Saturday, December 31, 2005
Imagine if we were in a parallel universe in which Hollywood gave Arabs and Muslims a fair shake. Here are ten films (all based on true stories) that are just waiting for Spielberg's magic.
By Mas'ood Cajee, December 8, 2005
Hollywood mogul Steven Spielberg's latest film "Munich" focuses on Israel's efforts to avenge the tragic killings of its athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ripe with great ideas for potential blockbuster films, Hollywood flicks about the conflict have tended to remain formulaic and dehumanizing.
Spielberg hopes "Munich" will be different, and claims he didn't want to make "a Charles Bronson movie — good guys vs. bad guys and Jews killing Arabs without any context." Critics say Spielberg is too pro-Israel to make a fair film about the conflict.
Imagine for a second it is Opposite Day. Imagine we're in some kind of Twilight Zone parallel universe in which Hollywood gives Arabs and Muslims a fair shake. What kind of movies about the Middle East would we then be chomping Goobers, Junior Mints, and popcorn to at the local twenty screen multiplex?
Maybe these movies might actually be made by some of the 125 Palestinian kids Spielberg is giving video cameras to document their lives. Perhaps a talented few will go on to become big-time Hollywood directors. Here are ten potential films — all inspired by actual events — that are just waiting for the magic of Spielberg & his wannabes:
1. King David Hotel: The bombing of the King David Hotel, which served as headquarters of the British administration in Palestine, killed 91 Arabs, Jews, and Brits in 1946. Two future Prime Ministers of Israel, David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin, masterminded the attack. Disguised as Arabs, members of Begin's Irgun placed 350kg of explosives inside the building. In this action-packed thriller, David (Pierce Brosnan) — a British officer ordered to hunt down the killers — falls for Margaret (Uma Thurman), an American journalist working for Life Magazine. But is Margaret really in love or is she a secret Zionist assassin out to stop David in his tracks?
2. Nakba: A story of innocent love in a time of war and tragedy. Layla (Penelope Cruz) & Salam (Orlando Bloom) are a Romeo & Juliet against the backdrop of the 1948 Nakba, the Palestinian national catastrophe. During the Nakba, over 700,000 Palestinians fled — voluntarily & involuntarily — their homes. Can their love survive conflict?
3. USS Liberty: When Israeli boats and fighter jets attack the US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty in the middle of the 1967 Six Day War, 34 US servicemen are killed and 173 are wounded. The official word from Washington and Tel Aviv is that the attack was a mistake. But Brad Pitt & Tom Cruise, who play surviving officers from the Liberty, swear vengeance after discovering that the attack was actually part of a plot to start World War III.
4. Sabra & Shatila: It's 1982 and the war in Lebanon rages on. British war correspondent Robert Fisk (Star Wars star Ewan MacGregor) hides in the camps of Sabra & Shatilla, while a Lebanese militia aided and abetted by Israel slaughters thousands of Palestinian refugees. Sahar (Sandra Bullock) is a Palestinian mother determined to protect her family at any cost.
5. Vanunu: A political thriller set in Israel, Australia, Thailand, England, and Italy. "Syriana" star George Clooney plays Mordechai Vanunu, the nuclear technician who exposes Israel's nuclear weapons program and pays the ultimate price. Nicole Kidman plays Cheryl Bentov, the American Mossad agent who seduces and kidnaps him.
6. Hebron: A story of tragedy and torn loyalties. In 1994, Brooklyn Jewish doctor Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslim worshippers in Hebron, killing 29. Palestinian American Mazen Khalili (Tom Hanks), a State Department official assigned to investigate the massacre, struggles with his job responsibilities and his roots. Leah Rabinowitz (Meg Ryan) is a Jewish American journalist who discovers a dark family secret that will change her life forever.
7. Qana: On April 18, 1996, Israeli shelling of a UN Compound that shelters Lebanese refugees kills more than 100 & injures over 300 men, women, and children. Jessica (Angelina Jolie) is a UN worker determined to let the world know what happened after witnessing the atrocity. Yossi (Robert De Niro) is a Mossad agent assigned to kill Jolie.
8. Gaza: Chris Hedges (Harrison Ford), a New York Times correspondent in Jerusalem, files stories from his hotel room. Hedges reaches a turning point when he witnesses Israeli soldiers killing young Palestinian boys for sport, then defies his editors by writing stories that humanize Palestinians. David Schwimmer & Sarah Jessica Parker make cameo appearances as the parents of Muhammad al-Durra, the 12 year old Palestinian boy killed by Israeli troops in 2000.
9. Rachel: Rachel Corrie (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the idealistic young American activist crushed to death by the Israeli army with a Caterpillar bulldozer. Sally Field, well-known for her role in "Not Without My Daughter", plays Rachel's mother.
10. Refuseniks: When a fellow soldier commits suicide after killing an unarmed pregnant Palestinian woman (played by Natalie Portman) in cold blood, two young Israeli soldiers (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck) decide that the occupation and the killing of Palestinians is immoral and unjust.Mas'ood Cajee lives in San Joaquin County, California.
unfortunately, Arabs are NOT running Hollywood, so this post is irrelevant. Power, manipulation, mass media, mass manufacture, weapons of mass destruction, these are not the forte of the Muslim Ummah. Because they require cunning, greed and corruption at a large scale. Muslims are consigned forever to second class status in this world due to the strong streak of austerity and fatalism that runs through Islamic culture. Groups that promote power and Islamic nationalism tend to eerily resemble their Western counterparts in method, once stripped of the Islamic salad dressings.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Wafer snacks show mass appeal
Quebeckers find nostalgia in 'Host Pieces'
By INGRID PERITZ
Tuesday, December 27, 2005 Posted at 5:09 AM EST
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
MONTREAL — Is nothing sacred in Quebec any more? The answer may lie on the grocery-store shelves of the province, next to the chips, corn puffs, and salty party pretzels.
That's where shoppers can pick up an increasingly popular snack: communion wafers and sheets of communion bread. These paper-thin morsels made from flour and water hark back to Quebec's churchgoing days and the sacred rite of receiving holy communion.
But in today's secular Quebec, the wafers and bread are packaged like peanuts and popcorn - and sold as a distinctly profane snack.
"They melt in your mouth, and they're not fattening, so it's better than junk food," said Françoise Laporte, a white-haired grandmother of 71 who buys packages of Host Pieces at her local IGA in east-end Montreal. "I'm Catholic. This reminds us of mass."
For older Quebeckers, the snacks offer up a form of nostalgia. Surprisingly, however, they're also finding favour with a younger generation that has rarely, if ever, set foot inside a church.
"My son can eat a whole bag while he's watching TV," Paul Saumure, a manager at another IGA store, said of his 22-year-old. "He's had more of them outside of church than he ever did inside one."
The snacks have been available in stores for years, but the erstwhile holy items are enjoying a second life as a health food. Gaston Bonneau, one of the two major commercial producers in Quebec, says his business started with just himself and his wife in the mid-1980s. Now it's grown to 16 employees and he plans to automate production.
He says his wafers and sheets of "host cuttings" aren't sacred - after all, they haven't been consecrated by a priest or minister in a religious service. Still, the unmistakably sacred imagery seems to strike a chord.
"It's one of those rare items that's still around from the old days . . . everyone had them at some point," he said from his office in Quebec City.
But nostalgia can get you only so far. Contemporary concerns about eating a healthier diet help, he said.
"When you eat chips there's all the fat and salt. You eat a bag of host cuttings and there's none," Mr. Bonneau said. "You might have high blood pressure or a cholesterol problem. It's not exactly crunchy granola stuff, but it is natural."
The conversion of a communion wafer into a munchie-style snack is not entirely surprising in a province that has turned its back on religious practise. Quebec has gone from being one of the most devout enclaves in North America to one of the most secular. In Montreal, churches are being refitted as condominiums and religious statuettes are sold as home decor items in antique shops.
In Quebec filmmaker Denys Arcand's award-winning Les Invasions Barbares, a Catholic priest shows off a basement full of religious items in hopes of luring the interest of an auctioneer, only to be told they're worthless.
Still, not everyone is comfortable watching a symbol of Quebec's religious heritage morph into a snack food. After all, holy communion is one of the most essential Christian sacraments that for believers symbolizes spiritual union with the body of Christ.
"People are snacking on hosts and host pieces like it's candy. They're not distinguishing between the body of Christ and something you nibble on at home," said François Trudel, a former Catholic missionary familiar with the production of communion wafers in Quebec.
"Like everything these days, we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We don't respect anything. Nothing is sacred."
Traditionally, communion wafers were made by religious communities. The unleavened bread left over after the wafers were cut out was sold by monasteries to their parishioners.
A handful of Quebec monasteries still produce hosts and sell the leftover unblessed bread. A visitor can gain entry past the thick stone walls of the Carmelite monastery in Montreal's Plateau Mont Royal district and, for $5, buy a plain brown bag of wafer bread from an elderly nun.
The transaction takes place in hushed tones. The image of Carmelite nun St. Thérèse of Lisieux gazes out from a large photo on the wall.
There are no cash registers, no lineups and no lottery tickets are for sale. It may be the same combination of bread and water, but it feels like a long way from the Twinkies aisle.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Oh - the Novus Ordo - WOW!
My father & mother were up to visit for the last few days. My father was once a member of the true Catholic Faith, but now is a crazed novus ordoite. Well we had a few discussions and one of them was rather amusing.
I had read to him the Christmas "Sunday Sermon" from one of our Bishops on their web-site.
here is the text of it:
"And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling-clothes, and laid him in a manger: because there was no room for them in the inn."
What a wonderful mystery! How astounding that the God-man, Jesus Christ, would condescend to be born in a stable. From His very birth He takes upon Himself poverty. If He had wanted to He might have shaken the heavens by His power, and terrified all nature by His majesty. But, this was not the way of His coming; for He came not to destroy, but to save; not to display riches, but to teach us contempt of human grandeur. He therefore condescended not only to become man, but even the vilest of men.
Sadly the lessons that Christ came to teach us have fallen on deaf ears. The majority have never seen or heard of the wonderful contempt of the world that the Christ child taught. And the saddest part is that even most of those who have arrogated to themselves the title of Christian, have never even considered learning, much less putting into practice this contempt of the world.
If one is truly a Christian then he must model his life after that of Christ, he must learn the lessons that Christ came to teach and put them into practice. It is useless to say that we love God if we do not keep His word (commandments).
It is a wonderful tradition to put up the nativity scene with the little Christ child in the manger and to reflect on the happiness that Christ came to bring the world. But, this happiness has its conditions. And perhaps the first and greatest condition is the one Our Lord taught us on this wonderful day - contempt of the world.
It is good for us to celebrate Christmas with decorations and cheer for this is truly a wonderful and joyous occasion, but in the midst of our cheer we should place a sobering curb to our intoxication with the thought of the contempt that Christ had for the pleasures of this world.
When we speak of the contempt of the world, we are not condemning any licit enjoyments. All that God has made and given us is good. The problem arises when we place the good things of this world in the first place in our estimation and love. The first place belongs to God and the things of God, everything else is secondary. And when we think of the glories of God and the glories of Heaven then the things of the world seem to lose their relevance and even become contemptible in the comparison.
The beautiful things of this world are there to remind us of the beautiful things of Heaven. All the color and wonder of Christmas is supposed to fill us with a desire to see God - to go to Heaven.
If God has made the things of this world so beautiful and amazing and these things are only temporary, what must the beauty and joys of Heaven be like because they are eternal?
In our exile here on earth we are given tastes of beauty and happiness only to whet our appetites for the eternal beauty and happiness of Heaven.
The Christ child is showing us today that in the comparison _ there is no comparison. The things of this world are not even worthy to be considered in the light of Heaven. The things of this world are nothing in comparison with the eternal rewards of Heaven.
The men who live only for this world and place all their happiness and hopes in the things of this world have missed the point. They can not experience the joy of Christmas because they are not looking for it in the right places. Christ came to lead us into Heaven, not to make us satisfied with this world. And to truly desire the happiness of Heaven it is necessary that we first correctly despise this world that keeps us back and constantly distracts us from the goal.
When we learn this lesson then we will find the peace that Christ came to give us _ here on earth and most importantly in Heaven.
I then asked him if he had ever heard a "priest" in his church speak like this. He replied that he did not and my mom even agreed, but then he added that what I read was from a Bishop and I am comparing the words of a Bishop to that of a "priest".
So I said - "ok, lets see what your "bishop" has to say for a Christmas message on his web-site. This was a gamble for me - i had no idea what "bishop" Dolan from the "archdiocese" of Milwaukee wouldl have to say, but i figured - he is a novur ordo bogus bishop - i am sure it is not good.
So I went to the link and found a page that had an audio of "bishop" Dolan's Christmas message. Play it - it is amazing. He is very, very happy what "we have a God who wore diapers" NO KIDDING! - here is the link:
Well, needless to say - we found this not only amusing (because of the way it all happened with my novusordoite father), but sad.
The "point" that this apostate "bishop"was trying to supposedly make is that God became like us. This is true but for the purpose that we BECOME LIKE HIM! This apostate neglected to mention that part of it.
Also to use such a vulgar means to convey a message that God became like us. Come on. We all know that He became like us in all things, but sin, but we don't need to here about his bodily functions to get the point. This is a prime example of how file they are!
Friday, December 23, 2005
Lovely Wisconsin: Poster Child for the Coming Police State
Prison Planet December 23 2005
Wisconsin is crazy about control. It also takes fingerprints when a police officer pulls you over for a broken taillight. (And blood specimens if they suspect you are intoxicated or on drugs.)
Additionally, Wisconsin has the proud honor of sponsoring the Super National ID legislation which will also be a Pan American Union Card as we merge with Canada and Mexico (see North American Union) and beyond.
Wisconsin Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., is responsible for writing this National ID legislation which will further erode our privacy. (Passed the House Feb 05)
Tommy Thompson, Wisconsin’s 14 year governor, who later became head of HHS, championed building a super-max prison in the state. Amnesty International has called Supermax one of the two worst facilities of its kind in the nation. Mr. Thompson is now a spokesperson for VERICHIP, the maker of implantable microchip.
I think Wisconsin is a good example of why we do not want to give government this level of control over our personal information and whereabouts or to allow data banks to be linked to our driver’s license and auto license plates.
What else is Wisconsin famous for of late?
A man was sent to prison for five years for “paper terrorism.” He sent too many papers in a complaint he had with the government.
The article about the “paper terrorist” notes, “The case produced the first prison sentence to result from a special anti-terrorism Domestic Security Unit created by then-Attorney General Jim Doyle after the terrorist attacks on Sept.11, 2001. Among its other duties, the unit investigates and prosecutes anti-government activists who try to intimidate government officials, police and citizens by filing false legal documents.” So I guess the Patriot Act comes in handy in Wisconsin with all those anti-government types.
Now Representative Sensenbrenner ( R) is showing his zeal for control as he forces his hand with the hated Patriot Act. One must question why a Jew would feel so inclined to give government this level of control over its citizens. Wasn’t the motto, “ Never again”? Why is Sensenbrenner constructing a Little Nazi Germany in Wisconsin?
References: Alex Jones Report 1-12-05 http://www,prisonplanet.tv Wisconsin will have a screen to track each cell Phone in real time. They can click on a phone and listen in like a bug by law.
Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops (re Wisconsin)http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?s=2776926
Drivers in Wisconsin Forced by Police to Give Blood Samples http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/blood_checkpoint.htm
Rough Reception for DNA Law http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C65744%2C00.html Wired Nov 27 2004 In Wisconsin, for example, a lawsuit filed earlier this year by prisoners who argued that giving DNA samples violated their 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search And seizure was tossed out by a federal appeals court.
Super National ID Card Passes House Infowars.com February 11, 2005 http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/nat_id_super_card_passes_house.htm
'Paper terrorist' gets five years in prison http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan03/111509.asp
Citation Dropped for Anti-War Sign January 11, 2005 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=404907 WAUSAU, Wis. Jan 11, 2005 — The city dropped a Public obscenity citation Tuesday against a man who Erected an anti-war sign in a public square that mixed President Bush's name with a profanity.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Have you ever given any thought to the attributes assigned to the mythical "Santa Claus" and what message we are sending to our children if we teach them that this "person" exists?
"He sees you when your sleeping, he knows when your awake, he knows if you've been bad or good..." Ominiscience- an atribute that only God has.
He delivers toys to every child everwhere on the entire planet in one night. - Ominipresent - another atribute that belongs only to God.
The ability to produce and deliver all these toys, the ability to fly, fit in chimnies, enter locked homes, move about without ever been seen - Ominipotence - another atribute that belongs to God alone.
Soooo - we teach our children that this character - Santa Claus is a god - or at least has all the powers that we know ONLY God has. Then we insist that they believe he is real - we claim he is real, and we do everything in our power to make sure that we don't let them find out that he is not real and "ruin the fun"!
The child believes all this and then at some point realizes that his parents had lied to him/her for years - and there is no "santa claus" with these powers of God.
Do you not think that the child questions, at least at the subconscious level - if God is then a hoax too?
I do not teach my children to believe in this mythical "santa claus" - I teach my children about the real St. Nicholas who lived and died in the 5th century and who was a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
One day in the grocery store - a clerk innocently asked my daughter if Santa Claus was coming to her house - my daughter (six or so at the time) responed by looking at the clerk like she was crazy and said: "um, Santa Claus is dead" - the look of horror on the clerks face was worth a million bucks! it was really funny - i then explained to her what we teach our children about Santa.
I have had sooo much grief over this from my parents, in-laws, grandparents, etc... - telling me that i am ruining their childhood by not doing "trick or treat" - the "easter bunny", or santa claus.
tell me - what does a giant rabbit have to do with the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior?
What does a glutonous man in a red suit giving out toys to ungreatful beasts have to do with the birth of Christ in a stable in all humility without even a pillow to lay his head?
what does dressing up like demons, devils, murderers, monsters, and telling people to give you candy or you will play a trick on them have to do with the Eve of all Saints Day?
No - i will teach my children the truth - and the real meaning of these HOLY DAYS - not talmudic "holidays" willfully deprived of their true Christian meaning.
Today as i was getting ready for work i turned on the TV to the one channel that we get since we got rid of cable. (i figure we need to have some means of keeping in touch with the news, etc..) Anyhow - the Today Show was on - they were doing some type of "holiday" cooking segment.
In the banner below it said:
This is probably what will be next - after all - it falls right in line with that satanic oxymoron - Judeo-Christian!
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
btw - this is from one of those "conservative" - Bush appointed Judges!
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Religious McDonald's Sign Draws Attention In Raleigh
Woman Asks Restaurant To Remove Sign, 'Jesus Is The Reason For The Season'
POSTED: 7:16 am EST December 14, 2005
UPDATED: 10:25 am EST December 14, 2005
RALEIGH, N.C. -- Everyone celebrates religion and holidays in their own individual ways, but currently there are questions about whether the two should be more connected. One of the latest places involved in the controversy is a McDonald's restaurant in Raleigh.
The sign at McDonald's on the corner of Falls of Neuse and Spring Forest Road reads: "Merry Christmas, Jesus is the Reason for the Season." It is a holiday message that Amanda Alpert thinks comes on a little too strongly.
"It offends me because it specifically talks about Jesus, Merry Christmas. It doesn't give credit to anyone else," Alpert said.
Alpert called the McDonald's corporate office in Atlanta and requested that the sign be changed to the politically correct Happy Holidays. The response was the owner has the right to do what she wants with the sign.
"I care because I'm Jewish, and the reason for the season is upsetting to me," Alpert said.
None of the drivers WRAL spoke to were offended by the sign.
"I've always known it to be Merry Christmas, and it is Jesus' birthday," said Tom David of Smithfield.
It's a debate that's struck a chord nationally and locally. The White House Christmas card surprised some with its "Happy Holiday Season" message. A proposed nativity scene in Raleigh recently drew a crowd at council chambers.
McDonald's managers say the sign has been good for business. They say church groups have stopped by to eat, and some people who usually don't eat food from McDonald's have stopped by because of the sign. The store's owner did not return WRAL's calls.
Friday, December 16, 2005
EU Threatens Sanctions Over Holocaust Flap
By NICHOLAS PAPHITIS, Associated Press Writer
European leaders threatened sanctions against Iran for its president's remarks about Israel and the Holocaust, even as the regime's interior minister said Friday the widely condemned comments were "misunderstood" by Western governments.
Leaders at a European Union summit in Brussels, Belgium, will adopt a statement Friday condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent comments describing the Holocaust as a "myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
"These comments are wholly unacceptable and have no place in civilized political debate," the draft statement said.....
What about sanctions against Israel for its comments - such as these:
1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 20012.
2."The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 20003. "
3.[The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.4.
4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 19885.
5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.6.
6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.7.
7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 19698.
8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.9.
9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.9a.
9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."
10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
11. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)
12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.
13. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"
17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.
20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.
21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.
23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.
24. "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Know your enemy!
The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas
Posted: December 7, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn't? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear it will offend?
Schools are being forced to replace "Christmas vacation" with "winter break" in their printed schedules. At Macy's, the word is verboten even though they've made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, "Miracle on 34th Street." Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.
How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn't mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country's population is of one religion, and roughly 90 percent of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.
Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn't, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn't a threat to anyone – it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world's melting pot was our nickname. It didn't mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.
That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront.
Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two-week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, "It's a Wonderful Life" was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.
But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society – it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed toward George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.
My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26 percent of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we've ever had in the Oval Office.
It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase "separation of church and state" actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.
You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a "Merry Christmas" will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver's license.
I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority. I am getting the idea that too many Jews won't be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.
I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They're the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They're the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, "In God we trust" or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital "C." By this time, I'm only surprised that they haven't begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it's only for religious reasons – Christian reasons – that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.
This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.
Burt Prelutsky has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times, a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine and a freelance writer for TV Guide, Modern Maturity, the N.Y. Times and Sports Illustrated. He has also written TV scripts for shows such as "MASH," "Mary Tyler Moore" and "Diagnosis Murder." His most recent book "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco," is available from WND's online store, ShopNetDaily, or if you'd rather order by phone, call WND's toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).
Friday, December 09, 2005
Holocaust Fundamentalism - You WILL Believe
By Mark Green12-3-5
You've seen the films. You've read the books. You've taken the courses. You've heard the news. Soon, your children will be visiting the museums. Everybody knows it's true.
The era of mandatory belief in The Holocaust has arrived. Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. Recalcitrant non-believers are now being rounded up. The typical rhetoric goes: "these bigots deny the facts and lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. Their unique kind of poison will not be tolerated. This is a democracy. You are under arrest."
Only this is not a movie. This is real.
In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. Few people have noticed. Nobody's supposed to care. Big media certainly doesn't. Nor the politicians. These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. Their crimes involve disbelief: they dispute the official version of events involving Jews during WWII.
In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need special laws to protect it? Curious, that.
Beginning Jan. 27, 2006, and continuing every year thereafter, the United Nations will inaugurate its first annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. This Israeli-sponsored resolution not only institutionalizes and broadens global sensitivity to The Holocaust, but it will surely aid in prosecuting individuals who reject official Holocaust dogma. The State Church has arrived. It's creed: Holocaust fundamentalism.
Question: to what extent do these escalating measures have more than nothing to do with America's "special relationship" with the Jewish State, our war in Iraq, and our saber-rattling towards Syria and Iran? Just curious.
Resistance to the global New Doctrine however is growing. Among the arguments:
Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. Take your Thought Control laws and shove it.
Primary question: How many Jews died (and how many were deliberately killed) during WWII? How do we know?
In how many Western Democracies is doubting the "correct number " of Jewish victims during WWII now against the law? (seven)
It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. That's still a lot of dead people. Yes, it is theoretically possible that 6,000,000 Jews were killed during the war, but--forgive me--I sense a bold exaggeration.
But aside from that, since when is skepticism a crime? Where are the bodies, for instance? May I have a list of names, please?
Even the Yard Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel, after 60 years, can only muster three million names, and many of those names are of Jews who merely died (or disappeared) during WWII, causes unknown. Many names appear more than once. In a similar vein, while the number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz was officially reduced by millions in recent years, the irreducible number of "six million Jews" remains. Isn't it possible that there's some politically-motivated chicanery here?
It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier "facts" regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed out for popular consumption. The lamp shade and human soap stories, for instance, have been quietly retired. The secret dealings between Nazis and Zionists during WWII have been suppressed. Another ignored fact concerns the lethal Typhus epidemics in the death camps. Why have they been airbrushed from popular memory?
One problem is that all the "experts" tend to be Jewish and show bias on the subject. How many Germans died in WWII? Five million? Actually I'm not sure, since their suffering isn't supposed to matter and therefore their casualties aren't noted. What was the total number of dead in WWII?--50 million? How many have died in wars during the 20th Century?--275 million? (that's Zbig. Brezinski's estimate). Considering this, even if six million Jews were deliberately killed during WWII, shouldn't we demand that the Zionized world stop caring so singularly about Jewish suffering? The Jewish obsession with everything Jewish is shamefully narcissistic and burdensome. Their defiant ethnocentrism is an ongoing insult to the rest of the human race.
As for the "un-revisable" six million figure, Jews have superstitious reasons pertaining to the number "six" for claiming that six million died. In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews facing death during WWI. These nutty allegations were even published in the NY Times. The claimants were Jewish.
Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they could claim supreme victimhood and reap the political rewards. Holocaust lore is essential to the precarious legitimacy of the Jewish State. Just ask the Palestinians.
But the Holocaust story as now told is a libel on the German people, since it pretends to show that German anti-Semitism sprang from nowhere. But the real story is more complicated.
Rightly or wrongly, the Nazis blamed the Jews for America's entry into WWI as well as the unjust and punitive Treaty of Versailles which followed. It's also undeniable that international Jewry "declared war" (and launched an international boycott) on Hitler's Germany in 1933. Even the outrage know as "Kristallnacht" was provoked in part by a Jewish assassin (Herschel Grynszpan) who, on November 7, 1938, walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot and killed Ernest vom Rath, a German diplomat.
We know, for instance, that soon after the turn of the century, Jews comprised many if not most of the leading political radicals in Europe. They were instrumental in orchestrating and managing the Communist revolution which killed millions of non-Jews well before Hitler's rise. Why aren't the Nazi-hunters interested in finding any of these mass-murderers? Is it justice they're after, or revenge and political advantage? The "innocent little Jewish shopkeeper" archetype as peddled on TV is a self-exculpating myth.
However, that Jews were persecuted and murdered during Hitler's reign is irrefutable. I've never seen or read a Holocaust "denier" who claims otherwise. Not one. The extraordinary claim that "6,000,000 Jews were systematically murdered" is what they contest. This deliberate mischaracterization of Holocaust revisionism has been spread widely and purposefully by keepers of the Holocaust faith. And the disinformation continues to flow.
David Irving, the imprisoned author of dozens of works on WWII, is now alleged to have recently "recanted" some of his "Holocaust denial claims". But his change-of-heart cannot believed so long as he is being held captive on account of his scholarship.
One reader suggested that we call the search for truth in this matter "Holocaust factualism". Good start. Both teams in this historical divide are clearly inundated with advocates posing as scholars. The entire investigation therefore has been rigged from the start. At the same time, it can't be denied that those championing the Official Version are basically holding all the political cards and resources.
But even if we accept their self-serving stories and invisible body counts, it's still outrageous that the Jews and their lackeys deliberately ignore all the non-Jewish fatalities in Hitler's "death camps". Holocaust survivor, Bruno Bettelheim, writing in his book, "Surviving", notes that according to the Communists in East Germany in 1945, as many as 11 million died in Hitler's gulags, of which 5.5 to six million were Jewish. This means that, according to Bettelheim, it's possible that as many as half of Hitler's concentration camp victims were gentiles! Where are the monuments to these innocent people? Why is their story being suppressed? Or should we now direct this Kosher Inquisition towards Bruno Bettelheim?
Whatever your view on the casualty count (or the disputed gas chamber stories), the focus must return to the core issue: intellectual freedom.
Historical truth doesn't need to be protected by any special law or speech code. Irving, Zundel, Rudolf and others, need and deserve our unwavering support if we intend to remain even nominally free.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Disown your dad's denial of the Holocaust, Gibson toldDavid Nason, New York
correspondentDecember 08, 2005
A WORLD authority on Hitler's Final Solution has called on Australian actor-director Mel Gibson to publicly repudiate the Holocaust denial of his father Hutton Gibson and to clarify his own position on the extermination of the Jews.Rafael Medoff of the US-based David S. Wyman Institute of Holocaust Studies issued the ultimatum after the Walt Disney-owned ABC television said a Gibson company would produce a four-part Holocaust mini-series for the US network next year.
Tentatively titled Flory, the telemovie will tell the true story of Flory Van Beek, a Dutch Jew who survived the Holocaust through the bravery of three Christian families who sheltered her from the Nazis in Holland.
Gibson's Con Artist Productions reportedly clinched the deal with a breathtaking pitch for a climactic "Braveheart-style" battle scene where thousands of Jewish and Nazi combatants rush at each other across an open field.
But Dr Medoff was unimpressed, saying Disney should step in and sack Gibson if he refuses to fully acknowledge the extent of the Nazi genocide.
"By choosing to inject himself into public discussions of the Holocaust by his association with this movie, Mel Gibson has a moral obligation to come clean and clearly repudiate his father's statements denying the Holocaust," Dr Medoff said.
"If he declines to publicly repudiate Holocaust denial and continues to maintain that the Holocaust was just one of numerous similar atrocities during World War II, then Disney and the ABC should reconsider their arrangements with him."
Adding to the controversy is the memory of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, one of last year's top-grossing films but one condemned as anti-Semitic by many Jewish organisations.
Both the Gibsons were named in the Wyman Institute's 2004 global survey of Holocaust denial.
Hutton Gibson told New York radio station WSNR the Holocaust was mostly fiction because the Nazi's never had enough petrol to burn six million Jews.
"They did not have the gas to do it," he said. "That's why they lost the war." He went on to deny the mass extermination of Poland's Jews, saying they had "simply got up and left".
"They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn, and Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles," he said.
When asked last year by ABC reporter Diane Sawyer about his father's statements, Mel Gibson replied: "He's my father. Gotta leave it alone, Diane. Gotta leave it alone."
Asked about his father's religious beliefs and view of the Holocaust in the March 2004 edition of Reader's Digest, Gibson said: "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."
Pressed further to go on the record and say the Holocaust happened, Gibson said: "Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933."
Dr Medoff said Gibson was trying to "minimise and blur the Holocaust" by making it just one of many atrocities of the war.
"This is ridiculous and clearly contrary to the historical record," he said.
"It indicates that he himself has some sort of distorted, troubling view of the Holocaust."
Monday, December 05, 2005
"I swear by God I walked by a room and on my left I saw a grinder with blood coming out of it and human hair underneath,"
ah - yea - sure you did.
Was this at a McMuslim run where Saddam was the manager?
Next we will hear about human soap, lamp shades, and showers that really let out gas to kill the prisoners - oh - wait - wrong fable!
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Since the previous post that started this discussion between myself and Derek is getting soo long i thought i would start another.
Here is some information regarding the "gas chambers" of the Holocaust legend that is very telling.
Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill's The Second World War (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954), and the Mémoires de guerre of General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not ONE SINGLE MENTION of Nazi gas chambers is to be found.
Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find NO MENTION either of Nazi "gas chambers," a "genocide" of the Jews, or of "six million" Jewish victims of the war.
Why the silence?
Why in the works of some of the most prominent players in WWII - Eisenhower, Churchill, de Gaulle - do we not find a SINGLE MENTION of Nazi Gas Chambers or the Mass execution of Jews?
One would think that the mass murder of 6 million innocent men, women and children, by such extraordinary means as showers that were really gas chambers - would have at least warranted some mention.
Surely - these men had heard of these accusations - surely they knew of the Nuremberg trails.
What is the explanation for there not being a single mention of what we are told was such a profound part of the War?
It is also very interesting to note that Pope Pius XII who was the Vicar of Christ during the whole of WWII (depending on when you believe it actually started) till 1958 - did not make a SINGLE MENTION of a mass execution of Jews.
What can explain this? After all Pope Pius XII condemned many things that the Germans and others did during WWII, including the terror bombings of innocent civilians during WWII by the Allies and the Axis - but no mention of the wholesale slaughter - the supposed willful murder of SIX MILLION innocent men, women, and children -and the VICAR OF CHRIST never even MENTIONS IT! Remember - he lived almost 10 years AFTER the conclusion of Nuremberg!
What can explain this?
Monday, November 28, 2005
We don't need to worry about the Nazi's anymore - THERE HERE AND IN CONTROL!
Miami Police Take New Tack Against TerrorMonday, November 28, 2005 3:45 PM ESTThe Associated PressBy CURT ANDERSON
— Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.
Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats.
"This is an in-your-face type of strategy...."...
Sunday, November 27, 2005
The interesting thing about the "crime" of holocaust denial is that the truth is no defense at all. You can be telling the absolute truth and even be able to prove it ... and still go to jail for several years.
Meanwhile, if Zundel, Irving, Rudolph and Verbeke are being sent to jail for challenging the orthodox story, then why hasn't the International Red Cross been arrested? after all, they had access to the German camps, both POW and labor, and their official reports do not support the orthodox accounts popularized in novels, TV shows, and films.
And, if Zundel, Irving, Rudolph and Verbeke are being sent to jail for challenging the orthodox story, then so too should the curators of the Auschwitz museum, for daring to revise downward the total number of dead at the camps from 4 million to1 1/2 million in 1990.
Nobody locks up people who claim to see Bigfoot, or who think Elvis is alive. People with such loony notions are simply allowed their freedom of speech, then ridiculed, then ignored. If Zundel, Irving, Rudolph and Verbeke are totally crazy, why the intense pressure to steal them from their homes and ship them to Germany for the crime of simply not agreeing with a particular spin of the history of WW2?
Truth needs no laws to support it. Throughout history, from Galileo to Zundel, only lies and liars have resorted to the courts to enforce adherence to dogma. More than anything else, it is the extreme tactics employed by the defenders of the orthodoxy that calls into doubt the accuracy of the history they proclaim to the world.
(the above comments are commentary from whatreallyhappened.com) I found his wording to be almost perfect -and even though i certainly do not agree with everything on his web-site - i could not have said this better myself. (thought i take exception to the Galileo reference).
Here are the relevant links:
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Monday, November 14, 2005
Read the following links -and put two and two together.
This is a story about the recent Amman hotel bombings which killed at least 57 people and injured more than 115. The key part of this story is that the Israelis were evacuated BEFORE the bombing and escorted back to Israel!
This story - brought back some memories for me - check these stories out:
This story tells how Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Embassy in London were warned in advance of the London Train Bombings, whereby - Netenyahu stayed in his hotel instead of making his way to address an economic summit at a site adjecent to the first explosion.
This story reports how the Israeli owned Odigo Corporation, located in the WTC received emails two hours before the WTC was struck by the first plane - warning the israeli employees of the coming attack.
It is also interesting to note that not a single Israeli died in the WTC on September 11. People died in the WTC from several nations, but none from Israel - lucky for them, especially since there was an Israeli owned business operating in the WTC! And of course, we all know that the USA and Israeli have very little to do with each other, so no Israeli citizen would have any reason to be in the WTC! I almost choked on that last sentence!
THINK! - WAKE UP!
we are being led by the nose!
(note well, that each of these news stories comes from an Israeli newspaper web-site - hardly an anti-jewish - or anti-israel source, and not by any stretch of the imagination - a conspiracy site.)
Monday, November 07, 2005
Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
By Martin Penner07-11-2005
From: The Australian
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
The Myth of Eternal Security
Since i don't have time to keep going round and round with Jason - I happened to come upon this fine writing regarding this false belief of Jason. I simply cut and pasted it - here it is...
The Myth of Eternal Security "Once Saved, Always Saved" Refuted By Scripture & Philosophy
by MARIO DERKSEN
At least since the time of Jean Cauvin (1509-1564), commonly called John Calvin in English, some people professing belief in Christ as their Lord and Savior have embraced the idea that one can be justified before God here on earth once, and this justification is of such a nature that nothing--no action, no event, no sin--can possibly undo it. That is, once one has been "saved," one cannot lose this salvation, and one is guaranteed Heaven forever. Any sort of righteous action is considered "adding on" to the "finished work of Christ," and to admit that any sin could possibly undo this "salvation" is considered to be an admission that Christ's redemptive act is insufficient or somehow dependent on us frail, sinful human beings.
It certainly is an attractive idea to think that one only has to pray a "sinner's prayer" and can then sit back and relax, one's salvation being guaranteed. In fact, believers in this doctrine of "eternal security" (sometimes referred to as the "perseverance of the saints"), and there are quite a few of them, often invite the "unsaved" who already profess belief in Christ with alluring lines like this:
Would you like to know perfect peace in Christ and rest for your soul? Would you like to experience a salvation that is sure and guaranteed? Would you like to believe in a Christ who has given His uttermost for you, paid the full penalty of sin for you and earned your entry into Heaven for you? This is the Christ of the Bible!
Then the Protestant apologist will bombard you with Scripture verses that, allegedly, prove that our salvation is guaranteed and cannot be lost, once it has been obtained. Note first of all that these Protestants use the catching phrase of "would you like to..." or sometimes "wouldn't you want to...." I think anybody can see that what we or I might possibly want is completely irrelevant. God doesn't make the rules according to our personal desires. Many people would certainly want to be allowed to keep sinning and still go to Heaven--yet that "desire" hardly makes it so. In other words, the phrase "would you like to" should be a warning signal to any thinking Christian; what matters is not what I would like but what God would like and has decreed. Since when is theology and divine revelation fashioned according to man's wants, after all?
The biblical "proof texts" these Protestants employ typically include Romans 8:29-30, 1 John 5:13, Romans 8:38-39, John 6:37, and John 10:28-29. Taken just by themselves, they may sound convincing, but let's first remember that simply quoting Scripture is no great accomplishment. The devil himself, in tempting Our Lord, did the same thing. Each time Satan tried to trick the Lord through some twisted Scripture, Christ demonstrated it had been taken out of context, replying with another Scripture and its proper interpretation. Hence, when Protestants quote Scripture, we must check the context to see if it contradicts the authentic Scriptural message, that is, the interpretation and teaching of the Apostles and their successors, who have received sound doctrine from God Himself (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2, etc.).
At first, let's look at the often-quoted verses in support of Calvinism's "eternal security":
Romans 8:29-30For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.
"See," says the eternal-security believer, "it says here quite plainly that all those who are justified will be glorified. God predestines certain men to glory, and these He justifies. Thus, we can know that once we are justified, we will enter Heaven." But is that so?
Not at all. First, we know that even though "many are called, [only] few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14). Eternal-security Protestants read this passage as if it said "those whom he called, he also predestined," whereas, in truth, the passage says "those whom he predestined, he also called." Let's not confuse the cause with the effect.
Secondly, the most obvious contradiction to the eternal-security interpretation of Romans 8:29-30 is the fact that the passage is in the past tense. St. Paul does not say, "those whom God justifies, He will also glorify," and he certainly doesn't say, "those whom God justifies at one point, He will glorify eventually, no matter what." Rather, it makes much more sense to recognize that Paul is probably talking about Christians who have already lived and died in a state of grace, and thus their predestination, calling, justification, and glorification is already completed. Why even mention that, one might wonder? Well, this assures the faithful on earth that if they are faithful to God, they too will be glorified in Heaven. In fact, just a few verses earlier, St. Paul emphasizes that this is what he means: "If [we are] children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him" (Romans 8:17). So what does our glorification depend on? Our suffering with Him!
Thirdly, it seems obvious from even a marginal reading of Roman 8:29-30 that Paul is referring to the same body of people throughout his one sentence about predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. Those who were justified had also been called, Paul says, but that leaves enough room to admit of people who are justified but not called and hence fall away again. So the mere justification at one instant within one's life means nothing. It does not guarantee glorification in Heaven, and Romans 8:29-30 does not state the contrary.
Thus, the text merely says that those who were predestined by God were also called by God, and those, then, were also justified by Him, and then glorified. Nowhere does this passage even remotely hint at the Protestant understanding that somehow anyone who is ever justified for a little while will necessarily remain such till his death. It only talks about particular predestined people who had died up to that point, that these people were predestined, called, justified, and eventually glorified. This will happen to all the predestined, but this doesn't mean that everyone who is justified at one point will be glorified. It means that those who were called were eventually glorified--and that is an unchanging truth the Catholic Church has always affirmed.
The second passage I wish to examine is 1 John 5:13:
1 John 5:13I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
So St. John tells us we can "know" that we have eternal life. Of course we can know. But this is not an absolute knowledge but a conditional one: we know we will go to Heaven if we die in a state of grace, that is, if we are justified before God at the moment of our death. In fact, one wonders why St. John would encourage us to keep the Commandments in the very same chapter (vv. 2 and 3) if we were guaranteed Heaven regardless!
Secondly, and possibly more importantly, what is often overlooked in this passage is St. John's statement "I write this to you." Well, what is the "this" that he wrote? Isn't it important to look at all he wrote in this epistle in order to properly evaluate how we can know that we have eternal life by what he wrote? So let's look at what he wrote, to the shock of many a Protestant:
1 John 3:6No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.
1 John 3:23And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
1 John 5:2-3By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
So St. John writes this that we may be assured of eternal salvation. That changes the whole picture, doesn't it? And once we look at the "this" that he wrote in the Epistle, it becomes crystal-clear that the only authentic interpretation of 1 John 5:13 is that our salvation is assured if we obey God, i.e. if we die in a state of grace.
Let us look at another commonly-cited passage:
Romans 8:38-39For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
What does the eternal-security believer see in this? To him, it means that nothing in the world can separate us from our justification, from our salvation. But the text does not say that. First of all, St. Paul only mentions forces external to the individual--death, angels, powers, things to come, etc. (The same goes for other forces he mentions in verse 35.) He does not mention internal forces, such as a thwarted will or sin, even once--yet, would this not have been a perfect opportunity to do just that, if that is what he wanted to teach? Paul could easily have said, "Neither adultery nor fornication, nor blasphemy nor idolatry, nor any other sin can separate us from the love of God." Yet, that's not what he said. A second and certainly equal observation we ought to make here is that the passages does not mention salvation; rather, it talks about "the love of God." That is rather vague, and I don't see any justification for taking this to mean our salvation. Rather, what the passage is saying is that God will not disown His Church--He will not love us today and then change His mind tomorrow. His side of the bargain He will always keep; but "if we disown him, he will disown us" (2 Timothy 2:12).
So we see that this passage, also, is not supportive of eternal security. Let's now look at John 6:37:
John 6:37All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
Surely, this demonstrates that once we're saved, we are eternally secure, right? Wrong. The verse says no such thing. It says that Christ will not cast out anyone who comes to Him. It says nothing about him who abandons Christ after he has come to Him. And how can one abandon Christ? Through sin, through a refusal of the will to follow Him, believe in Him, and keep His Commandments. Here's the proof:
Ezekiel 18:26When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 10:12Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
Galatians 5:21I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things [serious sins] shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Hebrews 6:4-8For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.
Matthew 22:14For many are called, but few are chosen.
Romans 6:12-13Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
Romans 8:17If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Romans 11:22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.
2 Timothy 2:12If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us....
John 15:6If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.
Matthew 7:21"Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...."
Matthew 19:23-24And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Romans 2:5-6But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works.
Do we need more biblical proof? Hardly, though there are, of course, many more passages. I want to remind everyone that all of these passages are directed to those already professing belief in Christ. They're not directed to those who still need to be converted, so the typical Protestant reply (excuse), "Oh, that's just for the unsaved," won't work.
Finally, one more major "proof text" of the Calvinists:
John 10:28-29I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
This is similar to John 6:37. Just because no one can snatch the faithful out of God's hand doesn't mean the faithful can't jump out and become faithless. In short, the passage is talking about God's faithfulness, not man's. Even Protestant theologian R.C.H. Lenski writes: "A believer may after all be lost [John 15:6] . . . While no foe of ours is able to snatch us from our Shepherd's hand, we ourselves may turn from him and may perish willfully of our own accord" (Commentary on John; quoted in Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone, p. 274).
Now, make no mistake about it, though. The staunch defender of eternal security, at this point, will not give up. In fact, he will now draw his last sword, which may seem convincing to many, but which is in fact his weakest. He will now say, "Those who commit such serious sins after they have accepted Christ were never really saved in the first place. Their saving didn't take. They thought they were saved, but they really were not." Then he will quote 1 John 2:19:
1 John 2:19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.
And so the Protestant will argue that, indeed, some who have "accepted Christ" but then continued in sin do not go to Heaven; but not because they lost their justification, but because they were never justified in the first place. It was an illusion, so the argument goes.
What to make of this? First an answer concerning the actual verse. Note that 1 John 2:19 does not speak of all believers who fall away in general. It speaks of particular people. The "they" whom St. John mentions are, according to verse 18: "many antichrists." Certainly, not all who once believed the Gospel and then fall away are "antichrists." One theologian notes: "We know that John, in using the word 'antichrists,' is not referring to the run-of-the-mill Christian believer but to treacherous antichrists whose sole purpose in life is to thwart the cause of Christianity..." (Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone, p. 263). So what this passage teaches us is that some (namely, those "antichrists") who fall away were never true believers to begin with, but not that this is true for all of them. It is quite possible that some of those who fall away believed truly and sincerely, in the beginning, but then gave up their faith later on. Indeed, this is precisely what Christ tells us in the Parable of the Sower:
Mark 4:14-19The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown; when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them. And these in like manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns; they are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
In any case, even aside from biblical proof, the "they were never saved to begin with" argument proves unsound on philosophical and logical grounds. Once the Protestants have gotten themselves where they have this as their only argument to fall back on, they have already lost. For now they are in a corner from which they cannot escape. All we need now to defeat their erroneous doctrine is simple logical reasoning:
According to those who hold to it, "eternal security" is a consoling doctrine because it teaches the certainty of salvation.
Yet, it is possible to mistakenly think one has been saved when one actually is not
No one can know whether he is part of those who erroneously believe themselves saved but are not, since no one can foresee the future, but this is what would be required to know whether some future sin might disqualify one from having been saved, i.e. whether one was never actually saved in the first place
Hence, no one can be sure that he is indeed eternally secure and forever saved.
Through just four steps of simple logical reasoning, this doctrinal fortress falls to the ground! By its very nature, the doctrine of eternal security is epistemological--that is, it purports to give us the knowledge that we are saved and our glory in Heaven is secure. However, as I just demonstrated, such knowledge is impossible short of a private revelation from God, where the Lord personally tells you that you will "make it."
In fact, let me make my point perfectly understandable by drawing an analogy between "eternal security" and the indissolubility of marriage. The believer in eternal security behaves like the bridgegroom who says to his wife, "This union between you and me cannot be broken by us because God does not allow it; and if, somehow in the future, the union is broken, i.e. if we get divorced, then this proves that there was no union in the first place, that is, the union was only illusory and 'didn't take,' because, otherwise, we could not break it."
How meaningful is that? It's complete nonsense, mere double-talk which deceives people. But this is exactly what such Protestants maintain concerning salvation.
The only way out now for them is another dead end--they can say that the doctrine of eternal security really means that those who are indeed, truly saved will go to Heaven. But that is almost tautological, i.e. redundant: "Those who will be saved will indeed be saved" -- yeah, we knew that before Calvin and other "reformers" already. In fact, we as Catholics believe just that.
Thus, what does the doctrine of eternal security prove to be? It is empty rhetoric, devoid of any significance or meaning. It does not give us any meaningful knowledge or assurance, and so undercuts itself. How much are we reminded of St. Paul's warnings to the Ephesians and St. Timothy::
Ephesians 5:6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
1 Timothy 6:20-21O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
"Rabbi David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee's international director of interreligious affairs on Thursday became the first Israeli citizen, the first Orthodox rabbi and the fifth living Jew to be invested with a papal knighthood.
Rosen received the decoration and citation attesting to his new status as a Knight Commander of the Pontifical Order of St Gregory the Great at a ceremony hosted at the Notre Dame of Jerusalem Center by the Apostolic Delegate in Jerusalem and Palestine and the Apostolic Nuncio in Israel Archbishop Pietro Sambi."
A person who denies virtually everything that the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches - is now:
Knight Commander of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great
Friday, November 04, 2005
Last night i had a low blood sugar episode in the night (i am a type one diabetic) and was up eating some cookies and i turned on the TV.
Quite a few years ago we disconnected cable because of the horrible immorality on virtually all TV, but we kept the TV so we can rent movies and play the movies that we own.
Now we live in the middle of the cheguamagon national forest, so we only can get two tv stations over the open air, one is a PBS station and the other is an NBC affiliate. We do watch these to some degree, the news mostly, but once and a while some other stuff.
Anyhow, as i said, last night i turned on the TV and the Maury Show was on. The show was about paternity testing. There were several unmarried couples getting paternity tests to see who the father of the baby or child was. There was even a married couple, where the wife was not sure if the husband was the father of their child!
Now the entire premise of the show was shocking to me. There were several cases where the man tested was not the father! Now fornication is sinful enough when it is with one person, but how much more evil is it when these people are fornicating with so many people that they don't even know who the father of their child is? Not to mention the adultresses! And this appears not to be an isolated theme of this show - as all the commercials for upcoming shows were of the same subject matter.
What disturbed me the most was that the audience would react like wild beasts - cheering, screaming, clapping, etc... whenever the mother and potential "father" would be arguing and swearing at each other, and most of all if they physically went after each other!
The audience seemed to thrive on hatred and violence. I take that back, the audience did not seem to thrive on hatred and violence - it did thrive on hatred and violence.
We are really in a sad state. How we must offend our Lord and Blessed Mother. We crucify her Divine Son again and again in the name of "entertainment"!