Demonizing the Enemy Subverts Peace Process

Continued from previous page

LESSON:
When you demonize your enemy you only hurt yourself. It is important to our own souls and our healthy society that we remember that our enemies are individuals, and not a nameless mass of devils. Even amongst the enemy nation, like the Moabites to ancient Israel, there might reside in their midst a friend, a potential ally, a person absolutely necessary to our own bright future, as Ruth among the Moabites.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was fond of stating publicly that “our enemy are the terrorists, not the Palestinian people.” This perspective is essential to peace-making, which in turn is essential to the security of Israel and the happiness of her Jewish inhabitants. Current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to his credit, has taken a similarly pragmatic approach, attempting to separate terrorists from the Palestinian masses.

Americans must also remember that our enemy is not “the Arabs” nor “the Muslims”, but only those promoting a particular brand of radical Islam and those who promote terrorism as a tool in an apocalyptic war against the West. It is true that there are not enough loud voices in the Islamic world protesting terrorism, but there are such voices, and we must do what we can to strengthen them. One tool in weakening the voice of hatred and strengthening the voice of moderation is for us to be willing to distinguish between persons and not brand an entire nation, people or religion as hopelessly irredeemable. Hope for the future breeds compromise, tolerance and peace.

Stephen M. Wylen is the author of numerous books, including "The Seventy Faces of Torah: The Jewish Way of Reading the Sacred Scriptures."

Return to main page to comment on article.

Main page

International Slave Trade – Where’s the Outrage?

Continued from previous page

Slavery takes many forms throughout the world. In some poor countries, people sell themselves into slavery in hopes of getting out of debt, using themselves as collateral. In other case, parents sell their own children. These children wind up in a variety of jobs-- including making carpets in Pakistan, rolling cigarettes in India, harvesting cocoa in western Africa, and serving as jockeys for camel races in the United Arab Emirates. Roughly 2 million child slaves—some as young as five--are forced into prostitution. So-called sex tourists travel to countries where child prostitution is prevalent and tacitly condoned. These countries include Thailand, Cambodia, Costa Rica, and Brazil.

In the U.S. and elsewhere, the public is outraged when children are molested and exploited, when workers are underpaid and endangered. And this is only fair and right. And many faith communities and humanitarian organizations have issued statements condemning human trafficking.

But where is the average person's outrage for the poor souls living in chains? Where is my outrage? Where is yours?

U.S. government hot line on human trafficking: (888) 373-3888.

Return to main page to comment on article.

Main page

To find out more, visit these Web sites:

World Vision

Iabolish.org

Anti-Slavery International

Newark Archbishop John J. Myers' statement on human trafficking

U.S. government Web site for victims of slavery

Peace Comes From the Almighty, Not From Humanity

Continued from previous page
The Torah sometimes jars us into re-evaluating our core values. The attainment of peace seems to be a universal human desire. What subtends this longing for peace?

For many, Peace is an El Dorado, beckoning seductively with promises of freedom to pursue selfish agendas. It releases those bound to G-d with chains of needy prayer. Once there is peace of mind, does the mind yet have a place for G-d?

Our generation, in a fit of amnesia, seeks to achieve “peace in our time.” Many alchemist-diplomats and politicians and world bodies attempt to synthesize peace by simply ignoring evil, by signing agreements with the devil, by hoping against hope that the heartless will have a change of heart. They feed the beast, celebrating as a great achievement moments of quiescence, as the beast sharpens its claws.

As we have witnessed recently, those who turned a blind eye to the terror massacres in Israel and made excuses for the “oppressed” killers, those who tolerated the most virulent proponents of this toxic philosophy, trusting that their hospitality would purchase immunity, have finally been struck by the viper nesting in their midst.

The Hebrew word for peace, “shalom”, is derived from the root SH-L-M which means “whole” or “complete.” It is the natural state of existence when equilibrium is attained in the universe. The entropy created by man’s evil acts, disrupts and unsettles this natural order, creating mayhem.

Peace does not flower as a result of man’s contrivances. We pray daily that the One who makes peace in the celestial universe will make peace for us (“Oseh Shalom…”).

True peace is a product of Divine origin. Man can facilitate the production of peace, not by performing cosmetic surgery on evil, but by eradicating it in toto. Remaining faithful to Torah values, even when they are not valued by social currency, will ultimately create a climate of cosmic order, a worthy resting place for the ultimate blessing of true peace.

Return to main page to comment on article.

Main page

To read other Torah Thoughts, please visit the Jewish Learning Experience (JLE) Web site:

JLE

Islamic Court Condemns Gay Nigerian to Death

References: Traditional condemnations of homosexuality

Judaism and Christianity

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version): " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.’”

Christianity

Romans 1:27 (NIV): “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. … Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Islam
Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran: 7:80-81: We also (sent) Lut [Lot]: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?

"For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

Sayings of Mohammed (Ahadith):
If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did*, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.
(Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah).
(Sayings of Muhammad by Prof. Ghazi Ahmad).

*In Genesis 19:3-5, the men of Sodom attempted homosexual rape on Lot’s guests, who were messengers from God.

Return to main page to comment on article.

Main page

Students Should Be Taught "a Lot of Science"

Continued from previous page

The “agreed upon standards” are a part of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which states that “a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.”

The uproar from Saint Darwin’s ardent defenders was predictable. None was willing to participate in the public hearings held in early May.

Yet a new national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that “human beings were created directly by God.” Another 10 percent subscribe to the theory that “human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them” (intelligent design). Moreover, “a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories [evolution, creationism and intelligent design] should be taught in public schools.”

Such open-mindedness is in keeping with the findings of fact that came out of the hearings in Kansas; “An objective approach to teaching origins science is one that reasonably informs students about relevant competing scientific views. State endorsement of an objective approach that favors neither Naturalistic Explanations [n]or the Scientific Criticism of those Explanations will more appropriately inform students about origins, will provide good and liberal science education, will cause the state to not take sides on the issue, and is a formula that is most likely [to] lead to the best and religiously neutral origins science education.”

Why does the mere mention of objectivity and a critical examination of Darwinian evolution send shudders of fear through its evangelists? And what exactly is it that so fiercely drives them to defend their theory?

It is clear that there is more than science at work here.

Darwinism is the core belief under girding philosophical naturalism, expressed in such documents as the Humanist Manifesto III which establishes the Humanist belief system, as “rejecting any ‘supernatural’ influence and rel[ying] on modern science and the view that humans are the product of ‘unguided evolutionary change.’”

In a similar vein one could cite George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind,” or Jacques Monod, “Man has to understand that he is a mere accident.” Monod is typical of the origins exclusionists, writing that Darwinism was “…no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely to be revised.”

Nonetheless, most aren’t buying that brand of religion.

In large numbers, we remain intractable in our belief that a supreme being was the ultimate cause behind the creation of the universe; that there was a first “unmoved mover,” a creator or an intelligent designer and that all we call reality did not happen by random, naturalistic phenomena.

Paul the apostle was just as ardent in his beliefs as modern-day Darwinists. In describing the natural world he explained that belief in an intelligent designer was a priori: “His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...”

The 16th-century scientist Francis Bacon wrote, “A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back.” Clearly, this is what is at the heart of Darwinist’s fears of the teaching of “a lot of science.”

Gregory J. Rummo has a master's degree in organic chemistry from Fordham University. His column appears Sundays on the editorial page of the New Jersey Herald.

Return to main page to comment on article.

Main page

Catholic Urges Compassion for Animals

Continued from previous page

The 11th century Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki (also known as RASHI) and other rabbinic commentators give some insight. Rashi says "there is in this expression v'yirdu the meaning of dominion and the meaning of subservience. If he (man) is found worthy, he has dominion over the beasts and cattle. If he is not found worthy, he becomes subservient before them and the beast rules over him."

In 1984, Bible scholar Claus Westermann stated: "...dominion over the animals cannot mean killing them for food. ... Dominion over the animals certainly does not mean their exploitation by humans. People would forfeit their kingly role among the living were the animals to be made the object of their whim."

How does a faith community interpret “dominion” today? What does it mean to 'rule over' in the context of Genesis 1 before humans became disobedient? How should we 'rule over' God's creation?

If we believe that animals suffer horribly in factory farms and if we believe that we support their abuse with the money entrusted to us (or make money serving them as food), if we believe greed and gluttony are sins, then our generalizations to rationalize God's approval about eating meat (even if God is thanked for their lives of torture and is asked for His blessing on them), then I believe it's a sin of ignorance or indifference.

Aren't we to glorify God in everything we do and say or at least try to if we truly love God and others? Unfortunately our seminaries and church leaders don't include in their dialogues the billions of animals that suffer daily while creationism and evolution are still being discussed (Darwin himself questioned his own theory), rather than the morality of the food we put in our mouths on a daily basis?

We would do well do read Amos 6:3-4 and Numbers 11 to get an idea of God's thoughts. The old song 'Let peace begin with me' has some truth to teach us as we begin to thank God and Jesus, the Prince of Peace, for what we eat. Are we going to believe The Way, The Truth, and The Life, or the Father of Lies, who has been deceiving us for centuries? Being made in God's image, let's strive to be compassionate children and true followers of Jesus.

Return to main page to comment on article.

Main page

The Unleavened Imagination

Continued from previous page
Another way of phrasing the question is: Who are we loyal to – our selves, our family, our tribe? And is writing an inevitable betrayal?

People write out of love and out of anger. Who is more loyal than the angry son or daughter? Could Roth and Englander be the loyal opposition?

And yet how easy it would be for us to say and write and reveal all.

I have felt in the late hours of the night the incredible power of saying and writing everything that could be said, only to throw it away (and deprive my audience?) in the morning. It can be oddly freeing to write with restrictions. Some of the most profound poems and books have been written for children. And everyone knows children can’t be shown and told everything. It would be harmful.

The relationship between an audience, society, culture and the inner imagination of the writer is dynamic. The elements are forever shaping each other.

Imagine what it would be like to cook without salt. And yet baking without yeast yielded matza, the bread of freedom (and poverty). A wealth of choices can restrict. Limits paradoxically can free.

We write from anger and love, and from the impoverishment of our imagination and the wealth of our fantasies.

Would you tell a story, even if it killed your father – and by father I mean our inheritance, our community, our ancestors, our received traditions? What if it made a good story? What if telling that story (or killing your father) was a way of saving your own life? Would you do it? And what if that story (or killing your father) made you rich and famous? How do we know why people are writing? Can we ever know?

Somehow this all reminds me of Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark.” Hawthorne, of course a religious man, knew well to wander in the spaces between greed and virtue, perfection and beauty. A scientist wanted to rid his beloved of the one imperfection – a birthmark on her cheek. Having found the right formula, he succeeded in dissolving the mark, only to watch her life ebb and disappear. In our quest for perfection in art, we are in danger. Saying it all, revealing it all, may be killing it all. And in our quest for complete loyalty to religion, we may be killing religion, too. If we’re not disloyal, can we ever be loyal? There would be no loyalty without a taste of disloyalty.

Maybe we really need to kill our fathers to tell the story, because telling the story is ultimately what keeps us all alive.

Ask the fathers what they think. How should we approach them? What should we do? What should we say?

“Ask your father and he will tell you…” (Deut. 32:7) After all, they had fathers, too. They told a story, and yet they were able to keep their own fathers alive.

Ruchama King is the author of “Seven Blessings” (St. Martin’s Press), a novel about love and faith in Jerusalem. This article originally appeared in The Jewish Week.

The Jewish Week

Return to main page to comment on article.

Main page

Tripping Over Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"

Continued from previous page
A University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy study found that journalists who were surveyed picked Democrat John Kerry over George Bush in the 2004 election by a margin of over 2-to-1. In another survey, only 12 percent of local reporters, editors, and media executives are self-described conservatives.

The Christian Science Monitor reported last year on the findings of the non-partisan Pew Research Center which found “the gap between journalists and other Americans particularly wide on social issues.”

547 journalists and executives in a wide range of print and broadcast organizations were surveyed. 88 percent thought “society should accept homosexuality; about half the general public agrees. And while about 60 percent of Americans say morality and a belief in God are inexorably linked, only 6 percent of national journalists and executives surveyed believe that.”

Liberal media bias is old news.

What is news is that lately, this bias has turned ugly and in some cases, downright hostile.

A newspaper in which my column appears recently dished up an editorial written in response to my column, “Liberals apply double standard when it comes to religion.”

Entitled “The right is wrong,” the editorial led with a laundry list of complaints: “The religious right wants to outlaw abortion, permanently ban embryonic stem-cell research, require the teaching of creationism in schools and funnel ever-more federal money to religious groups.”

The hand-wringing continued several paragraphs later as Christians were compared to mullahs desiring a theocracy in America. “But what distinguishes a democracy from a theocracy except the wall dividing church and state?”

The title of the editorial reminded me of the prophet Isaiah’s words “Woe to those who call… good evil.” That the religious right would like to see the genocide of pre-born humans halted is not news. And raising a race of slaves for the sole purpose of harvesting their body parts should be abhorrent to all but the most barbaric. What is it that evolutionists fear when the teaching of “creationism” (Intelligent Design is a better metaphor) is proposed in public schools? Are evolutionists so insecure in their own religion, which requires its adherents to practice faith in spontaneous generation—a “theory” debunked centuries ago by modern science, that they cannot stand to have their ideas challenged? And why not fund faith-based organizations if indeed they are the most effective in solving the societal problems that continue to plague us?

If the media wishes to characterize Judeo-Christian influence in American culture as a breach in “the wall of separation,” its members need to go back to school and brush up on their American history. Their hallowed “wall” is not mentioned in any of the founding documents of our country; including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The concept of separation of church and state comes from a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter written to a group of Baptists in Danbury Connecticut to quell their fears that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free religious expression implied it was a freedom that was only government-given and not God-given.

Jefferson wrote, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Author and historian David Barton explains, “Jefferson’s reference to ‘natural rights’ invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase ‘natural rights’ communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little. By definition, ‘natural rights’ included ‘that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.’ That is, ‘natural rights’ incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their ‘natural rights’ they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.”

“Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the…‘wall’ of the Danbury letter w[as] not to limit religious activities in public; rather [it] w[as] to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.”

“Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination.”

Jefferson’s intentions were very clear.

What is not clear is why this must be explained by a businessman moonlighting as a newspaper columnist.

Gregory J. Rummo is an author and columnist. His second book, “The View from the Grass Roots—Another Look,” is available from amazon.com or the author's website, www.GregRummo.com.

GregRummo.com

Return to main page to comment on article.

Main page