In Memoriam - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

martin-luther-king2.jpgThis is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day, this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning “My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my father’s died, land of the Pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!”

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi - from every mountainside.

Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring - when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children - black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics - will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Yeshiva boys or soulja boys?

Some Palestinian “journalists” have responded to the recent murders in Jerusalem with something less than condemnation. One article in particular, by “Khalid Amayreh in Occupied East Jerusalem”, left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. The title, which fairly sums up the piece, reads “Soldiers (not innocent students) killed at settler center”.

It seems that the writer wishes to enter a discussion as to who is a civilian. According to his logic – that all Israeli citizens are legitimate targets due to compulsory military service – a citizen of any society that has conscription is a viable military target. Such as, say, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Tunisia. We’ll bear that in mind next time we’re engaged in hostilities with those nations, Khalid.

But let us not forget that this yeshiva was (apparently) the headquarters of the Jewish settlement movement. Aha! They therefore deserved to die. That clears that one up. Except civilised people do not condone acts of violence – or, in this case, murder – in response to political beliefs. If we did then, presumably, retribution against the Palestinians who, in a 77% voter turnout, elected Hamas to 76 out of 132 parliamentary seats, would be equally justified. Or who were seen dancing in the streets, cheering and distributing bon-bons (yes, bon-bons), in celebration of cold-blooded murder.

Amaryeh, in the interests of journalism, moreover seems to deem it relevant that “Yitzhak Rabin’s killer, Yigal Amir, is reportedly to have studied at the Merkaz Ha’rav”. One wonders: is he sure he wants to go down that route? Unsurprisingly, he does not pursue this line of thought.

Of course, as was to be expected, the “Zionist-influenced or Zionist-controlled American media” did not stray from the official Zionist “propaganda”, shallowly portraying the innocent civilian victims as…well, as innocent civilians. But our mate Khalid knows better. They were, as “paramilitaries” (though not engaged in hostilities), anything but innocent. But, if that applies, then how much more was the assassination of Imad Mugniyah justified? And if we take this to its logical conclusion, then the attack, which was “probably to avenge [his] murder”, was in fact unjustified, as the original killing was justified. No?

Amaryeh also dismisses the claim that the IDF “doesn’t murder Palestinian civilians deliberately”, forgetting to note the fact that while the Israeli Army, in the interests of clarity, wears full military uniform when engaged in hostility (I hardly need mention that neither the victims of the shooting, nor the shooter himself, was wearing any such thing) – militants, if they are in an obliging mood, may deign to wear towels on their heads. But let us not forget that the murderer was a civilian himself until he decided to pick up a rifle and kill other civilians. This episode, if anything, perfectly demonstrates the dilemma facing Israel in terms of knowing who the enemy is.

After the horrific Baruch Goldstein massacre of almost exactly 14 years ago, Rabin described it as a “loathsome, criminal act of murder”, and the Israeli media unanimously condemned it in similar terms. Hamas have taken a slightly different approach, being so proud of the attack that they even claimed responsibility for it. In my view, that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

Christian, Schmistian

443322.jpgHow often do we hear from know-nothing Christian pundits that the United States of America is founded on “Judaeo-Christian ethics” or “Christian morals”? In short, that the US is “a Christian country”? (I would supply a link, but I don’t really fancy trawling through Bill O’Reilly clips to come across one, thank you very much.)

Very well then. Let us explore some of the tenets of Christianity, as prescribed in that bible thingy they keep going on about, and see how familiar it is:

…that ye resist not evil… (Matthew 5:39)

The phrase “War on Terror” leaps immediately to mind. There are evil people in the world and, quite rightly, the United States has committed itself to doing everything within its power to combat them. What is more, under such a moral teaching the USA could do without a police force or even any justice system whatsoever.

…whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (ibid.)

If the US followed this moral teaching, after 9/11 it would have invited al-Qaeda to take their pick of targets on the West Coast.

I was a stranger, and ye took me in (Matthew 25:35)

I was an immigrant, and I was deported.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:9)

Seems a small point, but the freedom to divorce from a spouse is integral to the concept of personal freedom, and the secular USA rejects any notion of a “religious contract” that cannot be undone by us mere mortals.

sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor (Mark 10:21)

I’m no expert, but I’m fairly sure that the US infrastructure is based on a rather different economic model.

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more (John 8:11)

This again, along with many other such verses, would leave many current judges without a means of income, and many chuckling criminals free on the streets.

At the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phillipians 2:10)

One of a number of such exclusive verses, this has no resonance in the United States, where there is no coercion of religious belief, no religious test for public office, etc.

Feel free to add your own.

Excerpt from my essay: Religion in Government

Something's missingIn August 2001 I stood at the top of the World Trade Center. It was a moment I remember because it was an exhilarating experience: being so high up, gazing down at New York. The city looked so peaceful and likeable so when I came home just two weeks after returning from the USA and turned on CNN I was horrified by what I saw. Like a newly appalled America I wondered ‘Why?!’ I wanted to know why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden thought it was their duty from Allah to murder 2,974 people. Dad has always been hostile to religion; he wrote in support of Rushdie after the fatwa was issued, and Mom was a pacifist Buddhist: so the idea of peace being fundamental to religion seemed normal to me. But we all saw something very different on that Tuesday morning; and now we find that not only are individuals and groups intent on destroying the West, but whole countries. So once again we must ask: Why?

With the exception of Judaism, every religion says that scripture, revelation, and religious experiences should determine what laws we live under. Examples of this include the Ten Commandments in Christianity and the Pancasila in Buddhism. Considering God is believed to be the ultimate perfection, there should be no issue with using his commandments to govern the world because they are words of an omniscient and omnibenevolent being. We all agree that we should not murder, or steal, or commit adultery. So it appears there is no moral conflict between what we believe to be morally good and what is written in holy texts.

However, despite the fact that most of the edicts presented to us make appear morally sound and therefore corroborate our own moral sensibilities, many appear to be entirely immoral. Exodus 12:29 ‘At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt.’ If we read this as literally the action of God, the inherent immorality of it causes concern. Why should we allow a God who slays innocent boys and animals for the crime of the Pharaoh, to be involved in our self-governance? When concerned with our penal system, 1 Samuel 15:3 offers ruthless indiscriminate murder as punishment for wrongdoing; often seeing the sin of one man in a tribe as the sin of the entire tribe.

To read more of this essay, click here.

Happy Valentine’s Day, Imad Mughniyeh

Happy Valentine's DayThe death of Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah’s most secret operative who for decades managed to elude attempts by US and Israeli spies and special forces to capture or kill him, has raised many questions as to those responsible. Hezbollah, naturally, blamed the “Israeli Zionists,” in conjunction with Satan and Satan’s step-brother, Ehud Olmert for the assassination of “a great jihadist leader of the Islamic resistance.”

“Syria, which condemns this cowardly terrorist act, expresses condolences to the martyr family and to the Lebanese people,” Interior Minister Bassam Abdul-Majeed said in a statement. Iran also condemned the killing, praising Mughniyeh as a martyr and describing the attack as “yet another brazen example of organised state terrorism by the Zionist regime”.

Mughniyeh was among several suspects indicted in the US for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner in which a US Navy diver was killed. Israel believes he was involved in planning the 1992 bombing of Israel’s embassy in Argentina in which 29 people were killed, and the blast at a Buenos Aires Jewish centre two years later that killed 95. A former head of Israel’s Mossad secret service, Danny Yatom, summed it up quite succinctly when he called the killing “a big achievement for the free world against terrorist organisations.”

Today, at the funeral of Mughniyeh (peace hell be upon him) in Beirut, Lebanon, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah said the war against the Jewish State was not over: “Zionists, if you want this sort of open war, then let the whole world hear, so be it!” he declared, to a crowd of armed intellectuals and notable camel-herders.

On this glorious day of romanticism, I wait eagerly for the moment Hassan Nasrallah joins his fellow martyrs amongst 100 (other) virgins, and wish Imad Mughniyeh a Happy Valentine’s Day.

Next Page »