Milk Doesn't Do Your Body Good

Happy Sabbath!

Israeli scientists ‘digitally unwrap’ 1,500-yo charred scroll, find biblical text

Published time: 22 Jul, 2015 16:39Edited time: 22 Jul, 2015 16:44

© Israel Antiquities Authority

Although it looked little more than a burnt piece of wood, the object Israeli researchers uncovered at Ein Gedi turned out to house one of the most precious texts of the Old Testament: the first eight verses of the Book of Leviticus.

Israeli scientists originally discovered the scroll in the 1970s in the region of Ein Gedi, which lies on the shores of the Dead Sea. The town used to house a Jewish community during the Byzantine period. Among the notable features of the village were its mosaics, synagogue and the Holy Ark that contained pieces of the Torah, the Old Testament.
However, the town mysteriously burned to the ground and none of the inhabitants ever returned to collect their belongings.

© Israel Antiquities Authority

“We have no information regarding the cause of the fire, but speculation about the destruction ranges from Bedouin raiders from the region east of the Dead Sea to conflicts with the Byzantine government,” Dr. Sefi Porath, one of the scientists, said at the conference in Jerusalem hosted by the Israel Antiquities Authority and Culture and Sports Ministry Monday.
Among the discoveries that the team made while exploring the ruins of the burnt synagogue were the town’s money box with some 3,500 coins, a menorah and the scroll fragments. Since the scroll was too badly burnt for the scientists to decipher its mysteries, they had to wait until just recently before the technology became available to uncover the contents.
“The scroll was a puzzle for us for 45 years,” Porath said.
To decipher the 1,500-year-old charred remains, the IAA, working with Merkel Technologies Company, Ltd. Israel, first scanned it with a micro-computed tomography machine.
The results of the CT scans were sent to Brent Seales of the University of Kentucky, author of digital imaging software that is capable of virtually unrolling the scroll. Seales’ software produced a flattened readable text from the micro-computed tomography, discerning the first eight verses of the Book of Leviticus.
Pnina Shor, curator and director of IAA’s Dead Sea Scrolls Projects, admitted there was little hope to make the scroll readable: “We were certain it was just a shot in the dark but decided to try and scan the burnt scroll anyway.”
The find proved to be very exciting for the team. Snor explained: “Now, not only can we bequeath the Dead Sea Scrolls to future generations, but also a part of the Bible from a Holy Ark of a 1,500-year old synagogue.”
This is the oldest scroll to be discovered since the famous Dead Sea scrolls, which can be dated back to the period between 250BC and 70AD. The current scroll is said to come from the 5th century.
RT 

Satanic Temple unveils goat-headed statue in Detroit

By Cody Derespina

Published July 27, 2015 

A crowd of several hundred gathered Saturday night to see Detroit’s newest resident: A 9-foot, 2,000-pound statue of a goat-headed occult idol named Baphomet.
The Satanic Temple unveiled the bronze figure to an estimated 700 attendees at an undisclosed location. The group’s initial venue canceled after local religious groups protested.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

A statue of occult symbol Baphomet was unveiled at a Satanic Temple event in Detroit on July 25. (Chris Switzer)

The group’s approach to secrecy with the second venue led to little opposition on Saturday, Director of the Detroit Satanic Temple chapter and national spokeswoman Jex Blackmore told Fox News.
“Protesters arrived for a short time at our first ticketing location, but retreated after only about 30 minutes,” Blackmore said. “One woman attempted to block the event entrance and was removed by the police in cooperation with the building's owner. “
Guests were washed in red light shining down from the rafters at the venue as “dark punk” bands played and DJs performed from a stage located beneath a lighted, upside-down crucifix. Satanic Temple officials delivered speeches and a pair of shirtless men held candles on either side of the statue, prior to its unveiling.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

The Satanic Temple wants to place the Baphomet statue next to a monument of the Ten Commandments. (Matt Anderson)

Despite the dark pageantry, however, the Temple says its concept of Lucifer is as a literary figure. “The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people,” the group’s website states.
The statue will now be stored out of public view until the Temple can find it a permanent home. The group hopes to display it at the Arkansas State Capitol, next to a monument of the Ten Commandments.

Source:
Fox News

The Mark of the Beast

Even at the Doors

   

Preaching Pope Francis’s Politics May Be the Key to Becoming President

 Many candidates—Catholic or not—are seeking ways to tie themselves to the pope's vision.

To get elected in 1960, John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was forced to tell the nation that he wouldn’t take orders from the pope. In 2016, no such separation will be needed. With a record number of Catholics seeking the presidency and the wildly popular Pope Francis visiting the nation this fall, many candidates—Catholic or not—are seeking ways to tie themselves to the mission and vision of this Argentinian pontiff.
The times have changed. With a Catholic vice president, six Catholic Supreme Court justices, a Catholic Speaker of the House, and a large number of Catholics in Congress, the golden age of Catholicism in American politics has arrived. This would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. Kennedy was the first Catholic president. Irish-Catholic Al Smith likely lost the 1928 campaign because of his religion.
This ascendency of Catholics to the forefront of American politics has only been accelerated by the groundbreaking papacy of Francis. His September trip to the U.S. will be a major event of the 2016 presidential primaries.
Politicians and candidates are likely scheming how they can best utilize the pontiff’s first trip to the U.S. to push forth their agendas. Francis’s trip isn’t about politics, but it would be naïve to ignore the political implications of a visit during which he is expected to lift up his recent encyclical letter on the care for God’s creation, the religious obligation to defend the dignity of immigrants, the poor, and the unborn, and the moral scandal of social inequality and of an economy that kills.
The political pinnacle of his trip will be his Sept. 24 address to Congress. If his recent trip to Bolivia is any indication, the 2016 candidates better pay attention. Since the beginning of his tenure, Francis has asked politicians around the world to change the conversation from horserace political issues to core issues that are foundational to the common good: “I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons.”
This will be a message that will push candidates of all political stripes to challenge their parties’ political ideologies that too often are rooted in radical individualism. “The pope offers a message that is inspiring and challenging,” says John Gehring, the Catholic program director at Faith in Public Life, and author of an upcoming book about Pope Francis. “He is making new again what is ancient religious teaching about the common good at a time when our politics and culture are shaped by a libertarianism on the left and right.”
If polling data released Thursday showing support for Pope Francis’s messages is any indication, following the way of Francis isn’t just a ticket to heaven but maybe to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, too.
Time

Pope Francis’s 10 secrets to happiness

1. “Live and let live.” Everyone should be guided by this principle, he said, which has a similar expression in Rome with the saying, “Move forward and let others do the same.”
2. “Be giving of yourself to others.” People need to be open and generous toward others, he said, because “if you withdraw into yourself, you run the risk of becoming egocentric. And stagnant water becomes putrid.”
3. “Proceed calmly” in life. The pope, who used to teach high school literature, used an image from an Argentine novel by Ricardo Guiraldes, in which the protagonist — gaucho Don Segundo Sombra — looks back on how he lived his life.
4. A healthy sense of leisure. The Pope said “consumerism has brought us anxiety”, and told parents to set aside time to play with their children and turn of the TV when they sit down to eat.
5. Sundays should be holidays. Workers should have Sundays off because “Sunday is for family,” he said.
6. Find innovative ways to create dignified jobs for young people. “We need to be creative with young people. If they have no opportunities they will get into drugs” and be more vulnerable to suicide, he said.
7. Respect and take care of nature. Environmental degradation “is one of the biggest challenges we have,” he said. “I think a question that we're not asking ourselves is: 'Isn't humanity committing suicide with this indiscriminate and tyrannical use of nature?'”
8. Stop being negative. “Needing to talk badly about others indicates low self-esteem. That means, 'I feel so low that instead of picking myself up I have to cut others down,'” the Pope said. “Letting go of negative things quickly is healthy.”
9. Don't proselytise; respect others' beliefs. “We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyses: 'I am talking with you in order to persuade you,' No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytising,” the Pope said.
10. Work for peace. “We are living in a time of many wars,” he said, and “the call for peace must be shouted. Peace sometimes gives the impression of being quiet, but it is never quiet, peace is always proactive” and dynamic.
The Independent

A Message to Bear

 In the very time in which we live, the Lord has called His people and has given them a message to bear. He has called them to expose the wickedness of the man of sin who has made the Sunday law a distinctive power, who has thought to change times and laws, and to oppress the people of God who stand firmly to honor Him by keeping the only true Sabbath, the Sabbath of creation, as holy unto the Lord.  {TM 117.5}

 Protestants have tampered with and patronized popery; they have made compromises and concessions which papists themselves are surprised to see, and fail to understand. Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism, and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy. The people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty.  {GC88 566.1}

Want to Remember What You Read? Switch to Paper

Recent research suggests that digital readers don't remember basic details as well as those who read from hard copies.

By Laura Montini

Going all digital might be good for trees, but it's bad for memory, suggests new research, which found that Kindle readers are significantly worse at rehashing what they've read compared to hard copy readers.

A forthcoming study from Anne Mangen, a researcher from Norway's Stavanger University, recently tested 50 readers on their ability to recall important aspects from a 28-page short story. Half of the participants read the story on a Kindle and half read a paperback version. 

When asked to remember details about the characters and setting, the two groups performed mostly the same, The Guardian reported. However, when the participants were asked to reconstruct the plot, Kindle readers were notably worse at placing the main 14 story events in the right order.  

When Mangen presented her research at a conference in Italy last month, she made a guess as to why this was the case. 

"This very gradual unfolding of paper as you progress through a story is some kind of sensory offload, supporting the visual sense of progress when you're reading," she said. "Perhaps this somehow aids the reader, providing more fixity and solidity to the reader's sense of unfolding and progress of the text, and hence the story."

A few other recent studies have explored the effect that digitization has on memory. Mangen published a paper last year that tested digital versus paper reading comprehension. She and her colleagues asked 72 Norwegian 10th-graders to read text either from a print-out or from a PDF on a computer screen. In the end, those who read the hard copy version performed better on a reading comprehension test. 

Additionally, research from Princeton University earlier this year found that those who took longhand notes were better at remembering that information in the long-term compared to those who took notes on a keyboard.

Mangen said that she and fellow European researchers plan to continue to study the effects that digitization has on cognition in order understand how to best adapt to its impact on learning.

Until then, you might want to keep the important staff memos out of your employees' inboxes and put them directly into their hands instead. 

Source:

Inc. 

Study: Using Hand Sanitizer Can Increase Skin’s Absorption Of Dangerous Chemical

June 15, 2015 12:27 PM

Researchers warn a chemical used in hand sanitizer may put people at risk of diseases. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) – Recent studies have suggested that hand sanitizer is bad for you. Triclosan, the active ingredient in hand sanitizer, can kill off the good bacteria on your hands and allow anti-biotic resistant bad bacteria to grow.
Now a study finds that using hand sanitizer can actually increase the skin’s absorbtion of a dangerous chemical.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is used to make clear plastic packaging for food and plastic bottles for drinks.
BPA disrupts the bodies hormones in a way that disrupts the endocrine system.
Studies have linked high amounts of BPA to hormone disorders, cancer, heart disease, infertility and even diabetes.
Most commonly used hand sanitizers contain chemicals that increases the ability of certain compounds to penetrate deep under the skin.
Researchers at the University of Missouri used thermal receipt papers, the kind used in many cash registers across the country. The thermal paper contains very high amounts of  BPA.
They found that using hand sanitizer before touching the receipt paper increased the absorption of BPA by up to a hundred-fold.
BPA also lingers on the skin, so if a person eats right after using sanitizer on their hands, he or she would be effectively getting a double dose of the chemical, once through the skin, and the second time by eating it.
The levels of BPA seen in the study are high enough to increase the risk of disease for adults and the risk of developmental abnormalities in children.
The researchers say until BPA is replaced with a safer alternative, people should simply avoid using hand sanitizers. And if someone needs to use it, he or she shouldn’t eat right away.
The study is published in PLOS One.

Source:
CBS

Russia will not import GMO products - PM Medvedev

Published time: 6 Apr, 2014 00:58Edited time: 7 Apr, 2014 10:33

RIA Novosti / Maksim Bogodvid / RIA Novosti

Russia will not import GMO products, the country’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, adding that the nation has enough space and resources to produce organic food.

TagsRussia, Law, Economy, Trade, GMO

Moscow has no reason to encourage the production of genetically modified products or import them into the country, Medvedev told a congress of deputies from rural settlements on Saturday.
“If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food,” he said.
The prime minister said he ordered widespread monitoring of the agricultural sector. He added that despite rather strict restrictions, a certain amount of GMO products and seeds have made it to the Russian market.

Earlier, agriculture minister Nikolay Fyodorov also stated that Russia should remain free of genetically modified products.
At the end of February, the Russian parliament asked the government to impose a temporary ban on all genetically altered products in Russia.
The State Duma’s Agriculture Committee supported a ban on the registration and trade of genetically modified organisms. It was suggested that until specialists develop a working system of control over the effects of GMOs on humans and the natural environment, the government should impose a moratorium on the breeding and growth of genetically modified plants, animals, and microorganisms.
Earlier this month, MPs of the parliamentary majority United Russia party, together with the ‘For Sovereignty’ parliamentary group, suggested an amendment of the existing law On Safety and Quality of Alimentary Products, with a norm set for the maximum allowed content of transgenic and genetically modified components.
There is currently no limitation on the trade or production of GMO-containing food in Russia. However, when the percentage of GMO exceeds 0.9 percent, the producer must label such goods and warn consumers. Last autumn, the government passed a resolution allowing the listing of genetically modified plants in the Unified State Register. The resolution will come into force in July.

Source:
RT 

What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?

 
Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"

Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Source:   gotquestions.org

Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states

 

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states.
Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. But in a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples and to recognize such marriages performed in other states.
The ruling means the remaining 14 states that did not allow such unions, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans. Already, gay marriages were underway Friday in several states where they had been banned. A court in Atlanta issued marriage licenses to three same-sex couples Friday morning, soon after the decision. Other licenses reportedly were issued in Arkansas and Texas -- where Gov. Greg Abbott also issued a memo directing state agency heads to protect religious liberties.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court's previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996.
"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices. He continued: "Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right."
The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally. Cheers broke out outside the Supreme Court when the decision was announced.

More on this...

• Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage

Speaking in the Rose Garden, as he did a day earlier after the high court upheld a key component of his health care overhaul, President Obama called the ruling a "victory for America."
The president said it would "end the patchwork system we currently have" and the uncertainty gay couples face over whether their unions will be recognized in other states.
"This ruling will strengthen all of our communities," Obama said.
But other justices argued that the court should not be able to order states to change their marriage definition. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, called the ruling an "extraordinary step."
"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening," he wrote. "... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."
Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
Each of the four dissenting justices also wrote a separate dissent. Prominent social conservatives, meanwhile, blasted the decision. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said it puts the government on a "collision course with America's cherished religious freedoms."
The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere. They previously had their bans upheld by a federal appeals court.
Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.
The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

Source:
Fox News

Pope asks pardon from Waldensian Protestants for past persecution

TURIN, Italy | By Philip Pullella

Pope Francis (R) waves as he arrives to visit a Waldensian church during his two-day pastoral visit in Turin, Italy, June 22, 2015.

 

Reuters/Alessandro Garofalo

Pope Francis asked forgiveness on Monday for the Roman Catholic Church's "non-Christian and inhumane" treatment in the past of the Waldensians, a tiny Protestant movement the Vatican tried to exterminate in the 15th century.Francis made his plea during the first ever visit by a pope to a Waldensian temple on the second day of a trip to Italy's northern Piedmont region, the center of the Waldensian Church, which has only about 30,000 followers worldwide.
While the movement is miniscule compared to the 1.2 billion member Roman Catholic Church, the gesture is part of Francis' drive to promote Christian unity and it has taken on added significance ahead of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation in 2017.
"On behalf of the Catholic Church, I ask forgiveness for the un-Christian and even inhumane positions and actions taken against you historically," he said. "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us!"
The Waldensians, who now live mostly in Italy and Latin America, were founded by Peter Waldo in France in the late 12th century. He gave up his wealth and preached poverty but as the movement grew it came into increasing theological conflict with the papacy.
The movement, an early precursor of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, was branded as heretical and in 1487 Pope Innocent VIII ordered its extermination.
Some 1,700 Waldensians were killed in 1655 by Catholic forces commanded by the Duke of Savoy.
Today the Waldensians are part of the World Communion of Reformed Churches and the World Council of Churches. They have
only two sacraments -- baptism and the Lord's Supper -- as opposed to seven in the Roman Catholic Church, a member of the Italian branch said.
During a visit to Jerusalem in 2000, Francis' predecessor Pope John Paul II asked forgiveness from Jews for their persecution by Catholics over the centuries.
In 2017, Christians will mark the 500th anniversary of the launching of the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther, who nailed his 95 Theses to a church door in Germany to denounce corruption in the Catholic Church.
Various Christian churches have still not agreed on how they will jointly mark the divorce that split western Christianity and led to many bloody religious wars.
The head of the Protestant Church in Germany, Bishop Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, has said he would be in favor of inviting the pope to a "joint Christian festival" to mark the anniversary.
Francis, an Argentinian whose father and grandfather were born in the Turin area, wrapped up his two-day visit to the region with a private lunch with his Italian relatives.

Source:
Reuters 

Obama calls for world leaders to heed Pope Francis’s message

by Danny Wiser

posted Friday, 19 Jun 2015

President Obama and Pope Francis at the Vatican (Photo: CNS)

The US president hails the Pope's intervention as 'clear and powerful'

The President of the United States has said he wants fellow world leaders to reflect on Pope Francis’s encyclical.
Laudato Si’, published yesterday, called for humanity to change its approach to the environment and the way it judged progress.
Barack Obama spoke of the responsibility that his own job title brings in leading the way towards a change in global environmental policy.
“I welcome His Holiness Pope Francis’s encyclical, and deeply admire the Pope’s decision to make the case – clearly, powerfully, and with the full moral authority of his position – for action on global climate change,” he said.
“As we prepare for global climate negotiations in Paris this December, it is my hope that all world leaders and all God’s children will reflect on Pope Francis’s call to come together to care for our common home.
“We have a profound responsibility to protect our children, and our children’s children, from the damaging impacts of climate change.”
In September the Pontiff will be travelling to the United States for the first time.
His trip will begin in Washington where he will meet Obama and speak at Congress.
Also echoing Obama’s sentiment was the United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon.
He said he believed a “new dialogue” had to be opened regarding the future of the planet.
He said: “It is an issue of social justice, human rights and fundamental ethics.”
Ban Ki-moon will also be addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September to celebrate the body’s 70th anniversary.
A statement by a United Nations spokesman said: “The secretary-general therefore urges governments to place the global common good above national interests and to adopt an ambitious, universal climate agreement in Paris this year.
“The secretary-general welcomes the contributions of all religious leaders and people of influence in responding to the climate challenge and in strengthening sustainable development.”

Source:
The Catholic Herald

Pope Francis and President Obama: Almost Twins

EARLE SCARLETT
Sunday, May 24, 2015 

almost twins
MAJOR powers may interpret Pope Francis's foreign policy initiatives as either promising or problematic. As expected, the Obama Administration has been assessing the pontiff's calibrated moves in the global political arena. It appears both President Obama and the papal leader share common perspectives on several key issues, but sometimes differ on interpretation, interests, and tact. However, harmonising their strategies could pay dividends in handling contentious international matters.
The Pope's recent flourishes have rankled some leaders and congregants and pleased others. Condemning the Turks for alleged "genocide" against Armenians, brokering a US-Cuba accord, underscoring the Vatican's recognition of the State of Palestine, and beatifying Palestinian nuns are indicators of the pontiff's activism and unconventional approach to foreign policy.
In addition, his trumpeting an end to poverty, call for economic justice, and admonition that God will judge the wealthy is understandable, given his own origins in the southern hemisphere where social despair is most prevalent.
The Church has fused religion and politics for generations. And so have other faiths blurred, in varying degrees, the lines between religious belief and temporal practice, straddling ecclesiastical and mundane norms. In addition, the pontiff has ample time, space and authority to resort to praxis when pursuing lofty causes.
In comparison to President Obama, it appears Pope Francis can exert his leadership with less obstruction and recriminations from detractors. The real constraints on the Pope are conservative Vatican sceptics and traditional Catholics who wish the Church to be true to their interpretation of its canons and eschew what they consider meddling in temporal matters outside of its purview.
By contrast, President Obama is facing a cantankerous Congress jockeying for partisan benefits as national elections loom. Notwithstanding constitutional checks and partisan objections, while still in office President Obama could apply presidential executive powers for policies that reflect his philosophy. The results could raise his status from leader to statesman, similar to Pope Francis.
In a sense, Obama would be well served if he grafted his pragmatism with a vision that melds practical problem-solving with an overarching coherent body of ideas and aims that reminds, refines, and even goes beyond the National Security Strategy document. By so doing, Obama could re-engage domestic and foreign publics -- as has the pontiff.
The groundswell that brought Obama to office in 2008 has dwindled, due largely to partisan wrangling. He needs to reiterate publicly his cohesive vision for the country, which could improve his current modest showing in public opinion polls.
In preparation for Pope Francis's September visit to Cuba and the US, the White House and State Department should encourage President Obama to make explicit -- in tandem with the Pope -- the foreign policy issues on which they both agree. Clearly, there are areas where both leaders differ tactically, such as how to deal with Russia's involvement in Ukraine. Such differences should be broached.
As the Church positions itself as an influential player on the world stage after a hiatus under the previous pontiff, both Francis and Obama could consider integrating their common interests and methods, among them buttressing moderate Islam against jihadism.
An ecumenical dialogue among religious leaders of different faiths would send a strong message to nihilists, religious extremists, and potential followers that the international community will unite on common confessional values of decency to thwart their barbarity.
Like twins, both Obama and Francis have spearheaded the pollination and creative handling of policy options. In that regard, Cuba offers a window for a new beginning that is symbolic for several reasons.
Earle Scarlett is a former US diplomat who reported on the role of religion in his postings in Brazil, Somalia, Philippines, ex-Yugoslavia, Bosnia, and Ireland. He resides in Atlanta. Send comments to pimpernells2004@yahoo.com

Jamaica Observer 

Sunday as a Mark of Christian Unity

By Rev. Dr. Demetrios E. Tonias – Dean, Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral of New England
The Christian Church, from its very beginning, has struggled with the concept of unity. Indeed, within the Pauline corpus we see the many ways in which the Apostle to the Gentiles struggled to keep together his young and fragile network of communities. As the church grew, there arose a variety of challenges, large and small, to threaten its unity. The Orthodox Christian Divine Liturgy bears witness to these challenges in the petitions and prayers, which are offered in the Eucharistic rite. We pray for “the unity of all,” “the unity of the faith,” for Christ to “reunite those separated” and to “unite us all to one another who become partakers of the one Bread and the Cup in the communion of the one Holy Spirit.”  We recite the Nicene Creed with its portentous closing phrases stating belief in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” its sacred claim to “confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, and its exultation of Sunday as the Lord’s Day and the gift of resurrection with the statement “I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the ages to come.”
The Divine Liturgy is, most certainly, a fitting place to offer such prayers and confessions of faith, for the preeminent celebration of the Liturgy takes place on Sunday. From the moment the myrrh bearers found Christ’s empty tomb, Sunday was known as ἡ Κυριακή ἡμέρα—the Lord’s Day. By definition, each and every Sunday is a call to Christian unity since it is on this day that we are called to communion with the Lord, by the Lord. In spite of all of the challenges that have tugged at the threads of Christian unity, the Lord’s Day remains the one, unassailable marker of Christian unity since it is on this day that all of us, despite our many differences, gather together as believers in Christ.
There were always differences about days and dates in the Christian world. There were divisions surrounding the dating of Pascha from the earliest years of Christianity. The Puritans rejected the commemoration of the birth of Christ on December 25 as unscriptural. The Lord’s Day, however, as a time of communal, Christian gathering has never been in question. The commemoration of the Lord’s Day is an historical reality that bears witness to the centrality of the Resurrection and all that this event meant and signifies for the cosmos. Therefore, what better marker of Christian unity can we have? Indeed, what stronger case can one make for the significance of Sunday as a hallmark of Christian unity than the understanding that Christians throughout the centuries have conceived of this day as a day of new creation, an eighth day set apart from all others.
For the Orthodox Christian mind, this historical relationship is critical to our understanding of Christian unity. For the Orthodox Christian, unity implies a transcendent ecumenicity—an ecumenicity that exists throughout time and space. It is a communion of all believers, at all times. Put simply, nothing in the calendar unites us like Sunday. It is a day that changed the world on the very first Sunday and, I would argue, every Sunday after the first. The world was transfigured through a myriad of Sunday’s when Christians gathered in communion and heard the Gospel message. It was on Sunday when Christians learned to love their enemies and care for those in need. It was on Sunday when Christians first met to share a meal of love they called by the Greek word ἀγάπη. It was, is, and shall always be on Sunday when the best hope for humanity shines forth from churches large and small and the “Eucharist after the Eucharist” travels forth from the four walls of the church and into the home and homeless shelter, the playground and the hospital, the wedding feast and the wake.
It is human nature to think parochially—in terms of our own family, our own exclusive church, our own unique religious entity. In this historical light, however, Sunday takes on a new meaning. Sunday worship is something more than simply what our parents and grandparents did. Sunday worship is even more than what our local faith community has done. Sunday worship is something that all Christians, at all times have celebrated. When we gather on Sunday the unity we achieve takes us back in time, across the ages to the earliest believer; it also moves us forward in time to embrace generations not yet born. In this way, the spiritual unity we have thus achieved possesses an eschatological character. The unity to which we bear witness and which we embody is a manifestation of the kingdom to which we all aspire.
In order to fully appreciate Sunday as a mark of Christian unity we must expand our definition of unity. We must all strive for a Christian community—one throughout the ages—for such a transcendent unity yields many fruits. If we are in union with the earliest Christians then we will share in their zeal. If we are in unity with the martyrs then we partake of their devotion. If we are in unity with those compassionate Christians then we feel and can bestow their healing touch. When we assemble in faith on Sundays, we gather not simply with other parishioners in a local place of worship, but with Christians throughout every land and all the ages—and there is no greater evidence of unity than this. In our century, as with its predecessors, challenges large and small threaten Sunday. However, when we stand in faith, as members of a Church beyond all churches, we reclaim Sunday for the God who gave it to us.

The Lords Day Alliance

New anti-terror bill could put chill on freedom of speech

'It’s really more political posturing than sound counterterrorism policy,' says legal expert

By Lucas Powers, CBC News Posted: Jan 29, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 30, 2015 3:30 PM ET

Pushing the limits of criminalized speech could stifle discussion about sensitive topics, such as extremism and radicalization, in communities where that conversation is most needed. (Ben Curtis/Associated Press)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last weekend that new anti-terror legislation to be introduced on Friday will, among other things, “criminalize the promotion of terrorism.”
Such a move, however, could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Canada and would not necessarily contribute to effectively fighting domestic extremism, according to legal experts.
The new bill, which could also include provisions for expanded police powers, was promised by the federal government in the weeks following the October attacks in Quebec and Ottawa that left two members of the Canadian Forces dead.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay suggested that the measures would, among a host of other consequences, allow authorities to target materials that may be contributing to the radicalization of Canadians, particularly online.
The new bill, however, is largely a knee-jerk response to October’s attacks and Canada already has the necessary laws on the books to pursue and prosecute people promoting hatred or inciting violence, says Kent Roach, a professor at the University of Toronto who specializes in constitutional and terrorism law.
“The government has the burden before they introduce new laws to demonstrate why it’s not possible to prosecute these kinds of offences under existing Canadian law,” he says.
“There’s a real danger when we make laws in reaction to events with the assumption that those laws will help prevent tragedies from happening again.”
Government officials have repeatedly stated that any new legislation would be drafted in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will not infringe on freedom of expression and religion.

'Glorification' offences

Similar legislation criminalizing the "glorification" of terrorist acts exists in several European countries, and MacKay said last year that the government was reviewing specific laws in the U.K. as a possible template.
Earlier this month, Roach co-authored a working paper with Craig Forcese, an associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa, that analyzed the prospect of a Canadian law targeting glorification of terrorism offences.

'Sometimes these things can become wins for extremists and terrorists. They are trying to provoke further attacks and if the response reinforces their perspective on the state of the world, then it ends up helping their cause.' - Scott Stewart, VP of tactical analysis at Stratfor

Pushing the limits on what kinds of speech are considered criminal may put a "chill" on the dialogue around terrorism, they wrote, particularly in communities where discussing the issues around radicalization and extremism is most critical.
"There are at least two concerns about speech chill: will people not talk about controversial topics because they’re worried about being charged under a new offence? And second, will it drive potentially radicalized individuals further underground?" says Roach.
When people don’t feel free to talk about the political, religious and ideological elements of extremism, Canadian society won’t be able to address the underlying forces that drive people toward radicalization and, in some cases, to acts of violence, says University of Waterloo sociology and legal studies professor Lorne Dawson.

'It's silencing'

Dawson does extensive research within communities dealing with radicalization. He says many people are already reluctant to speak openly about the subject.
"If we expand our laws, it will stoke the fear that people are susceptible to prosecution just by the suggestion that that they may empathize in part with the world view of people that are considered terrorists, but they themselves would never do anything violent or hateful," says Dawson.

 "There is already an increasing sense that it is a forbidden topic — it’s too potentially dangerous and words could be misconstrued or misunderstood. It’s silencing."
While there is no question that extremist networks use the internet to communicate and promote their causes, mounting evidence has shown online activity is not always a driving force on the path to radicalization.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson in October outlined his force's plan to lead an anti-radicalization program in communities nationwide. These kinds of preventive measures are more effective than clamping down on speech, legal experts say. (Blair Gable/Reuters)

"The internet might be a facilitator, but it’s not the cause," says Forcese, who argued in his paper with Roach that contact with a charismatic thought leader is almost certainly the strongest influence on those moving toward extreme viewpoints.
The RCMP has already begun developing an anti-radicalization program in conjunction with local police forces, and if a community leader was inciting people to join extremist movements, their actions are already illegal under the Criminal Code.

Making 'martyrs' of ideas

Similarly, stifling speech plays into the narrative promoted by many extremist groups that Western societies are hypocritical to espouse free speech values while repressing contradictory views. In essence, says Forcese, these kinds of laws can make "martyrs of ideas" and speech that lie within the definition of protected speech.
The ultimate result is to provide propagandists and recruiters in foreign groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, which are far out of reach of Canadian law, another weapon in their arsenal.
"Sometimes these things can become wins for extremists and terrorists," says Scott Stewart, vice-president of tactical analysis at Stratfor, a U.S.-based private intelligence and consulting firm.

'It seems to me that Canada’s legal house is pretty much in order. The problem in Canada is not that the laws aren’t on the books, but rather the enforcement of those laws.' - Kent Roach, U of T law professor

"They are trying to provoke further attacks and if the response reinforces their perspective on the state of the world, then it ends up helping their cause."
On the other hand, it can be helpful to provide resource-strapped counterterrorism forces with additional tools in the uphill battle against homegrown threats. That was the fundamental basis for the laws that were passed in the U.K., and Stewart says Canada’s new legislation could be sculpted in the image of those laws.
While critics of the U.K.’s approach to glorification offences argue there is room for abuses, particularly when it comes to the expression of political and religious ideologies, "the British have addressed the possibility of overstepping by surgically applying the laws," says Stewart.

Enforcement of existing laws

While the U.K.’s efforts have arguably been effective, "Canada can already accomplish what the U.K. has done in terms of most prosecutions" under laws already in place, Roach and Forcese wrote.
"It seems to me that Canada’s legal house is pretty much in order," says Roach. "The problem in Canada is not that the laws aren’t on the books, but rather the enforcement of those laws."

The U.K. enacted a series of laws that criminalized the "glorification" of terrorism following the 2005 attacks on London's public transit system that killed 52 people. (Dylan Martinez/Reuters)

For example, Canadian legislation allows for a judge to issue a warrant that would force internet service providers or individual websites to take down material if it can be shown that it falls outside of constitutionally protected speech.
The kinds of terrorist propaganda targeted by U.K. law could largely fall under this category in Canada, according to Roach.
Interestingly, there’s no publicly available evidence that the provision has ever been used by Canadian law enforcement since being enacted shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
He points to a history of co-operation between MI-5, the U.K.’s domestic intelligence agency, and police forces throughout the country as the primary reason for the U.K.’s ability to keep tabs on homegrown extremism.

'Political posturing'

CBC News reported earlier this month that the new anti-terror legislation will likely include provisions to allow increased information-sharing between federal agencies, currently limited by privacy laws.
Ultimately, pushing the limits of criminalized speech in the digital age "is not going to stop the spread of information and it’s not going to reduce the flow of propaganda," asserts Dawson.
Rather, it is intended to convey the message that Canada as a nation is trying to do something to combat domestic threats.
"It’s really more political posturing than sound counterterrorism policy."

Source:
CBC News

Is this the site of Jesus' trial?

Joel Baden, special to CNN

Updated 12:37 PM ET, Tue January 6, 2015

Archaeologists say they've found evidence that Jesus' trial was held near the Tower of David in Jerusalem.

Joel Baden is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale University.

(CNN)Every few years, it seems, an archaeological find of major biblical significance is announced, almost always to do with either Jesus or King David. This week, it's Jesus, and it's a big one.

Just inside the western walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, beneath the tall Ottoman-era fortification known misleadingly as the Tower of David, archaeologists this week proclaimed the discovery of the site of Jesus' trial by Pontius Pilate, at which he was condemned to die by crucifixion.

More accurately: They proclaimed the opening to visitors (read: tourists) of the site, which has now been excavated and prepared for public viewing.

Without pinpointing the precise location, scholars have known for a long time that the trial must have taken place somewhere in this general vicinity -- despite the fact that tradition has put the spot of the trial on the very opposite side of the Old City, in the Antonia Fortress.

First, the background:

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus' trial before Pilate happened in a place called the praetorium. Originally a term used to signify the tent of the general when encamped for war -- and thus the place where the important military decisions were made -- praetorium came to signify the palace or administrative center for very high-ranking officials.

In Jerusalem, this was the palace of Herod the Great, and according to ancient witnesses, it was at Herod's palace that visiting Roman prefects, like Pilate, would hold any necessary trials during their visits to the capital city.

These same ancient writers declared that Herod's Palace was in the western part of Jerusalem -- near the Tower of David.

On these grounds scholars have long doubted, indeed outright rejected, the notion that the Antonia Fortress on the northeastern side of the city was where the praetorium was located and the trial occurred.

This most recent announcement is being hailed as a blockbuster, in large part because the Antonia Fortress is the first station of the cross on the Via Dolorosa, the path that Jesus is thought to have taken from his trial to his crucifixion and burial at Golgotha, ending at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The Via Dolorosa is an important pilgrimage site and a massive tourist attraction. But if its first station is on the completely wrong side of the city, then the whole thing is cast into doubt.

The Tower of David museum, which is housing the exhibit of the newly discovered trial site, is openly hoping to draw pilgrims and other interested visitors, and it is certain to get them.

What should not be overlooked, however, is that an important archaeological revelation about the life and death of Jesus was effectively kept under wraps for nearly 15 years -- the discovery of Herod's Palace beneath the Tower of David was first made in 2001 as part of a museum expansion project.

The timing of the announcement is linked entirely to the potential for tourist dollars, rather than to the remarkable historical and religious significance of the discovery on its own terms.

This may sound cynical, but it is par for the course, especially in Jerusalem, where the integration of history, religion, archeology, and tourism is at the very heart of the city's economy.

It is a safe bet that this discovery will not significantly diminish interest in walking the Via Dolorosa --customs and traditions are awfully hard to break, even with the best historical evidence.

What is more likely to happen is that there will be two sites of Jesus' trial, happily coexisting, just as there are two sites of Jesus' burial: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb.

Jerusalem, despite being riven by conflict, remains one of the most religiously pluralistic places on Earth, and that pluralism is nowhere better exemplified than in the sharing, duplicating, and often just plain old creating of religious sites.

From a scholarly perspective, however, it is nice that in this case, the significance for the tourism industry of an archeological discovery really does match up with its significance in history.

Better 15 years late than never.

Source:

CNN 

Rick Warren on Catholicism 

Work and pray together now, despite differences, Pope urges ecumenical community

Catholic World News - October 28, 2014

In a meeting with the ecumenical Ark Community, Pope Francis said that Christians should work and pray together, not waiting for theologians to settle all questions of doctrine.
“We are sinning against Christ’s will because we continue to focus on our differences,” the Pope said. “But our shared baptisms is more important than our differences.”
The Ark Community was founded by Tony Palmer, the Evangelical leader and friend of Pope Francis who died suddenly in an automobile accident last year. The Pontiff met with members of the community on October 10; a recording of his remarks has now been released by the Ark Community.
The Pope spoke to the group about the common witness of Christians under persecution, especially in the Middle East and in Africa today. Many have died “because they believe in Jesus Christ,” the Pontiff said, and all Christians, regardless of denomination, should honor their memory and support those still suffering under persecution.

Source:
Catholic World News