Sermon on the Mount : Property Rights

By Daniel Downs

As mentioned in the first post, the gospels of Matthew and Luke contain two versions of a sermon proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth most likely from Mount Gerizim. This is where Moses told half of the tribal elders of Israel to reiterate the blessings for the keeping the law as the Israelites passed from the wilderness into the promised land (Deuteronomy 27:11-12; 28:1-14).

In the Sermon, Jesus pronounces blessings to the poor who faithfully follow God’s way. Those who do so become rich in two ways: First, their relationship with God makes them full of His presence and power enabling them to live according to the divine law. Jesus’ apostle Paul called it being filled with the Spirit. (Read his letter to the Ephesians) Second, they gain legal rights to the material and spiritual benefits of citizenship in the Kingdom of God. This means they have access to resources of the Creator. (See first post titled “Sermon on the Mount: Any Relevance Today?)

Jesus proceeds by pronouncing that those who mourn and weep will laugh again. In the world, problems arise whether because of mistakes, wrongdoing, injustices, natural disasters, or other forms of loss. Like Job, God comforts and restores. (See the second post titled Sermon on the Mount: From Weeping to Laughing)

The next blessing pronounced by Jesus is only recorded in the gospel of Matthew. It goes like this:

“Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5: 5).

I can think of only two reasons why Luke didn’t include it in his gospel. One possible reason is it was never part of Jesus’ sermon. The author of Matthew’s gospel included it because he was a Jew who had been trained to regard humility as a godly trait. Even though this blessing may not have been part of Jesus’ sermon, it was expected of those faithful to the law of God. Another possible reason is this: Being a citizen of the Roman Empire, Luke was trained to regard meekness as weakness. Romans regarded themselves as members of a superior race and culture than most others, for example, citizens of the always subjugated people of Palestine. This is the more likely reason.

The uniqueness of this part of Jesus Sermon is not just its singular mention in Matthew’s gospel; it is more exceptional because it was a quote taken from Psalms 37, which was itself the summation of a law of God:

“Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for him; do not fret because of him who prosper in his way or because of the man who carries out wicked schemes. Cease from anger and forsake wrath; do not fret; it only leads to doing evil. For evildoers will be cut off, but those who wait for the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. Yet a little while and the wicked will be no more; you will look carefully for his place and he will not be. But the meek will inherit the earth and will delight themselves in abundance” (7-11).

The above verses point the familiar reader back to Exodus when the Jews were delivered from the injustices of slavery in Egypt. The Jews were not forced into slavery just as a punishment for any wrong done while in Egypt. Rather, it was because they were foreigners whose population greatly increased. There large population made a paranoid dictator fearful about their allegiance. That is, Pharaoh feared they might join Egypt’s enemies to attacking and conquering Pharaoh and his empire. The easiest way to eliminate such a potential threat was to control all aspects of their lives, which meant to enslave them. (Exodus 1:8-11)   In this context, waiting on the Lord meant to continue being faithful to God and covenant law while waiting for God to execute justice. However, God told Abraham the Jews would be enslaved for 400 years in Egypt for two reasons: (1) their sins would lead them into it, and (2) the divine justice concerning the unrelenting sins of the Canaanites would take 400 years for completion. After which time, God promised the freedom of Jews and their right to possess the land previously promised to Abraham and to his descendents. (Genesis 15:13-16; Joshua 24:14; Deuteronomy 9:5-6; 12:29-31; 18:9-12)

The moral of the story is waiting in the right way leads to inheriting the promised land.

Inheriting and possessing land over which God reigns also will result in peace, freedom, and prosperity (Deuteronomy 7:12-14; 12:10; 25:19; 28:1-14). Because this promise included all faithful citizens of God’s reign, the collective or societal benefit of protection from enemies was implied. Yet, the individual aspect of the implied benefit was personal space within the land. Inclusive within this landed space was peace, a benefit of unhindered movement resulting from societal protection and prosperity; a related benefit was freedom of movement and work resulting from protection. Because God’s law required the promised land to be apportioned to each family according to need, title to that land was part of the inherited possession (Numbers 33:51-54). Prosperity didn’t equate to being as wealthy as Pharaohs, Caesars, Herods, or other tyrants. Prosperity meant having enough to meet the need of family and self as well as an abundance for tithes, offerings, showing hospitality to strangers, and helping others as need arose.

Jesus’ apostle Paul refers to the same when writing to the believers in Corinth about wealth and helping those suffering lack in Jerusalem because of famine. In the context of redemptive investments, Paul states that Jesus became poor that they (Corinthians and all believers) might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9). He then defines what he meant by rich:

“God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having sufficiency for every need, you may have an abundance for every good work” (9:8).

By good work, Paul meant investing in the needy believers in Jerusalem. By doing so, they were cheerfully fulfilling kingdom law and increasing future returns all in the spirit of meekness. (Leviticus 25:35-37; Proverbs 19:17)

The ancient model of meekness was Moses (Numbers 12:3). Yet, Moses stood against Pharaoh face to face as God commanded. Moses led the Jews and others out of Egypt toward the promised land. Moses gave Israel the law of God. Moses led the warriors of Israel. Moses commanded the execution of Jews who had rebelled against the command and law of God. Moses interceded on behalf of the people in the face of God anger and judgment. Moses cared deeply about all of Israel. Moses trained Joshua for future leadership. Moses stood up to the opposition of jealous family members and others. However, the meekness of Moses was not defined by his courage. It was his caring and especially his obedience to God. God defended Moses against all opposition as Moses turned to God. That is, Moses trusted God. He trusted God because God carried out His word. Therefore, he was faithful to God. As a result, Moses waited on God. The one exception when he was angry about the faithless complaining of the people Moses went beyond God’s instruction. God used this as an object lesson by forbidding Moses from leading the Israel into the promised land. (Numbers 20:1-12)

In other words, not waiting on God leads to wrongdoing resulting in adverse consequences no matter who you are.

Notice, inherent in the English word “wait” consists of two implications: (1) it refers to duration of time during which a person waits for another person to respond, act or fulfill an agreement, or vise versa. (2) It more importantly refers to service to others i.e., to wait on a king, waiting on tables, etc. Just as Moses fulfilled both, those who heard Jesus’ sermon would have understood the same applied themselves. Waiting on the Lord meant waiting on God to act to enrich their lives with His wonderful presence and power, to comfort them during time of suffering, to lead them into possession of the benefits of the promise land.

The same audience also would have understood the purpose of God’s law of healing. The meek could not possess the earth if hindered by debilitating diseases. Consequently, citizens of God’s kingdom were to expect good health because they faithfully obeyed the law. (Exodus 23:25; Deuteronomy 7:12, 15) As the law promised good health, God also promised healing even if new diseases occurred. That is why healing was a prominent part of Jesus’ messianic work; the obedient were being restored in order to possess all of the benefits of the promise land.

So it is to be expected today.

The blessings of citizenship in God’s kingdom by covenant through faith in Jesus are promised to all. It is the fulfillment of God’s word to Abraham that through his descendents all peoples would be blessed. The Torah, songs of Israel (Psalms), and the proclamations of the Prophets contain the definition of the intended blessings. In his sermon from Mount Gerizim, Jesus reiterates the blessing. (Matthew 19:27-29; Luke 18:28-30; Mark 10:28-30)

The Danger in Tooth Fillings

I’ve been doing alot of research on the dangers of amalgam (silver-mercury) fillings over the past year or two. On December 2 I begin the process of having mine removed and am hoping many of my chronic health issues might go away. Everyone reacts differently to the mercury poisoning and usually symptons are subtle yet longterm. Because I feel this is important, especially if you have young children who may need a filling someday-educate yourself on the new information available on this health issue and help put an end to this outdated and dangerous procedure.

One recent information article on the subject is titled First Legal Victory to Ban Mercury from Amalgams publish at Mercola.com.

By Andy Meyer

Dutch journalist threatened with torture, death following letter condemning abortion

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman,

Pro-life journalist Mariska Orbán de Haas says that she has received hundreds of death threats and more than ten threats of torture following the publication of an open letter she wrote to a pro-abortion parliamentarian asking her to reconsider her position on the subject.

The letter, which was addressed to Representative Jeannine Hennis-Plasschaert and published in the Katholiek Nieuwsblad (Catholic News), was written in response to Hennis-Plassschaert’s angry reaction after receiving a plastic fetal model from Catholic bishop Everard de Jong. The bishop had sent the models to Hennis-Plasschaert and all other members of the Dutch House of Representatives. He also included a letter in which he asked the representatives to stop the killing of the unborn in the face of impending budget restrictions, pointing out that defunding “bloody abortion clinics” would save money and help preserve future generations who could care for the elderly.

After Hennis-Plasschaert called the letter from the bishop “disgusting,” Orbán wrote to her publicly, pointing out that both she and Hennis-Plasschaert have experienced the suffering of miscarriages, and that the fetal model she received from Bishop De Jong would resemble their lost children at the time of their deaths.

“In that light,” asked Orbán, “is it not ‘disgusting’ that our society permits us to abort more than thirty thousand babies in the Netherlands every year?” She noted that children who die by abortion are “exactly the same as the mysterious little lives that we expectantly carried within us.”

The letter, published on October 27, sparked outrage in the largely liberal, pro-abortion Netherlands. Orbán soon offered a public apology, but that has not prevented her from receiving an avalanche of angry responses. French journalist Jeanne Smits reports that the letter has generated 350,000 tweets on Twitter, and various sites have created distorted pictures of her face, portraying her as a devil.

Orbán notes that she had never received such a response from readers, until she began writing as a Catholic journalist.

“I’ve previously pushed the boundaries as a journalist, in various subjects, but I’ve never had this kind of reaction,” said Orbán. “If you write something about the Catholic faith, then people react so very strongly.”

“I hear many liberals say that free speech is so important, but if you have Catholic views it’s obviously different,” she added.

This article was first published in LifeSiteNews.com, November 15, 2010.

Is Obama Pro-Israel?

The November 12th edition of The Progress Report, the politically progressive author argues that the Obama administration is supportive of Israel. The following is an excerpt of the post titled “Obama’s Pro-Israel Record”.

The ongoing disagreement over the settlements has tended to obscure the Obama administration’s record of support for Israel, and has been used by critics to dishonestly label the President as “anti-Israel.” But by any reasonable measure, Obama has been an extremely pro-Israel president. He has significantly expanded trade between Israel and the U.S., and played an extremely important behind-the-scenes role in bringing about Israel’s acceptance into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a long sought-after Israeli goal. In September, Obama went before the United Nations General Assembly and challenged the international community to support Arab-Israeli peace, and declared that “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate.” He also assured the world that “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States.” In comments made to The Progress Report in August, Josh Block of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee remarked, “Clearly the Obama administration remains deeply committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance.”

It’s been rumored that Secretaty of State Clinton was pro-Israel prior to Obama’s becoming president. That would help explain pro-Israel of the staunchly pro-Muslim presidency, which is the resounding sentiment of many Israelis and others. Being representative of American interests such as Middle East peace and trade, Obama also would of necessity seek to get Israeli officials what they want in exchange for serious negotiations with the Palestinians.

Rep. Austria on Bush Tax Cuts

Now that the dust from the recent election has settled, the real work begins. Before the newly elected Congress is sworn in on January 3rd, the lame duck Congress still has important work to do on issues ranging from extending the expiring tax cuts to addressing cuts to Medicare reimbursement payments to physicians.

We must address the expiring Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend these tax cuts, it will equate to a $3.8 trillion tax increase that will affect all taxpayers, from families to farmers to small business owners. The indecision surrounding this issue is causing uncertainty for those who are seeking assurance in these difficult economic times. All the temporary tax cuts need to be extended, including those affecting the estate tax, capital gains tax and dividends tax so as to spur confidence and encourage local entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses, creating long-term, sustainable jobs.

The potential cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors is another issue that will likely be considered in the lame duck session. Unfortunately, a permanent fix to the physician fee schedule was not included in the health care reform law and instead a temporary extension is in place, which is set to expire at the end of this month. These short-term extensions have only increased uncertainty for physicians, forcing many of them to close their practices or severely limit the number of Medicare patients they see. Reform is necessary to establish a fair and equitable physician fee schedule for Medicare providers and patients.

Above all, we must ensure that these proposals are cost-effective, and are paid for by funds within the existing federal budget, rather than borrowing money and running up more debt. With the new Congress coming in, we have an opportunity to work together to address these challenges head-on, and focus our efforts on helping the job creators in the private sector generate long-term, sustainable jobs that will turn our economy around.

Why Deficit Reduction Is Necessary and Need Not Hurt the Poor

By Isabel V. Sawhill, Brookings Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

We need to reduce our long-term deficits. We cannot forever spend more than we collect in taxes. And if we continue on our current path we risk another economic crisis that is likely to produce even more unemployment than we have now.

To be sure, we should not cut the deficit right now—that would be very bad for the economy. We should combine stimulus now with legislative initiatives that gradually rein in spending and raise taxes once the economy has recovered.

But if we continue to ignore the huge accumulation of debt in our future, or assume it can be addressed without cutting domestic spending, it is the least advantaged who are likely to suffer the most.
Why do I say this?

First, if we have another economic crisis that produces high rates of unemployment for an extended period, social programs will do no more than temporarily reduce the harm inflicted on the least advantaged. The safety net is no substitute for a job and a growing economy. Deficits matter because, in the longer term, they undermine the economy’s ability to produce the jobs that are especially critical to moving people out of poverty and into the middle class.

Second, many progressives believe that we can solve our fiscal problems by cutting defense and raising taxes. Although I believe they are right to fight for both of these solutions, I do not think they will be sufficient. As I have argued in more detail elsewhere (see my debate with Greg Anrig in the September issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas), the numbers simply don’t add up unless taxes are raised across the board to unprecedented levels—and not just for the wealthy. This level of taxation is not only politically unfeasible but unfair to the many middle and working class families who are currently struggling and whose incomes were stagnating even before the recent downturn.

Third, any effort to protect Social Security and Medicare from future spending reductions – as many advocates are now arguing – will simply put more pressure on programs that serve the disadvantaged and their children. The rapid growth of spending on entitlements has already forced the Obama Administration to propose a freeze in non-security domestic spending.

In California, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed an elimination of the state’s welfare-to-work program as well as most child care assistance for low-income families, a harbinger of what may happen at the national level as the budget squeeze plays out over the next decade or two. This should give pause to those who argue that we can’t touch health or retirement benefits for those over about age 55, since they won’t have time to adjust to the changes. There’s no such “adjustment time” permitted for single moms with a low-wage job who are suddenly forced to spend one third of their income on child care.

Those who care about protecting the less advantaged need to be willing to find savings in the largest and fastest growing portion of the federal budget—the big three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In 2010, 71 percent of all revenues are devoted to just these three programs.
What kinds of changes should advocates for the poor support?

First, they should support reforms that leave the core commitments behind Social Security and Medicare intact and ensure that no one is left bereft of access to basic health care and a decent income in old age.

Second, they should support reforms that gradually trim benefits for the more affluent over time while protecting those at the bottom.

Third, they should support reforms that recognize that not all spending on health care improves health. Specifically, we need to move toward reimbursement rates for providers that are tied to evidence of effectiveness. The goal should be to improve health, not just access to health care. Thanks to the recent health care bill, health care itself is now nearly universal. But some estimates suggest that as much as a third of all health care spending does not improve health—an estimate that is further reinforced by the good health outcomes achieved in other advanced countries that spend far less than the U.S. on health care.

But the answer for those who care about low-income Americans is not to ignore deficit reduction. It’s to pursue sensible deficit reduction in a way that protects poor people now and ensures a more prosperous future for everyone.

This article was originally published by Brookings on October 18, 2010 at www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1018_deficit_reduction_sawhill.aspx

Israel’s Unprogressive Tea Party

By Paul Eidleberg

Going back to the original, the Boston Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the development of the American Revolution began near Boston in 1775.

Recall its famous slogan, “No taxation without representation.” This slogan is quite applicable to the people of Israel. The highly taxed citizens of this so-called democracy have had no real representation ever since the founding of the State 62 years ago. As I have often explained, Israel’s government makes the entire county a single electoral district. This compels citizens to vote for fixed party lists—really party oligarchs—and not for individual candidates. As a consequence, members of the Knesset are not individually accountable to the voters in regional elections. I am referring to geographical districts the size of which would make the voters more familiar with the character and abilities of the elected, while making the elected more familiar with the needs, opinions, and interests of their electors.

That the Tea Party is opposed to territorial retreat and the creation of an Arab Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria is of course commendable. But it hasn’t the foggiest notion of how to accomplish this objective, which a complete overhaul of the SYSTEM of government that has brought Israel to its present existential crisis. From the Tea Party we will get more of the old propaganda, more of the old like newspaper ads, more of the old demonstrations, to which add one or two futile conferences at some hotel in Jerusalem. Typically absent is a program of structural reform to preclude the path of treason on which the present government is treading.

If the Tea Party was serious, it would arouse the people by telling them the truth that Israel is not a genuine democracy. Israel is living a lie that only serves the interests of its ruling elites. While the Knesset may not be as far away as London, its members might as well be on the moon. It’s a demonstrable fact that Israel’s political parties—religious as well as non-religious—repeatedly betray the trust their voters. A few examples must suffice.

Against its pledge to the nation during the 1992 election campaign, the Labor Party engaged in negotiations with PLO in contravention of Israeli law. In that same election, the religious Shas Party, which had pledged it would not join a Labor-Meretz government, did so for government perks and positions. These betrayals of the voters precipitated the Oslo Agreement of 1993 and the subsequent murder and maiming of thousands of Jews.

In 1999, no less than 29 MKs betrayed their voters in the democratic state of Israel by hopping over to rival parties. But the prize for political betrayal in the only democracy in the Middle East belongs to the Likud Party, known by some fools as “the trunk of the nation.” In 2003, the Likud adopted the Labor Party’s policy of “unilateral disengagement” from Gaza, a policy the Likud had campaigned against, indeed, a policy rejected by at least 70 percent of the voters.

Returning to the Tea Party, one of its two organizers, whose name I deign to ignore, not only opposed direct personal election of Knesset members in regional elections—the practice of almost every democracy—but he also opposed raising the electoral threshold from 1.5 to 2 percents, a threshold that makes it impossible to form a majority government. Instead we have Israel’s divisive, irresolute, and corrupt system of multiparty cabinet government—a form of government that has enabled the United States to interfere more readily in the making of Israel’s foreign policies.

Yet the leaders of the Tea Party are called “nationalists”! They seem more concerned about making it easier for party hacks to enter the Knesset and stay there.

If Israel’s Tea Party was a genuine nationalist movement, it would want to make the PEOPLE sovereign, and for starters, this can only be done by making MKs individually accountable to the voters in multidistrict elections.

Other serious reforms are required to empower the people of Israel, which I have discussed innumerable times in articles, books, and in radio interviews. So I can’t get excited about the Tea Party. It needs a leadership that has not been compromised by being part of the SYSTEM. It lacks a well-thought out program of political reform. We need something stronger than tea to save Israel from what is nothing less than a terminal disease.

Ohio Liberty Film Festival

Dayton is the site of a film festival with themes of liberty, courage and achievement, that began on November 11. Veterans Day was selected to kick off the event in order to celebrate the service of military veterans, and pay tribute to their historic role in preserving freedom in America and in the world. The festival will continue through November 14 with showings at The Neon Theater, the Dayton Engineer’s Club and the Dublin Pub. This will be the second year for this film festival in Dayton and it is the only one currently presented in America with the theme of Liberty.

The underlying idea is that man’s great achievements, whether artistic, scientific or intellectual, have come about through the exercise of freedom and opportunity. The intent will be to showcase films that show the positive use of freedom, and also the negative outcomes and conditions related to the suppression of freedom.

Efforts to gain and protect freedom have been a vital part of the American experience. Our earliest settlers, the pilgrims, braved death and made a heroic voyage to escape religious persecution. Their bravery was followed by the American War of Independence to withdraw from an oppressive system and create a new experience in self-government with a classless republic. A few years later a Civil War was fought to eliminate slavery. In the last century America was involved in two World Wars to fend off oppressors with designs on world dominance. America also fought and won a Cold War against a totalitarian system that sought to destroy the freedoms of many in our world. Throughout history there have been continuing threats against freedom that demand vigilance and continuing respect for the blessings and opportunities achieved through liberty.

The keynote film this year will be the documentary film, “Rockin’ the Wall”. This is very significant and a very special opportunity for the Dayton community because the film is essentially a Dayton product. The documentary conveys the message of a chapter in the book “Seven Events that Made America America” by Dr. Larry Schweikart, a professor of history at the University of Dayton. The chapter is entitled “ A Steel Guitar rocks the Iron Curtain”, and it tells the story of how rock music helped to bring down the communist empire and, with it, The Berlin Wall. There is much commentary by people who were part of the musical revolution on both sides of the Wall. The movie contains a number of musical clips. And there are some very emotional and inspiring scenes of people celebrating and overjoyed with their new freedom.

The Veteran’s Day program at the Neon commenced with a matinee showing of “Rescue Dawn” at 2:30PM. This is a compelling and true story of a German born U.S. Navy pilot, Dieter Dengler, who had an obsession to fly. The story is a tribute to the courage and perseverance of POWs in Vietnam. Following the movie there will be a reception at the Dublin Pub to honor ex POWs. The Neon hosted a major Veteran’s Day event at 7:30PM with the “The Best Years of our Lives”. This is a great Academy Award winning film about serviceman returning from WWII. The film is considered the best depiction of life in America and the challenges to veterans in those years.

The program on Friday November 12, will be presented at the Dayton Engineer’s Club. There will be 4PM showing of “Rockin’ the Wall ”, providing for participation by students of local high schools. Dr. Schweikart will introduce the film. Following a reception at the Club, the film “Places in the Heart” will be shown at 7:30PM. This is an inspirational story of the spirit and tenacity of a widow striving to save her farm in the South during the years of the Great Depression.

On Saturday November 13, the Engineer’s Club will also host a 2 PM showing of the movie “Empire of the Sun”, This movie is Steven Spielberg’s inspiring story, loosely based on actual events, of a young boy’s courage, spirit and leadership while imprisoned in a Japanese concentration camp during WWII. The boy’s love of aviation is a key part of the story. On Saturday evening there will be another major event, a showing of the keynote film “Rockin’ the Wall” at 7”30 PM. The film will be preceded by a reception at the Club with an appearance by Dr. Schweikart.

The final Liberty Festival offering will be an afternoon showing of “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”. This is an outstanding film, the winner of all major Academy Awards in 1976. It is the story of a feisty misfit who resists the institutional authority and raises the spirits of fellow inmates. There are great performances by the cast. This film will take place at 2:30 PM on Sunday, November 14, at the Neon, followed by a festival concluding reception.

Admission to all Liberty Film Festival events will be free, with voluntary donations accepted. The festival website is www.ohiolibertyfilmfestival.com. Other information is available by calling 429-3793 or 224-7822, and festival schedules are available at the Dublin Pub.

Locations:
The Neon Theater Dayton Engineer’s Club The Dublin Pub
180 E. Fifth St. 110 E. Monument Ave. 300 Wayne Ave.
Dayton, OH 45402 Dayton, OH 45402 Dayton, OH 45410

The Middle East Is in Danger of Losing Its Christians

Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli, a senior Middle East Media Research Institute analyst, wrote about the terrible plight of christians in the Middle East. The focus of his article is how Christians are actually being treated by Muslim in Arab countries. Although not isolated to any one Muslim-Arab nation, many Iraqi Christian and their churches have suffered violaent attacks. They have been pressured to migrate to other countries. And, hundreds have been killed.

Jew and other non-Muslims are not the only ones criticizing the plight of Middle East Christians. Arab reporter are also reporting the defamation and persecution of Christians living in Arab-Muslim countries. The is an except from Dr. Raphaeli’s article.

Another Iraqi commentator, ‘Aziz Al-Hajj, argues that the experience of the Iraqi Christians is no different from that of other Christians in the Middle East, who all suffer blunt discrimination, aggression, abuse of rights, and pressure to emigrate. He points out that since 2003, over 50 churches have been burned or destroyed in Iraq; a cardinal was kidnapped, three priests were murdered, and about 800 Christians have been killed. The emigration of Christians is driven by their realization that if they stay behind, they will at best be second-class citizens. According to Al-Hajj, the number of Palestinian Christians is dwindling too: no more than 50,000 remain in the occupied territories, only 1000 of them in Gaza. Even in Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ, the majority of the population is now Muslim.

If you still have any doubts about the intolerance of Muslims toward non-Muslims, you should read Dr. Raphaeli’s entire article. It is available on the MEMRI website.

U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Is Flawed

A vote on the proposed U.N. resolution condemning religious defamation is expected to take place this week. Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains why it should be resisted:

The Catholic League is an anti-defamation organization that uses such First Amendment guarantees as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to protest Catholic bashing. But it is one thing to issue a news release, conduct a letter-writing campaign, call for a boycott or hold a street demonstration; it is quite another to criminalize offensive speech.

It is not just that this U.N. resolution is poorly worded, it is the intent behind it: it is being promoted by member states that are known for disrespecting human rights, including, most spectacularly, religious liberties.

Since 1999, Pakistan has been pushing for this anti-blasphemy resolution. Joined by nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the resolution is not a check on religious defamation: rather, it is designed to give Islamist nations the right to plunder the religious rights of non-Muslims—under the guise of fighting religious intolerance!

There is a reason why the Christian community in the Middle East has shrunk to less than two percent of the population—they’ve been driven out. Just recently, the Syrian Catholic cathedral in Baghdad was the scene of violence that left 58 dead and at least 75 wounded. Their crime? They were Catholics.

The Catholic League supports all democratic remedies that thwart religious intolerance, but it will never support fascistic laws. These Muslim nations already kill Christians and Jews with impunity; they don’t need any further encouragement to bring their idea of justice to the shores of other nations. This resolution, “On Combating Defamation of Religions,” is an affront to religious liberty and deserves to be voted down