California's Evangelicals: Hope and Warning to McCain
http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion07276.shtml
MEDIA ADVISORY, (christiansunite.com) -- California Evangelicals have a message of hope...and a message of warning...for Senator John McCain.
When surveyed, 90.4% of Californian Evangelicals said they'd vote for John McCain if the Vice presidential choice was a conservative, acceptable to Evangelical Christians.
A second question was asked if they would support Senator McCain if he chose a moderate or liberal vice presidential running mate. The percentage dropped dramatically down to only 45.8% for McCain.
54.2 % said they would not vote for McCain if he had a liberal or moderate running mate. That might be between 14 to 19 million votes in November if he chose a liberal or moderate vice presidential candidate.
The poll was sent to over 10,000 California Evangelicals in California. While not a scientific poll- it does reflect on how the Evangelical voter will respond to McCain's presidency based on his Vice presidential pick.
Reality Alert is an electronic newsletter for California Evangelicals with a special focus on California. It covers politics, economics, religious issues and theological themes impacting today's church.
Craig Huey, publisher, said, "Clearly John McCain's vice presidential choice will be a major factor if he is to win in November. 60 million Evangelicals could vote for him if motivated. Evangelicals are included as one of the largest voting blocs along with the Hispanic, black, union and other voting groups. 27.1 million Evangelicals voted in 2004."
McCain can work to expand the Evangelical voter base to 35 or 40 million based on his Vice president pick. The road to capturing the White House depends on the Evangelical voter. In California and two other states, the marriage initiative on the ballot will draw an above-average Evangelical turnout at the polls.
Reality Alert is published by ElectionForum.org, an organization that recommends candidates that best represent a Christian worldview.
The poll asked, "If Senator John McCain chooses a conservative vice-presidential running mate acceptable to Evangelical Christians, how would you vote?"
Results 90.4% would vote for John McCain,
The poll then asked "If Senator John McCain chooses a moderate or liberal Vice presidential running mate, how would you vote?"
Results 45.2% would vote for John McCain, 2.4% would vote for the Democratic candidate, 26% would vote third party and 19.4% would not vote for any presidential candidate.
About Craig Huey
Craig Huey is the president of ElectionForum.org, JudgeVoterGuide.com and Peninsula Residents for a Better Community. A resident of Rolling Hills Estates, he owns two local businesses.
McCain Turns Obama’s Talking Points Against Him in Adviser Flap
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/10/mccain-turns-obamas-talking-points-against-him-in-adviser-flap/
Barack Obama is getting an early taste of how the verbal fireworks and talking points from his bitter primary battle against Hillary Clinton could be turned against him as he enters the general election race.
The Illinois senator is taking flak for an adviser’s ties to a controversial lender, and to hold Obama’s feet to the fire, John McCain’s campaign is citing the Obama team’s own words from the primary.
The adviser in question is Jim Johnson, who is heading up Obama’s three-person running-mate search team.
McCain called it a “contradiction” for Obama to be associated with Johnson after The Wall Street Journal reported that Johnson received favorable loan terms from Countrywide Financial Corp., a sub-prime lending company Obama has criticized.
The reaction from Republicans only underscores how carefully Obama will have to tread in hand-picking anyone affiliated with his campaign. Even a trace of hypocrisy from the Democratic candidate promising reform at all levels seems to be instant fodder for his GOP critics.
One week after clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama on Tuesday said the criticism is all part of a “game,” and that, in this instance, he can’t be expected to screen his search committee members for their mortgages.
“I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters,” he said, adding that those search team members are unpaid volunteers. “These aren’t folks who are working for me.”
The McCain campaign scoffed at that assessment.
“Of course Jim Johnson works for him,” said Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO now serving as McCain’s liaison to the Republican National Committee. “Barack Obama understands full well that in presidential politics, any associate — but particularly one who is working directly for the candidate — is going to be scrutinized.”
She called Obama’s explanation Tuesday “naïve.”
The McCain campaign also dug up statements made by Obama strategist David Axelrod in which he criticized Clinton for having a connection to Countrywide.
In the statements to MSNBC, made after Clinton strategist Mark Penn stepped down in early April, Axelrod said: “She’s stuck with (Penn) through the revelation that his firm was working for Blackwater and working for Countrywide, and … so it’s kind of stunning.”
McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker told FOX News the statement reflects the “hypocrisy” inside the Obama campaign.
Capitalizing on the jabs and swipes of the primary race, the Republican National Committee also is posting and circulating videos showing Clinton criticizing Obama for being inexperienced and for associating himself with unsavory characters.
But if the McCain campaign is going to use primary battle rhetoric against the presumptive Democratic nominee, McCain can probably expect the same treatment.
Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale’s 1984 running mate, said those tactics are inevitable.
“If it’s used by McCain, that’s just typical politics, and we assume the Obama campaign will do the exact same thing,” said Ferraro, who supported Clinton during the primary and has not endorsed Obama.
Ferraro was also vetted in 1984 by a Johnson team, and she said Johnson is more than qualified to continue helping Obama.
“I don’t think it should be overblown,” she told FOXNews.com. “This is a person who knows the job, who knows how to do it. And you pick the person who has experience doing it.”
But the scrutiny continued Tuesday for Johnson, a long-time Washington insider and former CEO of Fannie Mae. He is also on the board of directors for Goldman Sachs and formerly handled VP vetting for John Kerry in 2004, as well as Mondale in 1984.
National Review Online, for instance, reported that a federal investigation completed two years ago found Johnson made use of a program available to “only very senior Fannie Mae executives” that enabled him to defer portions of his compensation. As a result, Fannie Mae reportedly was able to withhold from the public the size of Johnson’s 1998 compensation, putting the figure at $6-7 million when it was actually $21 million.
Politico.com reported that five corporations whose CEO compensation committees were chaired by Johnson — and all of which approved hefty CEO compensation packages — drew criticism from two watchdog groups that monitor CEO performance and compensation.
One of them dubbed Johnson a “problem director,”as has the AFL-CIO, most of whose member unions have endorsed Obama.
The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that Johnson received more than $7 million in loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. The Journal reported Johnson received at least two loans at below-market rates as a result of a relationship he had with the company’s CEO Angelo Mozilo. The Journal reported there was nothing apparently illegal about the loan terms.
But the ties came under fire since Obama has criticized Countrywide on the stump. The company’s top executives were accused in March of exacerbating the home mortgage crisis.
Obama said at the time in a statement, “We should be reprimanding them, not rewarding them. Rewarding their bad behavior just encourages others to pursue the same kinds of irresponsible practices that led us into this financial mess in the first place.”
The Obama campaign attempted to turn the tables on McCain on Tuesday, circulating an ABC News report highlighting the past lobbying work of Arthur Culvahouse, a former Reagan official advising McCain in his running mate hunt.
McCain has taken his lumps for the lobbying ties of some of his staff members, as he tries to enact a strict conflict-of-interest policy forbidding registered lobbyists from being part of the campaign.
John Lott: The Big Picture Behind Abortion
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365322,00.html
This piece is part one of a two-part discussion on abortion.
On abortion, a large gap exists between John McCain and Barack Obama. The National Right to Life Committee as well as Pro-choice America agree that Obama has a perfect 100 percent pro-choice voting record. McCain is pro-life, and the two groups respectively claim that he votes that way at least 75 percent of the time. It should make for a lively debate this fall.
But the question of abortion usually centers only on the morality of the act (choice versus life), and McCain and Obama so far look to frame the question no differently. Morality surely is important, but its emphasis misses out on the much wider impact that these laws have.
Liberalizing abortion rules from 1969 to 1973 ignited vast long-term social changes in America. This discussion might finally provide a chance to evaluate how Roe v. Wade has changed the U.S.
One often misunderstood fact: Legal abortions didn't start with Roe or even with the five states that liberalized abortion laws in 1969 and 1970. Prior to Roe, women could have had abortions when their lives or health were endangered.
Doctors in some surprising states, such as Kansas, had very liberal interpretations of what constituted danger to health; nevertheless, Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977.
But many other changes occurred at the same time:
• A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.
• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.
Many of these changes might seem contradictory. Why would both the number of abortions and out-of-wedlock births go up? If there were more illegitimate births, why were fewer children available for adoption?
For the first puzzle, part of the answer lies in attitudes toward premarital sex. With abortion seen as a backup, women as well as men became less careful in using contraceptives as well as more likely to have premarital sex.
There were more unplanned pregnancies. But legal abortion did not mean every unplanned pregnancy led to abortion. After all, just because abortion is legal does not mean that the decision is an easy one.
Academic studies have found that legalized abortion, by encouraging premarital sex, increased the number of unplanned births, even outweighing the reduction in unplanned births due to abortion.
In the United States from the early 1970s, when abortion was liberalized, through the late 1980s, there was a tremendous increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock births, rising from an average of 5 percent of all births from 1965 to 1969 to more than 16 percent two decades later (1985 to 1989).
For blacks, the numbers soared from 35 percent to 62 percent. While not all of this rise can be attributed to liberalized abortion rules, it was a key contributing factor, nevertheless.
With legalization and a woman not forced to go through with an unplanned pregnancy, a man might well expect his partner to have an abortion if a sexual encounter were to result in an unplanned pregnancy.
But what happens if the woman refuses — say, she is morally opposed or, perhaps, she thought she could have an abortion but upon becoming pregnant decides she can't go through with it?
Many men, feeling tricked into unwanted fatherhood, likely will wash their hands of the affair altogether, thinking, "I never wanted a baby. It's her choice, so let her raise the baby herself."
What is expected of men in this position has changed dramatically in the last four decades. Evidence shows that the greater availability of abortion largely ended "shotgun" marriages, where men felt obligated to marrying the women.
What has happened to these babies of reluctant fathers?
The mothers often raise the children on their own. Even as abortion has led to more out-of-wedlock births it has dramatically reduced adoptions of children born in America by two-parent families.
Before Roe, when abortion was much more difficult, women who would have chosen an abortion but were unable to get one turned to adoption as their backup. After Roe, women who turned down an abortion also were the type who wanted to keep the child.
But all these changes — rising out-of-wedlock births, plummeting adoption rates and the end of shotgun marriages — meant one thing: more single-parent families. With work and other demands on their time, single parents, no matter how "wanted" their child may be, tend to devote less attention to their children than do married couples; after all, it's difficult for one person to spend as much time with a child as two people can.
From the beginning of the abortion debate, those favoring abortion have pointed to the social costs of "unwanted" children who simply won't get the attention of "wanted" ones. But there is a trade-off that has long been neglected. Abortion may eliminate "unwanted" children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood. Unfortunately, the social consequences of illegitimacy dominated.
Children born after liberalized abortion rules have suffered a series of problems from difficulties at school to more crime. The saddest fact is that it is the most vulnerable in society, poor blacks, who have suffered the most from these changes.
No matter who wins the election or controls the Supreme Court, abortions are unlikely to be outlawed, just as they were not outlawed before the court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Liberalized abortion undoubtedly has made life easier for many, but like sex itself sometimes, it has had many unintended consequences.
Mike Baker: Who Needs a Resume?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365382,00.html
It’s hiring day at the big city firm of Fenster, Brown, Bumstead & Tate as the remaining job candidates sit anxiously in the well-appointed lobby. The potential hires wait their turn to march into the leather- and mahogany-festooned Partners Drawing Room where they hope to impress the firm’s founders and secure the one vacant position.
Why, here comes one now…
"Afternoon," mumbles the venerable Fenster, "Take a seat and introduce yourself."
"Obama, Barack Obama," the young candidate replies confidently.
Searching through the stack of files on the table in front of him, Bumstead looks up, "I don’t seem to have your resume in front of me, Mr. Barack."
"Uh, it’s Mr. Obama… Barack is the first name, Obama the second… and I don’t have a resume."
"No resume?" asks Tate. "You do realize this is a job interview… resumes are somewhat traditional when applying for a job."
"Frankly," replies Obama, "I think resumes represent the old, worn-out way of applying for a job." He leans in toward the partners "…Resumes are the past; I’m the future."
"Ahh, the future," Bumstead says, sitting back in his stuffed wingback chair and studying the young candidate. "Out of curiosity, what experience do you have that qualifies you to work here?"
"Now, you see… that’s exactly what I’m talking about."
Obama stands up and starts pacing back and forth, working the room… "Focusing on experience is so old school, it’s the old-style way of doing things. You need to change the way you think… that old way of thinking will only lead to more of the same."
"What exactly does that mean?" interrupts Brown, "Isn’t experience a valid indicator of character, judgment and capabilities?"
"That’s not the point," says Obama, warming up to the discussion. "Don’t focus on what I’ve done or haven’t done in the past; focus on what I can do in the future."
"Which is?" asks Tate.
"There you go again nitpicking about specifics… you’re really not getting this, are you?"
Obama sits back down and looks sympathetically at the partners. "I’m talking about hope... hope and change. Change with a capital 'C.' And all you want to do is ask if I’m qualified for the job."
"Sooo… why should we hire you instead of that fellow who was just in here?" Fenster sifts through his files and picks up one, looking at the name through his spectacles. "McCain, that’s the name. He’s had a lot of experience and provided a resume with a lengthy track record."
"Well," Obama says as he leans forward, "far be it from me to point this out, but did you notice how old that guy is? You didn’t hear that from me, by the way."
"True," mutters Bumstead, "that would account for why he has so much experience to list on his resume."
Obama leans back, "Now you’re getting it… how can you possibly trust someone with that much experience?"
Fenster sits up. "I think I’m starting to see… you’re lack of experience actually makes you the more qualified candidate."
He looks at his colleagues and begins to explain… "You see, gentlemen, this young man isn’t tarnished by years of doing… he’s unencumbered by the experiences that you or I would normally look for in a new hire."
Obama jumps to his feet sensing a sea change… "Right you are, Fenster. I’m a clean slate… I’m not bringing any preconceived notions to the table… baggage-free, that’s me."
Bumstead, staring at Fenster… "But don’t we value experience?"
"Grow up, Bumstead… valuing experience? What a load of crap. Like this young man says, the only thing experience will get you is more of the same."
Fenster walks across the room to shakes hands. "Frankly, I’d like to welcome Barack to the firm."
Tate looks at the others… "Shouldn’t we vote on it?"
Obama and Fenster glance at each other, sharing a knowing grin and a shake of the head.
"Tate," Fenster says patiently, "voting is so old school… we need to redraw the rules and change the landscape."
Fenster wanders over to the windows and looks out over the city.
"The firm needs the lack of experience that this fine man can bring to the table if we ever hope to stop doing things the way we’ve done them in the past and get busy doing things differently in a new, changed way."
Bumstead looks around the room. "So, style over substance?"
"I don’t know, Fenster," Brown says, "…it sounds a bit like change for change sake. I thought we liked potential hires who showed up with lots of experience?"
"That was before," Fenster replies, "…it’s a new world, Brown, a dangerous world filled with troubles. The last thing we want to be doing is trying to use experience to deal with those troubles."
"He’s right, fellas," says Obama as he joins Fenster at the window. "You start hiring those old guys, not that I’m calling that McCain guy old, mind you, and you’ll be buying into the same tired argument about experience being a good thing."
"And, it’s not..." Tate ponders out loud.
"No, it’s not," Fenster says helpfully.
"Not at all," Obama adds reassuredly. The others slowly start nodding in agreement.
"That does it, then," Fenster announces with a clap of the hands, "I guess someone should let McCain know that his experience makes him totally unsuitable for the job."
Till next week, stay safe.
Bush: Need to Get Tough on Iran
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/389859.aspx
CBNNews.com - President Bush is meeting with the European Union for the last time in Slovenia this week.
One of the President's priorities at the summit is how to handle Iran's nuclear program. He wants Britain, Germany and France to join the U.S. and threaten Iran with financial sanctions.
"They can either face isolation, or they can have better relations with all of us," Bush said Tuesday. "Now's the time for all of us to work together to stop them."
He said Iran "can't be trusted with enrichment."
The global economy is also a big issue at the summit.
Bush says he wants the dollar to grow stronger, but he said the world economies will end up setting the value of the dollar.
A weak dollar helps U.S. businesses sell their products internationally, because they're cheaper. However, that hurts businesses in other countries and European allies have been urging the President to be more aggressive in defending the dollar.
On the subject of global warming, Bush said, "I think we can actually get an agreement on global climate change during my presidency," which ends on Jan. 20, 2009.
But he said that any global warming agreement reached would be ineffective without China and India
European members and the United States may have dissimilar approaches to some of its common challenges Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, the president of the European Council, said.
"Make no mistake about it, there will be differences about how to approach different issues," Bush said. "And that's OK."
California based International Antioch Ministries Receives Death Threats from Iran
http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion07278.shtml
SUNNYVALE, Calif. (christiansunite.com) - According to International Antioch Ministries (IAM), callers from Iran are threatening their workers with disfigurement, injury and death.
Farzaneh, an IAM telephone counselor taking phone calls from Iran during IAM's daily broadcasts into Iran, was threatened by someone who identified himself as Heydar Amiri:
"One day you will see that the building of this church will collapse on all of you, we know your address very well and know where you are located. We do not let you continue your programs like this anymore. Shedding your blood in Islam has a reward for me."
Bahnoosh, another telephone counselor, relayed this threat:
"One day a bomb will go off in your church and will make you all vanish, because you are all blasphemers."
IAM believes that these terrorist threats are being fueled by the success of IAM's satellite broadcasts into Iran. As a result of these broadcasts, according to IAM, the number of Muslims embracing Christianity in Iran is growing dramatically.
Dr. Hormoz Shariat, president of IAM and senior pastor of The Iranian Christian Church said, "Our broadcasts are a benefit to the people of Iran. During our daily two-hour, live, call-in TV broadcasts, we often receive callers from Iran who have severe personal problems and we offer them comfort, healing and hope. Some are suffering from drug addiction, depression, contemplating suicide or are trapped in a life of prostitution all of which are epidemic in Iran. Every day, we get calls from Iran from people who report that their lives have been changed, they have been set free from addictions, and their families have been restored. We are making a positive difference in Iran and are saving lives.
"We are very careful to show respect to Islam and to Mohammad. So we are doubly concerned about these threats since we have done nothing to merit these terror tactics in all our broadcasts except to hold up Jesus, which all Muslims honor. These terror threats will only increase our resolve to continue and expand our good work in our beloved Iran."
How to Help
People who wish to stay informed can sign up for our free newsletter on our website at: www.iam-online.net/. Those who are impressed to make a one-time or continuing tax-deductible donation, however large or small, to promote religious diversity in Iran can send a contribution to Free to Worship in Iran c/o International Antioch Ministries, 740 E. Arques Ave., Sunnyvale, CA. 94085. Or, secure donations can be taken via IAM's web site at www.iam-online.net/donate.html.
About International Antioch Ministries
IAM is part of 24-hour satellite TV broadcasts into Iran that have been a catalyst for bringing many Iranian Muslims to Christ. IAM plants churches, trains Iranian-speaking Christian leaders for ministry and provides humanitarian support to Iranians worldwide. IAM's California-based church plant, The Iranian Christian Church, is the largest MBB (Muslim Background Believer) church in the USA. IAM is a non-denominational, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization devoted to fulfilling The Great Commission: first to Iranian Muslims and then to the rest of the Muslim world. Organizational supporters include CBN, Voice of the Martyrs (VOM), Sammy Tippit, John Maxwell, and Joyce Meyer ministries. For more information, contact International Antioch Ministries, 740 E. Arques Ave., Sunnyvale, Calif. 94085. T: 408 732 5050, F: 408 732 7575. Visit the English web site at: www.iam-online.net or the Persian site at: www.24hourchurch.com.
Freedom Watch Sues OPEC for 'Economic Terrorism'
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/freedom_watch_OPEC/2008/06/10/103221.html
Larry Klayman’s non-profit watchdog group Freedom Watch has filed a lawsuit against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting States, charging the cartel with engaging in “economic terrorism” by fixing the price of oil.
The suit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, and announced by Klayman, a former U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division prosecutor who helped break up AT&T in the early 1980s.
It alleges that OPEC — whose 13 members include Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran — has raised the price of oil to levels intended to severely harm the economies of the United States and its Western allies “as a latent means of economic terrorism by nation states who are bent on spreading communism and radical Islam throughout the world,” according to a statement from Freedom Watch.
The lawsuit states that OPEC is engaged in “illegal actions” and views the U.S. and its Western allies “as opposed to their interests in spreading, in the case of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, communism throughout Latin America, and in the case of the Arab members of OPEC such as Saudi Arabia, radical Whahabe (sic) and derivative strains of radical Islam in its centuries-old struggle for domination over Jews and Christians and Judeo-Christian interests.”
The “illegal conduct” of OPEC “is also intended to influence the American Presidential and Congressional elections of 2008 by destabilizing the economy to further their anti-Western and anti-Christian agendas.
“In short, the recent huge calculated increase in the price of gasoline and petroleum products, which is the result of per se violations of the antitrust laws, is part of a calculated strategy to advance the constituent members of OPEC’s latent war against Western democratic interests.”
OPEC’s “conspiracy” against the West includes “agreed-upon limits and restrictions on the production of oil and other petroleum products by OPEC’s 13 member nations,” which “dramatically” increase the price of gasoline and have brought the economy of the U.S. and the West “to its economic knees,” according to Freedom Watch.
The lawsuit asks the court to rule that OPEC’s actions constitute “an unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce,” and to order any “legal or equitable relief that this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.”
Interview: Two Christians Say It's Better Not to be Emergent
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080606/32714_Interview:_Two_Christians_Say_It%5C's_Better_Not_to_be_Emergent.htm
"I am a pastor. And I am not emergent," writes Kevin DeYoung, pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Mich., at the beginning of Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be).
DeYoung and co-author Ted Kluck, a member of the Reformed church, have just released a book that offers Christians both a theological and "on-the-street" perspective on the emerging church. While cautioning against the more liberal end of the emerging church movement, the authors also show how they've come to embrace their more traditional evangelical roots and most importantly, the truths about Jesus and Scripture.
These two 30-somethings have not joined the emergent scene, but many young Christians have as they rebel against the "religious right" and adopt an it's-all-relative attitude. And what the authors want to present is that you can be passionate about Jesus Christ and not be emergent, and the evangelical church is not as dire as emergent Christians might lead you to think.
Questions for Kluck
CP: What qualities make you emergent or what is it about you and your church that should place you in the emergent category?
Kluck: It was one of those titles that is a little bit playful. We’re not emergent obviously. “By Two Guys Who Should Be” sort of refers to our demographic. I think reading a lot of this emergent literature and going to some emergent services, we really realized that this movement mostly targeted at guys like this – white, suburban, yuppies, 30-something, college-educated guys. For a movement that I guess promises this unchecked creativity and diversity, what we found was in fact a not very diverse population. “By Two Guys Who Should Be” refers to at least on paper, we hit that demographic.
CP: How did the idea for the book come about with your pastor?
Kluck: For us, I think it happened like it happens for a lot of people in the emergent church in that a few years ago, these books were being passed around our congregation – Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian, Rob Bell’s Velvit Elvis, these kind of landmark emergent texts. I was reading them with an open mind – “hey, what can we learn from this? What are you guys all about?” At the end of the day, I think a number of theological red flags became apparent even to a guy like myself with no theological training. Kevin and I just realized it might be helpful to have a book in this conversation that was written by younger guys, in a more readable man-on-the-street presentation. I think the only book at that time that was out kind of as a caution to the emergent church would be D.A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church which is a really good book but it’s a really tough read. It’s pretty Ph.D-ish.
CP: Can you describe your own personal journey from being dissatisfied or disillusioned with the church you grew up in, experimenting with the emergent church movement, and ultimately going back to your traditional church? What did you conclude about the emerging church movement?
Kluck: I grew up in a Christian home, in the Midwest, a conservative Christian area. I went to Taylor University which is a Christian college. I think the emergent church really resonates with kids like myself who’ve been in the Christian “bubble” their whole life. I think for kids like that, the sexiness, the rebellion of the emergent church is attractive. Any time you’re in an institution for that long, you self critique it and that could be healthy. I think when I was reading a lot of these emergent texts, I felt they’re right – the evangelical church doesn’t seem to care about the poor, doesn’t seem to care about social justice. A lot of what they wrote in those areas really resonated with me.
Now … I was coming to realize just the importance of doctrine, importance of what is the Gospel, how can I really articulate what I believe, the Gospel has to be more than living like Jesus or social outreach. It has to involve Christ paying the penalty for our sins. In that sense I was really starting to appreciate our church’s solid teaching on that. I was also realizing that our church was a lot more diverse than I gave it credit for. A lot of people in our congregation doing a lot of social outreach and social justice type stuff that I think I hadn’t give them credit for in the past. Questioning the emergent movement allowed me to appreciate my church.
CP: You described in the book about a time your friend offered you an opportunity to create a church together and then at some point you decided not to continue with it. Can you describe that moment why you decided not to go with that?
Kluck: I didn’t want to give up all that I had at our church – really solid biblical teaching, a gospel-centered approach to ministry, the diversity of families and people I’ve become friends with, older friends and young friends – to give that up and do church in a living room with four couples that looked and sounded a lot like us was not appealing.
The emergent church is big on breaking down the pastor-flock relationship in favor of just an ongoing conversation between people. Something I really always appreciated about church is the pastor-flock relationship. I’ve been fortunate to have had some really good pastors in my life and men who have studied the scriptures and studied a lot more than I have. I realized those are the kind of people I want to be learning from and that’s not to say conversation and questioning can’t be good but I just didn’t want conversation to be where my family and I ended up church-wise for a long time. I don’t have a problem with the different ways emergent folks want to do church but it wasn’t where I saw us landing long-term.
CP: You said you knew what you were against – “the evangelical cheesiness” – but didn’t have a clue what you were for. Do you find many people today in that same state? Just a bunch of people rebelling against organized religion but not really knowing where to go from there?
Kluck: I think that’s where a lot of the emergent church is at. They’re against the religious right, all those bad pictures of Christianity that they’ve seen. But I don’t think they know what they’re for. They just know they’re against that. part of what we wanted to illustrated in why we’re not emergent, we really wanted that book to be an encouragement for local church pastors who maybe don’t refer to themselves as futurists or revolutionaries or transformational change architects but just do good solid gospel-centered ministry and outreach in their communities. And I think there are a lot of churches like that. It really gave me the hope and the encouragement that wow, evangelical church isn’t as dire as the emergent authors would like you to think.
CP: You say you need truth, you need to know Christ died and rose again and that decisions can be made based on Scripture. Many people today also show a desire to know truth but they seem to think it’s impossible to know it so they have this “it’s all relative” attitude. Why do you think they’ve come to that conclusion?
Kluck: I think they’ve come to that conclusion because it’s easier to come to that conclusion. If there’s no truth, then there’s no demands on how we live, what we do with our time, how do we honor God, how do we grow in holiness and sanctification. If there’s no truth, we can’t handle the authority of Scripture, then really everything’s negotiable. Culturally, I think that’s a message that the culture likes to hear because it takes away in a sense the Gospel, the cross and it doesn’t make any demands of our character.
CP: You indicated this in your book, but do you feel there’s an over generalization of people groups such as evangelicals not caring about the poor and pushing right wing politics as you mentioned and also on the emergent side, that they all listen to U2 and reject absolute truth?
Kluck: I suppose there is. We really tried our best to read and interact of emergent as we could for this book so that we could avoid over generalizing ourselves. I think hopefully something else you come away with from the book is that we’re not a spectrum. Not everyone who calls themselves emergent is throwing out the authority of Scirpture, the atonement, the existence of hell or all these core theological issues. I mean some are but there’s a broad spectrum and a lot of guys like Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball are just changing the way they do church to reach postmoderns which I think is essentially fine as long as the Gospel is there. We didn’t want to make the same mistake in terms of broad generalization.
CP: You and Pastor Kevin stressed several times in the book that you’re writing this critique of the emergent church as Christians and you want to do it lovingly. Why was it so important for you to emphasize that, because of the countless debates and arguments going on about the postmodern churches?
Kluck: Yeah, and I really hate that. I really feel like I was probably the last guy who would ever write a book like this just because I hate the Internet message board debates and I really saw myself writing a controversial book. In a sense I think it’s just because of our personalities but also I think there’s something unique about Christians critiquing or challenging other Christians. There’s definitely biblical precedent for that but I think it needs to be done in a humble and loving way. That was our goal. We probably failed at times but that was definitely what we shot for.
CP: When I look at the younger generation of believers I see a side that’s rejecting the all things traditional about the church but also a side that’s trying to get back the traditions, the doctrine and Scripture. How do you view it?
Kluck: I agree with you. We definitely see it in our church. A lot of it again has to do with context. Where we’re at physically here in East Lansing, we’re literally across the street from Michigan State which is a big secular university. It seems like the kids that come to URC (University Reformed Church) from State they really don’t want postmodernism. They get liberal, postmodern thought five days a week in their classroom. It’s not necessarily exciting for them to look for that in a church. They really want traditional, they want hymns that have a theology behind them, they want expositional preaching from the pulpit. So I really do think, just anecdotally where we are, we see that.
CP: What do you want to really highlight from your writings in the book?
Kluck: Encouragement for local churches that are faithfully preaching the Gospel that don’t get written about because I think there are a lot of them.
_______
Questions for DeYoung
CP: You note that emergent Christians will say that no one speaks for the emerging movement and that no one speaks for anyone else in that movement. Is that why nobody can really define emergent and those who try to have such trouble defining it?
DeYoung: That’s certainly one of the reasons. They like to call it a conversation. The nature of a conversation is more ambiguous, anamorphis, and when their statement of faith for emergent village says they don’t believe in statements of faith that makes it very difficult to [identify] what are these folks really about? I think there’s enough overlapping themes to try to speak of it as a movement but because it’s a conversation, because emergent by definition doesn’t want to be codified, they don’t like systematic theology, it becomes very difficult to say “here’s this group of people and they believe this thing.”
CP: You did suggest that emergent leaders write up a statement identifying what they believe. I see the need for that, but even evangelicals these days seem to be having a problem with writing statements to identify themselves – like the evangelical manifesto that recently came out. Do you think Christians overall are having problems identifying Christianity and how do you feel statements of faith can be effective for the emerging church?
DeYoung: Certainly there’s a lot of difficulty with definition in what is an evangelical and even what is a Christian and is it to be doctrinally defined. I don’t expect that the emerging leaders are going to read our book and say “I guess we better drop a statement.” But they seem to revel in ambiguity and slippery, in my opinion, on a number of core issues. They admit to that in some of their books – “You think we’re being evasive? Well, we are. So we’re not going to tell exactly what we believe about hell or what we believe about inclusivism vs. exclusivism and the uniqueness of Christ. We’re not going to weigh in on these debates about the inerrancy of Scripture or we’re not going to make a pronouncement about homosexuality.” Now I understand that people can be confused and we all have issues that we don’t quite understand but these are some pretty key issues and if you’re key leaders and teachers, whether that’s what you want to call yourself or not, it seems to me that it would be wise and helpful for the church to speak with more clarity on some of these issues.
CP: And doesn’t the younger generation want that kind of clarity especially when there’s all this ongoing debate on moral issues?
DeYoung: My experience is that you’re right. Young people do want that. We’re right across the street from Michigan State University. And at least the students we come in contact with, they’re tired of getting the response of squishiness in their classes. They want to know “What do you believe?” Even people in our church doesn’t believe in every single thing that I believe or preach but I think for the most part, if you can do it in a way that’s gracious and winsome, they’ll appreciate it and say “Well, at least know what this guy thinks and I know where he stands on this issue.” I think there’s a way to be clear and dogmatic that isn’t unnecessarily offensive and harsh to people. Just say “Hey, here’s what we believe, here’s where we stand. What do you think?” And we’ll still love each other.
CP: In the book, you say that the more you learn about the emergent church, the harder it is to swallow. What’s most difficult of the movement to swallow?
DeYoung: I’ll just mention two or three. Probably most difficult is the emergent view of the Gospel. There are more and more books coming out like this that explain the Gospel without putting at the center of it the substitutionary atonement for our sins on the cross. So the Gospel becomes this message about a broken world and Jesus as the great example, he died on the cross as an example of suffering for what he believed in and showing how to overcome evil in our own life and evil in the world; here’s an invitation to follow Jesus and bring about this new world and this shalom. That sounds like a great message but it’s missing the offense of the cross, it’s missing the fact that we can’t obey God’s commands, we need a savior, substitute for our sins. So I see an emergent Gospel that is more law than Gospel, it’s more imperative about what we need to do and not first of all indicative statements of what God has done for us.
One other concern I have is the emergent view of knowledge. They’ve taken the postmodern view of knowledge that God is so infinite and so beyond us that to put Him in human words or to describe Him in human language is by its very nature heretical. That sounds humble but it undercuts God’s ability to reveal Himself in the Scriptures – that He is always a god who wants to speak to us, who wants to reveal Himself to us. Now, absolutely we cannot understand God exhaustively but God is sovereign, God is good, God wants to go public with His glory. So He has explained to us in the Scripture, through Jesus Christ what He’s like and we can know it.
CP: You talk about the role of a pastor in the book. Ted had mentioned that he actually appreciates the pastor flock relationship and he came to realize that after experiencing the emergent church and how the pastor is actually more on a conversational level with the attendants. Where does the emergent church go wrong on the pastor role?
DeYoung: My concern is some of the emergent leaders have said that our new model of leadership is Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. She’s a woman, she’s lost and she’s confused, she’s a fellow traveler. I’m all for pastors being authentic, real and not trying to be up on a pedestal. But biblical language is still a pastor, a shepherd under shepherds who are governing and caring for and tending this flock. That imagery is there for a reason. The shepherd-sheep imagery is all throughout the Old and the New Testament, not only God with His people but God’s appointed leaders with His people. I think there needs to be times in the church for facilitation and conversation but there also needs to be times for heralding, that’s Paul’s word for preaching, where you declare a message. It’s not just a conversation, it’s a pronouncement.
CP: What’s the one thing you’d like to highlight for believers from the book?
DeYoung: We end the book by talking about the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation. What I think the church needs to recover is … a fully orbed view of what church is supposed to be. You look at those seven letters and they’re all similar in that Jesus commends the churches for some things and then he’s critical of some other things. And the emergents have been good at pointing out Ephesus’ faults – that’s the first church. They had good doctrine, they had good ethics, they worked hard but they didn’t love each other. The emergent church says “there are churches in America that don’t love, don’t care about the lost, don’t care about loving the poor.” That’s a good critique but what they tend to do is ignore all the things Jesus commended of that same church – that they were intolerant or err, that they hated the things Jesus hated. You don’t hear the emergent church talking about Jesus hating or Jesus intolerant.
I think we need a view, to look at all the seven churches in Revelation. What are their weaknesses, what are their strength. We need to have a bigger view of the church that’s more than just kingdom talk and inclusion and welcome. It’s got edges, it’s got doctrine, has truth and delineates between falsehood. We really need a church that reflects the whole character of God – God who is truth and grace; God who is holy and kind; tender and sovereign. We need a church that reflects God in all of His diverse excellencies and not a lopsided church.
Gov. Sebelius Caught Fabricating Story to Cover for Tiller Party
http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion07277.shtml
WICHITA, Kansas, (christiansunite.com) -- Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has been caught fabricating a story to cover for her soiree last spring with late-term abortionist George Tiller. Today, her office admits that the reimbursement for the dinner party that took place on April 9, 2007, was made only ten days ago, on May 23, 2008, nearly a month after an Operation Rescue staff member made an Open Records request on April 28, 2008, for receipts related to the event.
The Open Records request was finally honored on May 23, 2008, the same day that the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus supposedly reimbursed the State of Kansas for the event.
"It took Sebelius and her cronies a whole month to figure out a cover story for the Tiller party once they realized that news of it was out," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "There is still not one shred of evidence to back up her fairy tale. The accuracy and authenticity of anything they produce now cannot be trusted.
"Our source, who was at the party, emphasized to us that this was not a prize, but was a special invitation dinner to honor Tiller and his staff. Until evidence says otherwise, we stand by our source's word."
Operation Rescue released photos last week of the secret party that Sebelius held in Tiller's honor on April 9, 2008, at Cedar Crest, the official governor's mansion. Sebelius told reporters that the dinner was a prize that Tiller won as highest bidder at a 2005 Torch Dinner fundraiser that benefited the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus PAC, a leftist pro-abortion group. She said had no control over who the dinner prize went to. Operation Rescue never believed that cover story.
Now with the latest news that the dinner purchased nearly three years ago was only paid for 10 days ago, Sebelius' story is even harder to believe.
"It is obvious to us that we have just caught Gov. Sebelius lying to the people of Kansas," said Newman. "This shows how far she is willing to go to cover up for her lucrative relationship with Tiller."
About Operation Rescue
Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation. Operation Rescue recently made headlines when it bought and closed an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas and has become the voice of the pro-life activist movement in America. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the pre-born and stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates.
California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot - The People Will Decide
http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion07279.shtml
SACRAMENTO, (christiansunite.com) -- Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California's Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman."
"The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage's legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign," said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. "We're so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society."
In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.
"The vast majority of research continues to state that California's voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court's decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago." stated Prentice.
California Family Council (CFC) is a family policy council with offices in Sacramento and Riverside. Ron Prentice, CEO chairs the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.
CA Clerk in Trouble Over Gay Marriage Views
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/390350.aspx
CBNNews.com - A court clerk faced harsh criticism Tuesday after she made her own moves to denounce California's support of same-sex marriage.
Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett said June 5 that the court house where she worked would no longer conduct any weddings, in order to avoid marrying homosexuals.
She made the announcement a day after the California Supreme Court ruled that not allowing gays to marry would violate discrimination laws. Supporters of the ruling are now calling for Barnett's removal by the Board of Supervisors.
In a meeting Tuesday with the board, one man called the clerk a religious terrorist and urged her to resign. Some county officials also disapproved of her decision.
"I must say that I'm appalled and ashamed that an elected official of my home county is dictating the actions of civil servants based on her religious tenets," a board member said. "I hope that the board will immediately request a full investigation of Mrs. Barnett's actions. It seems clear that in her actions and e-mails to faith-based organizations that she's crossed the line separating church and state."
County Counsel Bernard Barmann says the supervisors have no authority to punish Barnett because she is an independently elected official.
"State law provides that the county clerk is the commissioner of civil marriages," he said. "These duties are independent of the Board of Supervisors."
Conservatives have rallied behind Barnett, agreeing that the recent same-sex marriage ruling should be nullified.
Backers at the meeting asked the counsel to pass an order in Kern County saying "no employee...no elected or appointed official...may issue a marriage license to any couple other than a statutorily qualified man and woman." Supervisors said that would be illegal.
Still, individuals stood firmly behind Barnett.
"I support the county clerk 100 percent, " Cary Brown said, adding that legalizind gay marriage is the start of a slippery slope.
Another supporter said that most of the people in Kern County are against California's gay marriage ruling and that homosexuals are "definitely in the minority."
So far, the county has not announced how it will handle Barnett's actions, or if will take steps towards refusing same-sex marriages.
The California Supreme Court announced last week that gay marriages can begin in the state June 17.
Liberal Group Announces Mass Expansion
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/390165.aspx
CBNNews.com - The American Civil Liberties Union is conducting its largest fundraising campaign ever.
The liberal group announced Monday plans to raise $335 million for a mass expansion into generally conservative states. The money will be used for social justice efforts like homosexual rights in Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico and Tennessee.
"The purpose is to build a civil liberties infrastructure in the middle of the country, where battleground states are often under-resourced and our efforts are most needed," Executive Director Anthony Romero said.
He added that the ACLU will focus on police brutality, rights for homosexuals and immigrants, and opposition to the death penalty.
Opponents of the group say no good will come out of the expansion.
"[The ACLU] already has been an anti-family, and in some cases anti-religious, liberty and anti-life organization," said Mathew Staver, founder of the Christian group Liberty Counsel. "Any future expansion would simply increase its destructive presence and be concerning to people of conservative, moral values."
Already the ACLU has raised $258 million over the past year. The fundraising campaign marks the group's largest in its 88-year existence.
Bush, Europe, warn Iran over nuclear program
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080610/twl-eu-us-summit-3cd7efd.html
BRDO PRI KRANJU, Slovenia (AFP) - US President George W. Bush and European leaders warned Iran Tuesday of new sanctions if Tehran refuses to halt a nuclear programme the West suspects to be a covert atomic weapons drive.
"Iran with a nuclear weapon would be incredibly dangerous for world peace," Bush said at a joint press conference after his final US-European Union summit. "Now's the time for all of us to work together to stop them."
The US president dismissed talk of divisions between hardline Washington and Europe, which plans a new package of diplomatic and economic incentives if Iran will verifiably halt uranium enrichment.
"We're on the same page," he declared.
Bush expressed sympathy with Israeli talk of military action against the Islamic republic if diplomacy failed.
"You'd be a little nervous too if a leader in your neighbourhood announced that he'd like to destroy you," he said, a reference to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated predictions that Israel would be wiped off the map.
But Bush omitted past warnings that he has not ruled out using force.
"Now's the time for there to be strong diplomacy," he said, as the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, prepared to travel to Tehran with a new incentives plan.
In an apparent admission that the issue might not be resolved during his presidency, Bush said: "I'll leave behind a multilateral framework to work this issue."
But he added: "I'm hopeful we can get it done," said the US president, who, with just seven months left in his term, played down lasting trans-Atlantic rifts on a range of diplomatic dossiers including climate change.
Bush reiterated his position that any international environmental accord that did not bind major emerging economies such as India and China could not work.
But he surprised his audience when he added: "I think we can actually get an agreement on global climate change during my presidency."
Bush was speaking on the first full day of a farewell European tour that will take him to Germany, Italy, the Vatican, France and Britain.
His tone was not entirely conciliatory. Bush publicly restated the US position that Turkey ought to become a member of the European Union -- a view sharply opposed by Berlin and Paris.
"We strongly believe Turkey ought to be a member of the EU, and we appreciate Turkey's record of democratic and free market reforms and working to realize its EU aspirations," Bush said.
On Iran, a joint US-EU statement warned Tehran to freeze uranium enrichment -- which can be a key step towards a nuclear weapon -- or face "additional measures". And he pledged trans-Atlantic cooperation to tighten the squeeze on the Islamic republic's banks.
Tehran rejects Western charges that its nuclear programme hides an atomic weapons quest, but is under three rounds of UN sanctions for refusing to halt enrichment.
"It's their choice to make: They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with all of us if they verifiably suspend their enrichment programme," said Bush. "We'll find new sanctions if need be."
The half-day summit also took up unrest in Zimbabwe, the future of democracy in Lebanon, the international food crisis, efforts to revive the faltering Middle East peace process, and the change of power in Cuba.
After Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa said no one country had the answer to every issue and that there would not always be US-EU harmony, Bush emphasized: "One country can't solve all problems, I fully agree with that."
Many observers agree that relations between the United States and Europe Union have improved since the early days of the Iraq war.
Opinion polls do however show that Europeans look forward to the change of US administration, especially if Democratic candidate Barack Obama takes power.
"Make no mistake about it, there will be differences on how to approach different issues, and that's okay," said Bush.
"Whoever succeeds me as president will understand the importance of the EU."
France warns Ireland on EU treaty 'No' vote
http://euobserver.com/9/26299?rss_rk=1
French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has warned Ireland about the consequences of voting "No" in Thursday's referendum, saying the Irish would be the "first victim" if they reject the EU treaty.
Speaking on France's RTL radio, Mr Kouchner said that a "No" vote would be met by "gigantic incomprehension" in the rest of Europe.
Mr Kouchner alluded to the Irish being ungrateful about what the country has received from the EU since its membership in 1973.
Ireland has strongly benefitted from EU farm aid and structural aid over the years and has managed to turn itself into one of the most prosperous member states in the EU.
With the latest poll showing only a narrow gap between the "Yes" and the "No" side, politicians in larger member states particularly cannot understand why the treaty may be defeated.
"I believe the first victim of an eventual no would be the Irish. They have benefitted more than others," said Mr Kouchner.
"Yes, they're not happy because maybe nobody told them that Europe is confronting the rest of the world and that to have advantages for themselves, for the Irish...well, Europe has to develop, has to go in the direction of the Treaty of Lisbon," he said.
"It would be very, very, very troubling...that we could not count on the Irish, who themselves have counted a lot on Europe's money,"
The comments are the most outspoken from such a high-ranking politician on the issue, with member states so far careful not to be seen as interfering in Ireland's vote.
Referring to a rejection of the treaty - which needs to be ratified by all member states to come into force - Mr Kouchner said this was "beginning to be envisaged" almost everywhere.
But he said that France, which holds the EU's six-month rotating presidency from July, would continue with implementation of the treaty anyway while trying to persuade Ireland, which already voted twice on the bloc's Nice Treaty, to "put this treaty back on the drawing board."
His comments mirror those of French Green MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit who told Le Monde on Monday "Why say yes to something that forces them to share what they get with the new EU members from Eastern Europe? The basic reaction is to protect one's own interests."
"A referendum must have consequences: if we say 'No', we leave Europe," he added.
Ireland is the only country to vote on the EU treaty and is feeling the strong pressure from the rest of Europe to secure a "Yes" vote. All the main political parties support the charter but the outcome is likely to hinge on turnout, with a low voter show at the ballot box aiding the anti-treaty camp.
Voting has already started in some part of the country on Monday. Five islands – with a total electorate of 745 people – off the coast of County Donegal traditionally vote early to avoid bad weather delay. The defence forces voted by post last week.
The main polls close at 10 pm on Thursday (12 June), but ballot counting will take place the next day.
Antisemitic once-great Britain
http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2482
The United Kingdom, which in its heydays of empire was one of the major early facilitators of the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland, and of the return of that land to its people, is today a hotbed of antisemitic anti-Israel sentiment.
This belief was voiced by Israeli ambassador to England, Ron Prosor, in a scathing article published Tuesday in the British paper the Daily Telegraph.
Prosor said he was concerned that "the most extreme elements of the debate" have "been allowed to hijack" mainstream thought on Israel, adding, "I implore the British public to prevent the radical fringe from monopolizing British-Israeli discourse.
"It is vital that British values of fair play and even-handedness are brought to the debate."
Prosor's piece comes in the wake of a May 28, 2008 call by the British University and College Union (UCU) for its members to "consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation [sic] with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating."
In his initial response to the call, Prosor said "the reoccurring calls for an academic boycott on Israel over the past few years are another attempt to delegitimize Israel both in Academia and the professional British associations. The elements pushing for this boycott are only out to defame Israel at all costs."
British antipathy towards Israel has been fed for decades by a media in that country that is shamelessly biased in favor of the Arab side of the Israeli-"Palestinian" conflict.
Once with lawmakers and mainstream clergy solidly in favor of the biblically-foretold restoration of Israel, Britain has - since the 1920s - increasingly betrayed its commitment to the Jewish people, first stealing great chunks of the land granted to the Jews for a homeland by the League-of-Nations and then avidly working to remove Jews from territory Israel regained in wars of self-defense against hostile Arabs.
Only 17% of Israelis trust PM Olmert, 15% political parties
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5337
A poll released Tuesday, June 10, by the Democracy Institute, Jerusalem, registered a steep decline in the average Israeli’s faith in his ruling institutions. The military wins the highest marks - 71%; political parties the lowest – 15%.
Nearly 90% consider Israel to be polluted by corrupt government. Less than 50% have faith in the Supreme Court of Justice compared with 61% in 2007. Thirty percent believe the media is the foremost defender of democracy. Confidence in the police has dropped from 41% to 33%.
Crises threaten to sink Israeli government
http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2481
The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could be pushed off its increasingly shaky pedestal sooner rather than later, as the opposition calls for the dissolution of the Knesset and the Israeli public registers an all time high in its mistrust of Israel's politicians.
According to poll results published in the Israeli press Tuesday, fully 90 percent of citizens believe corruption taints the country, and 51 percent believe you have to be corrupt to become a successful politician here.
Meanwhile the center-right Likud Party of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that it plans, within the week, to submit a bill for the dissolution of the Knesset (Israel's parliament).
Ynetnews quoted Likud MK Silvan Shalom as informing the faction that "on June 18 we will bring forth a motion calling for the dissolution of the Knesset in order to hurry the coming election in the most dignified way possible…
"The decision has been made," Shalom said. "Olmert's government has reached the end of the road. All it cares about now is political survival."
Olmert should take his leave "in an appropriate manner.
"We shouldn’t have to see a government, a prime minister, resign disgracefully," Shalom added.
On June 6 the Labor Party of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced that it will support a bill calling for the Knesset's disbanding.
Labor is a senior partner in the coalition government.
Analysts say that even with the successful passing of a bill, it could still take months before the dissolution actually takes place.
November 2008 is currently seen as the earliest likely month for elections for a new Israeli government.
First test of Israel’s Tamir short-range missile interceptor Wednesday
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5338
The Tamir interceptor, which are designed to kill artillery shells and short-range rockets, undergoes its first test Wednesday, June 11. Its object is to find out if its response time can be shortened against Palestinian Qassam missiles fired from Gaza or Hizballah’s short-range rockets launched from Lebanon.
These announcements are usually made after the fact. This time the test launch was disclosed with the location of the testing site in southern Israel in advance, giving the Palestinian Hamas a chance to monitor the system’s performance from Gaza.
DEBKAfile’s defense sources report that prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak have been pushing Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, hard to hurry up and develop the anti-missile system quickly – and even offered personnel bonuses for shortening the time table. An operational short-range missile interceptor would provide them with yet another excuse to avoid conducting a major military operation to break the back of Hamas’ missile campaign from Gaza.
However, US defense experts were pessimistic about the Iron Dome’s prospects when the Senate Intelligence committee discussed Israel’s efforts to develop a short-range missile interceptor, DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report.
Aside from its high cost - $100,000 compared with $60-80,000 for fabricating a primitive Qassam - some experts doubt whether the Iron Dome can be operational by its target date of 2010. They think 2016 is the more realistic timeline.
Furthermore, according to Western defense experts, the air speed of a Palestinian missile fired from Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza is 200 meters per second; it covers the 1,800 meters from Beit Hanoun to the edge of Sderot in 9 seconds, whereas the Iron Dome’s interceptor needs 15 seconds to locate, determine the flight path; it could engage the incoming Qassam missile only 6 seconds after it explodes on target.
The Iron Dome’s interceptor is even less effective against Hizballah’s Katyusha rockets, which are launched from a greater distance in Lebanon; the Israeli system would need 30 seconds to intercept the incoming rocket which would slam into its target in 9 seconds.
The Israeli announcement does not specify whether the Tamir is to be launched by the Iron Dome or some other launcher.
Cabinet debates Gaza raid as more rockets fall
http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2479
Once again Tuesday the Israeli Cabinet talked about how to respond to the unrelenting rocket fire launched from Gaza against Israeli citizens in the south of the country.
And for yet another day, Kassam rockets and mortar shells bombarded the Jewish state as Gaza's "Palestinians" attempted to increase the number of civilian casualties they could add to their growing list.
According to the Israeli media, a majority of Israel's ministers want to see some form of military operation take place on the ground in Gaza, but political considerations and timing continue to keep them from ordering the Israel Defense Forces to go in.
Two major factors appear to be endangering the lives and limbs of Negev residents: Whether or not to agree to a ceasefire and thereby stop attacking the terrorist organizations operating in Gaza; and whether or not to demand the release of abducted IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who is being held in an unknown location in the Strip.
"Israel must launch a large-scale operation in Gaza against Hamas and the rest of the terror organizations," Ynetnews quoted Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim as saying prior to Tuesday's cabinet meeting. "Everyone understands that any ceasefire would only be temporary. Hamas is under pressure. The blockade did its job," he added.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak reportedly favors a "medium" strength operation into Gaza to "make the 'Palestinians' pay before Israel goes along with any ceasefire plan.
Deputy Prime Minister and Shas chairman Eli Yishai said there was no way Israel could agree to a virtual ceasefire agreement, without Shalit.
"We must see what alternatives the IDF proposes. We must act in Gaza; the question is when and to what extent," Yishai said.
As for the terrorists themselves, they were reportedly unconcerned Tuesday about any major IDF operation against them.
The Israelis know that the terror groups' response to any such move would be severe, unnamed Hamas officials told the Israeli press.
Furthermore, with all of Israel's dilly-dallying on the question of whether or not to go in, the Arabs have had plenty of time to prepare them a painful reception.
Ministers favor wide-scale Gaza op
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659695155&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The long-delayed decision whether to accept an Egyptian-brokered cease fire with Hamas or step up military operations against the Gaza Strip is expected to come before the security cabinet Wednesday, where a majority of the ministers are believed to be in favor of tough military action.
The meeting was preceded by a Tuesday discussion between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak in which the various scenarios were reportedly discussed.
IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Yuval Diskin also took part in that meeting, from which no details were provided.
One government source said that while Olmert and Livni favor stepped-up military action before agreeing to a cease fire, Barak wants to send his top adviser Amos Gilad back to Egypt one more time for additional clarifications before taking action.
Although technically Olmert, Barak and Livni could take action on their own without seeking approval from the security cabinet, the source said that in the current political climate, where whatever decision Olmert takes would be criticized as having been influenced by his legal and political problems, he wanted the decision to have the backing of the security cabinet.
A number of cabinet ministers came out in favor of a widespread action before Tuesday's weekly cabinet meeting, with Construction and Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim, a close Olmert ally, saying "Israel must launch an operation against Hamas," adding that the country could not risk letting the Islamic group rearm itself "before the next round."
Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann advised the ministers at the cabinet meeting (held on Tuesday rather than Sunday because of the Shavuot holiday) against talking publicly about whether or not there would be an operation, saying that the constant discussion on the matter reminded him of how Hassidim "wait for the messiah."
Barak also advocated taking a much lower public profile on the matter.
"When the moment comes, we will act," he said.
"The defense establishment is dealing with it, and the ministers should listen to what is being said about what can, and cannot, be accomplished through the various actions."
Speaking to government ministers about the status of peace negotiations with the Palestinians, Olmert said that progress in the area was critically important now given the proximity of the US presidential elections.
"One thing is certain: This administration is especially friendly," the prime minister said.
"We cannot miss taking advantage of this opportunity. Therefore the element of time holds special importance. We must not lose this. [Things won't necessarily be the same] with the next government."
"We are working with the aim of advancement," Olmert told his ministers. "We don't yet have formal, written documents, but we're working with the intent of making progress towards building a foundation for a solution, within the framework of the time-frame we presented.
"Of course there are arguments, long discussions, but this issue is important for me."
Olmert and US President George W. Bush have both said they hoped that a framework agreement could be reached by the end of 2008.
"We don't know what will happen with the next US government," Olmert told the ministers.
"I am operating on the assumption that every American president will preserve the special friendship with Israel that is built on mutual values and interests."
Olmert said, without elaborating, that there are various mutual commitments with the current administration that may not "roll over" to the next administration.
Turning to the Syrian track, which is expected to resume with indirect talks in Turkey this week, Olmert told the cabinet he would have been happy had the announcement last month of indirect talks with the Syrians been accompanied by an expression of readiness on Lebanon's part to enter into bilateral talks with Israel as well.
"I see much advantage in that." Olmert said.
During the meeting, Olmert also took Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz to task for his comments that Israel might attack Iran if it carried on with its nuclear weapons program, saying that in these matters there is need for a great deal of diplomatic action, "and as little talk as possible."
Olmert said that Iran featured prominently in his talks with Bush last week in Washington, and that there was "understanding, agreement and coordination" on this matter between Jerusalem and Washington.
"Every day that passes we are moving another step forward," Olmert said. "That doesn't mean that in a very short time it will be possible to overcome all the problems, but there are efforts, common thinking, determination, readiness, and agreement on the ways we need to act."
Kidnapped IDF soldier pleads for his life
http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2478
Two years of torment were heightened again this week for the family of an Israeli soldier kidnapped and held by Hamas as a bargaining chip with which to secure the release by Israel of hundreds of "Palestinian" prisoners.
According to the father of Corporal Gilad Schalit, the Ramallah-based carter Center Sunday delivered a letter written - apparently recently - by his son, in which the 21-year-old pleaded with Israel's government to do everything possible to free him.
"I dream of coming home," Schalit reportedly wrote, adding that he is in poor health and that he hoped his country would not abandon him to his fate.
Schalit was wounded by his kidnappers, who broke through the fence surrounding Gaza on June 25, 2006, killing two IDF soldiers and wounding a number of other troops before scuttling back into the Strip with their captive.
A year ago, Hamas released an audio tape on which Schalit said he was in need of protracted hospitalization due to his deteriorating health.
More recently Jimmy Carter, a former US president with a reputation for giving terrorists kid-glove treatment, told Schalit's family Hamas had informed him that the young man was in good health.
Carter is believed to have facilitated the handover of Schalit's letter pursuant to his aim of putting a "more human" face on Hamas.
Syrian deputy FM: Talks with Israel still far away
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1212659698145
Syria will not hold direct talks with Israel until Jerusalem recognizes Damascus' "requirements" for a peace deal, a report carried by Reuters quoted a senior Syrian official as saying Tuesday.
"I think it is too early to resume direct talks. There are conditions," Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal al-Mekdad told reporters, despite Syria's reiterations that his country was willing to negotiate with the Jewish state without preconditions.
Mekdad was referring to a promise allegedly given by then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin to then Syrian president Hafez al Assad, that Israel would eventually cede the entire Golan Heights to Syria.
The Golan was conquered in the Six Day War in 1967, after Syria used the strategic plateau as a vantage point to harass Israeli fishermen and farmers with small arms fire and occasional artillery in the days before the Six Day War.
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Syria invaded again, but was repelled after intense fighting, this time around losing even more territory.
In the early 1980, the Knesset approved a law which put the Golan Heights within Israeli jurisdiction, albeit without specifically using the word 'annexation.'
The UN does not recognize the Golan Law.
"I hope Israel responds to the requirements of peace, which are the end of the occupation of Palestine and the establishment of a Palestinian state, restoration of the Syrian Golan and pull out of remaining occupied Lebanese territory," Mekdad said.
He added that despite a joint declaration issued by Jerusalem, Damascus and Ankara two weeks ago to the effect that Turkey was mediating Israeli-Syrian negotiations, talks were "still in their infancy."
Jordan archaeologists unearth 'world's first church'
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080610132718.9c6r9ify&show_article=1
Archaeologists in Jordan have unearthed what they claim is the world's first church, dating back almost 2,000 years, The Jordan Times reported on Tuesday.
"We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from 33 AD to 70 AD," the head of Jordan's Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, Abdul Qader al-Husan, said.
He said it was uncovered under Saint Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to 230 AD, in Rihab in northern Jordan near the Syrian border.
"We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians -- the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ," Husan said.
These Christians, who are described in a mosaic as "the 70 beloved by God and Divine," are said to have fled persecution in Jerusalem and founded churches in northern Jordan, Husan added.
He cited historical sources which suggest they both lived and practised religious rituals in the underground church and only left it after Christianity was embraced by Roman rulers.
The bishop deputy of the Greek Orthodox archdiocese, Archimandrite Nektarious, described the discovery as an "important milestone for Christians all around the world."
Researchers recovered pottery dating back to between the 3rd and 7th centuries, which they say suggests these first Christians and their followers lived in the area until late Roman rule.
Inside the cave there are several stone seats which are believed to have been for the clergy and a circular shaped area, thought to be the apse.
There is also a deep tunnel which is believed to have led to a water source, the archaeologist added.
Rihab is home to a total of 30 churches and Jesus and the Virgin Mary are believed to have passed through the area, Husan said.
Iran warns against Israeli strike
http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2480
Israel will pay a "very painful price" for any attack that is launched against Iran's nuclear facilities, that country's defense minister reportedly warned at the weekend, further ratcheting up tension between the Tehran and Jerusalem.
Mostafa Mohammad Najjar was responding to a threat by Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, who was quoted in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot Friday as saying that if Iran continues its plan to develop nuclear weapons, Israel will attack it.
"The window of opportunity has closed," Mofaz, a former IDF chief of staff and defense minister said. "The sanctions are not effective. There will be no choice but to attack Iran to stop its nuclear program."
Along with political figures in Washington, including President George W. Bush, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his Republican opponent John McCain, Israel's leaders have repeatedly voiced their total unwillingness to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has both vowed to pursue nuclear power and to see Israel wiped off the map of the Middle East.
Observers anticipate that either the US or Israel will have to strike Iran before the end of the year.
Time, and other options, appear to have run out.
Bush Administration Says It Is Pushing Hard for Iraqi Military Agreement
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365424,00.html
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration on Tuesday said it is pushing hard for a military agreement with Iraq that will outline how U.S. forces operate in the long-run after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.
Iraqis, too, want the so-called status of forces agreement taken care of quickly, but several sticking points could keep negotiators from their goal of finalizing the document before July.
On the Iraqis' side, their concern is preventing a stance that provokes its militant, Shiite neighbor to the north: Iran. On the Americans' side, officials want to have as much freedom to pursue Al Qaeda and other forces opposed to the Iraqi government — including Iranian-affiliated forces.
"We're confident it can be achieved, and by the end of July deadline," David Satterfield, the State Department's top adviser on Iraq, said of the agreement.
Satterfield also bristled at suggestions that the talks might go on past July, a suggestion forwarded by a senior Bush administration official cited by The Associated Press. That source said it was "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend the existing United Nations mandate.
"It's doable, that's where our focus is, not on alternatives," Satterfield told reporters. "We're focused on plan A because we believe plan A can succeed. ... We think it's an achievable goal."
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe also dismissed the AP source, calling the assertion "Not accurate. We would like to see and the Iraqis would like to see an agreement. They have repeatedly said they do not want to be under a U.N. mandate for another year. Negotiations continue."
Iran's supreme leader this week brought up the agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, and Iraqi lawmakers lobbied Congress on Capitol Hill last week, expressing their fears that the agreement would set up permanent U.S. bases that could be used to carry out strikes against Mideast foes, including Iran.
Last Friday, a Sunni member of the Iraq Parliament Sheik Khalef al Ulayyan, expressed some of the concerns over the agreement while in Washington.
"The U.S. forces can arrest any Iraqis at any time whenever they want," he said, speaking in Arabic. "And the U.S. will maintain the right to attack any foreign countries, any neighboring countries from inside Iraq.
"When we look at this treaty we don't just think it's a treaty that affirms the occupation of Iraq, it's even worse. It looks like a treaty that will be the annexation of Iraq to the United States."
Shia MP Nadeem al-Jaberi called for total withdrawal of U.S. forces, and suggested the treaty would be meaningless if negotiated under an administration that will "be out of office within the next few months."
In a letter to Congress, more than 30 Iraqi Parliament members, many of whom are allied to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and Iran, rejected any agreement that is not "linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying America military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters."
Now Congress — led by anti-war Democrats — is demanding a say from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., and three others sent a scathing letter to Gates and Rice threatening to block war funding unless Congress is consulted.
But although the United States has negotiated similar status of forces agreements with 80 other nations, very few have gone to Congress for approval.
U.S. officials believe much of the criticism has been orchestrated by Iran through militant Shiite groups including Hezbollah in Lebanon, and al-Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran. Al-Sadr has called for weekly protests against the deal.
On Monday, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told al-Maliki, while visiting Tehran, that the presence of American forces was the "main obstacle" blocking Iraq's "progress and prosperity."
He told al-Maliki that Iraqis must "think of a solution to free" the country from American troops rather than seeking a way to extend their stay. Iran also fears that Iraq could be used as a launching pad for attacks on the neighboring country.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker last week sought to assure the Iraqis that Americans are not seeking permanent bases.
"I can tell you that we are not seeking permanent military bases in Iraq. That is just flatly untrue. Nor are we seeking to control Iraqi airspace. That is another kind of enduring myth," he told reporters.
Satterfield also disputed that Tuesday, saying Washington "does not think Iraq should be an arena, a platform for attacks on other states."
"We want to see Iraqi sovereignty strengthened, not weakened," Satterfield said.
He added that "parties outside Iraq" who demand respect for Iraqi sovereignty "should be sure they're respecting Iraq's sovereignty" — a clear reference to U.S. allegations that Iran arms and trains Shiite militants here.
Mindful of the political risks in striking such a deal, Iraq's government plans to ask parliament to ratify the agreement as the representative of the Iraqi people.
Much of the criticism centers around U.S. requests for long-term access to military bases, freedom of movement for American ground troops, authority to detain suspects and immunity for U.S. personnel including private contractors from prosecution in Iraqi courts.
Iraqi lawmakers said the Americans had submitted new proposals to address some of those concerns, but it was unclear if they would be enough to soften Iraqi opposition.
Deputy Prime Minister Bahram Saleh told reporters Tuesday that Iraq wanted to deepen its relationship with the United States "to serve our country, to preserve our independence and sovereignty from internal and external security challenges."
Without mentioning Iran, he said the agreement would not be "in any form a threat to others."
"Iraq also needs assurances from the neighboring countries to protect its sovereignty and stop any interference in its internal affairs," he added.
If the negotiations are not concluded by the end of the year, the U.N. mandate could be extended, although Crocker said: "My focus on this is more on getting it done right than done quick."
And a senior U.S. military official told FOX News that if there is no status of forces agreement, and the U.N. mandate is extended, he would have what he needed militarily to continue operating in Iraq. The official added that the United States would maintain control of forces there, and would not give the Iraqis full veto power carried out by U.S. military.
More Christians Arrested in Eritrea
http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion07280.shtml
(christiansunite.com) - Eritrean police arrested 34 evangelical Christians in the city of Keren on May 28, according to a June 2 report from Compass Direct.
The Christians, who are members of the Berhane Hiwet (Light of Life) Church, were meeting in a private home for prayer and fellowship.
All 24 men and 10 women present in the meetings were taken to prison, with their children left behind. The next day security officials transferred the women prisoners to the Adi-Abeyto Military Confinement facility on the outskirts of the capital city of Asmara.
Pray for the release of Eritrean Christians who are imprisoned for the sake of Christ (Acts 12:5). Ask God to strengthen and comfort their families. Pray that the Eritrean government will respect the rights of Christians to freely worship their Lord.
For more information on the persecution facing Eritrean Christians, go to www.persecution.net/country/eritrea.htm.
Sudan's Christian, Muslim Fighting Continues
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/383818.aspx
Recent fighting in southern Sudan has some fearing the civil war could be heating up again.
About 2 million people died in 20 years of fighting between the Christian south and Muslim north.
Now, a new outbreak in the town of Abiye threatens to destroy the peace.
United Nations special representative Ashraf Qazi recently toured what remains of the southern sudanese town of Abiye. Fighting erupted here when southern Sudanese troops attempted to seize the town from government forces.
"We have just returned from downtown city center, as it were, of Abyei and it doesn't exist anymore," he said. "It is totally charred, it is totally devastated and it's an absolutely human tragedy and it is something that must never happen again."
More than two decades of fighting between the Islamic government of the north and the predominantly Christian south ended when a peace agreement was signed three years ago.
The hope then was to prevent scenes like this. But many southerners say the Sudanese government has fallen short of delivering on its promises--including a share of the nation's oil wealth.
The Abye region is rich in oil--an estimated $670 million in oil revenue was believed generated here in 2006.
But the south hasn't seen any of that money because the sudanese government rejected an international determination that placed Abyei in the semi-autonomous south.
Now it's become a flashpoint that could cause the civil war to flare up again.
Many southern government leaders come from Abyei and insist the government acknowledge that the town and its oil wells belong to south Sudan.
The UN estimates at least 50,000 southern Sudanese have fled the region and are now internally displace because of the recent fighting.
Many had recently returned to Abyei after living for years in refugee camps in neighboring Kenya and Uganda. Now, they are displaced once again. Their time of peace and calm is replaced by the all too familiar experience of loss, and the fear that the violence may spread.'
No comments:
Post a Comment