Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Is God on our side? by Carol Wolman

 
Is God on our side? by Carol Wolman
 
By "our side", I mean the side of the ordinary people, who love life and love our children, and dream of peace and a habitable planet for future generations.  I don't mean "blues", or "progressives", or even peacemakers- I mean the salt of the earth, the downtrodden, the people all over the world who want life on earth to continue.
 
"Their side" is the "Christian Coalition" allied with the military-industrial complex, the corporate beast- although even the military is starting to rebel against the cruelty and brazen indifference to law and human decency shown by the Bush cartel. 
 
Numbers 13: 31But the men that went up with him (to spy out the land of Canaan) said, We be not able to go up against those people; for they are stronger than we.
 
Their side, the "Christian" coalition appears to be stronger than we are.  They claim that God is with them, and that He plans to destroy the rest of us in a lake of fire.  They, the "elect" will be raptured up to a comet and whisked away to heaven.  They must be stronger than we are- they have all the weapons, the press, the crowd control methods, the prisons and torturers.  All we have on our side is the truth, and a burning desire to live and perpetuate ourselves, as we are meant to do.
 
The God we worship, the God of the Bible, is the God of truth and the God who tells us to choose life.  The Old Testament is full of stories about God helping a weak people to defeat their enemies.  In fact, in the story quoted above, God gets very angry at His people for doubting His power to bring them victory.
 
The battle we are fighting, the battle of Armageddon, a spiritual battle, is reaching a peak.  Persistent rumors are floating around, of two sorts.  One is that Cheney and Rumsfeld are preparing to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.  The other is that Patrick F. Fitzgerald has issued indictments to many major figures in the Bush administration, starting with Bush and Cheney, and extending into Congress.  The main charge is obstruction of justice.
 
Another rumor, from tomflocco.com, claims that 8 British agents recently tried to blow up the building in which Fitzgerald was working by planting bombs in the Chicago subway underneath.  They were apprehended by law enforcement; 4 were killed.  The battle is getting nasty, and may get nastier before it is over.
 
The battle of Armageddon is described in the Book of Revelation, Chapter 19.  On one side are the kings of the earth and their armies, allied with the beast- the corporate monsters like Halliburton and Carlyle that thrive on war.  On the other side is the Prince of Peace, wearing a banner that says: Faithful and True.  His weapons are the sword coming out of His mouth- meaning His words- and the iron rod, which I interpret as the fear of nuclear holocaust. 
 
Behind Him are the heavenly host, which I take to mean the millions of peacemakers all around the world, who are marching, blogging, working for peace.  We are well aware that the warmongers are threatening us all with extinction, and that only peaceful cooperation among all peoples can save us.  The planet is small, love must rule us all.
 
God is on our side, and we will win.
 
In the Name of the Prince of Peace,  Carol Wolman
 
Carol S. Wolman. MD
is a psychiatrist and lifelong peace activist. 
 

Fw: More Americans See Islam in Favorable Light: Poll / UK Seeks 'Better Understanding' of Muslims: Report

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Karim A G
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:46 AM
Subject: More Americans See Islam in Favorable Light: Poll / UK Seeks 'Better Understanding' of Muslims: Report

 http://islamicsydney.com/story.php?id=2301

 

Thursday 28 July 2005
More Americans See Islam in Favorable Light: Poll
Source: IslamOnline.net

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-07/27/article04.shtml

A library photo of American Muslims paying tribute to the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

 

The percentage of Americans having a favorable opinion of Muslim Americans is on the rise, while the number of Americans believing that Islam was a violent religion is declining, a new poll has showed.

The percentage of Americans viewing Islam in favorable light rose from 45 percent in March 2001 -- before the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States -- to 51 percent in July 2003 to 55 percent today, according to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, MSNBC reported.

It found that the more a respondent knows about Islam, the more likely he or she is to regard Muslim Americans favorably, the survey found.

Forty-four (44) percent of respondents of a high knowledge of Islam said it had a lot in common with their own religion, and 61 percent of them said they have a favorable view of Muslim Americans.

The survey interviewed 2,000 adults by telephone from July 7 to July 17. It was  conducted after the July 7 terrorist attack on three subways and a bus in London killed 56 people, including six Muslims, other than the four suicide bombers.

British Muslims condemned in the strongest possible terms the grisly attacks on fellow citizens.

A statement issued by over 40 leading mosque imams, muftis and scholars representing all sections of Muslims in Britain stressed that "there can never be any excuse for taking an innocent life."

Famed British writer Karen Armstrong said on July 9 in a Guardian piece that terror has no religion, with people calling themselves Muslims, Christians or Jews committing crimes in the name of their great religions.

The spiritual leader of the Church of England, Rowan Williams, has further warned against making Muslims "scapegoats" for the London bombings.

Accepted Islam

Fewer and fewer Americans believe that Islam itself is more violent than other religions, according to the poll.

Two years ago, 44 percent believed Islam "is more likely to encourage violent behavior among its followers," Pew said. That figure dropped to 36 percent in the new poll.

More and more Americans refuse to see themselves as at war with the Muslim faith.

A clear majority, 60 percent, say the conflict is with a small radical element, compared with only 29 percent who see it as a conflict between the West and Islam itself, down from 35 percent in August 2002.

Policies of the Bush administration, coupled with some media campaigns, are widely to blame for increasing hate feelings against the Muslim minority in the United States, following the 9/11 attacks.

A May 2004 report released by the US Senate Office Of Research concluded that the Arab Americans and the Muslim minority have taken the brunt of the Patriot Act and other federal powers applied in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

In interviews with IslamOnline.net in November of last year, many Americans said that they saw Muslims as having "excellent values, are very caring people, family oriented and very sincere in their religious belief."

RELATED

UK Seeks ‘Better Understanding’ of Muslims: Report

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2005-07/27/article05.shtml

"The way local communities responded to this very challenging time is praiseworthy," Goggins said.

CAIRO , July 27, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – In the aftermath of London terrorist bombings, the government plans to launch a massive program in September 2005 to listen to and understand Muslims as more voices within the society say that dialogue is the only way to end this cycle of violence, according to press reports Wednesday, July 27.

The plan includes up-close dialogues with the Muslim community by its segments, British Minister for Race and Faith Affairs Paul Goggins told a press conference Tuesday, July 26, at the Home Office in London, according to the Daily Star.

"We want to help the Muslims now and set up program for partnership to tackle radicalization of Muslims. We want a better communication with the Muslims, improve their education and mosques," Goggins asserted.

It also includes bringing transparency in what the mosques do and the role of the faith-based educational institutions such as madrasahs, he added.

Networks will be set up in Muslim communities to talk to the people to find out what they think and why they incline to become ‘extremists’, the paper said.

Secular Muslim groups will also be involved in the process, it added.

Civil servants aided by community leaders will listen to the Muslims, try to understand their problems and seek solution from them, the Star said, adding that the exercise will then be put in an activity framework.

Thousands of Muslims did think, at some point, of leaving Britain after the London recent bombings, according to a recent Guardian/ICM poll.

Britain's Muslim population is estimated at 1.6 million, with 1.1 million over 18, meaning more than half a million may have considered the possibility of leaving, according to the poll.

Praiseworthy

Goggins said the government has been watching closely how the local communities are working out the events.

"The way local communities responded to this very challenging time is praiseworthy," Goggins said. "I thank the faith leaders for their solidarity. Police have reassured the faith leaders that they will do everything to protect the communities."

Asked what Britain plans with a number of extremists living there, he hinted that they will be deported soon.

"We have reached an agreement with Jordan last week [for his deportation]," he said in an oblique reference to Omar Bakri, one of the most strident radical Muslims taking refuge in the UK. "We just can't deport anyone, we have to have country to country agreement."

He said the British government is determined to root out the radical Islamists who are involved in terrorism.

"It will take time to have dialogue with the Muslims and bring changes in their minds," he admitted and tried to allay any fear in the minds of the citizen by saying: "The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. One shouldn't be afraid to see the Muslims.

"Goggins also said Britain will take the issue of terrorism in the country on the international level and so the issue have been discussed with the prime minister of Pakistan .

Dialogue

In a separate-related issue, British writer, Jonathan Glover, wrote in The Guardian Wednesday, July 27, that breaking out of the cycle of violence requires a serious dialogue between the overlapping worlds of the west and Islam before irreversible mutual hatred sets in.

"We need such dialogue internationally, between western and Islamic leaders. We also need it in this country, between those who are not Islamic and those who are," he said.

He added political violence is often a resentful backlash to a group's sense of being insulted or humiliated.

"Dialogue may sound vacuous, but that is misleading. In our own country we need not just any old talk, but some quite deep and sustained discussion of particular issues.

"It could be one of the great projects of mutual education of our time. Two topics would be central. One would be the different systems of belief on each side. The other would be our different narratives of recent history."

Muslim scholars from around the world have gathered in London Sunday, July 24, for a conference addressing the phenomenon of extremism and Islamophobia.

The Metropolitan police-sponsored one-day conference denounced the recent terrorist attacks on London as “barbaric and inhuman,” and called on the public and media to work more closely with the Muslim minority.

The gathering also strongly condemned the mistaken killing of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes by British police, as a direct result of adopting a shoot-to-kill policy in their massive hunt for four bombers, who failed to strike London July 21, two weeks after four suicide bombers ripped through three Tube stations and a bus, killing 52 people.

A statement issued last week by over 40 leading mosque imams, muftis and scholars representing all sections of Muslims in Britain stressed that “there can never be any excuse for taking an innocent life.”

The scholars asserted that those behind the July 7 London bombings cannot consider themselves martyrs.

 

 

Fw: AT A CRITICAL MOMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY - SO BIZARRE AS TO BE BEYOND BELIEF*

 
----- Original Message -----
From: rainbow7
To: MITCH//
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:07 AM
Subject: AT A CRITICAL MOMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY - SO BIZARRE AS TO BE BEYOND BELIEF*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mel Hurtig's Keynote Address to the 2005 Association of World Citizens Conference
[The following is the full text of a speech by Mel Hurtig to be given at the Association of World Citizens Conference tomorrow, Aug 2 2005, posted at the express request of the author.-Vive Editor]

AT A CRITICAL MOMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY
SO BIZARRE AS TO BE BEYOND BELIEF*

A Keynote Address by Mel Hurtig
Association of World Citizens Conference
University of San Francisco
August 2, 2005

*words from an article by Robert S. McNamara, Foreign Policy, May/June 2005

In what follows, I acknowledge with gratitude and admiration the invaluable work of Douglas Roche, O.C. formerly Canada’s Ambassador for Disarmament and currently Chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative. Roche’s analysis of the May, 2005 Seventh Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is perceptive and extremely important.

While all of us in this room are fully aware of the dismaying failure of the crucial Seventh Review Conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty which took place in New York in May, I very much doubt if one in a thousand around the world paid attention to the month-long deliberations or have any even vague idea of their importance, or the inevitable tragic consequences of the enormously disappointing Conference results.

Not only was no progress made on the vitally important issues of nuclear disarmament, proliferation, abolishing testing and the continuing upgrading and refinement of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, but in a shocking betrayal to the world’s aspirations for peace, disarmament and redirecting arms funding to badly-needed humanitarian use, clear-cut widely agreed-to commitments made in the previous 1995 and 2000 Reviews were either ignored or repudiated.

It’s impossible not to single out the administration of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for the Conference failure. Time and again the U.S. blocked crucial references to earlier commitments and continued to stubbornly refuse to join the widely-supported Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

While most countries wanted a strengthened Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.S. clearly wanted it weakened.

And, while many U.S. allies, including seven NATO states called for specific steps to quicken nuclear disarmament, and almost 2,000 NGOs presented thoughtful, passionate pleas and warnings about the growing dangers of proliferation, and while well-reasoned plans for verification and the elimination of nuclear arsenals were presented and overwhelmingly supported, the U.S. frustrated any such progress towards goals almost universally supported.

Having already backed away from the vitally important ABM Treaty, having refused to back the Test Ban Treaty, having embarked on the dangerous, escalating, so-called missile defence fiasco, having already budgeted for the refinement of its nuclear weapons, having planned for the development of new nuclear weapons and the horrendous prospect of the weaponization of space, having agreed to a dangerous new provocative nuclear agreement with India, the U.S. is now clearly identifiable as the major threat to world peace and to the very survival of the human race.


Fw: 10 Reasons Not To Move To Canada

Under the US Constitution, "we the people" have the ultimate authority over
our government, and therefore the ultimate responsibility to reclaim it.
In Christ, Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Cahill" <tcahill@mcn.org>
To: <Recipient list suppressed>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 11:59 AM
Subject: 10 Reasons Not To Move To Canada

From Syracuse Cultural Workers

by Sarah Anderson

Ready to say "screw this country" and buy a one-way ticket north? Here are
some reasons to stay in the belly of the beast (as found on the "Common
Dreams" website).

1. The Rest of the World. After the February 2003 antiwar protests, the New
York Times described the global peace movement as the world's second
superpower. Their actions didn't prevent the war, but protestors in nine
countries have succeeded in pressuring their governments to pull their
troops from Iraq and/or withdraw from the so-called "coalition of the
willing." Antiwar Americans owe it to themajority of the people on this
planet who agree with them to stay and do what they can to end the
suffering in Iraq and prevent future pre-emptive wars.

2. People Power Can Trump Presidential Power. The strength of social
movements can be more important than whoever is in the White House.
Example: In 1970, President Nixon supported the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, widely considered the most important pro-worker legislation of
the last 50 years. It didn't happen because Nixon loved labor unions, but
because union power was strong. Stay and help build the peace, economic
justice, environmental and other social movements that can make change.

3. The great strides made in voter registration and youth mobilization must
be built on rather than abandoned.

4. Like Nicaraguans in the 1980s, Iraqis Need U.S. Allies. After Ronald
Reagan was re-elected in 1984, progressives resisted the urge to flee
northwards and instead stayed to fight the U.S. governments secret war of
arming the contras in Nicaragua and supporting human rights atrocities
throughout Central America. Iraq is a different scenario, but we can still
learn from the U.S.-Central America solidarity work that exposed illegal
U.S. activities and their brutal consequences and ultimately prevailed by
forcing a change in policy.

5. We Can't Let up on the Free Trade Front. Activists have held the Bush
administration at bay on some issues. On trade, opposition in the United
States and in developing countries has largely blocked the Bush
administrations corporate-driven trade agenda for four years. The President
is expected to soon appoint a new top trade negotiator to break the
impasse. Whoever he picks would love to see a progressive exodus to Canada.

6. Barak Obama. His victory to become the only African-American in the U.S.
Senate was one of the few bright spots of the election. An early opponent
of the Iraq war, Obama trounced his primary and general election opponents,
even in white rural districts, showing he could teach other progressives a
few things about broadening their base. As David Moberg of In These Times
puts it, Obama demonstrates how a progressive politician can redefine
mainstream political symbols to expand support for liberal policies and
politicians rather than engage in creeping capitulation to the right.

7. Say so long to the DLC. Barry Goldwater suffered a resounding defeat
when he ran for president against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but his campaign
spawned a conservative movement that eventually gained control of the
Republican Party and elected Ronald Reagan in 1980. Progressives should see
the excitement surrounding Dean, Kucinich, Moseley Braun, and Sharpton
during the primary season as the foundation for a similar takeover of the
Democratic Party.

8. 2008. President Bush is entering his second term facing an escalating
casualty rate in Iraq, a record trade deficit, a staggering budget deficit,
sky-high oil prices, and a deeply divided nation. As the Republicans face
likely failure, progressives need to start preparing for regime change in
2008 or sooner. Remember that Nixon was re-elected with a bigger margin
than Bush, but faced impeachment within a year.

9. Americans are Not All Yahoos. Although I wouldn't attempt to convince a
Frenchman of it right now, many surveys indicate that Americans are more
internationalist than the election results suggest. In a September poll by
the University of Maryland, majorities of Bush supporters expressed support
for multilateral approaches to security, including the United States being
part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (68%), the International Criminal
Court (75%), the treaty banning land mines (66%), and the Kyoto Treaty on
climate change (54%). The problem is that most of these Bush supporters
weren't aware that Bush opposed these positions. Stay and help turn
progressive instincts into political power.

10. Winter. Average January temperature in Ottawa: 12.2°F.

Sarah Anderson is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.