eChurch Blog

It has stunned me how many news articles, blog posts and commentaries on the Internet have mentioned God in relation to the Haiti earthquake tragedy. God is either portrayed as the villian of the piece, or the hope in tragedy, or the one dishing out earthquakes as ‘divine judgement’ or some such thing.

Atheists have come out to mock the Christians and their God and nutjob ‘Christians’ have come out to say wicked and stupid things about this tragedy, but either way, God features heavily in the thoughts of those reflecting on this tragedy, which has taken me by surprise.

What is it about disasters (especially natural or ‘acts of God’) that suddenly thrusts God into the human mind, in a way that is like no other?

Here is a moving and sad piece from an op-ed in the New York Times By POOJA BHATIA:-

FOR most of the past 20 hours I’ve been hiking the earthquake-rubbled streets of Port-au-Prince. Tuesday night, when we had less idea of the scope of the devastation, there was singing all over town: songs with lyrics like “O Lord, keep me close to you” and “Forgive me, Jesus.” Preachers stood atop boxes and gave impromptu sermons, reassuring their listeners in the dark: “It seems like the Good Lord is hiding, but he’s here. He’s always here.”

The day after, as the sun exposed bodies strewn everywhere, and every fourth building seemed to have fallen, Haitians were still praying in the streets. But mostly they were weeping, trying to find friends and family, searching in vain for relief and walking around in shock.

If God exists, he’s really got it in for Haiti. Haitians think so, too. Zed, a housekeeper in my apartment complex, said God was angry at sinners around the world, but especially in Haiti. Zed said the quake had fortified her faith, and that she understood it as divine retribution.

This earthquake will make the devastating storms of 2008 look like child’s play. Entire neighborhoods have vanished. The night of the earthquake, my boyfriend, who works for the American Red Cross, and I tended to hundreds of Haitians who lived in shoddily built hillside slums. The injuries we saw were too grave for the few bottles of antiseptic, gauze and waterproof tape we had: skulls shattered, bones and tendons protruding from skin, chunks of bodies missing. Some will die in the coming days, but for the most part they are the lucky ones.

No one knows where to go with their injured and dead, or where to find food and water. Relief is nowhere in sight. The hospitals that are still standing are turning away the injured. The headquarters of the United Nations peacekeeping force, which has provided the entirety of the country’s logistical support, has collapsed. Cell and satellite phones don’t work. Cars can’t get through many streets, which are blocked by fallen houses. Policemen seem to have made themselves scarce.

“If this were a serious country, there would be relief workers here, finding the children buried underneath that house,” my friend Florence told me. Florence is a paraplegic who often sits outside her house in the Bois Verna neighborhood. The house next to hers had collapsed, and Florence said that for a time she heard the children inside crying.

Why, then, turn to a God who seems to be absent at best and vindictive at worst? Haitians don’t have other options. The country has a long legacy of repression and exploitation; international peacekeepers come and go; the earth no longer provides food; jobs almost don’t exist. Perhaps a God who hides is better than nothing.

Pooja Bhatia is a fellow at the Institute of Current World Affairs.

Brilliant cross-post from The Young Mr Brown of the Marmalade Sandwich blog, following the comments made by Nick Clegg relating to faith schools.

Nick Clegg, faith schools, and bullying

According to the Telegraph, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that faith schools should be required to have anti-homophobic bullying policies in place. “If they’re suffering higher rates of homophobic bullying and violence then we need to put serious pressure on them. It needs
to be a requirement.”

So what are we to make of this? Well, let us note first of all that Mr. Clegg uses the word “if.” He is not sure about whether faith schools are suffering higher rates of homophobic bullying and violence. Are they? According to a report compiled by Stonewall in 2007, 75% of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils attending faith schools claim to have experienced homophobic bullying, as opposed to 65% of LGB pupils generally. So perhaps they are. But who is to know? To claim to have been the victim of bullying is not the same thing as to have actually been bullied.

But Mr. Clegg’s suggested remedy leaves me somewhat concerned, for the following reasons.

1. He seems to believe that faith schools should be lumped together and singled out for serious pressure, despite the fact that 75% is not that much higher than 65%. Yet Mr. Clegg’s words would suggest to the casual observer that he thinks that faith schools have a significant problem that other schools do not have. Even if one accepts the findings of the Stonewall report at face value, it is probable that some faith schools do not have a significant bullying problem, and that some non-faith schools do. This business of lumping all faith schools together is a bit like the way some people say “If members of a certain ethnic group are considerably more likely to be involved in crime, then we need to target that ethnic group.” And I think that Mr. Clegg would not like that.

In passing, I might add that his approach reminds one of the approach of the government to home education. A review of 74 local authorities found that while 0.2% of children in the UK population were known to social services, the figure was 0.4% among those who were educated at home. The government’s response to these statistics has been to propose draconian and intrusive regulations for home educators.

2. The idea that the way to address the problem is to insist that schools have “anti-homophobic bullying policies” in place is depressing. Everyone has to have a policy in place for every eventuality. If a school has good leadership and good discipline, there is no need to have a policy in place, because bullying will be appropriately dealt with.

3. As a libertarian, I do not believe that it is the job of central government to insist that individual schools have any policies at all in place. This is simply not a central government function. (No doubt Mr. Clegg will be absolutely horrified by my saying this.)

4. And why this big concern about homophobic bullying? Why not simply be concerned about bullying per se? And of course the answer is because some people are obsessed with hate crime. As Tom Paine, over at The Last Ditch, says:

Why is the Left so obsessed with “hate speech” and “hate crime?” If I am injured, I want justice, whether my attacker was motivated by hate or merely indifferent to my plight. If my goods are stolen, I don’t care if the thief was driven by envy, hatred or greed. I just want my stuff back and the thief out of circulation.

If I am being bullied, does it really matter whether I am being bullied because of my expressed sexual preferences, or because the bully finds my voice irritating, or he doesn’t like the fact that I have different tastes in music from him, or whatever? Or course not. The problem is not homophobia – it is bullying.

Yes, I know that Mr. Clegg is a politician, and when he is being interviewed by Attitude magazine, he will be playing to the gallery and making a pitch for the LGBT vote. But I still find his words rather disappointing.

Edit: I also note that that Mr Clegg has apparently said that faith schools should be legally obliged to teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless.”

Liberal Democrats? That is about as illiberal as it gets. “Stalin Democrats” would be a more accurate name. I’m sorry, but they have just joined the BNP and Labour in the “parties that I would not even consider voting for” category.

Previous post here.

And you know, Christy, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon III and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. ‘They said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the French.’ True story. And so the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’ And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free, and ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That Island of Hispaniola is one island cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty, same islands. They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy, I’m optimistic something good may come, but right now we’re helping the suffering people, and the suffering is unimaginable.

How and why does some folks version of ‘Christianity’ make them so hard, heartless and self-righteous? Why do some ‘Christians’ leap to judge the calamity of others?

It is comments like these from the ‘Christian world’ that incite folks to mock Christians and our God.

Here are some commentary links from other blogs:

Pat Robertson Cites Haiti’s Earthquake As What Happens When You ‘Swear A Pact To The Devil’

On the 700 Club today Pat Robertson said one of the most ignorant and offensive things I’ve heard in a long time

A Response to Pat Robertson’s Comments about Haiti

And here is a statement from a Pat Robertson spokesperson (would you want that job right now):-

Statement Regarding Pat Robertson’s Comments on Haiti

CBN.com – VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., January 13, 2010 –On today’s The 700 Club, during a segment about the devastation, suffering and humanitarian effort that is needed in Haiti, Dr. Robertson also spoke about Haiti’s history. His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.

Chris Roslan
Spokesman for CBN

Talk about dig the hole even deeper!

I have just read through the harrowing article from Ruth Gledhill over at the Times, detailing the death and destruction that has happened as a result of the Haiti earthquake. This is is how Ruth begins:-

Not only has Haiti’s cathedral collapsed in the devastating earthquake in this poorest of poor countries in the Caribbean, but now it is clear that the Roman Catholic Archbishop, Monsignor Joseph Serge Miot, is among the many dead. Cafod has this afternoon pledged £100,000 and Pope Benedict XVI has appealed for generous donations to help this much afflicted land. According to Times foreign corr Anne Barrowclough, people were running in all directions, screaming ‘Jesus, Jesus.’ See also the extraordinary Twitter updates from Haiti DJ Carel Pedre as the earthquake happened. ‘Haiti is still shaking! Help!’ reads one.

Read More

I have read on the Internet of the collapse of hospitals, schools, government buildings, UN buildings and on and on and yet I also came across questions like this:-

CHRISTIANS – Why did your God make the 7.3 Haiti earthquake this afternoon? Was this divine justice, or what?

Christians, would you like to applaud your “loving” God on the earthquake he allowed to happen in Haiti?

Am I just naive or does anyone else find it strange that the first thoughts of some, to a tragedy of this scale, is to ask questions of this nature?

I’m not denying that some folk who claim to be Christian, will no doubt come out and say some bloody stupid things about this disaster and try to explain it away in terms of ‘Divine retribution / judgement’ or some such crap.

The irony of course, is that 95% of the Haitian population claim Christian beliefs:-

Wiki:-

About 95% of the population claim Christian beliefs, although the most professed denomination by far is Roman Catholicism. Similar to the rest of Latin America, Haiti was colonized during a period during which Roman Catholicism was prevalent among European monarchs. Following in this legacy, Catholicism is enshrined in the Haitian constitution as the official state religion, and between 80 and 85% of Haitians are Catholics. Pope John Paul II visited Haiti in 1983. In a speech in the capital of Port-au-Prince, he criticized the government of Jean-Claude Duvalier; it is believed that the impact of this speech on the Catholic bureaucracy in Haiti contributed to his removal in 1986.

According to the Catholic Church in Haiti, the ten dioceses of the two ecclesiastical provinces of Haiti count up to 251 parishes and about 1500 Christian rural communities. The local clergy has 400 diocesan priests and 300 seminarians. There are also 1300 religious missionary priests belonging to more than 70 religious families. Vocations to the priesthood are plenty^[1].

The Seventh-day Adventist Church, Pentecostalism, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses movement also have significant followings. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims more than 14,000 members in Haiti.^[2] 10-15% of Haiti’s professed Christians are evangelical protestants.

So Haiti is a predominantly Christian country and Christian Churches throughout the world are scrambling their resources, to help in any way that they can, as quickly as possible and yet the first reaction of some is to use the tragedy to mock Christians and their Christian God?

This tragedy shouldn’t be used as yet another opportunity to have a pop at Christians, even if some professing Christians are talking complete rubbish:-

Pat Robertson blaming the earthquake on Haitians and their deal with the devil

2nd Part of a Cross-post by Mariano over at the Atheism is Dead blog, Part 1 can be found here.

Massimo Pigliucci treks from science and philosophy to urging us to “reject religious nonsense” and affirming that “no scientist today would defend…the original version of Darwin’s theory.”

Pigliucci is the professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and chair of the Department of Philosophy at Lehman College. He is also an opposer of all things creationist or intelligent design. He elucidates a point from which I will build; first consider his, then mine.

Attentive readers of this blog may have noticed that those who post comments to my entries often show two interesting and complementary attitudes: a fundamental distrust of (if not downright contempt for) philosophy, coupled with an overly enthusiastic endorsement of science. Take, for instance, my recurring argument that some (but not all!) of the new atheists engage in scientistic attitudes by overplaying the epistemological power of science while downplaying (or even simply negating) the notion that science fundamentally depends on non-empirical (i.e., philosophical) assumptions to even get started…

the all-too common mistake of thinking of philosophy as of an activity whose entire worth is measured by how useful it is to solve scientific problems. But why should that be so? We already have science to help us solve scientific problems, philosophy does something else by using different tools…why not ask why art critics don’t produce paintings, for instance, or editors write books?…

the intricacies of the epistemological and metaphysical problems inherent in the practice of science (and there are many: as Daniel Dennett put it in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”) Science, broadly speaking, deals with the study and understanding of natural phenomena, and is concerned with empirically (i.e., either observationally or experimentally) testable hypotheses advanced to account for those phenomena.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is much harder to define. Broadly speaking, it can be thought of as an activity that uses reason to explore issues that include the nature of reality (metaphysics), the structure of rational thinking (logic), the limits of our understanding (epistemology), the meaning implied by our thoughts (philosophy of language), the nature of the moral good (ethics), the nature of beauty (aesthetics), and the inner workings of other disciplines (philosophy of science, philosophy of history, and a variety of other philosophies of). Philosophy does this by methods of analysis and questioning that include dialectics and logical argumentation.

Now, it seems to me obvious, but apparently it needs to be stated that: a) philosophy and science are two distinct activities (at least nowadays, since science did start as a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy); b) they work by different methods (empirically-based hypothesis testing vs. reason-based logical analysis); and c) they inform each other in an inter-dependent fashion (science depends on philosophical assumptions that are outside the scope of empirical validation, but philosophical investigations should be informed by the best science available in a range of situations, from metaphysics to ethics and philosophy of mind).

So when some commentators for instance defend the Dawkins- and Coyne-style (scientistic) take on atheism, i.e., that science can mount an attack on all religious beliefs, they are granting too much to science and too little to philosophy. Yes, science can empirically test specific religious claims (intercessory prayer, age of the earth, etc.), but the best objections against the concept of, say, an omnibenevolent and onmnipowerful god, are philosophical in nature (e.g., the argument from evil). Why, then, not admit that by far the most effective way to reject religious nonsense is by combining science and philosophy, rather than trying to arrogate to either more epistemological power than each separate discipline actually possesses?…

It is also interesting to note that the process I just described [how philosophy progresses] may never reach and end result, but neither does science! Scientific theories are always tentative, and they are always either improved upon or abandoned in favor of new ones…we are willing to live with uncertainty and constant revision in science…[1]

This is a very important lesson for atheists to learn, important for anyone who claims to premise their atheism on “science,” those who claim to only believe that which is material, those who oppose supernaturalism based on a materialistic worldview: you too are a metaphysician, you too premise your beliefs/views upon the intangible, immaterial, unobserved, un-experimented upon, something that is not proved nor evidenced but assumed—first principles, axioms, propositions, presuppositions, which are intuited.

Nature, for example, cannot explain nature or the very nature of nature. Science cannot explain itself. Likewise atheism is premised upon such metaphysics and has no material reality upon which to be premised. Atheism is, ultimately, taken on “faith.”

This sentiment is certainly not a new insight but one that we must muse upon as we will apply it to Richard Dawkins in the next segment.

[1] Massimo Pigliucci, “On the difference between science and philosophy,” Rationally Speaking, November 11, 2009

PART 3 HERE

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:

1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

Cross-posted from the excellent Calvin L Smith Blog

A couple of days ago I commented briefly on the view held by several anti-Israel Christians that God having a chosen people is a racist theology. My post was not aimed at all Covenantalists, some of whom, even though I may disagree with theologically, include friends and colleagues I respect deeply. Rather, my comment was aimed at the more polemical (and arguably less theological) variety of supercessionism which so hates Israel it childishly accuses fellow Christians who take a different view as somehow racist. This said, the concept of God choosing for Himself a peculiar people, as detailed in the Old Testament, merits further comment, so today I thought I’d elaborate just a tiny bit more on this notion of an ethnically distinct chosen people who were Old Testament Israel.

According to Scripture, biblical Israel was indeed set apart as a distinctly Jewish nation. But inclusion within that nation was not solely dependent upon ethnicity. Do a bit of research and you’ll soon see how God loved and welcomed the alien into the house of Israel (Deut 10:18-19). Aliens were granted full rights and privileges, and strict instructions were laid down concerning their fair treatment (eg Lev 23:22, Num 35:15, Deut 10:19, 14:29, 24:17, 24:19-21, 26:13, 27:19, Ezek 22:7, and Jer 7:6). In fact, in God’s eyes there was to be no difference between the alien and Israelite (Lev 24:22, Num 15:14-16). So much for racism, then. The various references to the alien and how to treat them as set out in the Mosaic law demonstrates just how many non-Jews were in fact welcomed into Israel.

But it is also vital to note the reciprocal element of this arrangement, namely, that the alien became, to all intents and purposes, a full member of the congregation of Israel, agreeing to abide by the terms and observances associated with God’s covenant with the people of Israel. For example, the alien was expected to observe certain religious and other laws (Ex 12:19, Lev 16:29, 17:12, 17:15, 18:26, 24:16, Num 19:10, Deut 26:11, 31:12, Ezek 47:23). Moreover, if he was to become a member of the congregation and participate in the Passover feast (a key aspect of being an Israelite), he was to be circumcised (Ex 12:48-9, Num 9:14).

Thus, when Ruth declares to her mother-in-law Naomi that her God and people would also become Ruth’s God and people, we witness an excellent OT illustration of the alien, previously separated from the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:11ff) now included within that assembly. This is a direct echo of the Gentile being grafted into Israel as described by the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:17-24. This inclusion of the Gentile within the congregation of Israel, which was based on reciprocity (covenantal observance) is what I meant when, the other day I stated OT Israel practiced an integrationist rather than a multicultural model. By “multicultural” here I mean the British liberal elite definition, encouraging ethnic and cultural ‘enclavination’ so favoured in the 1970s and and early 1980s (leading to ethnic and culture enclaves separated from the rest of Britain), rather than welcoming various cutural and ethnic groups to integrate into society as active participants and stakeholders.

Clearly, then, the concept of a chosen people as presented in the Old Testament is far from racist. Yes, ethnicity represented an important dimension of Israelite nationhood. But retention of Jewishness aimed ensuring biblical Israel retained its distinct identity from the surrounding nations in no way prohibited non-Jewish aliens from joining the congregation of Israel. Quite the opposite, in fact. They were welcome, provided they reciprocated by becoming full members of the congregation of Israel, ditching their old foreign gods to become full Israelites. Significantly, such aliens who became Israelites included several non-Jewiish women who were to become the direct ancestors of Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Jewish Messiah (see Matthew’s genealogy).

So biblical Israel was far from racist. But what about modern Israel? Some Christians such as Colin Chapman argue that a Jewish state is, by its very nature, racist. I propose to look at this in my next post on Israel and ethnicity in the next couple or three days. In the meantime, what do you think? Is the concept of a modern Jewish state inherently racist?

Adapted from a post originally published on the King’s Evangelical Divinity School blog.

Love them or hate them, faith schools are rarely out of the mainstream media of late and every bloomin’ politician has something to spout about them and whenever they do, I’m always reminded of how controlling and meddling these politicians really are.

Telegraph:-

In a pitch for the “pink vote,” he called on all the parties to prove that they supported full equality for homosexuals, and accused David Cameron, the Conservative leader, of being untrustworthy on the issue.

The Liberal Democrats support measures forcing teachers, including those working in faith schools, to implement policies to combat homophobic bullying, with lessons teaching that same-sex relationships are “normal”.

Mr Clegg said: “Crucially faith schools should have a requirement to have an anti-homophobic bullying policy at their school.”

Read More

Archbishop Cranmer has commented on this one:-

Before Cranmer tackles the hermeneutics of ‘normal’ and ‘harmless’, he wishes to ask what kind of liberal is it which insists that all schools must teach anything? What kind of liberal seeks to subsume religious conscience to a radical and uniform social agenda? What kind of liberal demands that centuries of religious tradition and orthodoxy should be swept aside in favour of a social fad?

I noticed yesterday an Israel National News article, in which they said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had issued a statement declaring that Israel would never surrender the eastern half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, nor would it return to the pre-1967 borders. I didn’t really understand what had given rise to this statement, however, Aaron Klein at WorldNetDaily has written the following article which Israpundit feels has a “ring of credibility”.

Exposed: Secret talks to carve up Israel, again Clandestine bargaining hastens Palestinian state

By Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Israel and the Palestinian Authority are negotiating indirectly via the U.S., Jordan and Egypt to outline a future Palestinian state that would encompass Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Middle East security and diplomatic officials told WND.

Popular perception has it that talks between Israel and the PA are stalled over a Palestinian demand that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu extend a 10-month West Bank settlement freeze to include Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.

Just yesterday, Netanyahu’s office released a statement declaring the prime minister would “never” cede control of united Jerusalem nor retreat to the 1967 borders, referring to an evacuation of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. The statement came after Egypt’s foreign minister said in Cairo last week Netanyahu was ready to discuss making “Arab Jerusalem” the capital of a Palestinian state.

According to Middle East security and diplomatic officials, however, Netanyahu’s statement may be misleading unless he meant he would not retreat to the exact 1967 lines. Those officials, from Egypt, Jordan, the PA and Israel, told WND in separate interviews over the course of the last few weeks that Israel is in advanced stages of outlining a future Palestinian state that would encompass most of the West Bank. Also Jerusalem is being discussed between Israel and members of the Obama administration, the officials said.

To point out the advanced levels of the current talks, a PA official told WND that a visit next week by President Obama’s national security adviser, Jim Jones, will center around security arrangements for a future Palestinian state in the West Bank.

The arrangements may include a contingent of Jordanian troops in the strategic territory as well as private Palestinian firms and international soldiers participating in the patrol of the Palestinian side of a future border, the official said.

Regarding international forces, one Jordanian security sources said there are “very serious talks about bringing international forces to the borders between the West Bank and Israel, especially the Jordan Valley, where the Israelis would have security guarantees from an international force working in collaboration with the Palestinians.”

Officially, White House spokesman Mike Hammer said that in his consultations, Jones “will discuss the full range of regional challenges and opportunities at this critical time in the Middle East.”

According to the Middle East security officials, Netanyahu agreed in principal to establish a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders – the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. However, Israel would retain what are known as major settlement blocks, including Ariel, Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim.

The officials said the formula, established under Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, would call for a 100 percent territorial exchange, meaning that any West Bank Jewish communities retained by Israel would be compensated to the PA using other land, such as territory in the Israeli Negev alongside the Gaza Strip.

With regard to Jerusalem, talks between the U.S. and Israel are in the infancy stages.

The officials from the Obama administration most publicly identified with brokering Israeli-Palestinian talks include Jones and Obama’s envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, George Mitchell. However, WND has learned Dennis Ross, an Obama foreign policy adviser who served as Mideast envoy to the Clinton administration, is actively engaged in brokering a deal regarding Jerusalem.

Israeli diplomatic sources said Ross wants to use the formula established under the Clinton administration that would see Jewish sections of Jerusalem becoming Israeli while areas largely inhabited by Arabs would become Palestinian. About 100,000 Arabs live illegally on Jewish-owned land in Jerusalem.

The fact that the talks are ongoing through mediators leaves Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas open to declaring that there are no direct negotiations.

Israeli leaders in the recent past claimed talks were not occurring or did not include certain territories only later to admit the territory in question had been ceded in secret negotiations.

After months of denials the status of Jerusalem was on the table during negotiations, Olmert’s office finally confirmed in August 2008 that Jerusalem had been included in talks. Also, weeks before he departed office, Olmert gave an interview to Israel’s leading daily, Yediot Aharonot, admitting that during negotiations he offered Abbas 94 percent of the West Bank and peripheral areas of eastern Jerusalem. Olmert’s office repeatedly had denied such talks.

Similarly, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ran for office in 2000 on the very election platform that he would not withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Sharon was running against Amram Mitzneh, a leader of Israel’s leftist Labor party who had pledged to evacuate Gaza. In 2004, Sharon did an about face and announced his Gaza disengagement policy. One year later, Sharon pulled all Jewish communities out of the Gaza Strip.

Earlier today I put some articles on this blog from various major Christian bodies relating to the earthquake tragedy that has devastated Haiti, but have since deleted them, because they just felt so inadequate in the light of the very real stomach turning, suffering, death, shock and destruction that has struck these impoverished and vulnerable people.

I have just received an email from the editor at MercatorNet, which articulates some of how I felt when I deleted those articles:-

Hi there,

The biggest earthquake in 200 years struck Haiti a few hours ago and has left the country in ruins. Thousands may be dead. Many foreigners providing policing and economic aid are buried under the rubble, including, probably, the head of the UN stabilisation mission there. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and seems to stagger from one natural disaster to another.

Dunno about you, but I don’t know what to say when I read news like this. Instinctively you feel a desire to make a gesture of solidarity, to lend a hand, to comfort distant strangers. But you can’t. It’s a time when the only adequate response is prayer for the dead, dying, injured, bereaved and ruined.

It’s the only adequate response, but not the only response. I shall scream if I read another one more febrile news story about why the earthquake shows the importance of Twitter for gathering hard news. This angle on disaster just shows an impoverished sense of humanity.

Cheers, Michael Cook Editor – MercatorNet

Cross-post Rosh Pina Project:-

The Leap of Faith film is being shown at the New York Jewish Film Festival:

Everyone’s faced a “test of faith” at some point in their lives, but the subjects of Leap of Faith confront stark and dramatic choices while negotiating their conversion to the Orthodox Jewish faith. Subjects include Messianic Jews in Colorado, a youngster whose bat mitzvah is challenged by a Jewish high school is challenged and a motivated Trinidadian nanny in New York.

But will we see a sympathetic film next year about Jews who accept Yeshua as Messiah, and the impossible family and social situations that they face? Such subjects remain taboo in many Jewish communities. We hope this will change.