eChurch Blog

A review of the film “Avatar” by Bill Muehlenberg (Can’t wait to see it myself).

The Worldview of Avatar

In terms of amazing techniques, stunning visual imagery, and incredible special effects, Avatar is certainly a winner. While the blockbuster film may be breaking box office records, and is the most costly film ever made, there are other considerations needed in order to get a full grasp of the film. One important element of assessment is the worldview which is being promoted. And for James Cameron that worldview is pantheism.

That his films would not exactly reflect the Judeo-Christian view of things should have been apparent to all by now. Remember his “documentary” of several years ago, The Jesus Family Tomb, in which he made the claim that the tombs of Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene have been discovered. I wrote that up here:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/02/27/more-nonsense-about-jesus/

While he is more remembered for his Titanic, which I also saw, I was not planning to see this film, but some visiting friends from overseas were keen to see the 3D film at IMAX, so I went along. Yes, in terms of going on quite a wild ride, replete with spectacular razzmatazz, it was quite a film. But I am afraid I have a habit of also judging such works through the lens of worldviews.

A number of other commentators have noted the various themes found in Avatar. A very good review, which heavily concentrated on the worldview of the film and its creator, was found – surprisingly – in the New York Times by Ross Douthat.

He rightly notes where Cameron is coming from, and how the film is actively pushing an agenda: “Avatar is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.”

Of course pantheism has long been promoted by Hollywood. Says Douthat, pantheism “has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like ‘The Lion King’ and ‘Pocahontas.’ And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force ‘surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together’.”

Pantheism of course has always been an attractive option. There is no personal moral God that we are all accountable to. There is no creator God we must deal with. There is no afterlife and final judgment. There is just nature, of which we are all a part.

Douthat nicely explains: “As usual, Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming. The American belief in the essential unity of all mankind, Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s, leads us to collapse distinctions at every level of creation. ‘Not content with the discovery that there is nothing in the world but a creation and a Creator,’ he suggested, democratic man ‘seeks to expand and simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.’

“Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

“At the same time, pantheism opens a path to numinous experience for people uncomfortable with the literal-mindedness of the monotheistic religions — with their miracle-working deities and holy books, their virgin births and resurrected bodies. As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted, attributing divinity to the natural world helps ‘bring God closer to human experience,’ while ‘depriving him of recognizable personal traits.’ For anyone who pines for transcendence but recoils at the idea of a demanding Almighty who interferes in human affairs, this is an ideal combination.”

Indeed, Avatar is a great example of what James Herrick wrote about in his book, Scientific Mythologies: How Science and Science Fiction Forge New Religious Beliefs (IVP, 2008). In this important book he examines how a post-Christian West abhors a spiritual vacuum, and how new mythologies, based on speculative science and science fiction, are rushing to fill the void.

“Over the past several centuries, science fiction and the more speculative productions of scientists themselves have combined to create a virtually religious hope in aliens, space exploration, the future and the ‘next step’ in human evolution….

“We appear to have entered a second pagan era, complete with a new mythology in which minor deities once again descend from the stars, seek intimate involvement in our lives, direct our course into the future, invite us to join them in the skies, and even interbreed with us to create a hybrid species capable of meeting the challenges of tomorrow.”

Herrick correctly marvels at how our intellectual and scientific elites are rejecting as irrational biblical Christianity, yet seem happy to jump on board these New Age and pantheistic bandwagons. All of which affirms the maxim that when we reject the one true God, we don’t stop believing, but we then believe in anything.

Dances With Wolves on Steroids

In addition to the strong Eastern worldview which predominates, there is also the question of the leftist agenda of Cameron. This film pushes every politically correct button there is. Whatever PC agenda item you can imagine, you will find it in this film.

Many reviewers have noted this. Melbourne columnist Andrew Bolt offered a trenchant critique of the film, concentrating on the various crusades Cameron is on. He correctly notes the radical green, New Age mumbo jumbo which abounds in the film.

As with so many hard greens, mankind is seen as the enemy: “So complete is Cameron’s disgust with humans – and so convinced he is that his audience shares it – that he’s made film history: he’s created the first mass-market movie about a war between aliens and humans in which we’re actually meant to barrack for the aliens.”

Indeed, just as in Kevin Costner’s Dances with Wolves in which all the whities were bad, except those who sided with the Indians, so too here: the only good humans are those who side with the aliens. All the rest are evil. In both films what we have is the perpetration of the myth of Rousseau’s Noble Savage.

And the heroes in the film are not unlike our Hollywood elites: they are anti-Western, anti-capitalism, anti-technology, and anti-military. Says Bolt, “Naturally, like the most fashionable of Hollywood stars, they are also neo-Buddhist reincarnationists, who believe ‘all energy is borrowed and some day you have to give it back’. And, of course, the Na’vi reject all technology that’s more advanced than a bow and arrow, for ‘the wealth of the world is all around us’.”

Then of course there is the rampant hypocrisy in all of this: “Here’s Cameron condemning consumerism by spending almost half a billion dollars on a mass-market movie for the Christmas season complete with tie-in burger deals from McDonald’s and Avatar toys from Mattel.

“Here’s Cameron damning our love of technology by using the most advanced cinematographic technology to create his new green world. In fact, here’s Cameron urging his audience to scorn material possessions and get close to nature, only to himself retire each night to the splendid comfort of his Malibu mansion. Not even his own creations live up to the philosophy he has them preach.”

If Avatar were simply a bit of mindless entertainment, offering a few hours of recreational diversion from our everyday humdrum existence, that would be one thing. But because it is really a vehicle to push Cameron’s anti-Christian ideology, then I for one cannot really enjoy the film. Indeed, on a worldview basis, I give the film no stars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21douthat1.html?_r=3
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/green-truth-is-alien-to-us/story-e6frfifx-1225812904687

Ugh Mandleson:-

Cross-post from the excellent Canmer

It is Cromwellian cunning; the politics of the Puritan; the scheme of the Scrooge.

Churches, charities, scout huts, village halls and sports clubs face new £20 million levy on music thanks to Lord Mandelson, who also happens to be a Church Commissioner.

Christmas discos and dances in community buildings across the country face this puritanical tax as it has been revealed in the small print of obscure new regulations which abolish charities’ and voluntary groups’ exemption from music licensing rules – hitting them with a multi-million pound bill for holding events with recorded music.

Charities and non-for-profit groups have had a long-standing exemption from paying for a so-called ‘PPL’ performance rights licence for playing recorded music on their premises. This exemption reflects the public benefit that such voluntary organisations provide to their communities. This PPL exemption is being abolished by Labour.

This will affect charity discos, tea dances, youth clubs, salsa dancing groups, sports clubs, coffee mornings and even charity shops (which have a radio in their staff room). The changes are being imposed by the ‘Intellectual Property Office’ which is part of Lord Mandelson’s Department of Business, Innovation and Skills empire. The new levy will come into effect in April 2010 subject to the new regulations being ratified by Parliament.

The Government’s own impact assessment admits that it will cost voluntary groups £20 million a year. Some organisations will ‘cease playing music’ because they cannot afford a licence, and it will hit a quarter of a million organisations – 140,000 charities, 6,750 charity shops, 66,440 sports clubs, 4,000 community buildings, 5,000 rural halls and 45,000 religious buildings.

The Government’s own response to the consultation has also admitted:

‘The performance of religious music at religious gatherings would be affected adversely’ (p5).

‘Respondents from religious organisations believed that removal of the exemption would result in a relatively negligible increase in royalties for collecting societies. They anticipated that many such organisations would decide that the expense and paperwork involved in applying for a licence could not be justified, despite music being an intrinsic part of their culture and heritage. Currently PRS has a voluntary exemption for divine worship and civil wedding/partnership ceremonies. Under Option 1 all religious organisations would be required to obtain a licence from PPL’ (p9).

‘Charities are being asked to meet more and more of society’s needs with less money. One large charity claimed that licence fees could rise to 10 times the current cost if PPL licences are required. They suggested that (based on the impact assessment) the benefit to PPL members is half (or less) of the additional cost placed on charitable organisations. The level of increased costs would require serious consideration as to whether music can continue to be used. It was felt that PPL was unlikely to introduce preferential rates for charities. Some felt that Option 1 would lead to a fall in fundraising and a clear reduction in public benefits from charities’ work’ (p8).

‘The additional costs of licensing might threaten charity shops’ existence as it would not be seen as a good use of charitable funds to pay for music but removal of music would impact on numbers of volunteers and customers’ (p8).

‘Most clubs indicated that they would remove the provision for music and television if Option 1 were implemented, as the cost would be disproportionate to usage levels and might endanger the viability of the club. Some suggested that many clubs would continue playing music out of ignorance or defiance or may resort to playing music that is out of copyright’(p8).

Nick Hurd MP, Shadow Minister for Charities, said: “This is another Labour assault on the fabric of British community life. Having shut down post offices and local pubs, Labour’s Whitehall bureaucrats now have village halls, scout huts and churches in their sights. This is a heartless tax on Christmas discos and tea dances in community buildings across the country. Peter Mandelson’s Christmas message is strictly no dancing to struggling charities this winter.”

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations are running a ‘Don’t Stop the Music‘ campaign to highlight the effect of this £20 million levy on the voluntary and community sector.

If readers and communicants wish to preserve the ubiquitous free festive Cliff songs at Christmas (which will be of particular concern to Iain Dale), Cranmer exhorts you to support the ‘Don’t Stop the Music’ campaign.

And His Grace will look into initiating a ‘Remove Lord Mandelson as a Church Commissioner’ campaign because he is becoming more than a little irritating.

Cross-post by Mariano over at the Atheism is Dead Blog:-

I am not here referring to circular logic or illogicality but to alogic which is not merely illogical, not logical, but simply lacking in logic. Furthermore, by alogic I am referring to an argument that is a very popular talking point of certain atheists. There are a plethora of alogical arguments that certain atheists consider devastating, cleaver or “unanswerable” because they are being made and uncritically repeated by atheist who are, apparently, engaging in well-within-the-box-groupthink.

Put any search engine to the task of finding references to “Who designed the designer?” and you will uncover two things:

1) Atheists are all too pleased to repeat this talking point and consider it a fatal blow to theism.

2) Theists, from philosophers to pajama clad cyber-John Does blogging from their mother’s basement are picking this alogical argument apart as the carrion that it is.

Some examples of this alogical pseudo-argument are as follows:

Richard Dawkins (in The Blind Watchmaker) wrote, “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.”

Christopher Hitchens (in God Is Not Great) wrote, “who designed the designer or created the creator. Religion and theology have consistently failed to overcome this objection.”

Daniel Dennett (in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea) references Prof. Richard Dawkins’ text and declares that it is an “unrebuttable refutation, as devastating today as when Philo used it to trounce Cleanthes in Hume’s Dialogues two centuries earlier.”

And of course, Richard Dawkins (in The God Delusion) quotes Daniel Dennett who is quoting Richard Dawkins and proclaims that Daniel Dennett is correct in approving of Richard Dawkins.

It is rather odd that such self-professed sharp minds are, in their middle ages, promulgating as unrebuttable objection that which Sunday School children rebut in their most tender years.

That Dawkins make this the very center piece of The God Delusion tell you something about what a tel of fallacies that book is. That he prefers referring to “luck” as a viable option is another matter altogether and one that reeks of desperation—well then, carpe despero.

Let us consider two other examples as the physicist Milton Rothman wrote,

All of the God theories collapse when three serious questions are asked: Where did God come from, where did God exist before the universe existed, and how did this God learn how to create?[1]

Stephen Hawking wrote,

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?…Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?…So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?[2]

nteresting that the universe could simply be but God would require a maker.

Let us note that these objections are premised upon atheistic atheology. That is to say that they presuppose knowledge of God and demand that their theological presuppositions are met. For example, Richard Dawkins presupposes that the supernatural Designer had an origin and both he, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. presupposes that the designer was designed.

I previously explained how the creator, the designer, is not only uncaused but uncausable in a parsed post entitled: On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.

The point of this essay was merely to point out:

1. That theology has consistently overcome this “objection.”

2. That it is an objection that is premised upon the atheist’s own theological presuppositions.

3. That even if the designer did have an origin and we did not know its origin, did not know who designed the designer, it would say nothing about its existence or lack thereof.

4. That this brand of atheism is quite pleased unskeptically repeating popular talking point but fail to note that there is no field of scientific or philosophic inquiry that uncovers a cause for a certain effect but then rejects the cause when it cannot explain the cause’s origins.

That we cannot explain the explanation and so the explanation ought to be rejected would be an inquiry stopper, a science killer as it would cause scientific and philosophic inquiry to cease. Rather, we either continue our inquiry or we reach a finite regress.

If I hold a ball in my hand and let it go stating, “Gravity did it, gravity caused it to fall” is a perfectly valid explanation even though I cannot fully account for gravity or answer as to what caused gravity. If we find that on the dark side of the moon the words, “Earthling go home!” had been written we could conclude the activity of aliens even if we cannot explain the aliens nor whence they came.

Lastly, let us note that, that which is considered nonsense when promulgated by Judeo-Christianity is considered the utmost in erudition when promulgated by atheists. Here are some examples:

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God made everything out of nothing.

It is rational and scientific to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing.

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God is eternal.
It is rational and scientific to believe that matter is eternal.

God is an effect and must have had a cause.
Matter is the uncaused first cause.

If God made everything, then who made God?
Matter made everything and nothing made matter.

[1] Milton Rothman, “What Went Before?,” Free Inquiry (Winter 1992/93), p. 12
[2] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, April, 1998), p. 174

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

Previous Post:-

At least six Coptic Christians and a security official have been killed in a drive-by shooting outside a church in southern Egypt, officials say.

BBC

Clashes have broken out in the southern Egyptian town where seven people died in a drive-by shooting outside a church after a Coptic Christmas Eve Mass.

Protesters were said to have clashed with police at the hospital and church in the town of Naj Hammadi.

Churchgoers were sprayed with gunfire as they left midnight Mass to welcome in the Coptic Christmas, on 7 January.

The attack is thought to be in revenge for the rape of a 12-year-old Muslim girl by a Christian man in November.

There were five days of riots in the town, with Christian properties set on fire and damaged, following the rape.

Three people are reported to have pulled up in the car outside the church on Wednesday evening, killing at least six Coptic Christians and a security official and injuring 10 others, including two Muslim passers-by.

Police say the chief attacker in Wednesday’s shooting has been identified but no arrests have yet been made.

Read More

AFP

Christian Copts, police clash in south Egypt

CAIRO — Clashes broke out Thursday in southern Egypt between more than 2,000 Christian Copts and police after the Christmas Eve killing of six Copts in a drive-by shooting, police officials said.

The violence broke out in the southern town of Nagaa Hammadi where a policeman was also killed and six Copts wounded Wednesday when three men in a car opened fire on Christmas eve shoppers in the centre of town, they said.

Thursday’s clashes erupted outside a hospital morgue where the bodies of the six Christians killed the previous day were kept, with protesters hurling stones at law enforcing agents and police firing tear gas, the official said.

NewsMax

Palestinian Christians Under The Gun – Alienated from the Muslim community that surrounds them, Palestine’s remaining Christians find that survival in their Holy Land can be hell.

By Nicole Jansezian

An alarming increase in hostility and violence against indigenous Christians in the West Bank and Gaza has escalated their exodus — and a human rights lawyer predicts they may disappear from Jesus’ birthplace.

No reliable census numbers exist, but unofficial estimates show that Christians have dropped from 80 percent of Bethlehem’s population in 1948 to just 20 percent now, and a mere 2 percent in the Palestinian territories at large.

The situation is worse in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Amid a smoldering population of 1.6 million Palestinians, fewer than 2,000 Christians (perhaps as few as 1,000) live as an apprehensive minority.

“These days, the Christians feel more and more pressure,” said a Gazan who requested anonymity, noting a recent Hamas edict that requires all female students to wear an Islamic uniform, covering their heads and legs completely. “The Christians feel the Muslims look at us as the weak element in society. Many Christians in Gaza feel this area, or this country, is not for us,” he said.

The Christian population in the Holy Land often is caught in the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which often is drawn along religious lines.

Christians have left for a litany of reasons, including better economic opportunities abroad. Those who remain traditionally blame Israeli policies for Christian emigration. Israel controls the borders, often preventing Palestinians from working or visiting family members in other parts of the territories and in Jerusalem. The Gaza border has been impassable for three years since rocket fire against Israel picked up and Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier.

However, during the past few years, many Christians have softened their blame of Israel while sharpening allegations of Muslim intimidation and large clans’ Mafia-like rule.

Statistics from the Israel-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center and interviews with Palestinian Christians — many of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of revenge — provide examples of intensifying radical Muslim attacks against Christians during the past decade:

The violence culminated in Gaza with the murder of Rami Ayyad, 31, an employee at the Bible Society who was kidnapped and tortured before being shot in October 2007.

In Gaza, militants have vandalized a monastery as well as Christian and Western schools; bombed the YMCA and Internet cafes; and ransacked the Gaza Baptist Church, using the church as cover while shooting at rival groups.

One Christian who works for the Bethlehem municipality said he doesn’t always get paid. “In general, they hate Christians,” he said. “I know Jesus is with me, but sometimes I’m afraid. There are a lot of them, and they can come and gang up on you.”

In 2002, dozens of terrorists commandeered Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity for 39 days, knowing that Israeli troops would refuse to storm the church. The gunmen, holding 200 priests hostage, desecrated the traditional birthplace of Jesus with graffiti and a fire, stole relics, and used the Bible as toilet paper.

Mobs have burned down or vandalized dozens of Christian businesses and Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and evangelical churches in Ramallah, Tulkarem, and Bethlehem.

In the West Bank, Christians enjoy more freedom but still are subject to discrimination. One Christian from Ramallah said he fled after death threats for not giving his land to a Muslim who demanded it. Another, pressed to sell half of his business to Muslim buyers at a fraction of its value, let his company go bankrupt instead, then moved with his family to Canada.

Christians have filed criminal complaints alleging kidnappings of Christian women to marry Muslim men, land thefts, harassment, and job discrimination. Many say they do not have an advocate in the Palestinian government.

“Christians are increasingly aware that, unless something dramatic happens, their days are numbered,” said Justus Weiner, a senior fellow at Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Weiner, a human rights lawyer who has investigated injustices against Palestinian Christians for 13 years, predicts that the Christian community there will vanish in another decade.

On the other hand, most traditional churches in the Holy Land challenge Weiner’s research, even denying any rancor between Christians and Muslims. Wadie Abunassar, former media adviser for the Catholic Church there, emphatically blames Israel.

“The occupation is the source of evil,” he said, referring to Israel’s control of Palestinian borders and travel from the territories. “Occupation creates a lack of stability.”

The situation for Christians in Israel, Abunassar contends, is worse than in the Palestinian territories and Syria. Christians in Gaza can address grievances to the ruling party, Hamas, and get more justice than in Israel, where “anyone not defined as a Jew is less equal,” he says.

“I’m not saying there are no problems . . . there are some fanatic Muslims who are troublemakers,” he says. “But it is not because of Islam. The occupation, poverty, living conditions are major contributions” to the flight of Christians.

Despite Abunassar’s claims, most Christians interviewed admit privately that they would rather live in Israel than in a Palestinian state.

Another Palestinian from Gaza agrees that civilians are suffering “in this big prison” but explains that most difficulties intensified when Hamas took power in 2007 and, with Iranian backing, began pushing an Islamic agenda.

Weiner denounces the lack of interest in the Palestinian Christian plight among foreign governments, Christians worldwide, human rights groups, and the media.

“If you don’t make human rights one of your top priorities, or the top priority,” he said, “then none of the other stuff [the peace process and eliminating terrorism] is going to work.”

As originally published in Newsmax magazine.

Informative and hard-hitting analysis on the role of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill in Russian politics from La Russophobe:-

In the waning days of 2009, Patriarch Kirill made three statements designed among other things to position the Russian Orthodox Church for even greater role in Russian politics at home and abroad in the year to come, a role that some may welcome but that others will see as a challenge to secular values and human rights in both Russia and Europe.

First, in what must be music to the ears of many in the Russian government, Kirill repeated his longstanding view that Russia represents a unique civilization and should therefore can and should ignore the evaluations offered by outside experts and institutions like the European Court of Human Rights. Second, and as part of his campaign to build bridges with the Papacy and conservative Christians more generally, the outspoken Russian patriarch lashed out at Europeans for surrendering their cultural and political values to what he described in Gumilyev-style language as “passionate” Muslims. And third, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church further integrated that institution with the state not by signing an expanded cooperation accord with the Academy of Government Service, and demanding that the powers that be support religions relative to their size.

In a speech to the Russian Academy of State Service, the patriarch said that Russians must not allow themselves to be judged “on the basis of alien criteria” and that it was long past time for Russians to stop trying to show outsiders that “we are good little boys, we live according to the same criteria, it is simply that we have certain shortcomings.” Kirill’s rejection of universal values, his insistence that Russia cannot be measured except in terms of itself, and his dismissal of the findings of Western governments and the European Court of Human Rights have figured in his speeches and writings long before he became patriarch.

But now that he is patriarch, Kirill’s overt hostility to common values takes on new meaning, reinforcing the attitudes of some in the Russian government including Vladimir Putin that no one has the right to judge anything Moscow does and that any attempts to do so will be met first with scorn and then with charges that their authors are guilty of the same or worse.

Moreover, in this speech, Kirill went even further, arguing that if Russia follows Western values, which he said were defined by “an orientation to success, well-being and comfort,” then there was real danger that Russia, as Europe already is doing will yield “to that ‘passionate force, which today the Islamic communities are exerting” there.  As Kirill pointed out, “for Muslim countries, the religious factor in social life has always played a primary role while in Europe the situation is the reverse, and many Europeans have lost ‘the ability to sacrifice themselves, to give up their life for the Motherland,” a risk that he insists Russia cannot afford.

“If we will realize liberal ideas in social consciousness in a thoroughgoing manner (not in economics, in economics, liberalism is an appropriate phenomenon and an important factor, albeit with qualifications), then” Kirill insisted, “at the end we too will have a weak man who will defend neither his Motherland nor his family and friends.”

Two aspects of these remarks are worth noting. On the one hand and more than in the past, Kirill is using the language of Eurasianist Lev Gumilyev, an indication of his increasing tilt toward that element of the Russian nationalist spectrum, possibly on the basis of his judgment that that is the coming thing. And on the other, his outspoken defense of religious supremacy and traditional values not only will find support among many Russians who have had their lives upset by the turmoil of transition but perhaps even more among those around Pope Benedict XVI who has warned of many of the same things in his homilies and statements.

Indeed, it appears likely that Kirill who very much hopes for a rapprochement politically if not theologically with the Vatican was directing his remarks last week as much at the Vatican as at the Kremlin, although the Russian powers that be would certainly welcome closer ties with Rome. Finally, after his speech, Kirill signed a new cooperation agreement with the Russian Academy of State Service, something that will open the way for even more priests to receive training there, and he indicated that in his view the government must support religious communities “proportionately to their presence in society.”

Kirill has pushed that idea before, but because the Moscow Patriarchate is seeking to expand the inter-religious council system down to the regional level, the realization of this idea is certain to touch off disputes not only about how many followers any particular faith has – no one knows for sure – but also about what religions should be represented. In the patriarch’s view, only the four “traditional” religions of Russia — Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism – have that right and only they can expect state support as protected faiths. If Kirill continues to push this view without modification, he may please the Russian powers that be, but he will offend many in Russia and in Europe as well.

Speak for yourself, I can crush a grape and rip a tissue and I can do this with impunity:-

Telegraph:-

In a stark message, Lord Carey said the Church of England needs to be “tougher” and more outspoken in preserving its beliefs.

It came as he said migrants wanting to come to the UK should respect the country’s Christian heritage and warned the country could be in “deep trouble” if immigration and population keeps growing at the current rate.

His attack could be seen by some as a criticism of his successor as the head of the Anglican church, Dr Rowan Williams.

Dr Williams sparked anger in 2008 when he said is “seems inevitable” that some parts of the Islamic sharia law would be enshrined in UK law.

Lord Carey said: “I think we need a tougher Church. We Christians are very often so soft that we allow other people to walk over us and we are not as tough in what we want, in expressing our beliefs, because we do not want to upset other people.

“We have got to be more outspoken.”

It echoes comments made in August last year by the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali who said traditional British society was under threat from the rise of aggressive secularism and radical Islam as he stepped down as the Bishop of Rochester.

He called on the established religion must speak out more to preserve the country’s Christian heritage and offer moral guidance to the masses.

Lord Carey said migrants should show an understanding of Christian heritage while the immigration system needs to focus more on values

He was speaking a day after a cross party group of public figures, including himself, warned a failure to limit immigration could put “social harmony” at risk.

Read More

This is cross-posted from Calvin L. Smith – Hat-tip Seismic Shock

Since its launch in 2007 a number of Christians have appeared on Press TV, including one I chatted with some time later who appeared a little embarrassed for having done so. Why, exactly? Well, especially since the Iranian elections there has been a flurry of allegations by various commentators in the media and elsewhere concerning the channel’s agenda and methods, while it seems a number of politicians, analysts and experts wishing to be taken seriously are increasingly doubtful about the wisdom of appearing on Press TV. Thus, in light of these perceptions of the channel and what it represents, the question of whether or not a Christian should appear on Press TV is an important one for believers contemplating how best to engage with the public square.

But first some background on Press TV, which is a 24-hour, English-language, Iranian news and current affairs channel set up by Tehran with the express aim of promoting the regime’s perspective. As such, accusations of bias, selective reporting, even misrepresentation, abound. In its broadcasting Press TV has little time for the US and Western governments, though much of its vitriol is especially reserved for Tehran’s nemesis, Israel and international Zionism (whatever that is), while the channel has also been accused of anti-Semitism. Moreover, several of its presenters include British politicians on the hard left, for example, George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn, who are deeply critical of Western governments and Israel. Further comment on Press TV can be found in a piece by The Times and The Independent columnist Dominic Lawson, who publishes a comment on the channel in the The Times newspaper here, while Jeremy Paxman on the BBC’s Newsnight interviews a Press spokesman here (the bit I enjoyed the most is about 5 minutes in, when the Press TV guy challenges a fellow guest to provide him examples of propaganda on the channel, whereupon the other guest, much to the chagrin of the channel’s representative who somehow thought he had caught out his opponent, begins to list example after example in a staccato monotone).

Anyway, getting back to the original question, should a Christian appear on Press TV? (I mean, of course, specifically appearing as a presenter or guest invited to comment in a particular programme or debate, rather than being asked an impromptu question by a journalist in the street.) I believe Christians should not appear on the channel at all, for several reasons. First, Press TV (set up and financed by Iran) is quite clearly a mouthpiece of a brutal regime which has exported terrorism to various countries, brutally suppresses peaceful opposition protests in its own streets, has repeatedly called for the annihilation of another country, and significantly from a Christian perspective, has brutally persecuted Christians (there are various documented cases, including executions for converting from Islam to Christianity). I suggest, then, that appearing on a channel aimed at portraying Tehran in a positive light, as well as promoting the regime’s agenda and values, merely serves to lend the regime credibility and legitimacy.

Some may well argue that if Christians don’t appear on the channel, then their point will go unmade, so better to argue from within than without. Actually I have some sympathy with this argument, but only to a degree. I am not for one minute suggesting Christians should not engage the public square except through media outlets which are completely unbiased, otherwise they would never appear on anything. But there is a big difference appearing on, say, a news channel like Al Jazeera, which specifically seeks to offer an Arab (and generally Muslim) perspective but which nonetheless also airs various alternative views (including views from Israel, so often denied to everyday Arabs in some autocratic states), and appearing on Press TV which is a financed propaganda instrument of the Iranian regime. “Oh, but Press TV does air various views contrary to Tehran” some will say. Indeed, but I suggest on this particular channel the odds are always stacked against the holders of those alternative views: their positions will be routinely misrepresented or only partially heard, while the debate will be skewed so that Tehran’s view always – always– comes out on top. For those of you who watch the channel, do you ever recall watching a Press TV debate when this was not the case?

This leads to my second reason for suggesting Christians should not appear on the channel. Because Press TV is biased towards the regime’s values and worldview, so that both sides of an argument are not aired appropriately (for example, see this story of Ofcom’s criticism of George Galloway’s one-sided presentation of the Gaza war), how can Christians appearing on Press TV be sure what they say will not also be misrepresented? Or even that just appearing on the channel will not be abused in some way to counter accusations of Iran’s persecution of Christians? Just as Dominic Lawson points out in his comment (see above) that British presenters are in danger of becoming Iran’s stooges, isn’t there also a danger of Christians becoming unwitting stooges or pawns in the regime’s greater propaganda battle? I can think of at least one British Christian who, by appearing on Press TV several times, has lost credibility by appearing to  sympathetise with the regime.

Which leads me to my third point. Just as appearing on Press TV helps give credibility to the regime in the eyes of some, conversely it arguably causes considerable damage to the credibility of those Christians appearing on it in the eyes of others. It associates them (albeit unwittingly) with a regime which is anti-West, brutally suppresses opposition in its own country, and calls for Israel’s destruction. Besides, how can appearing on a channel which seems to be obsessed with international Zionism and Zionist conspiracies be taken seriously, especially if they are Christians who are there with the express purpose of condemning Christian Zionism?.As the Newsnight video clip above demonstrates, serious journalists are distancing themselves from Press TV for fear of damaging their credibility. Christians might want to consider doing the same.

So what made me bring up this issue? It is not, contrary to what some people may believe (especially in light of my penultimate sentence in that last paragraph), a desire to attack Christians who take a different theological view from me on Israel and have appeared on Press TV to criticise Christian Zionism (though I do find it deeply troubling that some Christians’ intense dislike of Israel is such that they will speak against fellow Christians on a channel funded by a regime which maltreats Christians). Rather, this brief comment is a direct response to the hypocrisy of Press TV’s announcements last week promising to expose the “truth” about Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war, this during the very same week both the regime brutally suppressed peaceful protests against Tehran and the channel suppressed the truth about these actions by this regime. In short, if this channel can’t be trusted with this truth why should it be trusted with any other “truth”? Moreover, how can Christians who stand for and preach a message of Truth appear in all good conscience on a channel which blatantly spouts propaganda? I can accept past appearances might have been done in ignorance, but it is quite another thing to continue working with this channel when even journalists and other commentators have become deeply uneasy and are distancing themselves from Press TV.

This said, Press TV does offer one very important source of information. Not its claims to promote a distinctly Iranian perspective on regional and world issues, of course. The beatings on the streets demonstrate this is far from the case. But Press TV does reflect how the current Iranian regime thinks, providing valuable insight into its mindset and worldview. And after watching it for a little while you’ll see it’s somewhat scary. No need for Western governments to whip up hysteria and scare us about the bogeyman (as the hard left claim)… watching this channel will do it all for them.

National Catholic Reporter – Hat-Tip Rosh Pina Project

Globally speaking, the most serious new tension dividing Jews and Catholics is Pope Benedict XVI’s decision just before Christmas to advance the sainthood cause of Pius XII, the wartime pontiff whose alleged “silence” on the Holocaust has long been a subject of polarizing historical debate.

On the ground in Jerusalem, however, Jewish/Christian animus has a much more prosaic cause: Spitting.

Recently, the Jerusalem Post carried a piece quoting Rabbi David Rosen, a veteran of Catholic/Jewish dialogue, acknowledging that incidents of ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting at priests, nuns and other Christian clergy is “a part of life” in Jerusalem. Such incidents have been occurring for the last twenty years and are now on the rise, according to the story, although they appear to be limited to Jerusalem.

The piece quoted a Texas-born Franciscan, Fr. Athanasius Macora, who heads the Christian Information Center inside the Jaffa Gate, who said that he’s been spat upon by ultra-Orthodox Jews as much as fifteen times in the last six months – not only in the Old City, but also outside his Franciscan friary.

The Rev. Samuel Aghoyan, an Armenian Orthodox cleric, said he’s been spat upon fifteen to twenty times, most recently in November.

“I was walking back from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and I saw this boy in a yarmulke and ritual fringes coming back from the Kotel, and he spat at me two or three times,” Aghoyan said.

“Every [Christian cleric in the Old City] who’s been here for awhile, who dresses in robes in public, has a story to tell about being spat at,” Macora said. “The more you get around, the more it happens.”

Israeli authorities have taken these reports seriously enough that the Foreign Ministry convened a meeting with municipal officials in Jerusalem and representatives of the ultra- Orthodox Haredi Community. In a sign that the Israelis are worried about possible international repercussions, that meeting was announced in a press release issued this morning by the Israeli Embassy to the Holy See in Rome.

The press release contained a letter denouncing the harassment of Christian clergy from the Beth Din Tzedek, the tribunal of the Orthodox Jewish Community and the highest instance of the Jewish ultra orthodox community in Jerusalem.

The text of that letter appears below.

* * *
Dangerous Provocation

“Recently, repeated complaints have been made by gentiles regarding recurring harassment and insults directed at them by irresponsible youths in various places in the city, especially in the vicinity of Shivtei Yisrael Street and adjacent to the grave of Shimon the Just.

“Besides desecrating the Holy Name, which in itself represents a very grave sin, provoking gentiles, according to our sages – blessed be their holy and righteous memory – is forbidden and is liable to bring tragic consequences upon our own community, may God have mercy.

“We hereby call upon anyone who has the power to end these shameful incidents through persuasion, to take action as soon as possible to remove these hazards, so that our community may live in peace.

“May the Holy One, blessed be He, spread the tabernacle of a merciful life and peace upon us and on the House of Israel and Jerusalem, as we look forward to the coming of the righteous Messiah speedily and in our time, Amen.

“Signed this day, the 13th of Tevet 5770 (30/12/2009) by the Haredi Community Tribunal of Justice, in the Holy City of Jerusalem.

“The words of the tribunal are clear and simple, and all who hear them and can prevent these deeds will hopefully do so.”

Bastards

Please bear in mind that although this relates to a Christmas Eve massacre, the Christian Copts, rather like the Orthodox Christians, celebrate Christmas acording to the rules of the Julian calandar and so Christmas day is today (7th January), therefore, this atrocity happened last night.

BBC

At least six Coptic Christians and a security official have been killed in a drive-by shooting outside a church in southern Egypt, officials say.

The shooting came as worshippers left the church in Naj Hammadi after a midnight mass on Coptic Christmas Eve.

A car pulled up and gunfire was sprayed into the crowd.

Officials say they suspect the attack is in revenge for the rape of a 12-year-old Muslim girl by a Christian man in the town in November.

There were five days of riots in the town, with Christian properties torched and damaged, following the rape.

The church’s Bishop Kirollos said there had been threats in the days leading up to the Christmas Eve service – a reason he decided to end his mass an hour earlier than normal.

“For days, I had expected something to happen on Christmas Eve,” he told the Associated Press.

He said he left the church minutes before the attack.

“A driving car swerved near me, so I took the back door,” he said. “By the time I shook hands with someone at the gate, I heard the mayhem, lots of machine-gun shots.”

Two Muslim passers-by were among 10 people reportedly injured in the attack.

Naj Hammadi is 40 miles (64km) from Luxor, southern Egypt’s biggest city.

Coptic Christians account for about 10% of the Egypt’s population of 80 million.

There are sporadic clashes between Muslims and Christians, particularly in poor, conservative areas of Upper Egypt, the BBC’s Yolande Knell in Cairo reports.

Fox

CAIRO —  Three men in a car sprayed automatic gunfire into a crowd of churchgoers in southern Egypt as they left a midnight Mass for Coptic Christmas, killing at least seven people in a drive-by shooting, the church bishop and security officials said.

Egypt’s Interior Ministry said the attack Wednesday just before midnight was suspected as retaliation for the November rape of a Muslim girl by a Christian man in the same town. The statement said witnesses have identified the lead attacker.

The attack took place in the town of Nag Hamadi in Qena province, about 40 miles from the famous ancient ruins of Luxor. A local security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, confirmed that seven were dead and three seriously wounded.

Bishop Kirollos of the Nag Hamadi Diocese told The Associated Press six male churchgoers and one security guard were killed. He said he had left St. John’s church just minutes before the attack.

“A driving car swerved near me, so I took the back door. By the time I shook hands with someone at the gate, I heard the mayhem, lots of machine gun shots,” he said in a telephone interview. He said he saw five bodies lying on the ground when he first looked at the site of the shooting, about 600 yards from where he was.

The bishop said he was concerned about violence on the eve of Coptic Christmas, which falls on Thursday, because of previous threats following the rape of the 12-year-old girl in November.

He got a message on his mobile phone saying: “It is your turn.”

“I did nothing with it. My faithful were also receiving threats in the streets, some shouting at them: ‘We will not let you have festivities,”‘ he said.

Because of the threats, he said he ended his Christmas Mass one hour early.

He said Muslim residents of Nag Hamadi and neighboring villages rioted for five days in November and torched and damaged Christian properties in the area after the rape.

“For days, I had expected something to happen on Christmas day,” he said. The bishop said police have now asked him to stay at home for fear of further violence.

Qena is one of Egypt’s poorest and most conservative areas.

Christians, mostly Coptic, account for about 10 percent of Egypt’s predominantly Muslim population. As Islamic conservatism gains ground, Christians have increasingly complained about discrimination by the Muslim majority.

Clashes between Muslims and Christians are not uncommon in southern Egypt and in recent years have begun seeping into the capital. An Amnesty International report said sectarian attacks on the Coptic Christian community, comprising between 6 million and 8 million people in Egypt, increased in the year 2008. Sporadic clashes between Coptic Christians and Muslims left eight people dead.

Vendetta killing is also common among southern Egyptians, and is usually over land or family disputes.

The bishop said he had an idea of who the attackers were, calling them “Muslim radicals.”

“It is all religious now. This is a religious war about how they can finish off the Christians in Egypt,” he said.

It absolutely amazes me that with all of the persecution that Egyptian Christian Copts suffer at the hands of Muslims, Egypt is still only ranked number twenty on the OpenDoors ranking system.