Friday, September 30, 2011

Would you change your national flag to cave in to Muslims Immigrants? Multiculturalism gone wild


Hey, I am a migrant in Australia, but I have to embrace what the country holds dear, for example, its flag.

But if I am, for example, from Argentina (God spared me that "privilege"), and now living in Australia, and find the Union Jack in the flag, do I have the right to call for its removal? And to top it all, if I've been borne here, and I would be just continuing with my parents grudges from the past.

There are many of my family members (from my wife's side), who were borne here, but when you ask them where they are from, they answer "Chilean". Sorry, that country has not offered you nothing for your development, nothing for your studies, and nothing when you are sick, and nothing, nothing, when you are unemployed. Why do some people refuse the land that has given them everything, I am confused.

Some second generation Muslims are doing the same, wanting to get rid of the cross in the Swiss flag because they find it "offensive".

Here it's their take on the issue:
An immigrant group based in Bern has called for the emblematic white cross to be removed from the Swiss national flag because as a Christian symbol it "no longer corresponds to today's multicultural Switzerland."

Ivica Petrusic, the vice president of Second@s Plus, a lobbying group that represents mostly Muslim second-generation foreigners in Switzerland (who colloquially are known as secondos) says the group will launch a nationwide campaign in October to ask Swiss citizens to consider adopting a flag that is less offensive to Muslim immigrants.

In a September 18 interview with the Swiss newspaper Aargauer Zeitung, Petrusic said the cross has a Christian background and while the Christian roots of Switzerland should be respected, "it is necessary to separate church and state" because "Switzerland today has a great religious and cultural diversity. One has to ask if the State wants to continue building up a symbol in which many people no longer believe."


What, adopt a flag that is less offensive to Muslims? How about less offensive to the gays in the country? The Jehova Witnesses in the country who don't believe Jesus died on a cross? Where will this none sense end?

What I am really pleased, is that the Swiss have not taken this crazy suggestion lightly. Here are some of the responses to it:

The proposal to change the Swiss flag has been met with outrage across the political spectrum and is sure to fuel anti-immigrant sentiments in Switzerland.

Sylvia Flückiger a councillor with the conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP) said the demands are: "Totally unacceptable. With our Swiss flag there is nothing to change. The next thing you know, they will demand even more, that we change our constitution."

Marianne Binder, spokeswoman for the center-right Christian Democrats (CVP) said: "This is just what was missing, that we need to change our flag. The Swiss flag is part of Swiss identity, precisely because it is inviting for all to want to be involved...even the immigrants."

Stefan Brupbacher, general secretary of the libertarian Free Democrats (FDP) said: "This is utter nonsense. The Swiss cross is an extremely successful and valuable global brand. It is a symbol of success and quality. We will tightly hold on to it, out of love for Switzerland."


And if democracy is the rule of the majority, these muslims want to hold Switzerland hostage to their radical ideas. They are only 5% of the population:

The Muslim population in Switzerland has more than quintupled since 1980, and now numbers about 400,000, or roughly 5% of the population. Most Muslims living in Switzerland are of Turkish or Balkan origin, with a smaller minority from the Arab world. Many of them are second- and third-generation immigrants who are now firmly establishing themselves in Switzerland.

The new Muslim demographic reality is raising tensions across large parts of Swiss society, especially as Muslims become more assertive in their demands for greater recognition of their Islamic faith.


These people don't want to assimilate, and look what they want to carry on in their new found country:

In January 2011, a 66-year-old Turkish woman living in Bern was sentenced to three years and six months in prison for encouraging the father and brothers of her daughter-in-law to carry out an "honor" crime against her for her "risqué lifestyle."

What do you think? Here in Australia, as well as in the USA and the UK, we have seen how some Muslims refuse to assimilate to their new land. But if we go to their country, or want to change religion as what happened to pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, you will be put to death. Islamic intolerance can be worst than any perceived Western intolerance.

Let's open our eyes people.

Luis A. Jovel


I have signed the petition, will you sign it too?


If you click this link, you will be helping make your voice counted to save the life of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, an Iranian who is being threatened of execution for the charge of blasphemy.

I urge you to unite with other Christians, and through this petition, and through prayer, to help save the life of this man of God.

Luis Alberto Jovel

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Are you ok with the Holocaust? If not, why are you ok with abortion?

I know it's a bit too long, but i's worth looking at.

Gay Black Gangs? Now that's something I never thought I would see


I hope that those who oppose violence against gays, will now oppose violence perpetuated by gay people.

If not, then you can see the bias in people. Check this news out, and be appalled!!!

"Depending on whom you talk to, they’re just a bunch of mischievous gender benders and drama queens, vulnerable gay youths seeking safety in numbers. Or, they’re one of the largest, more aggressive gangs in the city.

Whenever there’s trouble around the Chinatown and Gallery Place Metro stations in the District, the finger of blame often points to a most unusual group of suspects: a black gay gang called Check It."




Looks like those who say that gay people are an improving evolution of humanity, will now have to eat their words!

Punctuation saves lives


Hilarious.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Why I'm Not "pro-Israel"

This is a very balanced article regarding the issues surrounding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I endorse what is said in this article, and I would would like to share it with you.


Why I'm Not "pro-Israel"



Now I know my title has caused the majority of you to have slight heart failure, or maybe just the usual biting of nails or slight shake of the head. Striking an emotional chord, your mind has already been enthusiastically thrown into the task of giving me a well-deserved rebuttal. Maybe for a moment you could harness these thoughts, grab your preferred beverage, and hear me out. I hold no agenda for personal gain, I’m simply driven by a moral obligation created through my personal discovery of facts, and my attempt to live by biblical scripture: Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” Proverbs 31:8.

I write this in one way as a clarification for those who have misunderstood me.Gathered from the limited number of characters that you can type in your facebook status, some have constructed the idea that I am an ardent supporter of Islamic political organizations, and even a supporter of terrorism (side note-Why does the former automatically link me to the latter?). I do think that some Islamic political organizations are wrongly demonized, being falsely, yet conveniently lumped together with the likes of Al-Qaeda. Although they may not posses an ideal political system, some Islamic political groups display legitimizing aspects - an array of social services, active political participation, ect… - which should enable them to be recognized as legitimate political groups. I mean there is something to be said when Hezbollah offers better health care than most U.S. companies. (Calm down, I’m not advocating Hezbollah.) With that said, I do NOT support terrorism, whether it comes in the form of a suicide bomber, or in the form of an F-16.

I write this in another way in hopes to educate, or at least spur interest or even debate to the degree one would look past their traditional sources. I am by no means an expert on the complexities of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, nor am I of an age the offers me the title of being “wise”. I’m simply a student of Political Science, an advocate for the oppressed, and a 26 year old who still has much to learn.

We only get two choices?

Because I’m not “pro-Israel” does not mean I’m “anti-Israel,” or even that I’m completely “pro-Palestinian”, based on the general definitions. It does not mean I’m anti-Semitic, and it certainly does not mean I support terrorism. For some reason we are plagued with viewing world affairs through nice boxes, where we attach nice labels. Seeking simplicity in a world of complexity, everything is presented with two choices: Pro/Anti, Conservative/Liberal, Republican/Democrat, Western/Non-Western, Good/Evil, Us/Them. So when I make comments that are critical of Israel’s policies, I’m perceived as a crazy, young, unpatriotic liberal who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Some may even have a hard time viewing me as a Christian. I think those people don’t realize that a Christian holds no political obligation, meaning you don’t necessarily have to be a Republican, you may have views that would be considered liberal, and you might be adamantly opposed to the fear projecting news stations that are simply political tools for some elites trying to push their parochial interests over the actual interests, like…I don’t know…Fox news.

If I could label myself, I would love to attach “pro-solution” through non-violent means. But then I’m probably tagged as a deranged, idealistic hippy trying to escape the realities on the ground. No. I see past the “constructed realities” and actually see the realities on the ground. So if you want to dumb this issue down to pro-this or pro-that, I’ll take the pro-Palestinian label. Why? Because in the U.S., there is only one narrative to this conflict, and the daily humiliations and violations of human rights against the Palestinians is never included. This narrative is projected through multiple conduits, all in harmony with the other. Whether it is through the mass media or from the pulpit, each affirms the other.

One question I like to ask people is: Why do you support Israel? Some view this politically, saying, “Because Israel is a crucial ally in the “War on Terror.” Others view this religiously, “Because they are God’s chosen people.” Many cross these two because they are Bible believing Republicans and “that’s just what we do!” Some may not have an exact reason why, but they know they should. The most common answer by one poll was “because they are like us.” I think these answers stem from the fact that there is only one story being told in the U.S., and all the outlets that are telling this story are easily accepted by most as undisputable authorities. Nothing is questioned. Why would it be when your favorite news channel, your own pastor, and the top-selling feature film are all saying the same thing. Although, the last one is done with ridiculous special effects and a love story to go with it.

Constructing the Boundaries

Lets look at the mass media. Most of you have your favorite news network or newspaper, and you trust that news source because it fits well with your politics. If you are a Republican you probably watch Fox News and either read your local paper or maybe the Wall Street Journal. If you are a Democrat you probably prefer CNN or the New York Times, maybe even the Huffington Post. But with this issue, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or anything pertaining to Israel, the mass media are of one voice. Now the Fox crowd is saying, “No way, the liberals at the New York Times and CNN are way to critical of Israel.” False. On Israel, the liberal media serve the crucial function of setting the “left”, or “pro-Palestinian” boundary. Meaning whatever they say that might come across critical of Israel serves as the most critical thing you could say of Israel. So if you go past what the liberal media are saying, you are considered fanatical.

On the Palestinian/Israeli issue, both sides of the boundaries of debate are narrowly focused with Israel in the middle. Israel has been granted a free hall pass from the mass media. They get to roam freely through the halls, knock over lockers, and punch the principle in the face. After all that the media provides a nice frame that places responsibility and moral obligation on the other, or if it’s really bad you just never hear about it. Events such as:

- The expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes to create the State of Israel in 1948. This horrific event that not only forced 700,000 Palestinians to be homeless but involved numerous mass murderers and rapes, is now celebrated as Israel’s independence day.

- The Lavon Affair, an Israeli terrorist attack on U.S. facilities and other public places in Egypt in 1954.

- The 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty ship, which killed 34 U.S. Navy men

- The Deir Yassin Massacre: 250 defenseless Palestinians were slaughtered, including more than 100 women and children by the Irgun Tsvai Leumi, a Zionist terrorists organization led by Menachem Begin. The same Begin who would be the Israeli Prime Minister in 1977.

- The 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem that killed 91 people carried out by the LEHI (the Stern Group) led by Yitzhak Shamir, the same Shamir who would be the Israeli Prime Minister in 1986.

- The Sabra and Shatila massacre of 1982: Where the Phalangist, a Lebanese Christian militia, raped, tortured, and murdered 700-800 innocent civilians in a refugee camp. The Israeli Defense Force authorized and provided protection for this operation. http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-fisk180903.htm

- The 29,000 children who required medical treatment from being beaten by IDF soldiers during the First Intifada (1987-1991). One-third sustained broken bones, and one-third were aged 10 and under.

- The 1996 massacre in Qana: Israel bombed a UNIFIL base killing 106 civilians who were seeking shelter from the Israeli operation “Grapes of Wrath.”

- The 23- year old American women who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003.

- Operation Summer Rain of 2006, An Israeli attack on Gaza where collateral damage totaled to 100 civilians, including 44 children.

- The civilian casualties from the Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006, 43 Israeli’s & 1,109 Lebanese civilians.

- The civilian casualties from the 2009 Israeli attack on Gaza, 9 Israeli’s & 1,417 Palestinians, including 313 children. You probably saw these last two in the media, but they framed it just right where these civilians were accepted as necessary collateral damage. “Israel had to make a tough decision and its unfortunate that these civilians had to die.” The only problem with this thinking is the numerous testimonies by Israeli soldiers who explained the horrific acts they were ordered to carry out. You can find those testimonies here: http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies/database

The images and ideas that occupy your mind about a foreign land are constructed from the images and texts you have been exposed to in the mass media.Humanitarian emergencies and civil conflicts are serious events, but they do not exist for the majority of the world unless constructed as an event that has been interpreted through the media. Further, foreign enemies are terrifying and mysterious, but they do not exist for Americans unless constructed as a dangerous and imminent threat.Stop letting the 30-second frame you see on your favorite news channel construct “reality”. The mass media are great at rewriting “bad” history. How many Vietnamese were killed in the Vietnam War? Go ahead, take a guess. The average American response is 50,000. I wonder where they got that number? The actual number is 3 to 4 million.

“Because they are God’s chosen people”

For the people who answered, “because they are God’s chosen people,” probably refute that the media guide their views, and base their support solely on “what the Bible says”. Well when you look at what the Bible says, their reasoning is in direct opposition to what the Bible says. This group likes to view the world through an Isaac/Ishmael prism. They like to look at Us, as good, moral Christian’s who descended from Isaac. They like to look at Them as bad, barbaric, crazy, Muslim Arabs who must have descended from Ishmael. These “bad Muslim Arabs” live in the “scary, unstable Middle East”, from India to Morocco. Of course this view, which was shaped by either Mark Twain, National Geographic, Fox News, Aladdin or the latest Bruce Willis film, doesn’t account for the Egyptian Sunni-Muslim who is Arab, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who is Arab, the Iranian Shi’ite-Muslim who is Persian, the Lebanese Maronite Christian, the Lebanese Druze, the Palestinian Christian who is Arab from Ottoman descent, the Kurd who could be Muslim, Jewish, or Christian and residing in numerous countries, and the many other different, diverse groups of people that reside in the Middle East.

Now some Arab’s may be ethnically linked to Ishmael, but many are not. Ishmael’s decedents were known as the “sons of the east,” known for their Godly wisdom. The original Arabs descended from Shem, the son of Noah. Shem had a descendent named Eber who had a son named Joktan who populated the Arabian Peninsula. So to be clear, Arabs were around long before Ishmael. It’s a shame the current neighbors of the modern state of Israel are viewed as the ancient enemies of Israel.

Back to my point. Stephen Sizer and Gary Burge do a much better job than I ever would at explaining why the Bible does not support this argument. Here are two articles that all Christians should read when assessing their support for the modern state of Israel.

http://www.stephensizer.com/2011/08/seven-biblical-answers-to-zionist-assumptions/

http://www.christianzionism.org/Article/Burge02.pdf

Knowing some of you might not read those articles, I would still like to highlight a few things of why I do not agree with the “because they are God’s chosen people” argument.

- Many within this group like to quote Genesis 12:3, “God bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.” But they like to ignore other scriptures like Galatians 3:16,28-29, Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.”God’s blessings come by grace through faith, not by works or race.Ethnicity nor nationality hold no currency for salvation!

- “The Jewish people are God’s chosen people.” Wrong. God’s chosen people are of every race based on grace through faith by Jesus Christ. This is explained in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 23:7-8, Psalm 87:4-6, Isaiah 56:3, 6-7) and the New Testament (Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6-8, Colossians 3:11-12) “Chosen” means those who follow Jesus Christ.

- “The land of Israel was given by God to the Jewish people as an everlasting inheritance” False. The land is God’s and residence is conditional, (Leviticus 25:23). As Christians, our inheritance is heavenly not earthly. His Kingdom is not of this world.

- “Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people, and should never be divided”. This argument has NO scriptural basis. But Psalm 87 says Jerusalem must be shared.Again, as Christians, we are looking to the heavenly Jerusalem.

- “God has a separate plan for the Jewish people apart from the Church.” This is supported by ripping Romans 9-11 out of context. Paul defines the word ‘Jew’ in Romans 2, For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.

The armpit, if you will, of this argument comes from one of the top leaders of the Christian Zionist movement, John Hagee and his organization, Christians United for Israel. To be blunt, if you took out the words Christian and Muslim from Hagee’s and Ahmadinejad’s theological statements, you would not be able to tell one apart from the other. Pastor Hagee likes to think that our all sovereign God and his plan is dependent on U.S. foreign policy. How do you preach from the bible I read and call for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and justify this strike with some twisted end of times theology that has no scriptural support! God does not need you or I to carry out his plan, but he does want to use us too serve the poor, the meek, the orphaned, the widowed, and the oppressed. All of Hagee’s efforts are aimed at lobbying the U.S. government to pursue a certain policy that apparently will help God with his plan. All the while these efforts are at the expense of the sick, the poor, and the oppressed, the people Jesus repeatedly told us to care for. Instead of preaching the gospel, Hagee and his organization push money around to bulldoze the homes of Christian and Muslim Palestinian families, so a Jewish family can have a new illegal settlement. You may want to cover your eyes for this next statement. When it comes to world affairs,Hagee is a more dangerous actor in this world than any terrorist group that the media has constructed in your mind.

This is getting long, lets jump into politics.

You will not find a single, current U.S. politician that will be critical of Israel. Why?Because being critical of Israel is political suicide. Now some of you are saying, “Obama is critical! He called for negotiations based on the 67 borders!” Yes he did say that, and no, he is not critical of Israel. The conservative media wants you to think he is, but he’s not. He’s made a few good speeches and then returned back to his big, white house where the Israeli Lobby holds him hostage. American Presidents have been calling for negotiations based on the 67 borders since Nixon stated it in 1969.Since then, every President has agreed with Resolution 242, which calls for Israel to return to the 67 borders. Not the new ones that have been made throughout the last 40 years, but the original 67 borders. So no, Obama did not say this crazy radical statement; the conservative media just wants you to think he did. It doesn’t matter anyways, Obama is already campaigning, so he’s not even going to think about touching this issue. For those of you who are furious with what I’m saying, don’t worry, Obama is going to do the politically expedient thing, not the right thing.

Politically, I am not supportive of Israeli policies because they are illegal, they de-humanize an entire people group, they are nowhere near democratic, and their results leave innocent lives dead everyday. I do agree Israel has a right to exist in safety, but within their own borders, not the ones they stole in 1967. (Even though they stole that land in 1948, but you have to concede somewhere.) I do agree Israel has the right to their own democratic state, one that Palestinians recognize, not the one that requires Palestinians to call it a Jewish state, where citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Someone explain to me how you are a democracy and a Jewish state? I don’t get it. Seriously, I don’t get it.

Wrong from the Start

The modern state of Israel was created in 1948. But like many imagine, they didn’t just go to an unoccupied land and stick a flag in the ground and call it Israel. No, they came to a land where a people group had been residing for 1300 years, and violently murdered, raped, and forced several thousand Palestinians from their homes.

Sharing the land was never an option. Israel’s first Prime Minister, Ben-Gurion stated in the 1930s, “After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” His “Greater Israel” plan could not work with all these Arabs, as he stated in 1941, “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.” But he was well aware of his crimes. He told the World Jewish Council, “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural…we have taken their country…They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their land. Why should they accept that?”

In efforts to create the new Israeli state, many Zionist organizations carried out a number of terrorists’ attacks against the British. These attacks were mostly coordinated by the Irgun and the Stern Group, with the primary tactic of placing bombs in public plances, targeting women and children (including a pre-school). The Israelis themselves do not deny this. Prime minister Yitzhak Shamir argued, “Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.” Rather, “terrorism had a great part to play…in our war against the occupier [Britain].” Just to be sure, Israeli’s were the first to carry out terrorist attacks, not the Palestinians.

“A U.S. Strategic Asset”

The U.S. gives over $3 billion a year to Israel. That’s one-fifth of all U.S. foreign aid. In per capita terms, the U.S. gives every Israeli citizen a direct subsidy worth $500 year.This is a country that has the equal wealthy per capita income to Spain. O well, we have the money right? Our economy is fine right? Wait…it’s not? Probably because we are in two wars we can’t afford (Iraq alone has cost over 3 trillion dollars, not to mention the 137,000 Iraqi civilians killed or the 4,000 American soldiers killed) and giving Israel $3 billion a year. Good thing Iraq is all fixed now and Afghanistan is coming to an end. Ok, sorry, I’m getting too sarcastic now. Putting the two wars aside, maybe we should listen to General Petraeus when he says the current U.S. policy towards the Israel/Palestinian conflict is the “root cause of instability” and “obstacle to security” in the region – which aids al-Qaida.” I don’t know, he seems like he has a resume’ that would imply he has more knowledge than you, me, and the U.S. Congress.

When observing the cost of Israel being a strategic asset, they are no longer a strategic asset, they are an expensive “friend” who offers nothing in return. Examples: The U.S. gave Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the 1973 war. This aid triggered an OPEC oil embargo, inflicting a tremendous amount of damage on Western economies. In return the U.S. could not count on Israel to secure Persian Gulf oil supplies after the Iranian revolution in 1979, causing the U.S. to create its own “Rapid Deployment Force”. During the 1990 Iraqi invasion, Israel became a “strategic burden,” because the U.S. couldn’t use Israeli air bases because this would have ruptured the anti-Iraq coalition. Same thing in 2003: Bush couldn’t ask for their help because he knew this would trigger Arab opposition, so they remained on the sideline.

“Ok, they may not have helped us during these wars, but they are still a loyal ally.”Not at all. Israel has consistently ignored U.S. requests to halt settlement construction and “targeted assassinations” of Palestinian leaders. Also, Israel has provided sensitive U.S. military technology to potential rivals, like China. A State Department Report called this “a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers.” For other examples just google Jonathen Pollard or Larry Franklin. Israel is not a strategic asset, it is an expensive friend that only takes, and their “alliance” creates enormous, costly complications for U.S. policy.

Israel’s Settlement Policy

Also called the expansion policy, or a gradual takeover of what the right-wing Israeli leaders call Judea and Samaria, is recognized by every nation as illegal, including the U.S. And being that Israel is the only country that does not have to account for how it spends U.S. aid, this money ends up funding settlements; the same settlements that U.S. policy says are illegal.

In the extremely disrespectful speech Netanyahu gave to the U.S. Congress a few months ago, he stated that the ‘Greater Israel” (the land from the Nile to the Euphrates) will never be given away. He declared this land is “all Israel’s.” When he said this, the entire Congress erupted in a standing ovation. Now either the U.S. Congress is that ignorant to cheer against their own foreign policy, or they are racists.Observing some of their comments, like Rep. Eric Cantor, “Sadly, it is a culture infused with resentment and hatred. But it is this culture that underlies the Palestinians and the broader Arab world,” I think it’s a little of both.

This policy includes the demolishing of Palestinian homes that have been there before the modern state of Israel was ever created. People like to think of the West Bank as this big chunk of land the Palestinians get to live on. Its not! It now consists of Palestinian islands. Picture below.



The Wall

The separation wall, which is twice the size of the Berlin Wall, is justified by Israel as a means to heighten its security. Some people would nod their heads at that in agreement. But the weird thing is the wall cuts deep into the West Bank, placing 200,000 West Bank Palestinians on the Israeli side of the wall. Now if you wanted to keep the “dangerous” Palestinians out, why did you build a wall that placed them on the inside? Maybe its because the wall is simply a way to steal more land, a crucial piece to the gradual expansion plan for Greater Israel.

Below is a picture of my parents, my wife and me, and our new friend Allen inside of his shop. That’s not his real name, but he goes by “Allen” so foreigners like me don’t butcher his real name. Allen is a Palestinian Muslim who lives in Bethlehem, Palestine.He is 25 and has never seen Jerusalem because he is not authorized to cross the wall.Jerusalem is only 5 minutes up the road. He told us “I’m not a terrorist, I don’t know any terrorists, so why does everyone outside of this wall think I’m a terrorists.” It was tough to leave him after we became friends, knowing he could never leave Bethlehem and we could drift about with our convenient blue passports.


Jerusalem

Jerusalem must be divided. I’m getting tired, this point is obvious.

For Israel’s sake

If the Israeli government were basing its decisions on national interests it would have already signed a peace deal giving Palestinians their own state. Israel will not be able to maintain their current position. If the Palestinian birth rate alone doesn’t create problems for their Greater Israel plan, international outcry will. They can’t afford it anyways. They just had a million Israeli’s protesting against them because of their faulty economic policies. Maybe if they didn’t spend $570 million a year to subsidize life in the settlements and tended to their own population they wouldn’t have a million people chanting against them.

There’s much more but I’m going to have to save it for another blog.

Closing

So, I do NOT support terrorism that is carried out by Palestinians, NOR do I support terrorism carried out by Israelis. I am NOT anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. From what I have observed, there is a strong non-violent movement that includes Palestinians and Israelis, who are Muslim, Jewish, and Christian, who are putting all their efforts into finding the elusive solution. That’s what I support. You can learn more about this movement in the movie Little Town of Bethlehem.

My hope is one day Israel, not the Palestinians, will tear down the wall, and people like Allen will be able to live in freedom like you and me.

"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.” Ephesians 2:14

But more than that, I pray Allen finds a greater freedom. I’ll end with a passage written by my beautiful wife.

One Day he [Allen] would not be persecuted for being Palestinian. One Day he would feast with Jesus not because of his race, but because of his faith in him. One Day “There will be the finest of wines and choicest of meats….” In Christ he has the promise of a new home, a new life, one that allows him to not be confined behind a wall. One Day he will be able to pass through that checkpoint and walk down “streets of gold”. One Day he won’t desire what you and I take for granted….to fly on an airplane, to go to a restaurant in Tel Aviv, to see his family or take his wife to a descent hospital. One Day, we will not be marked by borders and passports. One day all the Assyrian land will live in peace.” – Sarah Long

If you have any questions or want to challenge some of my information, I will gladly give you the appropriate sources.

Benjamin Long

Monday, September 26, 2011

Christian News happening at the UK

And finally today, after talking about the UK so much, I have found this weekly news cast that informs of the state of christianity in the UK, and the fight that they have to endure to keep their faith.

I find this interesting, because they are the similar issues we are facing here in Australia, and those faced in the USA. An example would be the changing of the sexes in the passports, that I had already blogged about here before.

I hope this helps my American brothers and sisters, who can't seem to see beyond their borders, and appreciate what other christians are going through as well.


Luis A. Jovel

While we are at the UK....


I know that this is the decision of the Australian Federal government, but now, the BBC is following suit:

The BBC has dropped the terms Anno Domini and Before Christ, sparking accusations of political correctness.

The corporation's religious and ethics department says the changes are necessary to avoid offending non-Christians. This is from Yahoo News

It a statement, the BBC said: "As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians."

Anno Domini (the year of our Lord) and BC have been replaced by Common Era and Before Common Era.

The terms are being used by presenters on some of the BBC's most popular programs.

The Daily Mail reports that critics say the new terms are meaningless because, just like AD and BC, they still denote years in relation to the life of Christ.

Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said: "I think this amounts to the dumbing down of the Christian basis of our culture, language and history. These changes are unnecessary and they don't achieve what the BBC wants them to achieve.

"Whether you use Common Era or Anno Domini, the date is actually still the same and the reference point is still the birth of Christ," the told The Daily Mail.



Yes, it is idiocy. They still "offend" non-christians, since even their new terms testify that Jesus is the centre of history.

Luis A. Jovel

Careful, Facebook can track you, even when you are logged out


The new changes in Facebook, apparently, are designed to make you a target of their advertising.

"Even if you are logged out, Facebook still knows and can track every page you visit," Cubrilovic wrote in a blog post.
"The only solution is to delete every Facebook cookie in your browser, or to use a separate browser for Facebook interactions."


Having to use a specific browser just for Facebook is totally inconvenient.

And it gets more interesting, or appalling!!

"While initially opt-in, the default then seems to be expose everything, and Facebook have form in the past for lowering protection after people get used to a certain level of initial protection - bait and switch,''


Well, check the news article, and decide for yourself.

Luis A. Jovel

Being fined in the UK for displaying the Bible on TV



This is going too far by those who think of themselves politically correct.

Lord, deliver us from this evil.

Luis A. Jovel

The heresy of the Prosperity Gospel movement



Lord, save us from it.

Luis A. Jovel

Saturday, September 24, 2011

N. T. Wright on the Death Penalty


I've heard an interview in Issues Etc. Tim Goeglein, author of the book, “The Man in the Middle: An Inside Account of Faith and Politics in the George W. Bush Era”.

From the interview, I gather that the man wants to sell his book, which is ok. But while listening to him, I kept asking myself, how can he say he has been the most pro-life president if he started two wars, approved of rendition kidnappings, bombed thousands upon thousands of civilians in Afghanistan while searching for Osama Bin Laden, and left more dead in Irak than when Saddam Hussein was there. Either he was a very stupid person, along with his other White House staffers, who believed Malaki and all the others Iraki opposition members, or his god doesn't guide him, period.

I don't think Bush he was a pro-life president. How inconsistent, you defend life before you get out of womb, while you don't have any qualms with killing innocent people just to get one man. And like I said before, not killing 1 or 5 personas, but thousands. Americans have to go out of their national news to find out what really is happening, since the news networks, not only FOX, are so patriotic as to be objective in their news coverage.

But regarding the death penalty. I guess N. T. Wright is not well liked, because he tells it like it is. Americans have shown that they don't like to be lectured by anybody, even when they are totally wrong. The issue becomes worst when you see that even American Christians don't like to be told another view that does not go along with their view of American exceptionalism, which means that Americans along have the right to say what's good and right for the rest of humanity, due to their closeness to God. Although the USA is a very religious country, that doesn't make it faithfully christian. But when Americans hear such a thing, from an outsider like me, or an insider, they totally lose control, and tagged such people as "haters", and say that everybody else is just jealous of them. Well, I live in a country that has been voted as #1 so many times, that when they tell me that, it sounds totally senseless.


Here it's a short entry by N.T. Wright regarding the death penalty in the USA, and how people see that from the outside.

American Christians and the death penalty

You can’t reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty. Almost all the early Christian Fathers were opposed to the death penalty, even though it was of course standard practice across the ancient world. As far as they were concerned, their stance went along with the traditional ancient Jewish and Christian belief in life as a gift from God, which is why (for instance) they refused to follow the ubiquitous pagan practice of ‘exposing’ baby girls (i.e. leaving them out for the wolves or for slave-traders to pick up).

Mind you, there is in my view just as illogical a position on the part of those who solidly oppose the death penalty but are very keen on the ‘right’ of a woman (or couple) to kill their conceived but not yet born child...

From where many of us in the UK sit, American politics is hopelessly polarized. All kinds of issues get bundled up into two great heaps. The rest of the world, today and across the centuries, simply doesn’t see things in this horribly oversimplified way...

While we’re about it, how many folk out there were deeply moved both by the reading of the 9/11 victim names and by the thought that if they’d read the names of Iraqi civilians killed by your country and mine over the last ten years we’d have been there for several days?

N.T. WRIGHT | SEP 15, 2011 10:29 AM



Luis A. Jovel

Friday, September 23, 2011

Some word of encouragement for preachers

We complain today that ministers do not know how to preach; but is it not equally true that our congregations do not know how to hear?
~ J.I Packer

Luis A. Jovel

Do you place Jesus above all?


'... Christians are always in danger of reducing their full commitment to God through Christ and of allowing themselves to be seized by things of lesser value.' -- J.M. Nützel.

Luis A. Jovel

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

A proper reminder for us dads


This is for those of us who have daughters (I have 3!!). I find this very good advice, and I hope to pass it along to them.

"We need to teach our daughters to distinguish between a man who flatters her and a man who compliments her, a man who spends money on her and a man who invests in her, a man who views her as property and a man who views her properly, a man who lusts after her and a man who loves her, a man who believes he is God's gift to women and a man who remembers that a woman was God's gift to man."
- Anon.

Luis A. Jovel

Texting replaces talking!!! Some would see this as eveolution. Others devolution.


I admit it, I text a lot, but I don't text my wife so much, that we don't actually talk during the day.

A new Pew Internet study takes a look at the texting habits of cell phone owners. The findings show that of the 83% of American adults who own cell phones, roughly 73% of them send text messages and about 31% of them prefer texting to actually talking on the phone.


I've heard of a woman who texted a man 63,000 times in 2 months, and he had to take a restraining order against her. But this story tells of how many texts a person between 18-24 can send a day:

Surprising? Not really. But here's the craziest data point: Cell phone owners between the ages of 18 and 24 exchange an incredible 109.5 text messages per day, or 3,200 per month. Back in 2009, a similar Nielsen study found that teens were averaging a few hundred less with only 2,899 texts per month.


The issue, I guess, it's that we are consumers, and companies gives us what we want, in order to make money.

I love texting, but it will never replace face to face conversation.

Luis Alberto Jovel

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Forcing "kids" to leave the nest, when they are over 40!!


This is a problem that Italy is just at the top of the issue.

I don't know if this is a parenting issue, or the adults that don't want to leave home, just don't want to leave the nest in order not to take responsibility of their lives.

But this is a extreme measure, to take your son to court so he could leave the house. Is this a trend we expect to see in the future?

The Guardian has a small piece about this problem:
An exasperated Italian couple has resorted to legal help to kick their 41-year-old son out of the house, in the latest case to highlight the phenomenon of Italy's stay-at-home "bamboccioni" or mummy's boys.


Now the government wants to change things:
After the report was released, a cabinet minister came up with a drastic solution to the problem, proposing legislation which would make it compulsory for teenagers to leave home once they reached adulthood.


I know many in Australia that are well 30, and don't want to leave home because they have it so good:
Renato Brunetta, the minister in charge of streamlining the country's bureaucracy, admitted that in his youth he too was a "bamboccioni", which translates as "big baby", and that his mother made his bed for him until he was 30.


If you someone who can do everything for you for free, and to top it all, you have a good job, don't pay rent, and don't have to do anything around the house, no wonder you think you are better off with your parents, to whom you don't have to pay any notice or have to tell them what you are doing, or where you are, etc.

Luis Alberto Jovel

Monday, September 19, 2011

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Conservative UK Government?? Not likely


The British Government is introducing gay marriage by stealth. Of course, it is going to blame the Social Democrats about passing the law about gay marriage in the UK.

Read the news, and comment about it.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

New Wave Pentecostals

This is an insightful take on Pentecostalism, well, the extreme kind.

I was in that movement for a while, the best I got was my wife!!!

Watch this video and you decide.

Apparently, there are iPhones in heaven


I have blogged a cartoon on Calvin previously here.

I have found another cartoon, that it's very funny. I wonder if Calvin can truly continue to have a hold on his followers, and un-followers through Twitter.

Seems there is a pseudo-deutero Calvin, I better not join the twitter feed. I don't like talking to the dead.

A third gender in Australian Passports


The Australian Federal government has fallen victim to the transgendered lobby, and have approved that their passports will not only display two genders, "Male" and "Female", but now, they have introduced a third one, "Undeterminate".

What are they thinking? This is not something that you can play around with. Imagine, I wake up one morning feeling like a man, the next, like a woman, and on the third day, I don't have an idea what I am!!!!

The decision was taken at the angst of Labor Senator Louise Pratt, who is herself partnered to a woman, who now is a man.

They say that this is a big win for transgendered individuals, but is it? This just shows that in our run away democratic and pluralistic society, 4% of the population (that's the figured given of the population who still can't decide their gender) can hold to ramson the rest of the country.

Read the news piece. I don't agree with this new trend. I am seeing society loosing its moral values and don't foresee the consequences.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Report: More Kids Being Home-Churched | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


This trend is becoming crazy. I can live with Home Schooling, but now, Home Churched????

This is one of the reasons why parents are now keeping their children from going to Church:
Norville Tucker, who moved his family to the woods outside Shelby, AL in 1998 to "escape the damaging cultural influences of urban Mobile," is widely credited with pioneering the home-churching movement. Tucker said he was inspired to home-church when his 10-year-old son Macon returned from Sunday school singing a lighthearted song about Zacchaeus, a tax collector befriended by Christ, and then later recited the parable of the Good Samaritan.
"I couldn't believe that the liberal elite had infiltrated even the study of our Holy Scriptures," Tucker said. "It was bad enough that my youngsters were being taught evolution in public schools, but when I discovered they were learning to embrace foreigners and Big Government in Sunday school, I drew the line."

This reason is so short sighted. How does the the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches big government, and if he thinks that embracing foreigners is wrong, he has missed Jesus' message altogether!!! Fundamentalism at it's worst!

Report: More Kids Being Home-Churched | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Europe is not only becoming unchristian, but is going pagan


What happens to a nation when they forsake God? They turn to any other type of belief, of course. Estonia and the Czech are prime examples of this trend, but are not alone in this. There are many countries that are going that guy. Australia is an example of it, even though we may have mega churches like Hill Song, that gives a false impression that the gospel is well and vibrant here. Talking to a Pentecostal pastor today, I was told that once you leave the centres of the cities, Pentecostal churches struggle to survive.

Another thing that worries me, is that those countries that embraced the Protestant Reformation, are also as enthusiastic to disowned it. Take this as an example. In a documentary about the Christian Church on the History Channel presented by Diarmaid McCulloch "A History of Christianity", when the female pastor of Geneve is asked what she thinks about how John Calvin would feel to know that a woman pastor is the one heading his congregation, her answer was "well, that was his time, now this is my time".

Now Geneva is far from the propaganda that John Knox spread during his time, that Calvin's Geneva was "the most perfect school of Christ". The reality is that it never was the most perfect school of Christ. Even when Jesus was with his disciples, and believe me, that was the most perfect school led by the real founder of our faith, they had issues among them. The sad thing of it all, is that Lutheran and Reformed countries never achieved the Reformation they sought, and due to the laziness imbedded in their own traditions-no works, even though after you are saved although you are called to do them but be careful not to over do them just in case you believe that you are doing works to be saved, therefore, don't do anything- has paid out at the end.

Well, you can read the news article, and be informed.

Estonia's capital Tallinn. A 2005 poll found that only 16% of Estonians believed in God. Photograph: Ilja Dubovskis/Alamy

Estonia and the Czech Republic are the two nations that often claim to be the least religious in Europe. And they seem to be proud of their unbelief. According to the census of 2000, 29% of the total population considered themselves as adherents of some religion. Almost 14% of them were Lutherans (in the 1930s the percentage of Lutherans was over 80), and about 13% Orthodox Christians divided between two churches: one under the canonical jurisdiction of ecumenical patriarchate and the other under the jurisdiction of Moscow patriarchate.

A Eurobarometer poll in 2005 found that only 16% of the Estonian population believed in God. With this number, Estonia hit the bottom of the list. However, at the same time more than half the population (54%) believed in some sort of spirit or life force. Thus it could be claimed that 70% of the Estonian population are believers, at least in some sense of the word. Professor Grace Davie's description of the British religiosity as"believing without belonging" seems to fit to the Estonian context as well.

The churches are on Sundays mostly empty and the ignorance of religion is widespread. According to the available statistics and surveys, the membership of religious associations in Estonia remains under one fifth of the total population.

Non-Estonians (mainly immigrants of Russian stock) are considerably more religious, and this becomes even more evident among the younger generations. Surveys show that young Estonians in general have become estranged from every form of religion that could be considered as traditional or as religion at all.

For this situation there are several reasons, starting from the distant past (the close connection of the churches with the Swedish or German ruling classes) up to the Soviet-period atheist policy when the chain of religious traditions was broken in most families.

In Estonia religion has never played an important role on the political or ideological battlefield. The institutional religious life was dominated by foreigners until the early 20th century. The tendencies that prevailed in the late 1930s for closer relations between the state and Lutheran church were ended with the Soviet occupation in 1940. While the Roman Catholic church maintained its dissident role in the Soviet countries, the Lutheran church was not successful in this. This might to have to do something with the Lutheran tradition in general as the role of the Lutheran church also in East Germany diminished considerably during the GDR days.

Although there were some clergymen associated with the dissident movement, the churches remained within the limits set for them by the Soviet authorities. The national reawakening in the late 1980s was accompanied with the religious revival. Religion was something that was seen as a connection with the pre-Soviet golden days. However, by the early 1990s the interest in institutionalised religion started to diminish. Currently the Lutheran church, still considered as the most traditional religious institution in Estonia, has fewer members than it had in the first half of the 1980s when the dues-paying membership reached its Soviet nadir.

The big question for the next decades concerning the religious situation in Estonia is what is going to be the future of the Lutheran church? Although it has been the dominant church among Estonians since the Reformation, the vast majority of younger generations have been estranged from it and the membership numbers are declining.

A new phenomenon during the last 15 years has been the rising number of Estonians identifying themselves with a nature-spirituality that could be defined as the Estonian neo-paganism. However, exactly what this is is much more difficult to explain, as it stresses individualism in religious matters. Although the organisation of the neo-pagans claim to represent pre-Christian religious tradition that has been passed from generation to generation through centuries, and dislikes the term neo-pagan, the historical facts do not support its arguments.

Estonian neo-paganism is closely associated with reverence to nature as well as reviving and following the centuries-old folk traditions, such as the lighting of bonfires during the summer solstice.

Reverence for nature and vocal protection of historical sacred groves has given a positive image to the movement and to their religion, known also as the Earth religion. On the other hand, there are not many neo-pagans officially affiliated with the organisation itself, and during the ancient holy days the groves are not filled with people. The claims by the organisation that all of that 54% who said they believed in spirit or life force are followers of old Estonian religious traditions is pure wishful thinking.