The Republican Question

Video just for a jumping off point in the discussion.



My question, is the Republican party going to have a major schism soon? I mean, it does seem to be tearing itself apart, blaming and generally looking bad. Any insight on this? Is it fiscal conservatives versus religious fundamentalists? Is it far right versus center right? Rich versus working class? Free marketeers versus value voters? McCain did seem like a last best hope for a united Republican front, but in my estimation, he has even pandered to the fundies, big time - Hagee/Palin. Question on the floor: What is going to become of the Republican party?

Fight erupts in Jerusalem church

Israeli police had to break up a fist fight that erupted between Greek and Armenian Orthodox clergymen at one of Christianity's holiest sites.

The scuffles broke out at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Orthodox Palm Sunday.

Brawls are not uncommon at the church, which is uneasily shared by various Christian denominations.

In this case, witnesses say an Armenian priest forcibly ejected a Greek priest from an area near the tomb of Jesus.

They say the attacker felt the Greek priest had spent too long at the tomb.

When police arrived to break up the fight, some were reportedly beaten back by worshippers using palm fronds.

Two Armenians were detained by police, prompting supporters to stage a rally in protest outside the police station.

Rivalry between the six different churches which grudgingly share the Holy Sepulchre dates back to the aftermath of the crusades, and to the great schism between Eastern and Western Christianity in the 11th Century.

Each denomination controls, and jealously guards, its own section of the labyrinthine site.

Source: bbc.co.uk

Ah religion. I am pretty sure that God loathes most of his (or her) followers. Either that or he find their utter ass-hattery hilarious.

Is Obama Wrong About Wright?

Among black Americans, Jeremiah Wright may not be that far out of the mainstream.

By Michael C. Dawson

TheRoot.com

Updated: 11:35 PM ET Mar 16, 2008

March 17, 2008 -- Senator Obama is mistaken. The problem with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago minister who is the Obama family's pastor and the subject of recent fierce attacks in the media, is not, as Obama has stated, that "he has a lot of the…baggage of those times," (those times being the 1960s).

The problem is also not, as one paper characterized Obama's position on his minister, that Wright is stuck in a "time warp," in a period defined by racial division.

No, the problem is that Wright's opinions are well within the mainstream of those of black America. As public opinion researchers know, the problem is that despite all the oratory about racial unity and transcending race, this country remains deeply racially divided, especially in the realm of politics.

Most white people and the mainstream media tend to be horrified (in a titillating voyeuristic type of way), when they 'look under the hood' to see what's really on blacks folks' mind. Two thirds of whites believe that blacks have achieved or will soon achieve racial equality. Nearly eighty percent of blacks believe that racial justice for blacks will not be achieved either in their lifetime or at all in the U.S. In March 2003, when polls were showing strong support among whites for an invasion of Iraq, a large majority of blacks were shown to oppose military intervention.

In a survey I took during the week that the U.S. went to war, blacks not only opposed the war in large numbers, but a very large majority also thought that protest against the war was one's patriotic duty. A majority of whites thought protesting the war was unpatriotic.

The same type of divides, as I noted in an earlier essay, have appeared in evaluations of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, of evaluations of President Bush during the first six years of his administration, during most of the Clinton administration, and for the entire Reagan presidency.

More specifically, Reverend Wright's blend of leftism and Afro-Centrism remains one of the classic patterns of black political ideology. His philosophy is very similar to a number of honored black theologians, including the esteemed Reverend James Cone of Union Theological Seminary.

Indeed, one could argue that Reverend Wright's criticism of racial dynamics in the U.S. and American foreign policy is milder than the biting criticism of American capitalism and imperialism found in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the last years of his life. During the 1990s, seventy percent of black Americans believed the country was racially, economically, and socially unfair toward blacks and the poor (See my 2001 book Black Visions for statistical details and the question wording for these three separate questions).

The black community is angry about race relations in this country. The black community is angry about the bankrupt foreign policy that this nation has pursued since before 9/11. Blacks are angry about what is perceived as the political and moral blindness of white Americans. This anger is spread across the black ideological spectrum (with the exception, perhaps, of within the ranks of black conservatives).

Black nationalists, black leftists, black feminists and black liberals may differ on their solutions for what America's ills, but they all generally agree on the overarching problems Not surprisingly, the last time a scientific survey of black political ideologies was conducted, a large segment of the black population fell into the category of those who believed in the principles of liberalism, yet they held no hope, the survey indicated, that this country would ever live up to its democratic and liberal creed.

So Barack Obama is wrong. Reverend Wright does not represent outdated thinking. The critical views he expresses are all too rooted in the present. The racial divisions that Obama seeks to transcend with his message of hope and unity are not a feature of the past, but a deep structural fixture in this nation's present.

Obama will be continually called upon by the mainstream media to prove that he's not a nationalist like Minister Farrakhan, or an Afrocentric leftist like Reverend Wright. The suspicion will always be that he holds opinions closer to those expressed by Rev. Wright than those he is voicing in the campaign.

Consequently, if the Obama campaign wishes to bring this campaign to a successful conclusion, it will have to realize that it cannot run away from the issue of race and racial division, but will have to find a language that both addresses our hopes for the future while recognizing the difficulties and divisions of the present. The nation's in real trouble if its politicians and pundits continue to believe that that the only road to racial harmony is through denying the past and refusing to discuss the injustices of the present.

Michael C. Dawson is the John D. MacArthur professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

URL: http://www.theroot.com/id/45302

I meant to post something about Obama's pastor's recent comments and elicit some feedback. I personally don't find his comments so outrageous--at least not so much as people are making it out to be. Wright is not calling for violence or racial intolerance. It seemed to me that he was calling out leaders that ignore persistent racial inequality and condemning the blatant hypocrisy that exists among the leadership of the country (on both sides). I can see why he raised some ire with his "Goddamn America" quote...but I don't disagree entirely, at least with the context. My understanding was that he was condemning much of America's recent behavior (in the world and at home) and pointing out the fallacy in trying to claim that the US is somehow blessed by God--rather, he argues in particularly inflammatory way, that God would condemn the US. Regardless, I can see why this is such a hamstringing for Obama's campaign.

Israel attack threatens wide fallout

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent

The target of the Palestinian gunman's attack in Jerusalem was highly significant.

The Merkaz Herav Yeshiva - a Jewish religious seminary - is the place from where the religious-inspired Jewish settlement movement in the West Bank sprang.

It is the very centre of religious Jewish nationalism and its symbolic importance may well not have been lost on the organisation which ordered this attack.

The Israeli authorities already know the identity of the gunman - a resident of Jabel Mukaber in East Jerusalem. This is especially worrying for security chiefs given the fact that East Jerusalem residents have much greater freedom of movement than Palestinians from the West Bank.

The attack on the Yeshiva is a grim development in the litany of violence

If there is an active Palestinian militant group operating out of East Jerusalem this also underlines one of the limitations of Israel's security barrier in the West Bank.

There will also be questions about why the Israeli intelligence services had no apparent warning of this attack.

But what matters most is who gave the gunman his orders.

Wider consequences

According to Hezbollah television in Lebanon, a so far unknown organisation has said it carried out the attack. The group was named after a prominent Hezbollah leader, Imad Mughniyeh, who was blown-up by a car bomb in Damascus in mid-February.

Hezbollah held Israel responsible. Israel believes that Hezbollah has significant links with Palestinian groups in the West Bank, especially with the militant wing of the Fatah organisation - the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

This is a plausible connection. But claims of responsibility may amount to little.

Assuming that the attacker was not just an enraged individual, Israel's first goal will be to roll up the specific cell and network from which the gunman came.

But depending upon whose fingerprints are on the operation, the wider consequences could be considerable.

'We will fight extremists'

In the short-term there will be stepped-up security in Jerusalem and more checkpoints in the West Bank.

Talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are likely to survive this incident.

After all they also survived Israel's recent large-scale incursion into the Gaza Strip, though a flying visit by the US secretary of state was needed to patch up the diplomatic battle damage.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev signalled as much when he sought to distinguish between the reaction of Hamas and the mainstream Fatah movement.

"The Palestinian leadership under President Abbas, condemned last night's atrocity, last night's massacre," he told the BBC.

"It was Hamas in Gaza that was celebrating, and I think we have to distinguish between these two different views on the Palestinian side. One side says it wants to negotiate with us - it wants peace, it wants reconciliation. Of course we have to try to reach a historic agreement with them."

"The other side," he went on, "the extremists - those hard-core Jihadist elements who oppose peace - who oppose reconciliation - we have to fight them."

Hezbollah connections

Quite where these talks will lead given the divisions between Hamas and Fatah and given Israel and Washington's insistence that Hamas must be isolated, is far from clear.

The deadline for progress of the end of this year, when President George W Bush prepares to leave office looks more and more unattainable.

Whoever ordered this gun attack, the emotions raised by this incident will inevitably influence Israel's response to continuing rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.

A potential Hezbollah connection could raise tensions on the northern border as well. And if there is a connection with militants in Fatah on the West Bank, then that could greatly complicate Mr Abbas's position.

There could be domestic political implications in Israel too.

If talks with the Palestinians continue there will be strong pressure from within orthodox religious circles for the Shas party to leave the government.

It is ambivalent about the talks with Mr Abbas to say the least and it has set itself firmly against any discussion of the future division of Jerusalem.

It will have to weigh up the benefits of being inside the coalition, in terms of patronage and power, with the demands of the broader religious community.

The attack on the Yeshiva is a grim development in the litany of violence.

Anyone counting on progress on the peace front this year looks to be betting against the prevailing trend.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7283416.stm

I anticipated something like this. Given the more than 100 Palestinians killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza in the last week there was bound to be a significant backlash. What I think is really troubling (in addition to the misery of the entire situation) is that the attacker was an Arab Israeli living in East Jerusalem. So the likely response from Israel will be to crack down on this group and restrict freedom of movement, curtail the rights of Arab Israelis, etc. Abbas has condemned the attack, but it is likely that this will press Israel to move away from an negotiations with his government, let alone active support of it. This is especially likely if Shas and the other threaten to pull out of the government if talks go forward. This was really an attack on their voters specifically. The school is center of Zionist thought and is closely attached to the settler movement to the more radical parties like Shas. So, as I said in an earlier post, this is all likely to get a lot worse. Blame whomever you like, but that won't keep people from dying. If there is an Israeli backlash that kills more Palestinians in Gaza and alienates Abbas, that will play right into the hands of Hamas. Without a significant response by Israel radical parties may walk out and cause the Olmert government to collapse, potentially bringing in a more conservative party with even less interest in settling the conflict. If Israel responds with a particularly heavy hand, and particularly if this response hits the West Bank, Abbas may be forced to move closer to Hamas in order stay in power and maintain any support from among the population. It's a mess. Hopefully Israel will act with restraint and Abbas can play his cards right and come out on top. But I doubt it. It's more likely that widespread violence erupts like it did in 2000. I hope I am wrong.

McCain = religious nutjob?

First he is buddy-buddy with Jerry Falwell, now this:



Ugh... ugh.

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

'Sensational reporting'

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.

At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger Dr Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

'Other loyalties'

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

HAVE YOUR SAY There is, and should only be, one law which covers all people and to suggest it can be otherwise is to seriously damage our rights Patricia London, UK

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

The issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced to accept gay parents under equality laws showed the potential for legal confusion, he said.

"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.

"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."

'Custom and community'

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

Dr Williams' comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.

Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.

Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

Pope defends right to speak out on bioethics

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22933625/
Benedict dismisses criticism that church blocks scientific progress

The Associated Press

updated 12:40 p.m. ET, Thurs., Jan. 31, 2008

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday defended the Vatican's right to speak out on bioethics, including its opposition to artificial procreation methods and embryonic stem cell research.

He also dismissed criticism that the Roman Catholic Church blocks scientific progress.

"Church teaching certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of science, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to faithful and all men of good will ethical-moral principles and direction for new, important questions," Benedict said.

Benedict brushed off those who criticize the church "as if it were an obstacle to science and to humanity's true progress."

The pope singled out as "new problems" the freezing of embryos, selecting which embryos should be implanted after testing them for defects, research on embryonic stem cells and attempts at human cloning.

He decried them as proof that "the barrier protecting human dignity has been broken."

Benedict was addressing a meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a powerful Vatican office which safeguards doctrinal orthodoxy. He headed that office before being elected pope in 2005.

So should the church have a say in scientific/ethical issues such as bioethics? Are they any different than any other group using their collective might to enforce their will, for better or worse? Specifically, should a man who is seen as the spiritual leader of well over a billion people have more say than those who developed the technology? what about those who would benefit? And should an organization that has such a long history of animosity toward science be able to dictate the direction science can and cannot go in (especially considering that science has pretty much been right on every argument with religion it has had)? I am not opposed to Pope Being-a-Dick speaking his mind, but when one billion plus people think that you are god's appointed mouthpiece on Earth, you might have people siding with the man they think has a say in their fantasy destination in the great beyond rather than with considering the suffering of humanity that is real and where their contribution or voice could make a difference. Ugh... I just wish religion cared more about bettering the lives of living people than attempting to steer men and women towards the out-dated concepts of the first century. it just makes me sad.

WTFabee?

The Controversy Over Tariq Ramadan

Blog entry from Charles Kupchan

***Original Piece can be found at The Huffington Post, click here to be redirected there***

Posted November 28, 2007 | 05:32 PM (EST)

America's relationship with the Islamic world continues to be defined by hostile confrontation: the so-called war on terror, the bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the political crisis in Pakistan, and the continuing stand-off with a theocratic Iran over its nuclear program. Managing these challenges has dominated the Bush presidency, and the same tasks will preoccupy whoever takes over in January 2009.

The next president, however, will also need to broaden the political discourse, redefining America's interaction with the Islamic world so that is not only about combating violence and extremism. With America's standing in the Middle East at historic lows, Muslim communities in Europe largely estranged from the majority populations around them, and Islamist movements on the march in the Middle East and beyond, building bridges of dialogue and understanding will be increasingly important.

The difficulties involved in building such bridges have been encapsulated in the controversy over Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss-born Muslim intellectual currently based in the Britain. A devout Muslim who insists that traditional Islam can coexist in mutual respect with the liberal societies of the West, Ramadan has become an obsession of the U.S. and European media. Indeed, The New Republic last June devoted more than 28,000 words - a substantial portion of the magazine - to probing his background and writings.

But despite all the attention, opinions diverge widely as to whether Ramadan should be revered or reviled. Some commentators praise him as Islam's Martin Luther, an intellectual activist who will help oversee an Islamic Reformation - and hence a perfect interlocutor for the West. Others assert that he only masquerades as a moderate reformer, and is in reality a dangerous absolutist who brooks no compromise between Sharia and modernity.

Ramadan certainly holds opinions that run contrary to mainstream Western views on many issues -- including gender equality, the role of religion in society and the benefits of global capitalism. But the inordinate amount of attention he attracts is less a product of his admittedly distasteful views than our own paranoia about the perceived threat that traditional Islam poses to our liberal and pluralist societies.

Ramadan purports to be intent on diminishing mistrust between the Islamic world and the West, including between Muslims living in the West and the non-Muslim majorities alongside them. He is certainly not the secularizing renegade that many Americans and Europeans would prefer as an intermediary. But precisely because he is seeking to build bridges between traditional Islam and modern Western society, he does represent the kind of intellectual capable of broadening understanding on both sides of the communal divide. He should be engaged with caution, not treated as a dangerous pariah.

Ramadan's recent employment history is a good indicator of the controversy he provokes. He is now a fellow at St. Antony's College in Oxford. But while one of Europe's finest universities finds him fit for an appointment, the United States does not even deem him worthy of entry. Notre Dame University offered him a professorship, to begin in 2004. Ramadan intended to take up the post, but was ultimately refused a visa by the U.S. State Department on the grounds that he had made financial contributions to two European charities that had provided funds to Hamas.

What makes Ramadan so hard to pin down is that he is simultaneously at home in seemingly incompatible worlds. He is urbane, erudite and multi-lingual. He supports "universal values," and argues that Muslims living in the West should participate fully in the political and civic societies of which they are a part. Ramadan condemns terrorist violence in favor of dialogue and peaceful resistance.

But Ramadan is also the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He believes in the upholding of traditional - his critics would say reactionary - Islamic attitudes toward the role of women, going so far as to side-step the question of whether female adulterers should be stoned. Ramadan disavows any hint of anti-Semitism, but is a vociferous critic of Israel's "unjust and wretched policies which continue to kill an entire people in an occupied territory." He rails against the economic inequalities and materialism that he attributes to the spread of capitalism.

To be sure, some of Ramadan's ideas are offensive to the West's liberal traditions. But so are those of devout practitioners of other religious creeds. In the end, Ramadan seeks a synthesis that enables his community to preserve its beliefs and traditions while coexisting peacefully with and within the Western world - precisely why he needs to be engaged, not shunned.

All the attention devoted to Ramadan has done at least as much to exaggerate his influence as to elucidate his views. In addition, his notoriety masks the reality that a Reformation within the Islamic world -- like its counterpart in Christianity -- will evolve more from deeper social transformations than from the role of individual leaders.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli certainly played important roles in the onset of pluralism within Christian Europe. But at least as important in bringing pluralism to Christianity and eventually separating church and state were the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution and the Industrial Revolution. The social upheavals they spawned hastened the spread of rationalism, the rise of middle classes, the establishment of public education systems, and other developments that shaped modern Christianity and prompted the secularization of political power.

Western intellectuals would be better served figuring out how to expose Islam to similar developments, and less time spilling ink over one public figure who, however controversial, may well be able to modestly advance Islam's dialogue with the West.

Germany moves to ban Scientology

Germany's federal and state interior ministers have declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional, clearing the way for a possible ban.

The ministers have asked Germany's domestic intelligence agency to examine whether the Church's legal status as an association could be challenged.

Scientology is not recognised as a religion in Germany.

A Church of Scientology statement said the ministers were "completely out of step with the rest of the world".

The attempted ban is "a blatant attempt at justifying the on-going and never-ending discrimination against the Church of Scientology and its members in Germany," said the Church in a statement.

Critics accuse the organisation of cult-type practices and exploiting followers for financial gain.

But Scientologists reject this and say that they promote a religion based on the understanding of the human spirit.

Cult-type practices

Since January, when the Church of Scientology opened a new centre in the German capital, Berlin, Scientologists have come under intense public scrutiny.

People living near the centre complained that its members were actively trying to recruit and some politicians called for the organisation to be banned, accusing it of cult-type practices.

For years, Scientology has been monitored by German intelligence agencies, who claim the movement's structures and methods could pose a threat to the rule of law and "democratic order".

But the Church of Scientology insists that 10 years of surveillance "has uncovered absolutely no wrongdoing".

Under the ministers' new plan, the intelligence services have been asked to draw up a report on Scientology, and ministers will then have to clarify whether there is a legal basis for a ban.

But the BBC's Tristana Moore in Berlin says given the lobbying power of Germany's 6,000 Scientologists, who say they have a right to freedom of religion, it will be difficult to introduce a ban.

Scientology was founded in the United States in the 1950s by science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard.

In October, a Spanish court ruled that the Church of Scientology of Spain should be re-entered into the country's register of officially recognised religions.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7133867.stm

Normally I am ardently opposed to most types of restrictions on religion and free association and such. Ok, I am always opposed this kind of thing. But if there is one world "religion" to ban, this is the one to ban. I mean, come on, it's a religion started by the guy who wrote Battlefield Earth for Xenu's sake. I guess I am bound by principle to respect the rights of Scientologists just the way I respect the rights of other made up faiths...Wiccans, Mormons, etc. But at least those groups don't function like secret societies that only reveal their true practice to those who have been initiated into the inner circle of...oh wait, never mind.

Added by Pope on 1/25/08 - Article from Time, an insightful read:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time910605.html

Muslim scholars reach out to Pope

More than 130 Muslim scholars have written to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders urging greater understanding between the two faiths.

The letter says that world peace could depend on improved relations between Muslims and Christians.

It identifies the principles of accepting only one god and living in peace with one's neighbours as common ground between the two religions.

It also insists that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.

The letter comes on the anniversary of an open letter issued to the Pope last year from 38 top Muslim clerics, after he made a controversial speech on Islam.

Pope Benedict sparked an uproar in September last year by quoting a medieval text which linked Islam to violence.

The letter coincides with the Eid al-Fitr celebrations to mark the end of Ramadan.

Koran and Bible

It was also sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the heads of the Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist churches, the Orthodox Church's Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I and other Orthodox Patriarchs.

The letter, entitled A Common Word Between Us and You, compares passages in the Koran and the Bible, concluding that both emphasise "the primacy of total love and devotion to God", and the love of the neighbour.

With Muslims and Christians making up more than half the world's population, the letter goes on, the relationship between the two religious communities is "the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world".

"As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes," the letter says.

It adds: "To those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony."

One of the signatories, Dr Aref Ali Nayed, a senior adviser at the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme at Cambridge University, told the BBC that the document should be seen as a landmark.

"There are Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis and even the... Ismailian and Jaafari schools, so it's a consensus," he said.

Professor David Ford, director of the programme, said the letter was unprecedented.

"If sufficient people and groups heed this statement and act on it then the atmosphere will be changed into one in which violent extremists cannot flourish," he said in a statement.

The letter was signed by prominent Muslim leaders, politicians and academics, including the Grand Muftis of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Russia, Croatia, Kosovo and Syria, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt and the founder of the Ulema Organisation in Iraq.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7038992.stm

I was very glad to read this story. Given the tense relationship between Islam and Christianity in places--and possibly throughout the world--improved dialog and better cross-faith understanding is critical to world peace. What I find particularly interesting about the letter is that it states that Muslims and Christians worship the same god. I have always taken this as given, but it may be a problematic statement for many believers. Here's to better understanding among all religious communities.

BeliefWatch: Reincarnate

By Matthew Philips

Newsweek

Aug. 20-27, 2007 issue - In one of history's more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation." But beyond the irony lies China's true motive: to cut off the influence of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual and political leader, and to quell the region's Buddhist religious establishment more than 50 years after China invaded the small Himalayan country. By barring any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation, the law effectively gives Chinese authorities the power to choose the next Dalai Lama, whose soul, by tradition, is reborn as a new human to continue the work of relieving suffering.

At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is beginning to plan his succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as it's under Chinese control. Assuming he's able to master the feat of controlling his rebirth, as Dalai Lamas supposedly have for the last 600 years, the situation is shaping up in which there could be two Dalai Lamas: one picked by the Chinese government, the other by Buddhist monks. "It will be a very hot issue," says Paul Harrison, a Buddhism scholar at Stanford. "The Dalai Lama has been the prime symbol of unity and national identity in Tibet, and so it's quite likely the battle for his incarnation will be a lot more important than the others."

So where in the world will the next Dalai Lama be born? Harrison and other Buddhism scholars agree that it will likely be from within the 130,000 Tibetan exiles spread throughout India, Europe and North America. With an estimated 8,000 Tibetans living in the United States, could the next Dalai Lama be American-born? "You'll have to ask him," says Harrison. If so, he'll likely be welcomed into a culture that has increasingly embraced reincarnation over the years. According to a 2005 Gallup poll, 20 percent of all U.S. adults believe in reincarnation. Recent surveys by the Barna Group, a Christian research nonprofit, have found that a quarter of U.S. Christians, including 10 percent of all born-again Christians, embrace it as their favored end-of-life view. A non-Tibetan Dalai Lama, experts say, is probably out of the question.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/

I know this is actually an important political issue at its base, but...hehe, hehe, hehehe, HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You gotta admit, it's funny.