A christian blog with a decidedly biblical perspective on the world and events around us. Look around, read, enjoy and feel free to comment. Interesting story, send us the info via our contact page. Subscribe by clicking here.
Subscribe to RSS
As I’ve been warning, Muhammed al-Baradei, seen as the leading “moderate, pro-democratic” leader in Egypt is negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood to form a national unity government. That doesn’t mean the negotiations will succeed but it gives a clear glimpse of what a post-Mubarak regime Egypt would mean.
As one shrewd analyst remarks, “al-Baradei being put in power by the Muslim Brotherhood is effectively like the `moderate’ Miqati being put in power [as prime minister] in Lebanon by Hizballah. What matters is that the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizballah are calling the shots.”
If you believe that al-Baradei, with no real political experience or any organized movement behind him, can dominate the Muslim Brotherhood, I have a bridge over the Nile I’ll sell you. But it’s even worse than that. It has been well-known in Egypt that much of al-Baradei’s presidential campaign has been run by the Brotherhood. He’s certainly not their puppet but to a considerable extent he is their pawn.
And for those of you who think that the Muslim Brotherhood is really a moderate group, here is one example of its rhetoric from Rajab Hilal Hamida, a member of the Brotherhood in Egypt’s parliament, who proves that you don’t have to be moderate to run in elections:
“From my point of view, Bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi [the leaders of al-Qaida who staged the September 11 attacks and massive killings in Iraq] are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists.…[On the other hand,] he who kills Muslim citizens is neither a jihad fighter nor a terrorist, but a criminal murderer. We must call things by their proper names!”
[After he said this the Brotherhood issued a statement, albeit only in English on a site known for trying to make the group sound moderate to a Western audience, that he did not represent their viewpoint. It is quite true that the Brotherhood does not support al-Qaida, as I have pointed out. But shorn of those specific names, he did state the position that the Brotherhood has frequently taken.]
And here’s Muhammad Badi, the Brotherhood’s leader:
“Resistance is the only solution….[Today the United States] is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance–and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this].”
Let’s assume that al-Baradei became Egypt’s president. The Muslim Brotherhood might get key ministries such as education and social welfare, transforming large sectors of Egyptian society, putting thousands of their supporters into key positions, and consolidating power for the next step. They would also infiltrate and recruit pro-Islamist officers in the army.
What effect would such a coalition have on Egypt’s policy toward the United States and Israel? Would U.S. economic aid and military sales continue to such a regime? One of the new government’s first steps would be to end all sanctions to the Gaza Strip, allowing weapons and terrorists to flow there freely.
This development shows precisely why the existing regime should be preserved–without Mubarak and with some reforms–rather than overthrown.
There should be no more illusions about what’s happening in Egypt. If the Brotherhood is so weak, why is it the proposed partner in the next government?
The key factor now is the army, which al-Baradei–with no good prospects of it happening–hopes to win over. Will the army support Mubarak, get rid of him and preserve the regime, or remain passive and watch as a revolution happens?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The GLORIA Center’s site is http://www.gloria-center.org/ and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Two former ambassadors and several current and former U.S. diplomats have written me agreeing with my warnings regarding Egypt. One of them made the following remarks which I have heavily paraphrased.
After the 1991 elections in Algeria, in which the Islamic Salvation Front won 47 percent in the first round and was headed toward taking power, the army canceled the election and established a military junta as the government.
The U.S. government discussed the issue and decided to do nothing, remembering the Iranian experience and understanding that “one man, one vote, one time” for a radical Islamist regime was neither a great triumph for democracy or in the U.S. interest.
The U.S. hands-off policy toward Algeria during the civil war was a great success. The civil war was a horrible tragedy and both sides committed atrocities. But there was no way America could have prevented or mitigated this situation. The Algerian government appreciated the U.S. stance and its policies became a lot less extremist and hostile.
Some elements in the U.S.government wanted to push the Algerian government into negotiations with the Islamists and a coalition to emerge. The French government, which was taking the lead, was strongly opposed to this as were a number of U.S. officials. Among those supporting bringing in the Islamists was Robert Malley, today head of the International Crisis Group and an advocate for Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria.
The U.S. government decided to stay out of it and, while no bed of roses (except for the thorns), the Algerian situation has turned out as well as could be expected.
While the United States has more leverage in Egypt than it had in Algeria, ability to affect events there is limited. Still, attempts to force that government into open elections–the approach that brought civil war to Algeria–and a totally different regime would be a big mistake, paid for in Egyptian blood and American interests.
Optional reading:
PS: As a check on Europe, consider the debate in the Netherlands. Today, two members of parliament–one conservative and one left-liberal–appeared on television and agreed on everything: Mubarak’s era is over; democratic change is here; events are comparable to Eastern Europe in 1989.
The Labor party guy said this shows all the talk for years about the radical Islamist threat is false. On the other hand though, if the West doesn’t side with the democratic forces a small minority of radicals (sic) would hijack the situation. Both agreed that Europe was very “guilty” because of having supported Mubarak for such a long time.
And the Labor party man got in the view that the United States had no need of having Israel as an ally any more because it didn’t want to talk to the Palestinians (after two years when Israel has been seeking talks and the Palestinian Authority has refused!).
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Cartoon by Charles E. Hughes Especially for Rubin Reports
By Barry Rubin
Briefly, this seems to be the nature of the U.S. debate over Egypt:
Conservatives, eager to score partisan points on President Barack Obama, criticize him for not pushing Egypt hard enough on reform, remembering President George W. Bush’s backing for democracy.
The left and liberals criticize Obama for not going further pushing Egypt hard on reform.
In short, both camps want the regime to fall. Now if we are talking about Husni Mubarak being replaced, he is after all 82 years old and wouldn’t be long in office any way. And if we are talking about Gamal Mubarak, his son, not taking power as successor, that makes sense because he isn’t up to the job.
But if this bipartisan consensus is talking about bringing the regime down altogether and fundamentally transforming Egypt, be very careful what you advocate, you might get it.
Analogies to places like the Philippines, South Korea, and Chile (!) don’t work so well because none of these are Middle Eastern countries, all had strong democratic pasts, and in the first two there was no serious radical threat. In the third, Chile, the radical forces were the ones being overthrown.
Now, Iran (Islamist), Lebanon (Hizballah), Gaza Strip (Hamas), Algeria (bloody civil war) are in the Middle East. And the differences with case studies of countries in Asia and South America are not just accidental.
While the Obama Administration is pushing too hard for my taste and not giving enough public support to the regime–not the Mubaraks personally–its critics seem to be even more wrong.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
The very savvy columnist Spengler has kindly given me permission to quote in advance his column in the Asia Times. He writes:
“There’s an economic dimension to the problem is quite worrying. Structural changes in the world food market will make jumps in the price of grains such as we had during the last few months and in 2007-2008 a regular occurrence. A spike in food prices were certainly a factor in the timing of the revolts.
“The trouble is that this is likely to be a regular occurrence. Any minor disturbance in grain supply now has catastrophic price effects because prosperous Asia no longer cares what it has to pay for wheat and maize. In effect Asia is threatening to price the Arab poor out of the world food market.
“Egypt is the world’s largest grain importer in most years (Iran had the number-one spot in 2009 due to drought, with 6 million tons of imports). Egypt imports about half its wheat. Iran still can pay for food; with a few weeks’ of instability, Egypt’s currency and foreign credit (trade credits from banks in particular) will be in jeopardy and people will be hungry. Whatever regime is around will have to deal not just with the urban mob but with the very poor. We haven’t really had food riots like 1977 [in Egypt] yet, but we probably will. We have a country that is structurally incapable of feeding itself and may have difficulty paying for imports soon.
“Insurance against Egyptian default was LIBOR +3.3% a week ago; now it’s at LIBOR+ 4.54%. That’s not quite crisis levels, but if banks start reducing exposure, things could get bad fast. In 2009 Egyptian imports were $55 billion against only $29 billion of exports; tourism and other services brought the current account into balance. Scratch the tourism, and you have a $26 billion deficit against $35 billion of central bank reserves. It would not take long for a run on the currency to materialize–and if the currency devalues, food and fuel become all the more expensive. Food and fuel subsidies are now 7% of GDP.
“With half the population living on $2 a day or less, that means real distress. I suppose there’s a scenario under which al-Baradei gets in and scores some loans from his friends at the World Bank and an ad hoc aid consortium, but there’s no reason to count on it. And if the country really starts to hurt badly, the Ikhwan will be out there preaching al-Qutb style Islamic socialism to hungry people.”
Right, I’d add that given Egypt’s situation, a free election would not produce a moderate democratic government that can meet popular demands. That means either the elected government will go to demagoguery to mobilize mass support–meaning shrieking about Israel, the United States, and the West–or be replaced by an Islamist regime.
We’ve seen this pattern in the past, including in Egypt itself between 1952 and 1977 or so. There were three wars with Israel during that period, an alliance with a radical anti-Western state (the USSR), and a government dedicated to destroying U.S. and Western interests in the region.
This is a critical point: What could a moderate democratic government do if it gained power given Egypt’s difficult situation (few resources, some oil; Suez Canal; huge population; little capital)? It can’t cut the military budget because the army would revolt. It can’t cut subsidies because the people would revolt.
It is no accident that Egypt has a dictatorship. Obviously, every country is in a different situation
While his view is not the same as mine, I respect the arguments made by Mir Hossein Mousavi, leader of the democratic opposition in Iran (without romanticizing his moderation excessively) and think they are worth considering. But then check out the very cogent points made by an Iranian dissident blogger.
There are two different Iranian models for what’s happening now. I am not saying that anyone is consciously thinking in these terms; this is just from the point of view of outside analysts:
–The Iranian revolution of 1978-1979: That is, a protest movement that evolves into a new Islamist dictatorship.
–The Iranian rebellion of 2009: That is a democratically minded protest movement which was repressed.
Both were against dictatorships. But, of course, in each case left a radical Islamist regime on power. Ironically, if the Egyptian rebellion fails it can easily be romanticized and is more like 2009; if it succeeds, the outcome could be very bad and more like 1979.
His January 28th statement is as follows. The translation is unofficial and Mousavi is not responsible for it:
“The Middle East is at the brink of great events that could affect the future of the nations of this region and the rest of the world. Certainly the ultimate aim of what is happening is the disruption of the unjust order….
“Today the Iranian people’s slogan of “where is my vote” is echoed in the slogan of “the people demand the overthrow of the regime” in Cairo, Suez and Alexandria….”
After hinting that Egypt’s regime was tyrannical like that running Iran today, he concludes:
“Our nation admires the glorious revolution of the people of Tunis and the uprising of the people of Egypt and Yemen and other nations in the region to attain their rights.”
“I would like to remind people that after the 1979 revolution in Iran, the secularists and the various religious groups united to form a coalition government. Within a year, the Islamic Republic party (two of the members of which were Rafsanjani and Khamenei) completely took control and turned Iran into a totalitarian state in the guise of a so-called ‘Islamic’ republic that took away many of the hard-earned rights that Iranians had gained in the last century. This regime is still in power in Iran today, executing opposition members and Iranian citizens who dare oppose them.
“I would like to remind people that when Khomeini came to Iran he promised freedom, democracy and human rights. As we are seeing today—with people telling us not to worry about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt— in Iran in the early days of the revolution people said the same about Khomeini and his minions.”
In the United States, the sending of a U.S. ambassador to Syria is presented as a normal act, not a concession. That’s not the way it is being seen in Syria. In the United States, the issuing of statements favoring Lebanese sovereignty is seen as an effective policy. That’s not the way it is seen in Syria and Lebanon.
Or as an unidentified, but presumably Syrian, official put it:
“Obama went out of his way to send [a new ambassador]. He will be expecting something in return. Lebanon is an obvious area but the Syrians realize that the United States does not have much more to pressure them with,” another diplomat said.
“Syrian political commentator [i.e., lackey of the dictatorship] Ayman Abdel Nour said Damascus was not averse to compromise if it felt the United States was lessening support for an international tribunal on the Hariri killing, which Syria views as a tool in the hands of its foes.
“`The United States is keeping the tribunal card close to its chest. But Syria is stronger on the ground in Lebanon,’” Abdel Nour said. He dismissed the possibility of Washington resuming a policy of internationally isolating Syria because Damascus has built ties with countries such as its northern neighbor Turkey.”
In other words, Syria is strong; America is weak; Syria can do as it pleases with no additional cost. If the United States drops support for the international tribunal finding Syrian and Hizballah terrorism in Lebanon, Syria will then…not give anything back.
This is the gap between Washington–and America in general–which believes Obama is doing a terrific job in the Middle East, and the actual Middle East where the moderates are crying and the radicals are laughing.
And don’t forget:
Hizballah seizes power in Lebanon, U.S. policy has no effective response.
U.S. policy helps Hamas entrench itself in the Gaza Strip (by providing indirect aid and pressing Israel to reduce sanctions).
In Egypt, the emphasis of U.S. policy is to press the regime into potentially fatal concessions.
Plus more. The radicals know what they are talking about.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Paraguay’s government said on Friday it had decided to recognize a Palestinian state based on borders before the 1967 war, following similar moves by other South American countries in recent months.
Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia and Uruguay have recently recognized a Palestinian state along the pre-war borders. Chile and Peru have also given recognition to a Palestinian state, but without specifying borders.
Announcing the decision, Paraguay’s Foreign Ministry said “bilateral negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, which are currently at a standstill, are essential for both peace and security.”
Israel disputes the Palestinian claim on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas it captured from Jordan during the Six-Day War in 1967, and peace negotiations have stalled numerous times over the last few years.
Direct peace talks revived by Washington in September after a year’s suspension collapsed after Israel refused to renew a freeze on construction in West Bank settlements. A U.S. drive to keep the process alive via third-party talks is in limbo.
Israel said last month the recognition of a Palestinian state by Latin American countries was “highly damaging interference” by countries that were never part of the Middle East peace process.
United States Under Secretary of State William Burns said in a recent visit to Chile that the move by Latin American nations was premature.
“It’s only through negotiation between the parties themselves, Palestinians and Israelis, that we’ll be able to realize the two-state solution,” he said.
Paraguay’s move comes just before a summit between Latin American and Arab countries, which will be held in Lima in February.
Churches in the United States are finding they’re not immune to the real estate crisis.
Many churches, The Wall Street Journal reports today, also can’t pay their mortgages because they took on too much debt and now face smaller congregations and declining collections amid high unemployment levels.
Banks have foreclosed on almost 200 religious facilities since 2008, the news organization says. That’s a huge increase from just eight in the prior two years and almost none in the decade earlier.
And, the report says, hundreds more face foreclosure or bankruptcy.
“Churches are the next wave in this economic crisis,” Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., president and founder of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, a non-profit civil-rights group, told the newspaper.
The Polish government has drawn up plans for the country to become a predominantly cashless society within three years, it has been revealed.
The Finance Ministry is currently considering the merits of increasing the proportion of e-money payments from nine per cent to around 50 per cent, according to the Warsaw Business Journal.
By reducing the amount of cash in the country, the government hope costs would be cut as fewer coins and bills would have to be created and it would eliminate the need to transfer physical money across Poland.
Dr Tomasz Solinski of The University of Technology and Management in Rzeszow told Polish news network Nowiny24: “Bringing in cashless transactions would be beneficial for many organisations, however it’s not certain that it’s possible to fulfill the programme’s goals before 2013.”
If the plan comes to fruition, more cash machines would be installed in poorer areas, while all social welfare payments would have to be made electronically.
Officials in the south Ethiopian city of Besheno are looking the other way as Muslim mobs in the city put death threats on the doors of Christian villagers, according to organizations that work in the area.
The door-mounted death threats are only the latest incidents in a series of acts of intimidation that include taking away church property, beating evangelists and killing family members.
International Christian Concern’s Jonathan Racho says the list of violent acts against Christians is growing.
“Christians in the southern Ethiopian city of Besheno are being harassed and physically abused after Muslims posted notices on the doors of the Christian homes, warning the Christians that they had to convert to Islam, leave the city or face death,” Racho stated.
“This is a very serious threat against Christians where the majority in this city are Muslims,” Racho added.
“There are approximately 30 evangelical Christians living in that city,” Racho explained. “The rest have moved away.”
The number of Christians in Besheno sounds small, but there used to be more.
“After the threats by the Muslims, three Christian leaders were forced to flee the city. Two Christians have been forced to convert to Islam. Several other Christians have come under attack,” Racho detailed.
“A Christian evangelist remains in critical condition after Muslims attacked him and about 100 Muslims attacked another group of Christians, injuring Christian leaders. The Christian leaders were on their way to negotiate for peace with Muslim leaders,” Racho added.
“So the situation of Christians in that small Ethiopian city of Besheno is rapidly deteriorating and we are concerned about what is happening there,” Racho said.
Racho adds that the remaining Christians in the city have no place to worship.
“Local officials appeared with guns and said they can’t come to the church. They even can’t bury their dead because there’s no cemetery for Christians,” Racho commented.
“The local officials denied them. When a Christian girl died, the mother was forced to take her for burial to a cemetery in a city that was 20 miles from the city of Besheno,” Racho added.
Racho explains that the significant detail is that the persecution is done with the apparent approval of local government.
“They ignore the appeals from Christians for justice, for equality and for freedom of religion. The local government officials are militant and they don’t care about the plight of the Christians,” Racho asserted.
Racho emphasizes again that the only recourse left to some of the Christians is to leave.
“There are some remaining, but they are living like a Dhimmi. Dhimmis are people in Islamic lands who are treated like second class citizens. So the Christians who are remaining behind are living like second class citizens in their own country,” Racho explained.
“It’s very heartbreaking because Ethiopia is a Christian majority country,” Racho observed. “But there are places in Ethiopia where there are cities with Muslim majorities.”
“When Muslims are in the majority, they persecute Christians,” Racho added.
The CIA World Factbook and the Joshua Project, a Christian missionary think tank, both report that Christianity is the majority religion in Ethiopia. Slightly more than 43 percent are Orthodox and 18.6 percent are Protestant evangelicals. Muslims make up one third of the population.
Racho says Ethiopia’s majority Christian demographic adds urgency to the need for an international response to the wave of anti-Christian violence.
“The Christian majority is why we want to highlight this situation. We hope the central government, the federal government, will rectify the situation by taking legal action against all the Muslims who have persecuted Christians,” Racho stated.
“This is why we’re asking people to call the Ethiopian Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Racho adds that pressure from the national government is probably the only way to get Muslim local officials to stop the persecution.
The Muslim population in the United States is projected to more than double by 2030, according to a new Pew Forum report.
There are about 2.6 million Muslim adults and children in the United States (0.8 percent of the U.S. population) in 2010. That figure is expected to rise to 6.2 million (1.7 percent) in 2030, predicted the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life report released Thursday.
Most of the growth will be due to immigration and higher birth rates among Muslims. Christians are, however, expected to still make up by far the majority of the population. But by 2030, Muslims are predicted to be as numerous as Jews or Episcopalians are in the United States today.
“The Muslim population will double in the U.S., but the report cannot indicate what portion of the spectrum of Islam will be practiced by American Muslims,” pointed out Pastor Joel C. Hunter of Northland, A Church Distributed in Central Florida, to The Christian Post.
“Muslims, like Christians, are not a uniform block of believers. The bridges built or burned between Christianity, Islam, and other religions are likely to profoundly affect its expression in this nation and around the world.”
Hunter was a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and served on the Inter-Religious Cooperation taskforce. He is also on the board of the National Association of Evangelicals.
“The Future of the Global Muslim Population” report also predicts that the Muslim population worldwide will increase by 35 percent, or from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030.
This means that the worldwide Muslim population would be growing about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population. Based on this prediction, Muslims would make up slightly more than a quarter (26.4 percent) of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030. In 2010, Muslims make up 23.4 percent of the world’s population of 6.9 billion.
Notably, the report predicts that Pakistan will surpass Indonesia as the country that is home to the largest Muslim population by 2030. Most of the world’s Muslims (about 60 percent) will still be located in the Asia-Pacific region, while about 20 percent will live in the Middle East and North Africa, which are similar proportions to today.
Although the population of Muslims will grow in Europe and the Americas, they are predicted to remain small minorities in the two regions. The United States is projected to have a larger Muslim population by 2030 than any European countries with the exception of Russia and France, although other European countries may have higher percentages of Muslims. Russia is projected to have the largest Muslim population in 2030 with 18.6 million of the religion’s followers.
Overall, Muslims are expected to make up about eight percent of Europe’s total population by 2030, up from six percent in 2010. In the United Kingdom, Muslims are projected to comprise 8.2 percent of the population in 2030, up from 4.5 percent today. And in Austria, 9.3 percent of the population is projected to be Muslims, a rise from 5.7 percent in 2010; in France, 10.3 percent from 7.5 percent, and in Belgium 10.2 percent from 6 percent.
Interestingly, nearly a quarter (23.2 percent) of Israel’s population is expected to be Muslims by 2030, up from 17.7 percent in 2010 and 14.1 percent in 1990. During the past two decades, the Muslim population in Israel has more than doubled, increasing from 0.6 million in 1990 to 1.3 million in 2010.
“This report will give fodder to the alarmists and will be underplayed by those who just think sociological patterns are interesting,” commented Pastor Joel C. Hunter. “The call for Christians to evangelize the world remains the same no matter what other religious populations are doing, but this development will likely stimulate attention to our growth or lack thereof.”
Church of England baptism services may be re-written to remove some references to Christianity.
The plan for a new ‘baptism lite’ service designed to make christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the Church’s parliament, the General Synod.
Supporters say the baptism service should be ‘expressed in culturally appropriate and accessible language’ that is readily understood by ‘non-theologically versed Britons’.
But traditionalist clergy said the idea amounted to ‘dumbing down’.
The new service would be used at 150,000 christenings each year. If the plan is accepted, it will be the third full re-write of the baptism ceremony in around 30 years – the version in the Church’s Book of Common Prayer went virtually unaltered for more than 400 years until 1980.
Complaints centre on three sections of the baptism service from the Church’s latest prayer book, Common Worship, authorised for use in 1997.
In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’. They are asked to ‘submit to Christ as Lord’.
The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that ‘there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough’.
He added: ‘The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.’
Dr Stratford and his supporters have also called for a new version of prayers that refer to the symbolic role of water in baptism.
He said that among clergy from poor and inner city parishes ‘there was a strong plea for a shorter prayer in direct but poetic language that allows the Gospel to resonate better with people’s experience of life’.
He added: ‘This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse, but for a prayer that the majority of non-theologically versed Britons would understand.’ A third part of the service was condemned as too long and not ‘direct’.
Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith organisation, said there were problems with the 1997 service, but added: ‘Simply dumbing it down is not the answer.’
Bishops indicated yesterday that if the Synod accepts the argument a committee will be instructed to begin writing a new baptism service, but they warned that such re-writing would raise arguments over faith and doctrine.
Former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson is leaving the Episcopal Church for the Catholic Church to distance herself from the pro-choice agenda.
Johnson, along with her husband, Doug, and 4-year-old daughter, are in the process of joining the Catholic Church in Bryan, Texas. Her decision was fueled by her Episcopal church’s reaction to her conversion from pro-choice to pro-life.
“They weren’t all that supportive of her decision to leave Planned Parenthood,” said Shawn Carney, campaign director for 40 Days for Life, to The Christian Post. Carney was the first person Johnson reached out to from the pro-life movement after she rejected the pro-choice stance. She is also attending the Catholic Church that Carney had attended while living in Texas.
Johnson, raised a Baptist, and her husband are completing the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults to join St. Thomas Aquinas.
In her recently released book, Unplanned, Johnson shares that she often felt conflicted about working with Planned Parenthood. As a result, she joined St. Francis Episcopal Church in College Station, which she describes as “very open-minded about abortion” in a promotional video for her book.
Many of the attendees at the church “had really accepted abortion” and “a lot of them were donors to Planned Parenthood,” she says.
On the St. Francis Episcopal website, there is no mention of the church’s abortion stance. The Episcopal Church affirms that the church formally objects to partial-birth abortion and the use of the fetus for medical purposes, and past conventions regard abortion as “a tragic dimension.”
But The Episcopal Church also affirms that it honors individuals’ rights to make an informed decision about abortion. The church is featured among the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice’s list of pro-choice church bodies.
Also on the list are the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Methodist Church, and the United Church of Christ. These mainline denominations hold that life is sacred yet profess a pro-choice stance allowing abortion in the event of “severe physical or mental deformity” and encouraging respect for a woman’s choice.
Carney said Johnson regards the process of leaving The Episcopal Church as “just another point in her journey after leaving Planned Parenthood.”
Johnson, a former director at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, decided to leave after witnessing an abortion through an ultrasound monitor.
For some south Sudanese Christians, their opportunity vote for independence from the largely Muslim north is more than a condition of a peace accord ending a two-decade civil war — it’s the divine will of God.
They believe the independence of their nation was foretold in the Bible more than 2,000 years ago. Isaiah 18 is one of several passages that refers to the land of Cush, which describes the people as tall and smooth-skinned and the land as divided by rivers.
“It used to be read so many times on Sunday,” said Ngor Kur Mayol, who drove to Nashville from Atlanta earlier this month to vote in the independence referendum. “It mentions a lot the way we were suffering in for so many years and how that same suffering, we’re going to end it today, to vote for independence.”
The interpretation is not so far-fetched, said Ellen Davis, a professor at Duke Divinity School who has been working with the Episcopal Church of Sudan to strengthen theological education there since 2004.
“There’s no doubt that Isaiah 18 really is speaking about the people of the upper Nile,” she said. “It really is speaking about the Sudanese people.”
Davis said the belief in the prophecy is nearly universal among the Christians she has met in Sudan.
“In general Sudanese Christians believe to a much greater extent than mainline North American Christians that the Bible speaks to world current events, specifically political events,” Davis said.
Jock Paleak, pastor at the Sudanese Cumberland Presbyterian Church in the Nashville suburb of Gallatin, explained how Isaiah 18 has been interpreted to refer to independence.
“The Bible says when they will raise their flag on the mountain, the whole world will see.”
The eyes of the world are now on southern Sudan, Paleak said, as they await the official results of the referendum that will almost assuredly favor division of Africa’s largest country by a wide margin. Results released last week of voting by more than 8,000 Sudanese refugees in the United States ran 99 percent in favor of independence.
Isaiah 18 concludes with a passage Paleak said predicts the end of rule by the Muslim north.
He paraphrases and explains it: “‘They will bring their gifts to the mountain of Zion,’ which means we will be free to praise God in our own way in our own land.”
Paleak said he has not come to a “100 percent conclusion” on whether the prophecy really refers to southern Sudan’s independence, but Pastor Malok Deng, at Nashville’s Sudanese Ministry Bible Church, is certain.
He sees the suffering of the south Sudanese during the civil war that left 2 million dead and the displacement of the many who fled the war as part of a divine plan described in Zephaniah 2 and other passages.
“It says God will send enemies to chastise us so we can repent of our sins and come back to God,” he said. “So that’s why all this is happening.”
Deng said the war was responsible for his own salvation.
“When I was a teenager, because of the war, I came to the northern part of Sudan. That’s when I met the Lord and got saved. If not for the war … I would have died in paganism.”
For Pastor Martin Drani, of the interdenominational Sudanese Community Church in Nashville, there is no doubt that God is the true force behind the referendum.
“This is a prophecy, and if you believe the Bible then every prophecy must come to pass,” Drani said.
Many also see the possibility that the Muslim North will be involved in the attack upon Israel prophesied in Ezekiel 38. Ezekiel says the land of Cush will be allies with Persia (Iran) and Phut (Libyia) in attacking Israel in the end times. If the Christian South is granted independence, it would seem to fit the prophetic scenario that Ezekiel describes in which only Muslim nations attack Israel.
The fading power of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s government leaves Israel in a state of strategic distress. Without Mubarak, Israel is left with almost no friends in the Middle East; last year, Israel saw its alliance with Turkey collapse.
From now on, it will be hard for Israel to trust an Egyptian government torn apart by internal strife. Israel’s increasing isolation in the region, coupled with a weakening United States, will force the government to court new potential allies.
Israel’s foreign policy has depended on regional alliances which have provided the country with strategic depth since the 1950s. The country’s first partner was France, which at the time ruled over northern Africa and provided Israel with advanced weaponry and nuclear capabilities.
After Israel’s war against Egypt in 1956, David Ben-Gurion attempted to establish alliances with non-Arab countries in the region, including Iran, Turkey and Ethiopia. The Shah of Iran became a significant ally of Israel, supplying the country with oil and money from weapons purchases. The countries’ militaries and intelligence agencies worked on joint operations against Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s rule, which was seen as the main threat against Israel and pro-Western Arab governments.
Israel’s next alliances were forged with Jordan’s King Hussein and Morocco’s King Hassan. These ties were operated in secret, as well as ties with leaders in Lebanon’s Christian community. The late 1970s saw the fall of the Shah of Iran, with an anti-Israel Islamic republic created in his stead.
Around the same time, Egypt and Israel broke their cycle of conflict by signing a peace agreement. Egypt positioned itself on the side of Saudi Arabia, as head of the pro-American camp.
Mubarak inherited the peace agreement after President Anwar Sadat’s assassination. Mubarak was cold in his public relations with Israel, refusing to visit the country except for Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral, which decelerated normalization between the countries.
Relations between the Israel Defense Forces and the Egyptian army were conducted on a low level, with no joint exercises. Egyptian public opinion was openly hostile towards Israel and anti-Semitic terminaology was common. Civil relations between the countries were carried out by a handful of government workers and businessmen.
Despite all of this, the “cold peace” with Egypt was the most important strategic alliance Israel had in the Middle East. The security provided by the alliance gave Israel the chance to concentrate its forces on the northern front and around the settlements. Starting in 1985, peace with Egypt allowed for Israel to cut its defense budget, which greatly benefited the economy.
Mubarak became president while Israel was governed by Menachim Begin, and has worked with eight different Israeli leaders since then. He had close relations with Yitzhak Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last two years, despite a stagnation in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians and worsening relations between Netanyahu and the Arab world, Mubarak has hosted the prime minister both in Cairo and in Sharm el-Sheikh.
The friendship between Mubarak and Netanyahu is based on a mutual fear over Iran’s strengthening and the rising power of Islamists, as well as over the weakening and distancing of the U.S. government with Barack Obama at its head.
Now, with Mubarak struggling over the survival of his government, Israel is left with two strategic allies in the region: Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. These two allies promise to strengthen Israel’s Eastern battlefront and are also working to stop terror attacks and slow down Hamas.
But Israel’s relationship with these two allies is complicated. Joint security exercises are modest and the relationship between the leaders is poor. Jordan’s King Abdullah refuses to meet Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is waging a diplomatic struggle against Israel’s right-wing government. It’s hard to tell how Jordan and the PA could fill the role that Egypt has played for Israel.
In this situation, Israel will be forced to seek out new allies. The natural candidates include Syria, which is striving to exploit Egypt’s weakness to claim a place among the key nations in the region.
The images from Cairo and Tunisia surely send chills down the backs of Syrian President Bashar Assad and his cronies, despite the achievement they achieved with the new Hezbollah-backed Lebanon government. As long as the Arab world is flooded with waves of angry anti-government protests, Assad and Netanyahu will be left to safeguard the old order of the Middle East.
viagra and hearing loss Ed Treatment Natural Female use of viagra female version of viagra 761.
erectile dysfunction vacuums Cialis Dysfunction Erectile Levitra how to get viagra
herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction; Erectile Dysfunction Psychological Zocor erectile dysfunction zoloft erectile dysfunction 147.
robin williams viagra Viagra Spray "explore advances in male impotence treatments"
viagra perscription online Natural Remedy Erectile Dysfunction male hormone dhea impotence levels
will ferrell erectile dysfunction Viagra Perscription Online ed treatment with ginko
erectile dysfunction pills evaluated; On Viagra "non prescription viagra"
cialis viagra How To Buy Viagramale impotence age
Cigarette smoking and erectile dysfunction cigarette smoking causing male impotence 395. Impotence Viagra The latest treatment for ed topical ed treatment 237.
most effective ed treatment! Viagra 50 Mg actos erectile dysfunction
l dopa for male impotence! Buy Cheap Viagra erectile dysfunction and pravastatin;
male impotence pumps vacu Holistic Ed Treatment cost of viagra
female forcing male sexual impotence; Male Impotence Brochure actos erectile dysfunction
accounting treatment for sr ed Water Ed Treatment Male impotence due to surgery male impotence enema 629.
lamictal erectile dysfunction! Accounting Treatment Sr Ed Ias "buy viagra online"
problems with viagra, Viagra Cheap erectile dysfunction link suggest
"non prescription viagra" Viagra Uk viagra times;
viagra soft tabs? Ed Treatments erectile dysfunction ed treatment
u 3312 viagra cialis Male Impotence Advice yohimbie bark and male impotence
facts male impotence psychological effects
lexapro erectile dysfunction,
erectile dysfunction paypal, Zetia And Erectile Dysfunction straighttalk net erectile dysfunction review
male impotence and solutions? Make Your Own Viagra newest transdermal treatment for ed
tricor erectile dysfunction Hebal Ed Treatmenterectile dysfunction exercise
Viagra and alternatives viagra and blood pressure 767. How To Make Viagra how to take viagra
cialis medication erectile dysfunction Erectile Dysfunction Pills accupril and erectile dysfunction
Subscribe to RSS
