit! Give that money, honey. You owe it to us, for, ummm … well slavery? They know nothing about slavery.

It was Josephus who wrote the definitive history of the Jewish War. He was a turncoat who started as a Jewish rebel and became a citizen of Rome — adopting the name of the Hitler of his time, Titus Flavius Josephus.   Yet he saw both sides and could write a history for the ages.

So in Book VII, Chapter 1 of his WARS OF THE JEWS OR HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM we can still read, after Titus conquered Jerusalem,

“Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury … Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple … and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such (Roman soldiers) as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to … a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.”

That was only yesterday.

On the basics, nothing has changed.

Bob Allan – Associated Baptist Press

Attention video gamers: The Bible is coming to an Xbox near you.

LifeWay Christian Resources recently announced plans to introduce an Xbox 360 application featuring the complete Holman Christian Standard Bible. Due out in December, “Bible Navigator X” is thought to be the first complete Bible on a video game.

Aaron Linne, executive producer of digital marketing for B&H Publishing Group, a division of the Southern Baptist Convention publishing house, said the project has been a dream of his since the Xbox 360 was launched in 2005 with an announcement that there would be downloadable games.

Linne managed to get someone on the phone at Microsoft, but at the time there was no way to make the idea work, because it wasn’t a game. Nowadays, however, video gamers use their consoles for various entertainment options like downloading movies and television shows, streaming music and posting to Facebook and Twitter.

“The Bible is a message of hope that doesn’t need to be confined to scrolls or books or PCs; the Good News can be read on iPhones, Kindles and the Xbox 360 too,” Linne said in an e-mail interview.

A Nov. 10 press release introducing the Xbox Bible exploded onto tech websites all over the world. A Google search for “Bible Navigator X” Nov. 18 produced about 83,700 hits.

“We are very pleased with the initial response we have received regarding the application,” Linne said. “It’s exciting seeing people talk about the Bible and its impact on culture.”

Linne, a graduate of Liberty University who first went to work for LifeWay as a digital-media producer, said his bosses were willing to take a financial risk even in this weak economy if it meant spreading the gospel.

Once he started working with a developer in the Xbox community on adapting the “HCSB Bible Navigator,” a CD-ROM program for personal computers introduced in 2003, he said it fit the medium perfectly.

“It feels natural and nice,” he wrote on his blog, “like the Xbox was made to host the Bible.”

“Bible Navigator X” will sell for $5 or 400 Microsoft Points, an online currency that allows users to purchase products without using a credit card. It will be downloadable at Xbox.com through the “Xbox LIVE Indie Games” channel, which is devoted to original games made, reviewed and played by the online community.

Since other handheld devices don’t offer a similar toolset, the application is available only for Xbox, Linne said, but he is interested in developing it for other platforms when the opportunities arise.

“I think the responses we’ve seen all show that the Bible is a life-changing text, and we’re happy to be able to move it to a new platform and media that is ripe with potential,” he said.

Writing for Collide Magazine in April, Linne said the “near future” of the Bible probably lies with electronic publishing. He pointed to Martin Luther’s translation of the New Testament into a dialect of German in 1522, which opened the door not only for the Protestant Reformation but also for his chosen dialect to become the standard German language.

While the printed word has had a good run, he said, analysts predict 88 percent of revenue growth for publishing and advertising companies in the next few years will come from the digital medium.

Already there are online Bibles, mobile Bibles for handheld digital devices like the iPhone and community services that allow users to share sermons and other thoughts on social-networking sites.

“We must find ways to engage the life-changing Scriptures in a way that is meaningful to the culture that exists around it,” Linne concluded. “This is the key for any future thinking about the Bible.”

“Just as the Gutenberg press and the printed Bible created a print-based world, the digital revolution has created new opportunities for new relationships not only with each other but with (and between) sacred texts and secular media,” he wrote. “The power of the Bible’s words can do great things, so let’s think about the future of delivering those words to people who so desperately need to read, hear, see, and interact with them.”

I have seen this BBC ‘news’ today about climate change impacting ‘poor women’ most of all, and have been resisting the temptation to comment, but the brilliant Biased BBC blog has come to my rescue and so there is nothing for it, but to reproduce their apt comments!

THE SCIENCE OF NON-SCIENCE…

With media, presentation is everything. So the BBC chooses to present the latest UN report in a way that suggests “poor women” bear climate change heaviest of all. The UN report is pushing the idea that all this dreadful climate change which impacts these “poor women” most savagely COULD be ameliorated if we ...cut population growth by using condoms more. I have covered this ludicrous UN story here but I think the BBC should be made to share the punch-line to this population control suggestion by the UN.

“The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. “The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect,” the report said.

I couldn’t find that revelation in the BBC report for some odd reason. Wear a condom, save the planet – just some of the UN inspired drivel promoted by the State Broadcaster!

My goodness, this image from the Telegraph is amazing.

Is it any wonder that we have so many suspected UFO sightings, all bearing a similar design, when we can observe lenticular clouds with a formation such as this one? Just to add to the effect, they can come with bright colours along the edges!

Fascinating ‘inside information’ on the Middle East as usual by Barry Rubin. Don’t forget to visit his blog to sign up for up-to-the-minute updates on Middle East developments and much more.

It isn’t hard to conclude that Iran having nuclear weapons is a direct threat to Arab states, except Syria—Tehran’s ally—which would benefit. Why, then, don’t Arab states and intellectuals public express more concern?

Western observers were shaken up when at a debate in Qatar, the relatively moderate Arab audience split almost down the middle between those cheering and those jeering the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons.

One member of the audience said:

“Why in the first place should Iran seek the trust of anyone? Iran is an independent, sovereign country, and it has every single right to defend itself. If it wants a bomb, definitely it should have one.”

The audience cheered.

Another man said:

“There is something called balance of power. As long as there is Israel, we need a nuclear bomb.”

A serious analysis would have to include three main points in explaining this seeming suicidal desire of many Arabs that the real worst enemy of the current Arab order become really, really powerful:

First, fear. Iran is strong, aggressive, close, and represents an ideology that appeals to some of their people. To stand up to Iran’s growing strength could incur costly hostility, pressure and subversion now. And once Tehran gets nuclear weapons, it will remember and take revenge on those who have tried to thwart it.

Second, there is the Middle Eastern version of Political Correctness which, unlike its Western version, has very sharp teeth. All good Muslims are supposed to love each other, hate Israel, and hate America. Much the same can be said of all good Arabs, though Iran of course does not benefit directly from that paradigm.

Consequently, if Iran can become a nuclear-armed Muslim state which views America, the West, and Israel as its enemies, then that must be good for Muslims and even Arabs too, right? How proud they all can be that one of them has made good! That will sure show the West that Muslims can have the ultimate weapon. Certainly, many of their people will be enthusiastic and so the rulers—even in dictatorships—rush to get to the head of the crowd lest it turn on them.

Third, their behavior is based on hopeful thinking, a sort of more likely version of wishful thinking. Surely, they wish, the United States or Israel will solve the problem without their having to do anything. Incidentally, this is similar to their position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And, of course, this is a test of U.S. power and will power. After all, if America can’t deal with Iran for them that proves the United States cannot protect them against Tehran. So they are better off keeping their mouths shut now and the option  open of appeasing Iran.

In general, Arab states are content to wait it out. Some movements–Hizballah, Hamas, Iraqi clients of Tehran—and Syria are already on the Iranian team. Qatar and non-Arab Turkey are moving in that direction. Lebanon has been Finlandized, that is, forced into a posture of not doing anything Tehran doesn’t like because of the power of Hizballah and other Iranian clients inside the country.

But for most—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the remaining small Gulf states—the risk is too great of changing sides. After all, they genuinely don’t trust Iran and really don’t want it to change the strategic balance in its favor.

Yet on the other hand, their fear that Iran might become a hegemonic power in the Middle East and subvert these states a factor that should make them vigorously oppose Tehran getting nuclear weapons. The same goes for their hatred of Iran as radical Islamist and Shia Muslim and (largely) ethnic Persian.

The first set of motives, however, outweighs the second. And so they remain silent.

Here’s an obscure story that indicates the shape of things to come. A group of Iran-backed Shia rebels, called the Houthi, in Yemen are waging a guerrilla war to try to take over the country. The Saudis, who view themselves as the guardians of Yemen and don’t want another pro-Tehran state on their border, have been bombing them.

Two top-ranking Iranians have denounced the Saudi action as “Wahhabi terrorism” and openly threatened Saudi Arabia. The language they used indicated the ideological nature of the war, since the Saudis’ Wahhabi version of Islam is very anti-Shia. The Iranians said the war is a U.S.-backed effort to divide Arabs.

And for those who think that Iran’s current internal conflicts will take care of its external aggression, the identity of these two Iranians is significant. One of them is Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, introducing a military threat. But the other is Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, a leading “moderate” member of the radical ruling group who opposes President Ahmadinejad. In other words, Tehran’s ambitions have a wide base of support across faction.

Now, the way things are supposed to work, the United States should support the Saudis, signaling Riyadh that America is a reliable ally (so don’t be afraid of Iran having nuclear weapons) and Tehran that Washington won’t tolerate Iranian aggression (so be afraid and slow down or abandon nuclear weapon development).

Of course, the Obama Administration won’t say a word. Why? Specifically:

–It views normal power politics as neo-imperialistic.

–It fears that Iran will present the Yemen issue as one showing American intervention. Guess what? The Iranians already are doing so.

–It worries that such action will endanger U.S. engagement with Iran over nuclear weapons. Guess what? That’s already dead any way. And showing you are weak doesn’t give you leverage in negotiations.
But this is the pattern, isn’t it?

–The Obama Administration has not backed Iraq’s denunciations of Syria’s involvement in cross-border terrorism. (To be fair, U.S. envoys have asked Syria to stop but there aren’t any teeth behind this request.)

–The Administration isn’t giving strong backing to Israel. Indeed, after Israel agreed to a U.S. request for a freeze on construction inside settlements with the exception of Jerusalem, the Arabs complained and the Administration backed down on its own deal.

–Despite some verbal support the Administration hasn’t taken a tough position backing Lebanese moderates (March 14 coalition) against pressure from Iran- and Syria-backed Hizballah to give the radicals a bigger share of government. Indeed, the U.S. effort was so feeble that the Saudis gave up their own efforts to pressure Syria to ease off on the Lebanese.

–The U.S. government barely gave a squeak in support of the Iranian economic opposition.

–In Afghanistan the government is hanging around waiting for the United States to make up its mind whether to defend or virtually abandon the country. The indecision is not such as to promote confidence in Kabul or trembling among the Taliban.

So here’s the question of the era. You are an Arab or a non-Arab Muslim (or an Israeli). You don’t want your country to be taken over by Islamists who are likely to shoot you, seize your property, and force you to change your lifestyle to that of Taliban Afghanistan.

You don’t ask yourself: Is President Barack Obama nice to Muslims, sympathetic, and apologizes for America being tough in the past.

Rather, you ask yourself: Can I depend on America under the Obama Administration to protect me now and in the future? Would the United States attack Iran if necessary to deter Tehran? Would it even threaten the use of nuclear weapons to shield me against any Iranian attack? Would it send troops if I decided I wanted them?

Ok, what’s your answer? And if it is “no” then what alternative to appeasement is possible?

At the debate in Qatar, an Iraqi woman in the audience tried to have it both ways, pointing out that even from a perspective that thinks Israel makes the devil look like a nice guy there are good reasons to oppose Iran having nukes. Note that she didn’t mention the United States at all as the solution:

“We’re going to [be] between two powerful countries, Iran and Israel, with nuclear weapons. Where will this region be?”

Answer: Up the Gulf without a paddle.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Eschatological proponents of an end of times ‘Revived Roman Empire’ may find this article quite interesting, and comes complete with a secretive selection process for our new European Emperor:-

Just pray to God Tony Blair does not become the new EU Potentate

by Soeren Kern – Pajamas Media

Leaders of the 27 member states of the European Union are meeting in Brussels on November 19 to choose the first-ever European president and European foreign minister. European political elites say these two new jobs are needed so that the notoriously divided EU can begin to speak with one voice on the global stage. Once that happens, they contend, the EU will assume its rightful role as a world superpower and act as a counterbalance to the United States.

Geo-strategists are debating whether Europe’s superpower moment is or is not just around the corner. But if the nomination process for the individual who will represent 500 million Europeans has demonstrated anything at all, it is that Europe is inexorably moving in a direction that has far more in common with Soviet totalitarianism than with Western liberal democracy.

In what could be described as a slow-moving coup d’état, Europe over the past several decades has experienced a gradual but significant shift in political power away from individual nation states towards an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy based in Brussels.

Today, these so-called Eurocrats oversee more than 100,000 pages of EU legislation, much of which has primacy over national legislation and parliaments. Indeed, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels now exercise so much power that they dictate what elected leaders can or cannot do in more than 30 policy areas.

In 2004, European federalists moved to consolidate their power by means of the “European constitution,” which, among many other things, called for abolishing the national veto in more than 50 additional policy areas. But the ratification process ran into a roadblock in May and June 2005, when French and Dutch voters rejected the document.

Predictably, the authors of the European constitution were unwilling to let democracy get in the way of their federal ambitions. Instead, they essentially shuffled some of the words, sentences, and paragraphs of the document and reissued it in December 2007 as the Lisbon Treaty, in order “to avoid having referendums.”

Read More

Thank God!

By Michelle A. Vu | Christian Post Reporter

After nine months in prison, the two young female converts who have gained international attention were freed Wednesday afternoon in Iran, sources inside the country reported.

Maryam Rostampour, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, were released at 3:30 p.m. local time without bail, according to Elam Ministries. They are currently at home with their family, but could face more court hearings in the future.

“Words are not enough to express our gratitude to the Lord and to His people who have prayed and worked for our release,” they said, according to Elam.

Open Doors USA President/CEO Dr. Carl Moeller, whose group works with persecuted Christians, responded to news of their release:

“Praise the Lord for the great news out of Iran today of the release of Maryam and Marzieh. Literally millions of Christians around the world have been praying for their release.”

But Moeller warned that the two converts’ future remains “uncertain” so Christians must continue to pray for them and other persecuted believers in Iran.

The two young females were arrested March 5 on charges of anti-state activity and “taking part in illegal gatherings” due to their involvement in house church activities. They were detained in Evin prison, the notorious facility known for its human rights violation and capital punishment, while their trial took place in Tehran.

Reports indicate that they were pressured by the judge to denounce their Christian faith and return to Islam. However, the women refused to deny Jesus Christ as their savior and as a result were sent back to prison for several more months.

At the Aug. 9 court hearing, they had told the judge, “We love Jesus,” “Yes, we are Christians,” and “We will not deny our faith.” At an Oct. 7 hearing, they then learned about the addition of a third charge against them – apostasy. However, the new judge was sympathetic to their case and acquitted them of anti-state activities, which rarely happens.

Their case was then transferred from the revolutionary court to the civil court.

During their detainment, the women suffered psychological abuse, including sleep deprivation and intense interrogation for hours at a time. They also had health problems but were denied medical attention. Amirizadeh suffered from a previous spinal condition, but received no medical attention. She also had an infected tooth but was only given painkillers.

“Maryam and Marzieh have greatly inspired us all,” said Sam Yeghnazar, director of Elam Ministries. “Their love for the Lord Jesus and their faithfulness to God has been an amazing testimony.”

Open Doors noted that Iranian authorities are prone to release detained Christians and then summon them to court hearings or force them to sign restricting documents. The ministry cautioned that though the women were freed from jail it does not mean they are “living in complete freedom.”

Christians are asked to pray for the women’s health to be fully restored and for their continual freedom.

Previous related posts

After 255 days in an Iranian prison, Maryam Rostampour and Marzieh Amirizadeh Esmaeilabad told they will be released today!

Praise God – Washington Times Covers the story of the Iranian Christian Girls (Maryam Rostampour, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh Esmaeilabad, 30) Jailed for Converting to Christianity

International Christian Concern said it has learned from Elam ministries in Iran Wednesday that Maryam Rustampoor and Marzieh Amirizadeh were unexpectedly taken to appear before the court Tuesday morning and were formally charged by the judge.

Two Iranian converts to Christianity (Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, and Maryam Rustampoor, 27) are standing strong in their faith, according to a report from Iran by the Farsi Christian News Network.

Maryam Rostampour and Marzieh Esmailabadi are Iranian Christians who were imprisoned six months ago for converting to Christianity.

Maryam Rostampour, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, were arrested on 5 March by Iranian security officers who confiscated their Bibles. The women were taken to Evin Prison in Tehran, where they have been held without charge since their arrest.

The case of two Iranian women, Maryam Rustampoor, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, suffering in Evin prison, simply for converting to Christianity, has been taken up by the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who steps down soon as a diocesan to concentrate on helping persecuted Christians around the world.

Women dressed in white will be gathering outside the Iranian embassy in London this Saturday as part of a prayer vigil to highlight the plight of two female Christian converts from Islam(Maryam Rostampour and Marzieh Amirizadeh) who have been held at Evin Prison in Teheran without charge for the last six months.

I’ve organized a petition through World Net Daily for the release of Maryam Rustampoor and Marzieh Amirizadeh from Iranian prison.

Cross-post by Yeze from the Rosh Pina Project

ArutzSheva (A7) and VosIzNeias report:

Supreme Court Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch has ruled that the Rabbinate of Ashdod may not negate the kashrut authorization of a restaurant merely because the restaurant owner belongs to a Jesus-believing cult of Jews.

She thus reaffirmed an earlier Supreme Court ruling, denying a request for a re-hearing.

The ruling states that the Halakhic [Jewish legal] standards that measure when one’s personal kashrut claims may be believed are not part of the “hard core” of kashrut laws to which the State of Israel is obligated. Therefore, the fact that the rabbinate does not “trust” the owner is not sufficient reason to withhold the kashrut certification. The certification must be issued immediately, Beinisch ruled, and if not, the city’s Chief Rabbi will be fined.

Beinisch acknowledges that the messianic beliefs of the owner may well lead to “difficulties” in terms of the rabbi’s trust in his kashrut practices – but “the trustworthiness of a restaurant owner must be measured according to standards of general law, and not according to Halakhic standards.”

The rabbinate had demanded that a kashrut supervisor receive keys to the establishment and that he be the one to open and close it each morning and night. However, Judge Beinisch ruled that this demand was unreasonable and harmed the owner’s basic rights.

However, not everyone is happy. According to A7:

Yad L’Achim Calls for Urgent Meeting

The anti-missionary Yad L’Achim organization responded with outrage to the ruling, saying that missionaries will now be able to open restaurants featuring kashrut authorization accompanying their missionary activities.

“It is unprecedented and grave,” Yad L’Achim announced, “that the local Chief Rabbinate is not authorized to remove the kashrut certification from an establishment that identifies clearly with the Jewish Messianic missionary cult and cannot be trusted to keep the laws of kashrut.”

Yad L’Achim Director Rabbi Shalom Dov Lifshitz has asked the Chief Rabbis to call an urgent meeting of rabbis to discuss the matter. He has also called upon religious Knesset Members to work to change the legislation in order to prevent this from happening. “This must be done immediately,” he said, “even if it causes a coalition crisis. Otherwise, missionaries, armed with official kashrut certifications, will be able to entice religious people into their waiting arms.”

As well as being a somewhat fascist organisation, Yad L’Achim are increasingly resembling a bunch of losers. This hysterical scaremongering doesn’t help. Really, missionaries will be successful if they can have kosher licenses? Nonsense!

Yad L’Achim’s are currently trying to manipulate Israel’s laws to keep out Messianics, whilst they show scant regard themselves for Israel’s democratic law.  Thus, they will fail.

Finally, someone has neatly summed up some of the thoughts that I have been having recently, regarding the ‘Humanist’ movement.

Observing the Humanist campaign to be included on the BBC ‘Thought for the Day’ and their recent advertising campaign, you simply can’t help but notice that this group is somewhat ‘evangelistic’ in an almost zealously religious fashion. Watching how they operate on Christian forums and within the comment section of this blog reinforces this. They can be quite aggressive for their version of the ‘truth’.

The fact that the ideology of Humanism in not truly an objective, rational, neutral worldview, is an amazing internal irony and contradiction within the Humanist movement, which Humanists themselves seem utterly unable to comprehend or admit. Because Humanists actually believe that their version of reality is the absolute, unprejudiced, unbiased, objective, rational truth, (sounds like a religion to me) they spend most of their time freaking out, at what they perceive to be the ‘indoctrination’ of children, by religion, through parents and the education system, without ever for one moment stopping and wondering if they are themselves guilty of the same.

It really is a case of telling someone about the speck in their eye, whilst at the same time, having a plank in your own eye and not realising it.

Did you know that there is actually divisions and schisms within Humanist and Atheist movements, akin to religious denominational splits?

Here is an excerpt from an excellent analysis in the CIF by Nick Spencer

Those [Humanists] who have been campaigning so long and so hard to open up Thought for the Day to non-religious items have vowed to carry on. We have not heard the end of this story. There is, however, a way through the impasse.

Humanism, the non-religious body that has made the most convincing case for a slot on the programme, insists with some vigour that it is not a religion. In one respect that is right. Religions are (in part) about people being “bound together” around a common vision of the good. Humanists may agree about what they do not believe, but it is hard to see what substantive vision they share. Talk of “shared human values” merely begs the question.

In another way, however, humanism is deeply religious. It may not rely on revelation or the supernatural but, like any serious worldview, it does depend on beliefs and moral convictions that cannot be proved. Humanists tend to be a little shy of admitting this, preferring to pretend that their belief system is “scientific”, “rational” or “neutral”. But the fact remains that if you have an opinion on the merits of assisted dying, or whether the Scottish government was right to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, or indeed why it is worth getting out of bed in the morning, you will be drawing on a worldview that is not demonstrably rational or neutral.

And that is the sticking point. As long as humanism hides under these fig leaves of science, rationality and neutrality, and insists it is not a religion, it is hard to see how it can legitimately demand a slice of the religious cake. If, however, those who hold such views are willing to abandon their fig leaves and embrace the vulnerability that goes with any religious faith position then there might be a role for them on this most contentious 2½ minutes of broadcasting.

Read entire article

It would seem that the varied and expansive indoctrination of children within the media, education and commercialist systems, are fine, as long as it has no positive reference to God. Not all indoctrination is equal it would seem, within the Humanist world view.

There is of course an advertising ‘fight-back’ campaign, check out the ChurchAds Website

UKPA

Billboard posters were put up in London in the latest round in the advertising war between atheists and Christians.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) said four large advertisements went up in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast with the slogan “Please Don’t Label Me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”.

The London poster features two children and each of the others features one child, all appearing against a backdrop of “shadowy” descriptions such as Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh.

The organisers said these were mixed in with other labels that people would “never apply” to young children, such as Marxist, Anarchist, Socialist, Libertarian or Humanist.

The campaign comes after a £140,000 atheist advertising campaign on British buses and on the London Underground was launched in January with the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

The poster drive in January sparked a series of retaliatory campaigns by Christian groups.

Ariane Sherine, creator of the original bus campaign, said: “One of the issues raised again and again by donors to the campaign was the issue of children having the freedom to grow up and decide for themselves what they believe, and that we should not label children with any ideology.

“I hope this poster campaign will encourage the Government, media and general public to see children as individuals, free to make their own choices, and accord them the liberty and respect they deserve.”

The BHA said the billboards were unveiled to coincide with Universal Children’s Day on Friday.

Atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins, the BHA vice president, said: “Nobody would seriously describe a tiny child as a ‘Marxist child’ or an ‘anarchist child’ or a ‘post-modernist child’. Yet children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents.”