Social Media and Information Technology in Cuba: Recommendations for the Public and Private Sectors.

Empowering the Cuban People through Technology.

In collaboration with the Cuba Study Group & The Latin America Initiative at the Brookings Institution.
Welcoming Remarks:

• Christopher Sabatini, Senior Director of Policy, Americas Society/Council of the Americas

Presenters:

• Carlos Saladrigas, Co-Chairman of the Board, Cuba Study Group
  
• Theodore Piccone, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy, the Brookings Institution
• Christopher Sabatini, Senior Director of Policy, Americas Society/Council of the Americas

Discussant:

• Brett Solomon, Executive Director, AccessNow

This event is free of charge and open to the press.

Further event information: Please contact Matthew Aho at maho@as-coa.org or 212-277-8389.
Press inquiry: Please contact Alex Andrews at aandrews@as-coa.org or 212-277-8384.

New report makes policy recommendations for expanding online and IT access in Cuba.

New York, NY, July 15, 2010—The U.S. can help improve access to information in Cuba and lay the groundwork for future long-term economic growth if it relaxes contradictory regulations governing telecommunications investment in Cuba, says a report published today by the Americas Society and Council of the Americas in collaboration with the Brookings Institution and the Cuba Study Group.

Empowering the Cuban People Through Technology: Recommendations for Private and Public Sector Leaders shows how Washington can ease restrictions on the telecom industry, improving the private sector’s ability to invest while helping Cuba close its technology gap.

“Expanding the opportunity for U.S. telecom investors and companies to provide cell phone and Internet service to the island will help ensure that Cuban citizens possess the tools to become productive economic citizens once the shackles of political and economic state control are removed,” concludes the paper, drawing on recommendations from over 50 information technology and telecommunications executives and other experts.”

Access the report online.

Press Inquiries: Contact Alex Andrews at (212) 277-8384 or aandrews@as-coa.org.

——————————————

Some of the main points from the presentations:

Before technology was a by-product of economic development, but today it is that technology is a pre-requirement for economic development.

Cuba, because years of embargo,  has one of the most embryonic technologies; we, the US, have technologies and they need it for economic development and the closing of the gap. If the Cuban regime embarks on this we see what we can do. For technology to grow there must be a basic human security.

The US economy could work with Cuba. There are products that can be produced right in the neighboring Cuba. It could become like Hong Kong is to China.

All of the above based on the case of the cellular phone in Cuba. In one year they grew last year from 43,000 to over one million. All this because there was a liberalization by the government. This followed the November 13, 2009 liberalization by the Obama Administration. US law says that what is important to the PEOPLE has been liberalized – this includes cell-phone services. Now they need more efficient energy use and phone cards. It calls for more activity from the private sector.

Most interesting was the comment from the co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group – Mr. Carlos Saladrigas who among other positions is also member of the Hispanic Advisory Board of Pepsi Co., told us that he was on the trip with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when in Krakow she spoke of Freedom and Democracy and said that this has three elements: the Government, Business & Enterprise, Civil Society. He then said that it is the Civil Society that can do it with Cuba – to bring them to deal with their own future and the catch here is technology.

——————————————

SEE ALSO FOREIGN POLICY ARTICLE BY CHRISTOPHER SABATINI:
 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20…

That is a longer article to the point.

Fidel is back. In a one hour television appearance this week, his first since intestinal surgery four years ago, the 83-year old head of the Cuban Communist party appeared neither hale nor hearty. But neither did he look like El Cid, the Spanish warrior who was so inspiring that even after death his body, strapped to a horse’s saddle, cowed the Saracen hordes.

Mr Castro’s pre-recorded show coincided with Havana’s pledge to release 52 political prisoners, a decision unlinked to reciprocal US action, although it may encourage change. Legislation in Congress, for example, seeks to end the US travel ban, while leaving the broader embargo intact.

Cuba, in fact, has two embargoes. The first Cubans call the “internal embargo”; the thicket of bureaucracy and socialist antipathy to individual enterprise that has ruined the economy. The second is the US embargo. Contrary to common perception, this is not a monolith. It is more like an onion, with multiple layers, although the last one, normalisation of relations, effectively requires regime change.

Some of those layers have already been peeled off. The US is now Cuba’s fifth-largest trade partner, due to cash sales of food and medicine. Despite the travel ban, up to 200,000 US citizens also visit Cuba every year, illegally via Mexico or on direct Miami flights on educational or cultural exchanges. The US president has scope to expand ties further, for example by allowing business travel, as happened in Vietnam prior to ending that embargo in 1994. Travel would put more money into Cuba’s economy – and most likely the regime’s pockets, too. But it would also help ease ordinary Cubans’ plight and remove a scapegoat Havana has used to excuse its many ills.

Cuba has long ceased being a dagger in the heart; it can hardly even be called a thorn in the side. Its ties with Venezuela may worry some. But this relationship is qualitatively different from Cuba’s African or Central American campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s. It remains a repressive regime, and yet, while the judgment is fine, the time is right for the US to open up more to Cuba.

Doing so is risky as it may not speed the regime’s end. But any measure that reduces the possibility of Cubans streaming across the Florida Straits in the event of a chaotic transition from the Castro regime is sensible.
Barack Obama has called the current US policy “failed”. Most dissidents agree; and, when their blood is not up, perhaps even most exiles, too.

—————————————-

Why Did God Create Atheists?
If God is real, and religious believers can perceive him… why is anyone an atheist?
AlterNet / By Greta Christina / June 5, 2010  |
 http://www.alternet.org/story/147098/why…

This is a question I always want to ask religious believers. (One of many questions, actually. “What evidence do you have that God is real?” and “Why are religious beliefs so different and so contradictory?” are also high on the list.)

If God is real, and religious believers are perceiving a real entity… why is anyone an atheist? Why don’t we all perceive him? If God is powerful enough to reach out to believers just by sending out his thoughts or love or whatever… why isn’t he powerful enough to reach all of us? Why is there anyone who doesn’t believe in him?

It seems to be a question that troubles many believers as well. At least, it troubles them enough that they feel compelled to respond. And as atheism becomes more common and more vocal, this compulsion to respond seems to be getting more common and more vocal as well.

I’ve seen a couple of religious responses to this question. Neither of which is very satisfactory. But they keep coming up… so today, I want to take them on.

– –

Open Your Heart To Me, Baby

For more traditional believers, the answer to why atheists exist is simple: Atheists have closed our hearts to God. God has reached out to atheists — but we don’t want to believe. We want to pursue a selfish and sybaritic life, and don’t want to obey God’s laws (so say the real hard-liners)… or we’ve been hurt by life or by religion, and we’re rejecting God out of anger (so say the marginally more compassionate believers). But it’s important that we have free will — so we have to be free to reject God as well as to accept him. God can’t force us to believe. That would be cheating.

Uh huh.

See, here’s the problem with that.

Or rather, here’s a whole set of problems.

For starters: This idea is totally unfalsifiable. There’s no way to prove that you honestly gave religion a chance. Until we develop the technology to accurately record the inside of somebody’s head and play it back in somebody else’s, there’s no way to prove that atheists are sincerely open-minded and willing to consider religion.

Atheists can say a hundred times, “Really, I’m telling you, I’ve looked at this carefully, I’ve meditated on it, I’ve examined the evidence, I’ve studied lots of different religions… and I just don’t find any of it convincing.” We can ask believers to give us good evidence or arguments for God. We can point out the pain and distress many of us went through when we let go of our beliefs — pain and distress that this “You’ve just closed your heart to God” trope seriously trivializes. We can even go out on a limb and point to the kinds of evidence that would convince us we were mistaken (something just about no religious believers are willing to do). But since we can’t demonstrate the state of our minds and hearts, believers can always say, “You aren’t sincere. Your mind and heart are closed.”

There’s no way to prove that they’re wrong. It’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Which makes it an entirely useless one. If there’s no possible way to show that your hypothesis is false, there’s no way to know whether it’s true.

What’s more, the “You’ve hardened your heart against God” trope is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. No matter how many times we gave God the old college try… we clearly haven’t tried hard enough. I mean — we don’t believe! If we’d tried hard enough, then obviously we’d believe! The fact that we don’t believe is proof that we haven’t tried hard enough. Q.E.D. (It’s a fairly entertaining logical fallacy, actually: a unique blend of moving goalposts and circular reasoning. I’m kind of impressed.)

And then, of course, we have the niggling little problem of self-deception and rationalization.

The human mind is very prone to believing what it already believes. It’s very prone to believing what it’s been prompted to believe. And it’s very prone to believing what it wants to believe. Rationalization is a deeply hard-wired part of how the human mind works, and while it’s a surprisingly important part — among other things, it enables us to get on with our lives without being totally paralyzed — it’s something we always need to keep in mind when we’re deciding if the things we believe are really true.

So if the only way to believe something is to try really, really hard? If what it takes to believe something is to “open your heart” — i.e., to put yourself in a state of suggestibility and wishful thinking?

That’s not a very good sign that this something is true.

Quite the contrary.

If we care about whether the things we believe are true — if we want to be sure that we’re not just fooling ourselves into believing what we already believe or what we want to believe — then the times we’re trying really hard to convince ourselves of something? Those are exactly the times we should be most skeptical. That’s not when we should be opening our hearts. That’s when we should be on our guard.

The reality for me, and the reality for a whole lot of atheists? I am open to my mind being changed. Heck, I used to be a believer. I used to be more than just open to the idea of God — I used to believe in God. (Or something that I was willing to call God.) In fact, it was my willingness to change my mind, my openness to reconsidering new possibilities, that led me to let go of my religious beliefs in the first place. And if someone can give me some really good reasons to change my mind back again, I will.

But “You just have to open your heart” is not a good reason. It’s an unfalsifiable argument — nothing I do can prove that I’m sincerely open to the God hypothesis. Its goalposts can be moved forever — no matter how carefully I’ve considered religion, people can argue that I need to consider it just a little more. And it’s basically a defense of wishful thinking as some sort of positive virtue. (Besides, nobody’s ever given me a good reason why I should open my heart to their particular god: why I should open my heart to Jesus instead of to Allah, or Ganesh, or the Goddess, or that blue peacock god some people worship in northern Iraq.)

“You just haven’t opened your heart” is clearly a terrible explanation for why God would allow atheists to exist.

Are there any better ones?

I Love You Just The Way You Are

There is another religious response to the puzzling question of why there are atheists. And unlike the unfalsifiable, goalpost-moving, “let’s treat people like pariahs for wanting to be careful that the things they believe are true” hostility of “You haven’t opened your hearts,” it’s a response that typically comes from more progressive, tolerant, pluralistic believers.

It’s this: “God doesn’t care if you’re an atheist.”

“As long as you’re a good person,” this idea goes, “as long as you love other people and try to do right by them, God’s fine with you. God doesn’t need your worship or your praise, or even your faith. God loves atheists, too. He doesn’t care whether you believe in him.”

Yeah. See, here’s the problem with that.

God may not care whether I believe in him. But I do.

I want to understand the world. I care about reality, more than I care about just about anything. If there really is a God who created everything, who guided the universe and the process of evolution so conscious life could come into being, who animates all life with his spirit — I bloody well want to know about it. I don’t want to be flatly wrong about one of the hugest questions humanity is faced with. In my years as an atheist writer, I keep asking believers again and again, “Do you have some evidence for your belief? If you do, please tell me about it. I want to see it.” And I’m not being snarky, or baiting them into a debate I know they can’t win. (Well… not mostly.) If I’m wrong about this, I sincerely want to know.

Why does God deny me that knowledge? Why does he give it to some people, and not others?

And maybe more to the point:

If there really were a loving creator of the universe who animates all life including my own, and from whom all that is good and valuable about the world emanates, I wouldn’t want to be alienated from him. I’d want to be connected with him. (Her. It. Them. Whatever.)

Especially the touchy-feely God that the progressive, tolerant, pluralistic believers believe in. There are certainly plenty of gods I wouldn’t worship even if I thought they were real — the God of fundamentalist Christianity is a sadistic nutjob, and even if he existed I wouldn’t give him the time of day. But the warm, gentle, “source of all life/ force of goodness and love in the universe” God that progressive believers believe in? Sure, I’d want to know him. I’d have some serious questions for him — why is there suffering, why is there evil, why can’t the Cubs win a goddamn pennant to save their lives — but I’d happily have a beer with the guy. We could be friends. I mean, he’s the source of all life, the force of goodness and love in the universe. Of course I’d want that in my life. Why on earth wouldn’t I?

If God exists… then why isn’t he reaching out to me? Isn’t it cruel of him to reach out to some people but not to others? (Not to mention the manipulative game-playing he seems to be doing, where he reveals himself in wildly different and even contradictory ways to different people, and then sits back while they duke it out over which one is right.) Why does he manifest in some people’s hearts, but not in others? Why is he being such a passive-aggressive jerk?

Let me be very clear about this: I am entirely happy to be an atheist. I’m not one of these whiny, moody, “I wish I could believe” atheists that so many believers think is the only valid kind of atheism.

I am tickled pink to be an atheist. I won’t pretend that I didn’t lose a form of comfort when I left my beliefs — but I gained so much in return that the loss is a clear bargain. And the comforts I have now are far more comforting… since they’re built on a foundation of reality.

I don’t have the constant nagging feeling in the back of my head that my beliefs are just wishful thinking, and that I’ve built my philosophy on a foundation of sand. I’m persuaded that God does not exist, and that’s just ducky with me.

But I’m happy with my atheism because I’m persuaded that it’s correct. I’m happy not feeling God in my life because I’m persuaded that God doesn’t exist.

If God really existed, I sure as heck would want to know about it.

So why don’t I?

If God really exists — why don’t I know about it?

As an atheist, I have some really good answers for why people believe in God even though he doesn’t exist. The human mind is prone to numerous cognitive errors — and many of those cognitive errors make people susceptible to religion.

We tend to see intention, even where no intention exists. We tend to see patterns, even where no pattern exists. We give excessive weight to personal emotional experience, and aren’t good at applying critical thought to those experiences.

We don’t have a good intuitive understanding of probability, and tend to think events are more improbable than they really are.

We tend to believe what authority figures tell us. We tend to believe what we’re taught as children. We tend to believe what people we know and trust tell us.

We’re reluctant to question the things that everyone else in our social group believes. Etc., etc., etc. People believe all sort of things that aren’t true… and from an atheist/ materialist viewpoint, that makes perfect sense. Atheism is not even a little inconsistent with the belief in gods who don’t exist.

But the belief in God is very much inconsistent with the existence of atheists. I have yet to see a religious believer give a good answer for why God exists — but not everyone experiences him or believes in him. I have yet to see a good answer for why God bestows the experience of his existence (however inconsistently and contradictorily) onto some people — but not onto others. I have yet to see a good answer for why God is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good — or even anything close to all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good — and still isn’t perceived by everybody.

Does anybody have one?

(And if you say “Mysterious ways,” I’m going to scream.)

On November 1, 2005, SIXTY YEARS SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, THE LIBERATION OF THE AUSCHWITZ EXTERMINATION CAMP BY THE SOVIET ARMY, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UN, finally, the UN that in major part came about because of the fact that the world realized that walking in the ashes caused by anti-Semitism and other isms, is not the will of the human race; the UN was created to learn from that experience – but did it? It took 60 years, the creation of the State of Israel, the travails of Zionism is Racism abomination, and one strong Ambassador of humanity to the organization – US Professor/ Senator/Ambassador Moynihan, to start to beat the anti-Semitic UN steel into compliance.

—————

UN Designates International Holocaust day
November 1, 2005, release:

The UN General Assembly has decided by acclaim to designate January 27 as international Holocaust Day.

This is the first time ever that a resolution introduced by Israel has been adopted by the UN General Assembly. Some not inconsiderable distance has been traveled from the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution to this resolution. At least, the world can be united in condemning genocide, even if “Zionists” propose the initiative. The vision of Austria and Germany co-sponsoring and approving of such a resolution is certainly heartening to the surviving victims of Nazi persecution, to the Jews, gypsies and others whose families died in the Holocaust and to the state of Israel.

Unfortunately, it is not at all certain how some countries will mark this day. Some of the rhetoric of the UN discussion is ominous: Several Muslim and Arab governments expressed “reservations.” Some countries believe that the Holocaust, in which a state turned against noncombatant civilians, was the same as bombing the cities of enemy countries at war. In many of the countries that approved of this resolution and even among those whose representatives spoke kind words about humanitarianism, Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best sellers. Some of those countries have been accessories after the fact to genocide, or committed it themselves. In those countries, every day is Holocaust day. From the remarks of the Ukrainian representative, you would not know that the Jews of the Ukraine were rounded up by Ukrainian SS, or that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were run by a Ukrainian nicknamed “Ivan the terrible.”

What public activities will mark Holocaust day in Iran, where President Ahmedinejad has called for a world without Zionism and America? In Syria, a book about the Blood Libel (the accusation that Jews kill Christian children in order to use their blood for baking Matzot) was written by the former minister of Defense. Syria also made notable contributions to the history of racial persecution in its treatment of the Kurds. Will Syria mark this day in sympathy with the victims, or will they celebrate it by showing, perhaps, a screening of Lenni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will? Will this day become an occasion for so-called “anti-Zionists” to trot out Holocaust denial and accusations that Israel is committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians, or that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis?

Will the world again stand aside at the next genocide, as it did in Rwanda, and as it did for a very long time in Darfur, and as it continues to do in Tibet? In the discussion, each state was quick to accuse others of genocide, but unwilling to accept responsibility for crimes of their own states and governments. The Venezuelans spoke about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chinese alluded to Japanese crimes. The Ukrainians alluded to Soviet crimes. The discussion would have more meaning if the Americans had spoken about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Chinese had spoken about their activities in Tibet, the Japanese had spoken the rape of Mongolia and the Turks had spoken of the Armenian genocide.

The implementation of the resolution will be of more consequence than the paper or the words themselves,  and the reality of the actions of states will be more important than either.

The proliferation of vile Web sites and articles about the “Holocaust Myth,” claiming the Holocaust never happened and is yet another Jewish plot, points up the urgent need for this day of remembrance.

Alert readers of what was said that say will note some bitter ironies in the remarks of representatives of some states, whose people and governments were active collaborators or passive accessories in the crime of the Holocaust.

The date – January 27 – was picked as that was the date the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination machine was closed by the Soviet army. http://www.zionism-israel.com/news/holocaust_day.htm

The first commemoration was held at the UN in 2006 and this year we have thus the fifth such event – or actually a series of events, that traditionally start on the Saturday before the actual date with a ceremony at the Park East Synagogue located on Manhattan’s East Side – Midtown.

The list of this year’s events at the UN, as provided to parties outside the UN – and published on our website is:
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

But besides the UN itself, the fact that the UN has thrown the light upon the Holocaust atrocities, and the world’s need to remember these atrocities by having an International day of Remembrance, it is now that even in unexpected places in the civilized world, we find events being organized for the purpose of remembering and of learning from that experience. We thought thus to mention here one such event in a place we hardly expected to find it – the main Carnival city of the North-East of Brazil – Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

We will be reporting on this year’s week-long series in several postings that will involve also other related events – for now we will put up the clear Jewish angle to the comemoration – as it reflected in the Park East Sybagogue events and in the political official presentation at the UN main event of January 27, 2010

REMARKS AT PARK EAST SYNAGOGUE IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST

by H.E. Srgjan Kerim President of the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Park East Synagogue
New York, 26 January 2008

Rabbi Schneier,
Excellencies,
Members of Park East Synagogue,
Dear Friends,

I am very grateful to Rabbi Schneier for inviting me to the Park East
Synagogue – a historic architectural treasure in the heart of
Manhattan.

I am sure that you are all very proud of Rabbi Schneier for his
commitment and spiritual leadership that has brought this synagogue
international recognition.

It was only five years ago that I had my first opportunity to attend
and participate in a Jewish ceremony, here at the Park East Synagogue.
The experience inspired me to write a poem entitled ‘Temple’. I would
like to share a short extract with you today. I hope you will
appreciate it;

Nowhere in the world is it possible
To find such a grandiose temple
That would keep for ages
The layers of human sin
And all our shame.

I’ve always believed
There’s nothing greater in a temple
Than the final sounds melting
In the concluding Amin
Until I heard the word
Of a great friend of mine
Who walked in the steps of Moses
And is called a Rabbin.

Park East Beit Knesset,

I wish there would not have been such an occasion for me to address
you today. However, as we all know the Holocaust happened. It is
definitely one of the darkest pages in the history of mankind.

Unfortunately, we are still facing some lonely, desperate attempts to
blur the horrifying dimensions of the Holocaust.

We gather here today to remember and pay homage to those who lost
their lives in the Holocaust; the atrocities that they were subjected
to can never be forgotten.
The perpetrators of the Holocaust fed man’s ego with delusions of
supremacy and tried to erase the bonds that all human beings share.

The liberation of the Nazi concentration camps over 60 years ago
revealed one of the most evil crimes against humanity. The
consequences still reverberate in the present.

Elie Wiesel – Nobel Laureate, a Holocaust survivor and champion of
moral responsibility – has best put this into perspective:

“Let us remember, let us remember the heroes of Warsaw, the martyrs of
Treblinka, the children of Auschwitz. They fought alone, they suffered
alone, they lived alone, but they did not die alone, for something in
all of us died with them.”

We must also remember to pay tribute to those who survived and bravely
carried on with their lives – and in doing so inspired others. I would
like to salute the strength and perseverance of all Holocaust
survivors and their families.

I know that some of you are with us today.

Not only have you survived, but you have rebuilt communities all over
the world, become stronger, and enabled future generations to thrive.
You just have to look around at all the people gathered here today to
recognize this fact.

The recognition of this day of Holocaust remembrance by the
international community heralded a change of tide at the United
Nations; and, a step forward in the collective memory and conscience
of our world.

Dear Friends,
Remembrance of the Holocaust is more than the recognition of a tragic
past – or the darker side of human nature.

Remembering is an ethical act; it has ethical value in itself.

Remembrance is also a means through which we can understand ourselves:
an engine for change that should enable us to create and sustain a
better, more just future.

I am reminded of my father and his family. During the Second World War
he bravely helped to save and protect the family of Isac Sion – his
school friend – amidst the terror of occupation.

At the age of twenty my father and Isac subsequently joined the
National Liberation Movement of Macedonia to fight for freedom,
against the Nazi dictatorship, alongside the Allies.

Isac Sion subsequently went on to become Vice-governor of the Central
Bank of the Former Yugoslavia and following this was appointed as
Yugoslavia’s trade representative to the United Kingdom.

My father and many others like him served the Jewish people in their
hour of need. Their actions epitomize the practical meaning of
something profound that the famous Irish politician and philosopher
Edmund Burke once said, and I quote;

“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

When I had my first opportunity, in some small way, to redress the
atrocities committed during the Holocaust – as foreign Minister of
Macedonia – in 2000, I appointed Elie Wiesel as our first Special
Envoy and Goodwill Ambassador. He then became the United Nations
Messenger of Peace for Human Rights and the Holocaust.

And, in honour of the Jewish community, my country will soon complete
the construction of a Holocaust Memorial Centre. This is a symbolic
gesture to bring back the memory of the victims from Treblinka to
Skopje.

Looking back at the turbulent history of the Balkan region there are
some bitter lessons that we must learn: war begins when the perception
of the pain of others ends. We can also turn this around to say that
when the perception of the pain of others begins there is no room for
war.

We must remember that every religion and culture must be tolerant of
the legitimate right for others to assert their difference in freedom.

Furthermore, intolerance of other religions or cultures is often a
sign of the degree of intolerance within a particular religion or
culture.

Dear Friends and members of Park East Beit Knesset,

The United Nations was founded on the ashes of the Holocaust, when the
world was in need of hope for a better future.
It was created to embody that hope as a promise to humanity. However,
most disturbingly, since the Holocaust there have been genocides and
serious crimes against humanity in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

That these atrocities occurred is not necessarily the failure of the
United Nations as an organization; but rather, represents the lack of
collective will of its Member States to take the decision to act or
intervene.

Even while we gather here, there are places – like Darfur – where
people suffer from the very crimes, which, time and time again, we
have vowed would never again happen.

For the dignity of all humanity, we must strengthen our ability – our
collective resolve – to prevent such atrocities, whenever and wherever
they might occur.

Indeed, terrorism, violence, rape, murder, poverty and discrimination
on the grounds of race or religion continue to be part of the everyday
lives of many people. This fact alone should jar us with indignation.

Despite the tragic failures of the international community to prevent
crimes against humanity since the founding of the United Nations,
there is hope – failure is not an option.

In 2005, the General Assembly passed a resolution that included the
‘Responsibility to Protect’. In doing so, all nations signaled their
commitment to take action – to hold themselves accountable – to
recognize that with sovereign rights come responsibilities to their
peoples.

In fact all of us here today can add our voice, with the United
Nations, to ensure that this new paradigm within international
relations comes to life.

Rabbi Schneier offers us an example of what we can do. He has been a
great advocate for human rights, and the promotion of religious and
ethnic tolerance. He has worked tirelessly to strengthen ties with
communities from different faiths and backgrounds through his good
works and publications.

In 2003 we jointly organized the first ever South East European
regional conference on ‘Dialogue among Civilizations’, at Lake Ohrid
in Macedonia.

In this spirit, and as we have just celebrated the life of the great
Martin Luther King Jr., I think it is fitting that I should recount
something he once said. It captures the same call to action that needs
to be instilled in the world today if we are to prevent a repeat of
the Holocaust;

“injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere….. Whatever
affects one directly, affects all directly.”

Dear Friends,

On the occasion of the International Day of Commemoration in memory of
the victims of the Holocaust, as well as of the 60th Anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let us embrace our
diversity, and honor our interdependence, as the only path to peace
and justice.

Together, it is our common challenge to eliminate all distorted
notions that deepen barriers and widen divides: for they all originate
in the discriminatory practices of the mind.

We can achieve this by promoting intercultural dialogue and
cooperation for peace as a means to replace misunderstanding with
mutual respect and acceptance.

But we must also move from words to action, from principled intentions
to deeds that promote human security, human rights, the responsibility
to protect and sustainable development. For herein lies the hope of a
new culture of international relations with the United Nations as its
centerpiece.

Members of Park East Beit Knesset,
And, all those gathered here today,

Let me wish all of you and the wider community peace, health and prosperity.

Let all our thoughts honour the victims of the Holocaust, and let us
spare no effort to ensure that we never again witness such evil. We
may not be able to change the past, but we must have the courage and
vision to change the future.

In order to do so, it is not enough to reiterate solemn gestures; we
must do everything possible to transform our attitudes to have full
regard for the dignity of all individuals, communities and nations.

Thank you. Shalom.

————–

But that was the last President of the UN General Assembly to be welcome

to speak before a Jewish Audience – in those 5 years. Before him were: Mr. Jan Eliasson of Sweden #60,

and Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of  Bahrain #61.

Now it is UNGA’s 64th session: On 10 June 2009, Ali Abdussalam Treki

of Libya was elected by acclamation at a plenary meeting of the

192-member body of the United Nations General Assembly.

Treki assumed office as president of the 64th session on 15 September 2009,
succeeding General Assembly president, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann of
Nicaragua who was 63rd President of the UNGA. Both these gentlemen
have made anti-Israeli statements and were also mentioned in this
context as plain anti-Semites, thus making it impossible to listen to
their linguistic expressions when it comes to the commemoration of the
liberation of Auschwitz. Thus, these last two years, the presentations
at the UN, it was Vice Presidents of the UNGA that spoke in their
place, and the UN General Assembly as such was not represented at the
Saturday pre-commemoration service at the Park East Synagogue.

But in 2009, The Park East Congregation had the honor to host the UN
Secretary General.

—————-
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
24 January 2009

Remarks at Holocaust Remembrance Day Ceremony at the Park East Synagogue:

Thank you very much, Rabbi [Arthur] Schneier, for that kind introduction.

I especially appreciate you for calling me a mensch. With apologies to
those of you who do not speak Yiddish, I have to say: thank goodness
he didn’t call me meshugenah.

To all, I wish you Shabat Shalom.

Excellencies, distinguished Ambassadors to the United Nations,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today we mark the International Day of Commemoration honoring victims
of the Holocaust. This is a most important and solemn occasion.

As you know, my friend, the late Tom Lantos, died shortly after last
year’s observance. Some of you may have met him when he came to this
Synagogue. He was dear to me, as he was to you. He made an
extraordinary journey from a Nazi labor camp to the halls of Congress.
He became a leading champion of truth and justice. Like those of you
who also lived through the Holocaust, he was never defeated by the
unspeakable horrors that he survived.

I can only imagine what he endured. Yet I, too, have witnessed man’s
inhumanity to man. I have seen it as Secretary-General, traveling in
places torn by war. And I saw it as a six-year old boy fleeing to the
mountains to escape fighting in my own country.

The UN helped South Korea to recover. Like Tom Lantos, like many of
you, I came to believe in the transformative power of the United
Nations.

Today, the UN is on the cusp of a great transition. Never have global
challenges been so large. Climate change, terrorism, the global
financial crisis – these troubles transcend borders. They affect all
countries, rich and poor. They will be overcome only when all
countries come together in response. That’s why we have a United
Nations.

Yes, the UN has its imperfections. It’s not perfect. Because of this,
from day one since I took office, I have pushed to change it. I have
insisted on a new culture of transparency and accountability. I have
worked to make the UN more efficient, effective, modern. In short, we
have tried to make it a better instrument to serve mankind.

We are here to mark the Holocaust. Like you, the United Nations is
determined to tell its timeless lessons.

Precisely two years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution
condemning, without reservation, any denial of the Holocaust. I quote:
“Ignoring the historical fact of those terrible events increases the
risk they will be repeated.”

With you, I stand in saying: never again. Never. When I paid tribute
to Holocaust victims at Yad Vashem, I wrote in the book there, “Never
again. Never.”

Memory speaks. That is why it must be preserved and passed to future
generations.

Our Holocaust Outreach Program sponsors exhibits, workshops and panel
discussions. The aim: to confront deniers, or those who would minimize
the importance of the Holocaust.

When President Ahmadinejad of Iran declared that Israel should
“disappear,” or be “wiped off the map,” I strongly condemned his
remarks – twice.

We at the United Nations stand for human rights.

We stand for democracy and the rule of law. By working for economic
and social development, we build the foundations for peace.

We have a new instrument in our hands. It is called the Responsibility
to Protect – the idea that every nation has a legal obligation to
protect its people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. Where nations fall short, the international
community has the right to take collective action.

Yes, it is difficult in practice. But I assure you. This is a major
advance in safeguarding mankind from crimes against humanity.

My friends,

Today is not simply a time for remembering. The Holocaust has lessons
for us, here and now. Let us heed them.

My job can sometimes be terribly painful. I see unbelievable hardship,
the worst human suffering. You are familiar with the grim catalogue of
names and places: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur,
Somalia and, of course, the Middle East.

I am just back from the region. I went to push for a cease-fire. More,
I went in search of a lasting peace.

The recurring violence between Palestinians and Israelis is a mark of
collective political failure – by both sides and by the international
community.

I saw first-hand what most people saw on television. I met a child and
his parents in Sderot, southern Israel, traumatized by falling
rockets. Never for one moment have I forgotten that a million people
in southern Israel live in a daily state of terror and fear.

In Gaza, I saw the most appalling devastation. I saw the UN compound,
still burning.

I said to all I met, on both sides: This must stop.

I left the region more determined than ever to work toward a world
where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace and
security. War can never be an answer. We need to strengthen the forces
of peaceful coexistence and dialogue.

No one sees this more clearly than your own Rabbi Schneier. He has
devoted his life to overcoming hatred and intolerance.

You all know him as the founder and president of the Appeal for
Conscience Foundation. What you may not know, and what I am very
grateful to him for, is his pioneering work for the UN’s Alliance of
Civilizations.

He knows first-hand that no one man or nation has all the answers. He
knows the sacred value of tolerance. He has survived the greatest
trials that life can hurl at a man or a woman and emerged not only
with his humanity and spirit intact but stronger. He survived the
Holocaust. Like others among you, he never lost sight of man’s
essential humanity, our capacity for good, our inherent dignity.

So, let us be frank. We must recognize the limits of power and
goodwill. We here know that we can never entirely rid the world of its
tyrants and its intolerance. We cannot turn all extremists to the path
of reason and light. We can only stand against them and raise our
voices in the name of our common humanity.

Tom Lantos was fond of saying that even the littlest actions, the
smallest of our daily deeds, can do much to leave this earth better,
less evil, less selfish, less monstrous than we found it. And he
stressed that doing these things, even in a modest way, gives you the
energy to keep moving forward. On this day of days, that seems to me
to be good advice.

As we remember the victims of the Holocaust, let us reaffirm our faith
in the dignity of humankind and our extraordinary resilience – our
moral strength – even amid history’s darkest chapters.

Thank you very much.

—————–

On January 23, 2010, before a full house at Park East Synagogue, the
main speaker for Saturday Pre-Commemoration of the International
Holocaust Remembrance Day was  Ambassador Susan Rice of the USA, and
at the actual ceremony at the UN General Assembly Hall was German
Ambassador to the UN H.E. Peter Wittig.

The remarks were:
 http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statement…

 http://www.newyorkun.diplo.de/Vertretung…

At the Park East Service this year, a further Honored Guest was Rabbi Ricardo Di Segni, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, who has been visited at his Synagogue by the Pope, also as part of this year’s Holocaust Remembrance.

Also present were Ambassador Thomas Mayr-Harting of Austria, Ambassador Peter Wittig of Germany, Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, Ambassador Anastassis Mitsialis of Greece, Ambassador Marta Horvathne Fekzi of Hungary, H.E. Most Reverend Celestino Migliore the Permanent Representative of the Vatican, Ambassador Yukio Takasu of Japan, Ambassador Cesare Maria Ragaglini of Italy, Ambassador Mohamed Loulichki of Morocco, Ambassador Jim McLay of New Zealand, Ambassador Andrzey Towpik of Poland, Ambassador Juan Antonio Yanez-Barnuevo of Spain, Ambassador Rayko S. Raytchev of Bulgaria, Ambassador Kim Won-soo, from the UN Secretary General’s Office, and about further twenty top Diplomatic Representatives. But I must remark that from all the Islamic and African Countries only Morocco was present – and from the newly emerging States only Brazil and China were present.

 news at religionandecology.org

Forum on Religion and Ecology Newsletter
3.11 (November 2009)

Contents:

1. Editorial, by Elizabeth McAnally

2. Religion, Science, and the Environment Symposium on the Mississippi River

3. Events

4. New Books

5. Exhibit: “Climate Change in Our World”

6. New Blog: Congregational Resource Guide Green  http://green.congregationalresources.org)

7. Sewanee’s Center for Religion and Environment

8. Sustainability: The Journal of Record

9. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology

1. Editorial, by Elizabeth McAnally

Greetings!

Welcome to the November issue of the Forum on Religion and Ecology newsletter. I have many exciting things to share with you this month, including information about new publications, recent and upcoming events, a photography exhibit, and much more. In particular, I would like to direct your attention to the recent Religion, Science, and the Environment symposium sponsored by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Greek Orthodox Church. See below for a short summary of the symposium and links to related news articles.

Also, I am happy to inform you about the religion and ecology events that took place at the annual conference of American Academy of Religion (AAR) in Montreal, Quebec on November 7-10, 2009. I had the pleasure of attending this year’s conference, and am delighted to report that the field of religion and ecology was well represented.  The Forum hosted its annual AAR lunch on Friday, November 6th, where participants shared their latest activities with regard to teaching and research.  This is an occasion for people to meet one another and share common interests in the broad field of religion and ecology.

Throughout the AAR, diverse presentations in panels and workshops related to religion and ecology were hosted by the Religion and Ecology Group, the Animals and Religion Consultation, and the Sustainability Task Force.  The presentations addressed a variety of topics, including animals, food, bioethics, justice, climate change, globalization, poetry, and the philosophical grounds of the emerging field of religion and ecology. The new Sustainability Task Force hosted two great events: one was a pre-conference workshop on how to teach about global warming in the context of religious studies, and the other was a panel on sustainability among Native American peoples. It was inspiring to hear so many thought-provoking presentations.

Amidst many handshakes, hugs, shared meals, and stimulating conversations, it was evident that religion and ecology is not simply a field of study, but is also a matter of personal connections and face to face relationships.  With an intimate lunch hosted by the Forum, along with many discussions during and between presentations, the AAR provided time for new introductions to be made and for longtime friendships to be rejuvenated.  Next year’s meeting of the AAR will be held in Atlanta, Georgia on October 30-November 1, 2010. It would be wonderful if you could come and join the Forum community as we explore together the field and the force of religion and ecology.

I am also pleased to let you know that last year the Parliament of the World’s Religions asked the Forum to assist in creating panels on world religions and ecology.  This has been done, and there will be a fresh new emphasis on the environment at the Parliament.  In addition, the Forum arranged for panels on the Earth Charter, Thomas Berry’s legacy, the Renewal film, the Journey of the Universe film, and a new film on plants called Numen.  The Parliament will take place in Melbourne from December 3-9, 2009.

Elizabeth McAnally
California Institute of Integral Studies
Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale
Web Content Manager & Newsletter Editor
 http://www.yale.edu/religionandecology

 news at religionandecology.org

2. Religion, Science, and the Environment Symposium on the Mississippi River

The 8th Symposium of Religion, Science, and the Environment (RSE) organized by the Greek Orthodox Church under the auspices of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was held in New Orleans, Louisiana and Memphis, Tennessee on October 21-25, 2009. The Symposium was titled “Restoring Balance: The Great Mississippi River.” Drawing attention to the erosion, sea level rise, pollution, and storms of the Mississippi River, this Symposium reached out across different faiths and denominations, revealing the wisdom of diverse theological traditions, as well as a common imperative to protect the natural world.  One goal of this gathering was to push for a successful outcome of international climate talks this December in Copenhagen. Forum co-directors Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim participated in the symposium (their 5th) by chairing panels and by presenting the film Journey of the Universe that they are making with Brian Swimme.

Past RSE Symposia have drawn global attention to the degradation of the Aegean Sea, the Black Sea, the Danube River, the Adriatic Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Amazon River. Travelling down rivers and around seas, sometimes literally following pollution from its source to its point of impact, these waterborne journeys have offered up a tangible sense of the interconnectedness of the world’s waters and all its ecosystems, demonstrating the destructive ripples human actions can send through space and time. By bringing participants to the places where environmental problems are most acute and focusing on practical remedies rather than theoretical discussions, RSE Symposia have inspired positive change through collective action.

For More Information, see the news articles below:

“Religious leaders gather in Memphis and New Orleans as sea level rise threat grows”
October 19, 2009
Press Release
 http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?&amp…

“Orthodox leader calls for environmental action”
October 23, 2009
By The Associated Press
 http://www.dailyworld.com/article/200910…

“Our Indivisible Environment: If life is sacred, so is the entire web that sustains it”
October 25, 2009
By The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
The Wall Street Journal
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…

For Further Information, visit the website of Religion, Science, and the Environment:www.rsesymposia.org

3. Events

Parliament of the World’s Religions
Melbourne, Australia
December 3-9, 2009
For More Information, visit: www.parliamentofreligions.org

“Environment & Spirit”
Centre for Peace
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
November 20-21, 2009
For More Information, visit: http://www.canadianmemorial.org/environm…

“Sacred Water: Sustaining Life”
14th Annual Festival of Faiths
Center for Interfaith Relations
Louisville, KY, USA
November 4-13, 2009
For More Information, visit: www.interfaithrelations.org

“Many Heavens, One Earth: Faith Commitments for a Living Planet”
Sponsored by Alliance for Religion and Conservation and UN Development Programme
Hosted by Prince Philip (HRH the Duke of Edinburgh)
Mary Evelyn Tucker presented the work of the Forum.
Windsor Castle, United Kingdom
November 2-4, 2009
For More Information, visit: www.windsor2009.org

2009 Global Environmental Action (GEA) International Conference
Sponsored by UN University, UN Environment Programme, and the Japanese Government including Ministry of Environment, etc.
Promoting Technologies and Policies toward a Low Carbon Society
Keynote speeches were given by the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister.
Mary Evelyn Tucker gave a presentation on values for sustainability from the world’s religions and the Earth Charter.
Prince Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
October 16 – 17, 2009
For More Information, visit: http://www.gea.or.jp/top_en.html

4. New Books

The Tao of Liberation: Exploring the Ecology of Transformation
By Mark Hathaway and Leonardo Boff
Orbis Books, 2009
 http://www.taoofliberation.com

Today, humanity stands at an historic crossroads. Deepening poverty and accelerating ecological destruction challenge us to act with wisdom and maturity: How can we move toward a future where meaning, hope, and beauty can truly flourish?

Drawing on insights from economics, psychology, science, and spirituality, The Tao of Liberation seeks wisdom leading to authentic liberation a path toward ever-greater communion, diversity, and creativity for the Earth community. It describes this wisdom using the Chinese word Tao both a way leading to harmony and the unfolding process of the cosmos itself.

This book is part of the Ecology and Justice Series in which Thomas Berry’s latest book, The Christian Future and the Fate of Earth, was also published.

+

Religion, Ecology & Gender: East-West Perspectives
Edited by Sigurd Bergmann and Yong-Bock Kim
Studies in Religion and the Environment/Studien zur Religion und Umwelt, Vol. 1, 2009
 http://www.lit-verlag.de/isbn/3-8258-190…

The understanding of nature is at the heart of European self – understanding, while in Asia the terms of life and energy play a similar central role. Globally, many institutions and movements have made the protection of the environment and climate a top policy priority. Given the urgency of environmental problems the lack of reflections about the human and especially the spiritual dimension of environmental problems is striking.

Environmental – and – climatic change transforms not only culture, politics, and economy, but also religion. Religious traditions have on the one hand always been dependent on human ecologies; on the other hand they vibrantly affect our perceptions of nature and sociocultural practices with(in) it.

If life and religion change dramatically at present, how could religion make a change? How are religious and ecologic processes gendered, and how can ecofeminism deepen our understanding of justice? What are the life – enhancing spiritual resources in the East and the West? How can Christian theology contribute to the necessary eco – cultural revolution ahead of us? And how can Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian and Christian spiritualities cooperate in a common space and future?

Questions like these are reflected upon by scholars of religion and theology from Korea, Canada and Scandinavia. Their chapters emerge from an international workshop, which was arranged and convened by the editors 2007 in Yecheon on the Korean countryside and in Seoul. The book offers the 1st volume in a new series established by the European Forum for the Study of Religion and the Environment.

+

In the Beginning is the Icon: A Liberative Theology of Images, Visual Arts and Culture
By Sigurd Bergmann
Equinox Publishing, 2009
 http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook…

In the Beginning is the Icon (translated from the Swedish edition, published by Proprius Förlag in 2003) aims to contribute to raising awareness about the intrinsic value of images and image perception among those who wish to reflect over God and over pictorial expressions of different experiences from encounters with divinity in earthly and historical situations. Reflections from iconology, art theory, philosophical aesthetics, art history, and the fairly recent field of anthropology of art intersect with reflections from Theology and Religious studies.

A central question is how God, through human creation and observation of pictures, can have a liberating function in images. Within the context of a liberation theological approach to the interpretation of God and an aesthetic that focuses on the love of the poor, the final chapter develops a constructive proposal for a contextual art theology. In the globalised mass production of pictures, the pedagogy of art and iconology has a special significance in contributing to humanisation and the liberation of man. The roles of the hand and the eye for learning make up central and crucial notions within liberation pedagogy. The extended time period that is needed to orientate in the visual sphere is in itself a political counterforce to the violation of natural space and a natural passing of time caused by the acceleration of technological developments.

In light of the impact of both art and religion within a world of geographical and historical relations, and with a critical edge toward Western art reflection and the egocentric, Euro-centric character of religious interpretation, the chapter about “world art” is an independent contribution in the book’s structure. Even though the research history of ethnography and anthropology also reflects this ethnocentricity shared by art and religious studies, the newly established anthropology of art offers important perspectives for a cross-cultural art theology.

+

Coming Back to Earth: From gods to God to Gaia
By Lloyd Geering
Edited with an introduction by Tom Hall
Polebridge Press, 2009
 http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridg…

The mainline churches in the Western world are declining, concludes Lloyd Geering, because they are “all out of step” with the modern secular world. This is not so much a result of the supposed renegade behavior of the secular world as the failure of the church to take the next steps in its path of faith. Abraham left his idols behind to go out into the unknown. In contrast, the churches reveal a lack of faith by insisting on an infallible Bible and a set of unchangeable doctrines tailored to an obsolete worldview. In Coming Back to Earth, Geering calls upon us to complete the work of the Second Axial Age by bringing the sacred—banished to an imaginary heavenly realm in the wake of the First Axial Age—back to earth.

+

The Gift of Creation: Images from Scripture and Earth
Edited by Norman Wirzba
Photography by Tom Barnes
Acclaim Press, 2009
 http://www.acclaimpress.com/product_info…

The Gift of Creation: Images from Scripture and Earth is a beautiful book featuring vivid images of the Earth and the varied forms of life that call it home. Coupled with the images are biblically-based essays, written by notable academics and scholars from around the globe, exploring what scripture really says about caring for God’s creation, as well as a scientific assessment of the state of the Earth. These essays give a current state of the environment and a poignant and much-needed treatise on humanity’s role in caring for God’s creation. Edited by Norman Wirzba with photographs by Tom Barnes, The Gift of Creation reveals the splendor of nature in its varied landscapes, flora and fauna. The text reminds us to cherish and care for God’s great gift.

+

A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future
By Roger S. Gottlieb
Paperback version, Oxford University Press, 2009
 http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/su…

In a time of darkening environmental prospects, frightening religious fundamentalism, and moribund liberalism, the remarkable and historically unprecedented rise of religious environmentalism is a profound source of hope. In A Greener Faith, Roger S. Gottlieb chronicles the promises of this critically important movement, illuminating its principal ideas, leading personalities, and ways of connecting care for the earth with justice for human beings. He also shows how religious environmentalism breaks the customary boundaries of “religious issues” in political life. Asserting that environmental degradation is sacrilegious, sinful, and an offense against God catapults religions directly into questions of social policy, economic and moral priorities, and the overall direction of secular society. Gottlieb contends that a spiritual perspective applied to Earth provides the environmental movement with a uniquely appropriate way to voice its dream of a sustainable and just world. Equally important, it helps develop a world-making political agenda that far exceeds interest group politics applied to forests and toxic incinerators. Rather, religious environmentalism offers an all-inclusive vision of what human beings are and how we should treat each other and the rest of life.

Gottlieb deftly analyzes the growing synthesis of the movement’s religious, social, and political aspects, as well as the challenges it faces in consumerism, fundamentalism, and globalization. Highly engaging and passionately argued, this book is an indispensable resource for people of faith, environmentalists, scholars, and anyone who is concerned about our planet’s future.

5. Exhibit: “Climate Change in Our World”

“Climate Change in Our World,” an exhibit of large-scale color photographs from Gary Braasch’s bookEarth Under Fire: How Global Warming is Changing the World, is now showing at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Headquarters in Washington DC.  “How We Know About Our Changing Climate: Learning and Taking Action on Climate Change” is an educational exhibit and video installation which accompanies the show.  Images from the book How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming and the film series Young Voices on Climate Change will teach and inspire school groups and families.  This exhibit is co-created by Lynne Cherry, co-author with Braasch of the book and producer of the films.

The show runs from November through mid-March, 2010. Exhibits are open weekdays from 8am-5pm at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington DC 20005).

For more information, visit: http://www.earthunderfire.com/pages/exhi…

6. New Blog: Congregational Resource Guide Green  http://green.congregationalresources.org)

The Congregational Resource Guide (CRE) has long been recognized as the leading portal for information of interest to clergy, lay leaders, and laity in a variety of congregations and faiths  www.congregationalresources.org).  CRE is pleased to announce the launch of CRG Green, a blog dedicated to discussing the best resources available on the web and in press related to green resources for congregational life. The blog can be found at:
 http://green.congregationalresources.org

You are invited to visit the site and offer suggestions for links or issues that should be highlighted. Signed blog entries are also welcomed. You may send these to Martin Davis, director of Congregational Resource Guide, at  mdavis at alban.org. Entries should not exceed 500 words and should focus on issues or new resources specifically dedicated to aiding clergy and congregations to develop their understanding of green issues and how they can advance this movement.

7. Sewanee’s Center for Religion and Environment

Sewanee: The University of the South created the Center for Religion and Environment in order to develop educational programs and public forums that unite environmental learning and action with faith practices. The Center connects the University’s College of Arts and Sciences, its School of Theology, and its All Saints’ Chapel. It is the latest manifestation of Sewanee’s long-time commitment to the environment.

The Center makes the most of Sewanee’s unique situation, which brings together a first-rateenvironmental studies program offering both scientific and humanities/social policy dimensions, the diverse resources of a theological seminary and a liberal arts college, the inter-faith engagements of All Saints’ Chapel, and the practical benefits of a 13,000-acre campus that serves as an enormous land laboratory.

The Center will develop programs for Sewanee undergraduate students and seminarians; church administrators and lay leaders; youth leaders; and business, environmental, and civic leaders who may or may not be members of faith communities. These programs will address environmentally-oriented spiritual growth and integrate theological environmental perspectives with the insights of natural and social sciences.

For More Information, visit: http://www.sewanee.edu/cre

8. Sustainability: The Journal of Record

Sustainability: The Journal of Record  http://www.liebertpub.com/products/produ…) meets the needs of the rapidly growing community of professionals in academia, industry, policy, and government who have the responsibility and commitment to advancing one of the major imperatives of this young century.

The Journal provides the information and resources to foster collaboration and move forward the imperatives of the preservation and sustainability of global resources.

Each issue contains news and commentary; innovators in sustainability; profiles of corporate sustainability programs; tools for implementing sustainability programs on campus; provocative roundtable discussion; peer reviewed articles; books, web, and other resources; new products; and meetings and conferences.

Members of the Forum on Religion and Ecology can purchase the Journal with a special $63 online subscription offer (a $79 value). Please go to www.liebertpub.com to automatically receive your discount.

9. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology

Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology has as its focus the relationships between religion, culture and ecology world-wide. Articles discuss major world religious traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism or Christianity; the traditions of indigenous peoples; new religious movements; and philosophical belief systems, such as pantheism, nature spiritualities, and other religious and cultural worldviews in relation to the cultural and ecological systems. Focusing on a range of disciplinary areas including Anthropology, Environmental Studies, Geography, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Sociology and Theology, the journal also presents special issues that center around one theme. To receive a free sample copy of Worldviews, email  marketing at brill.nl. For more information, visit: http://www.brill.nl/wo

For more information on other journals related to religion and ecology and to environmental ethics/philosophy, visit: http://fore.research.yale.edu/publicatio…. If you know of a publication that needs to be added to this list, email  news at religionandecology.org.

———————————-
For the archive of previous Forum newsletters, visit: http://fore.research.yale.edu/publicatio…

Looking through clippings from 2009:

Can Condoms help fight climate change?  Yes, and they should, wrote an editorial  of  medical journal Lancet!

In addition to boosting the health, standard of living and human rights of women, encouraging the use of contraception also will help save the planet. The calculus is simple: preventing unwanted pregnancies — especially in the developing world — translates into reduced demand for increasingly scarce and energy-intensive resources like food, water and shelter.

More than 200 million women around the world would like access to modern contraception, and their lack of it leads to 76 million unintended pregnancies each year, according to Lancet.

Thomas Wire, a postgraduate student at the London School of Economics, came to essentially the same conclusion. In a report titled “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost,” Wire calculated that if present trends continue, the planet is on track to have 338 billion “people-years” lived between 2020 and 2050. But if contraception were available to every woman who wanted it, so many pregnancies would be averted that the number of people-years would fall to 326 billion.

That reduction of 12 billion people-years would save 34 gigatons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise cost at least $220 billion to produce. In other words, each $7 invested in contraception would buy more than 1 ton of carbon dioxide emissions.

Among the first 40 developing countries to submit global warming adaptation plans to the U.N.  Framework Convention on Climate Change, 37 linked population growth to global warming. But only six of those countries incorporated contraception into their plans, according to Lancet. That should change, the editorial says.

and from a second source: “The world’s population is expected to reach more than 9 billion people by 2050, with 95 percent of this growth in developing countries. Those in support of investing in reproductive health services and contraception to combat climate change argue that having fewer children means less carbon emissions and less strain on diminishing natural resources.

An editorial in the medical journal Lancet last month called attention to the links between rapid population growth and increased vulnerability to the consequences of climate change, such as food and water scarcity and environmental degradation. It suggested that by reducing unintended pregnancies, we could slow the high rates of population growth and possibly ease pressure on the environment. The Lancet says that over 200 million women want, but currently lack, access to modern contraceptives, resulting in 76 million unintended pregnancies every year.

An economic case was made for investing in reproductive health by a recent study from the London School of Economics (LSE) and commissioned by the UK-based Optimum Population Trust. It showed that contraception is almost five times cheaper than leading green technologies, such as wind and solar power and hybrid or electric cars, to combat climate change. Specifically, the study found that each $7 (£4) spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by more than a ton, but it would cost a minimum of $32 (£19) to achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies.”

Religions take a bold step towards a low-carbon future

Windsor, UK , November 3, 2009 -: Nine of the world’s major religions today announced new, concrete actions to tackle climate change at a summit organized by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the non-profit group Alliance of  Religions and Conservation (ARC) and HRH The Prince Philip, who hosted the unique gathering at his Windsor Castle home.

Representatives of the leading religious institutions committed to more than 30 ambitious multi-year plans across the nine faiths designed to help religions reduce their carbon footprint, including redirecting investments into energy-efficient projects and greening their followers’ consumer preferences. The Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Daoist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto and Sikh faiths are among those participating.

“The world’s faith communities are among the oldest and most enduring of institutions,” said Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, speaking at the event. “You can establish green religious buildings. Invest ethically in sustainable products. Purchase only environmentally-friendly goods. You can set an example for the lifestyle of billions of people.”

“Your practical commitments can encourage political leaders to act more courageously in protecting people and the planet,” added Ban Ki-moon.

“Religions own up to eight percent of the world’s habitable land and five percent of commercial forests, run or contribute to more than half of the world’s schools, account for up to seven percent of all global investments and offer moral and spiritual guidance to approximately 85 percent of all people,” said Olav Kjorven, Assistant Secretary-General and Director of Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP. “Their active engagement on climate change is crucial if we are to realize a greener future for our planet, and the United Nations is very proud to support what could spark the largest civil society movement in history.”

A variety of practical commitments were tabled in Windsor today. Leading members of the Sikh faith announced plans to equip their temples and kitchens with environmentally-friendly and energy-efficient building materials, a vital investment considering their kitchens in India feed 30 million people every day. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, speaking on behalf of some 200 Muslim leaders and scholars from Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, Indonesia, Senegal and Turkey, introduced an initiative which aims to green major Islamic cities.  The Jewish, Sikh and Hindu plans call for new faith-based eco-labeling systems, for food, building materials and energy. Lutheran delegates from Tanzania pledged to plant 8.5 million trees around Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa as part of their long-term plan to tackle climate change, while Daoist representatives announced their commitment to install solar power in their 1,500 temples across China.  All religions set out plans to introduce extensive environmental education programmes. With around half of the world’s schools associated with the faiths, the combined plans are targeting generational change on a global scale.

“For decades the watchword in the environmental movement has been sustainability. Yet it is only recently that the same movement has begun to realize that the most sustainable organizations and communities in the world are the major religions,” said Martin Palmer, Secretary General of the ARC.

“For they have seen us through famines, droughts, floods and warfare, and they have given us abundant hope, glimpses of glory and a sense of purpose which has inspired countless millions. This is why, if the future lies, as we believe, with civil society, the lead that can be given by the largest sector  – the major faiths – is not only crucial, it could be our best hope ever.”

***

UNDP is the UN’s global development network. The organization advocates for change and connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources that help people build a better life.  We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.

ARC is a secular body that helps the major religions of the world to develop environmental programmes based on their own core teachings, beliefs and practices. It was founded in 1995 by His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

For more information, please contact:
Stanislav Saling, Tel.: +1 917 213-0671,  undp.org

Pope’s dream of heaven on Earth.

By KEVIN RAFFERTY
Special to The Japan Times

HONG KONG, Sunday, July 26, 2009 — Of all the criticisms and critiques of the state of the world since the financial crisis that triggered global recession, the most devastating and yet the most profound and constructive came this month from such an unusual and unlikely source that many media ignored them. Yet the comments deserve a global audience.

The critique denounces the “grave deviations and failures” of capitalism and blames the mentality of making profits at all costs for the global meltdown.

Here are some sample quotes:

• “Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments that can serve to betray the interests of savers.”

• “Profit is useful if it serves as a means toward an end that provides a sense of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.”

• “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is an urgent need of a true world political authority.”

The author is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical letter “Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth),” addressed to the bishops and faithful of the Roman Catholic Church and to “all people of good will.”

You have only to read the last quotation above to understand how ambitious and sweeping the pope’s analysis is — as well as how dense and difficult is his prose. Yet it is worth the effort because he presents a new worldview in this age of galloping globalization.

He acknowledges the swirling global changes and tries to offer a holistic solution to the world’s woes that places human beings, not money or power or raw economic efficiency, at its center. The pope essentially finds that existing institutions, including individual national governments, have not kept pace with the scale, force and speed of change.

He sums up the tremendous benefits and the damaging side effects of globalization: “The world’s wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase,” he writes. “Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident in the conduct of the economic and political class in rich countries as well as in poor ones.”

At the heart of the pope’s world is the individual human being, who, he declares must be given the opportunity of living with dignity and access to food, water and employment. “I would like to remind everyone, especially governments engaged in boosting the world’s economic and social assets, that the primary capital to be safeguarded is the human person in his or her integrity: Man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life.”

Pope Benedict has little faith in markets and still less in financiers to solve the problems of inequality and oppression, and points to the evils of “badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing, large-scale migration of people and unregulated exploitation of Earth’s resources.”

Since so many changes are occurring beyond the reach of national governments, the pope calls for reform of the United Nations and creation of a “true world political authority” that would have the duty to “manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result.”

The pope delayed publication of his encyclical until the eve of the summit of the Group of Eight rich nations in nearby L’Aquila. Whether this was a masterstroke of political imagination or because the Vatican had problems turning expressions such as “tax haven” and “market value” into Latin of the principal text is not clear.

Too bad that the release was overshadowed by the memorial for Michael Jackson, driving the pope into exile on CNN, to second place on the BBC television business news after an item that Tokyo is again the most expensive place for expatriates to live, and to the inside pages of newspapers. The news choices are themselves a sad commentary on the values of the media.

Who will read the encyclical, and who cares? These are legitimate questions. Reading the 144 pages of the encyclical, I frequently found myself lost in dense prose. A Catholic blogger in the U.S. said the encyclical would be greeted “with a holy yawn from the pew.” If Catholics won’t care, what is the chance that 6 billion non-Catholics will read it?

May I suggest that it would be worthwhile to produce a plain English version of the encyclical’s contents, with the turgid German thought processes cut out and references to previous papal encyclicals placed as footnotes.

The next step would be to persuade Benedict XVI to apply his considerable intellect to answering the glaring questions that remain in his thesis — what kind of world government, and what teeth should it have?

Time after time, I wanted to applaud the pope for his vision, his moral sense of human beings in a world created by a loving God, and his common sense about stewardship of Earth and a need to curb cruel power whether wielded by greedy financiers or politicians. But the real world is not as simple as he paints it.

Economically, just how do you curb the power of transnational corporations or stop them from cutting pay, laying off workers, sending jobs abroad, striking mineral or forest deals with corrupt dictators in developing countries? Their actions may make no sense in terms of the well-being of the whole world, but they may be eminently sensible to ensure corporate profits and satisfy shareholders.

Politically, does the pope really want to give more powers to the U.N., a collective of squabbling ambitious nations, and more powers to the politicians of developing countries whom he correctly criticizes for corruption?

What does the pope say to the public snubbing this month of the U.N. secretary general by Myanmar’s junta, which epitomizes the model of Third World military dictatorship suppressing its own people and greedily making money from big corporations stripping the country’s resources? The pope deserves praise for his vision of heaven on Earth, but he does not say how to banish sin.

Kevin Rafferty was editor of The Universe, then the world’s biggest English Catholic newspaper.

Heard the one about the rabbi, the imam, and the Buddhist monk?

Reuters

Religious leaders met for discussions at the Palace of Peace and Accord.

Kazakhstan was the unlikely host of a conference uniting the world’s faiths. Jerome Taylor reports from Astana.

The Independent, Monday, 6 July 2009

As a man who was born and raised within the secularism of the Soviet Union and has ruled his nation with a velvet-gloved iron fist for the past two decades, Nursultan Nazarbayev is an unlikely pin-up for religious tolerance.

Like so many other Central Asian dictators, Kazakhstan’s President was perfectly positioned to take over the running of his new country after the implosion of the Soviet Union precisely because he was an apparatchik of the avowedly secular Communist Party.

Decades of Soviet domination deliberately stifled overt displays of religious expression in Central Asia – particularly for the region’s majority Muslim population – and many of Mr Nazarbayev’s neighbours have continued in the same vein, treating religion as a potential political threat which needs to be closely monitored.

But the 68-year-old grey-haired President, who rose from being a humble metalworker in a factory to become the leader of Central Asia’s largest and most stable country, is increasingly styling himself as a former Communist with whom the faithful can nevertheless do business.

For two days last week he ensconced himself in an astonishing-looking, purpose-built steel pyramid – designed by the British architect Norman Foster – in his pharaonic capital Astana. He was there to host what was quite possibly the largest gathering of the world’s religious leaders in recent times. A list of those seated in front of the giant round table at the grandly titled Palace of Peace and Accord reads like a Who’s Who of the world’s religions. Robed Buddhist monks chatted to bearded imams who exchanged pleasantries with rabbis and priests. Top delegates to the snappily titled “Third Congress for Leaders of the World and Traditional Religions” included the Israeli President Shimon Peres, two chief rabbis, and the leader of the highly influential Al Azhar university in Cairo, generally regarded as the world’s most authoritative Islamic institution.

Yet despite the unmistakably Soviet-sounding name of the conference – and a somewhat embarrassing hiccup when an Iranian delegation walked out during Mr Peres’ speech – the discussions were centred around the delightfully un-Communist notion of using religion to win world peace.

Whether such deliberations will hail a new era of harmony is a moot point, according to Nicholas Baines, the Anglican Bishop of Croydon who travels regularly to Kazakhstan.

He has watched Mr Nazarbayev transform himself from an open atheist into pro-religion leader who has even made the Haj pilgrimage.

“I admit at times these conferences feel a bit Soviet, but there is lots of good work being done,” Bishop Baines says.

“The unique contribution here is that the Kazakhs have been able to bring together some phenomenally responsible people from world religions under one roof and they have to sit and listen to each other as well as talk … Where else would you have two chief rabbis of Israel sitting in the same room as top Muslims, and they’re having to listen to each other and not just walk out or argue?”

Supporters of Mr Nazarbayev say their leader’s new-found enthusiasm for promoting religious tolerance is governed by the remarkably mixed ethnic background of his country. The more cynical believe it is simply shrewd pragmatism, aimed at avoiding the inter-ethnic fallouts that have disrupted neighbours such as Tajikistan.

Either way, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Kazakhstan is becoming an increasingly religious place under his rule. Tomash Peta, the Catholic Archbishop of Astana, says the government’s favourable stance towards religion means that the atheist attitudes of the Soviet era are fast disappearing. Church attendance is also rocketing. In Kazakhstan nowadays there are very few people who actively reject religion,” he says. “People are suddenly rediscovering their connection to God.”

Newly-built churches and mosques have sprung up all over the country. When Kazakhstan gained its independence there were just 68 mosques to administer to the nine million Muslims who make up 57 percent of Kazakhstan’s population. Currently there are 2,300 mosques and 10 madrasas, most built in the past five years on the back of the enormous wealth generated by Kazakhstan’s oil exports.

Whilst Kazakhs are keen to shed their Soviet atheism, they are simultaneously happy to keep the social advantages that came with Russian domination – especially in the cities. At Friday prayers in the main mosque in Almaty, Kazakhstan’s former capital which remains its financial and artistic hub, it is not unusual to see women in miniskirts temporarily hiring a robe for prayers before hitting the city’s notoriously raucous bars or clubs.

But whilst Kazakhstan may like to portray itself as an island of ethnic and religious harmony, there are some denominations or sects which have fallen foul of the regime. Baptists, Evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Ahmadi Muslims and even Hare Krishna devotees have all created growing communities in the country. This is much to the annoyance of both Mr Nazarbayev and mainstream religious leaders who fear such “foreign sects” are damaging Kazakhstan’s historical identity. Minority religious groups frequently complain they are targeted by hostile officials.

Bennett Graham, an expert on Kazakhstan at the Beckett Fund, an American human rights group which monitors religious tolerance, says the Kazakh government’s insistence that freedom of worship is absolute should always be taken with a pinch of salt. “I wouldn’t want to be overly critical, as I want to encourage steps in the right direction,” he says.

“But I have yet to see President Nazarbayev exemplify robust religious tolerance in his own country towards minority religious groups, and until then, will maintain scepticism about the sincerity of the Kazakh efforts to promote religious tolerance and respect around the world.”

Noticeably absent from this week’s inter-faith conference were any of those religious groups that the Kazakh state has been accused of suppressing. But Bishop Baines believes that ultimately Kazakhstan is light years ahead of some of its neighbours.

“Every prediction was that of all the republics formed when the Soviet Union collapsed, Kazakhstan was the one that would fall apart because of its ethnic and religious constituency and it history,” he says. “Yet that break-up hasn’t happened. That is a remarkable legacy. They are a young country and they’re heading in the right direction.”

                        Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale University.

Revisioning Human-Earth Relations
 http://fore.research.yale.edu/index.html

The Forum on Religion and Ecology is the largest international multireligious project of its kind. With its conferences, publications, and website it is engaged in exploring religious worldviews, texts, and ethics in order to broaden understanding of the complex nature of current environmental concerns.

The Forum recognizes that religions need to be in dialogue with other disciplines (e.g., science, ethics, economics, education, public policy, gender) in seeking comprehensive solutions to both global and local environmental problems.

Forum Coordinators:
Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, Yale University

Forum Administrative Assistant:
Tara C. Maguire Knopick, Yale University

Forum Web Content Managers and Newsletter Editors:
Sam Mickey and Elizabeth McAnally, California Institute of Integral Studies

With thanks to Anne Custer for the original development of the Forum Web site, and Ann Keeler Evans and Donna Rosenberg for their administrative work with the Forum.

————-

Summer Solstice Celebration with Paul Winter & Friends

Dear Forum community,

We want to inform you about the Summer Solstice Celebration with Paul Winter & Friends on Saturday, June 20, 2009. The two-hour concert will begin at 4:30 a.m. and will be held at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine (1047 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY).

Paul Winter will be joined by an array of outstanding musicians from different musical backgrounds for a festival of the Earth’s music as we greet the summer and one of the longest days of the year. The Summer Solstice Celebration is a sublime experience; the first rays of sunlight filter through the Cathedral’s stained glass above the High Altar as guest artists and members of the Paul Winter Consort perform in different parts of the Cathedral. The musicians meet at the stage in the Great Crossing as morning overtakes night and we welcome the day.

This celebration will be dedicated to Thomas Berry.

For more information, including free music downloads, visit: http://solsticeconcert.com/

Tickets are now on sale at: https://www.ovationtix.com/trs/pe/729160…

Warmly,
The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale
 http://www.yale.edu/religionandecology

 The news from Sri Lanka are all bad. The government, armed by the Chinese is now encircling the Tamil rebels and decimates them in what has close resemblance to genocide. In India the government party is being strengthened in the recent elections and might wake up to the possibility of a Chinese fleet based in Sri Lanka. Pakistan is falling apart leaving exposed a very soft Afghanistan underbelly as entree-points for Islamic Jihadists. Former President Musharaf tells America on the Fareed Zakharia TV program that the funds America spent on him were intended as pay for his army that presented the previous administration with specimens of Al Kaida. Iran and North Korea do not seem to play yet according to Washington tunes either – will Israel?

All of the above as the US dependence on China and India is growing – China, you guessed it – it is all about money, India as a possible counterbalance to excessive dependence on China. And above all of this there is yet to consider that America is still dependent on 70% imports for its energy needs – much of this still from the Middle East.

Into all of this, the world, as Helene Cooper writes from Washington, is watching if there is a “New Perspective” that brings in a shift on Mideast policy. The Pope just toured the Palestinian-Israeli territories and was quite a flop – the world talks about “Missed Chances” in the Pope’s visit. So this Pope, US Catholic Universities aside, is quite fallible – but some US Catholics, as the show at Notre Dame proved it today, have yet to accept this reality.

Tomorrow the gears in Obama’s mind will start rotating on the Israel-Palestine-Iran-Egypt-Saudi Arabia theater. Helene Cooper quotes former ambassador Charles W. Freeman, a person well connected in the Arab world and its oil, and indirectly points at one source of pressure on Israel. Practically everybody expects nevertheless a smooth outcome from the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, but how long before the Israeli leadership will request some show of progress in the matter of the Iranian nukes? To compound the headache, Jeffrey Goldberg presented an evaluation of Mr. Netanyahu’s family background that promises tough negotiations behind closed doors of the White House. We thought it interesting to bring here that article and also to remind US Congress that carbon-saving legislation is extremely important now – this so the US can be weaned from its oil-addiction. The future of oil supplies from the Middle East is not assured.

Further, from the www.SustainabiliTank.info perspective, let us remind our readers of a year-old article in the Wall Street Journal “U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Push – Dependence on Oil Seen as Too Risky; B-1 Takes Test Flight.” (By Yochi J. Dreazen – WSJ, May 21, 2008) – we think that the totality of these news means that for environment/climate change, economy, and also security reasons, a stringent oil tax, under any name, should really be viewed as a security tax – under exactly this name. Again, if the Department of Energy cannot get its act together on Capitol Hill, time has come to send some Department of Defense people over there – they get faster attention!

——

Thinking about Netanyahu – please note the following article:

Israel’s Fears, Amalek’s Arsenal.

By JEFFREY GOLDBERG
Published: New York Times, Op-Ed Page, May 16, 2009

WHEN the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visits the White House on Monday for his first stage-setting visit, he will carry with him an agenda that clashes insistently with that of President Obama. Mr. Obama wants Mr. Netanyahu to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state. Mr. Netanyahu wants something else entirely: the president’s agreement that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Mr. Netanyahu, in his first term as prime minister in the late 1990s, earned a reputation for conspicuous insincerity. It is therefore possible to interpret his fixation on Iran — he told me in a recent conversation that it is ruled by a “messianic apocalyptic cult” — as a way of avoiding the mare’s nest of problems associated with the Middle East peace process, especially the escalating pressure from the Obama administration to curb Jewish settlement on the West Bank.

This reading of Mr. Netanyahu holds that he is, at bottom, a cynic (or, if you agree with him, a pragmatist), who will bluff vigorously but bend whenever he thinks it expedient or unavoidable. In his first term, he betrayed the principles of the Greater Israel movement by relinquishing part of Judaism’s second-holiest city, Hebron, to the control of Yasir Arafat. His pragmatism evinces itself, as well, in his apparent belief that the relationship between Israel and Washington is sacrosanct. In other words, Mr. Netanyahu, despite his rhetoric, would never launch a strike on Iran without the permission of Mr. Obama — permission that in no way appears forthcoming.

But this is to misread both the prime minister and this moment in Jewish history. It is true that Mr. Netanyahu would prefer to avoid hard decisions concerning the Palestinian issue, for reasons both political (he is not, let us say, sympathetic to the cause of Palestinian self-determination) and strategic (he believes the Palestinians, divided and dysfunctional, their extremists firmly in the Iranian camp, are unready for compromise).

Nevertheless, the prime minister’s preoccupation with the Iranian nuclear program seems sincere and deeply felt. I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.”

“Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit.

If Iran’s nuclear program is, metaphorically, Amalek’s arsenal, then an Israeli prime minister is bound by Jewish history to seek its destruction, regardless of what his allies think. In our recent conversation, Mr. Netanyahu avoided metaphysics and biblical exegesis, but said that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons represented a “hinge of history.”

“Iran has threatened to annihilate a state,” he said. “In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It’s a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there’s no j’accuse — there’s no shock.” He argued that one lesson of history is that “bad things tend to get worse if they’re not challenged early.” He went on, “Iranian leaders talk about Israel’s destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.”

Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t believe that Iran would necessarily launch a nuclear-tipped missile at Tel Aviv. He argues instead that Iran could bring about the eventual end of Israel simply by possessing such weaponry. “Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella,” he said. This could lead to the depopulation of the Negev and the Galilee, both of which have already endured sustained rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.

More broadly, he said, a nuclear Iran “would embolden Islamic militants far and wide, on many continents, who would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.”

To understand why Mr. Netanyahu sees Iran as a new Amalek, it is essential to understand two aspects of his intellectual and emotional development: The scholarship of his father, and the martyrdom of his older brother.

His father, Benzion Netanyahu, 99, is a pre-eminent historian of Spanish Jewry. “The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain,” his most notable book, toppled previously held understandings of the Inquisition’s birth.

Over more than 1,300 pages, Benzion Netanyahu argued that Spanish hatred of Jews was not merely theologically motivated but based in race hatred (the Spanish pursued the principle of limpieza de sangre, or the purity of blood) that reached back to the ancient world.

The elder Netanyahu also argued that efforts by the Jews of Spain to accommodate their adversaries were futile, in part because the charges against them were devoid of logic or fact, and, perhaps most important, because the written or spoken expression of Jew hatred (his preferred term for anti-Semitism) inevitably led to physical persecution. “What emerges from our survey,” he wrote, “is that the Spanish Inquisition was by no means the result of a fortuitous concourse of circumstances and events. It was the product of a movement that called for its creation and labored for decades to bring it about.”

A close reading of Benzion Netanyahu suggests a belief that anti-Semitism is a sui generis hatred, one that is shape-shifting, impervious to logic and eternal. The only rational response to such sentiment, in the Netanyahu view, is militant Jewish self-defense.

Benjamin Netanyahu and his two brothers were raised in a home darkened by the history of the Inquisition, and they were taught Benzion’s understanding of the consequences of Jewish weakness. In his 1993 book, “A Place Among the Nations,” Benjamin Netanyahu wrote about what he saw as one of the miracles of the Zionist revolution: “The entire world is witnessing the historical transformation of the Jewish people from a condition of powerlessness to power, from a condition of being unable to meet the contingencies of a violent world to one in which the Jewish people is strong enough to pilot its own destiny.”

If his father provided Mr. Netanyahu with his historical framework, his brother Yonatan bequeathed on him the model of a Jew who devoted his spirit to the cause of his people’s survival. Yonatan, who was killed while leading the 1976 raid on the Entebbe airport in Uganda to free Israeli captives of Arab and German hijackers, is perhaps the most venerated figure in the post-Warsaw Ghetto Jewish martyrology, mainly because Entebbe still symbolizes the purest expression of the modern Jewish rejection of passivity.

Friends and advisers say Benjamin Netanyahu took three lessons from his brother’s death: The first is that those who threaten Jews, and have the means to carry out their threats, should be neutralized pre-emptively. The second is that no one will defend the Jews except the Jews themselves. The third is that destiny has chosen the Netanyahus to expose and battle anti-Semitism — before it reaches the point of genocide.

In his eulogy for Yonatan Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defense minister, said: “There are times when the fate of an entire people rests on a handful of fighters and volunteers. They must secure the uprightness of our world in one short hour. In such moments, they have no one to ask, no one to turn to. The commanders on the spot determine the fate of the battle.”

BENJAMIN Netanyahu faces the daunting task of maintaining Israel’s relationship with the United States, while at the same time forestalling Iran’s nuclear program. If Iran gains nuclear capacity, Israel will have judged him a failure as prime minister; if he does serious damage to his country’s standing in Washington, he will have failed as well.

Mr. Netanyahu may be able to convince Mr. Obama that Iran poses an Amalek-sized threat to Israel, but he will have a much more difficult time convincing him that Iran poses an existential threat to America. It is certainly true that a nuclear Iran is not in the best interests of the United States. It would mean, among other things, the probable beginning of a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region, and it would mean that the 30-year-struggle between America and Iran for domination of the Persian Gulf will be over, with Persia the victor. But the short-term costs, in particular, for an American strike — or an American-approved Israeli strike — could be appallingly high.

As the crisis worsens, Mr. Obama will find his options few, and those that exist will require him to bring to bear all his talents of persuasion. In his effort to engage Iran, he will need to promise a complete end to its international isolation in exchange for a halt to its nuclear program. But at the same time, he must be ready to threaten Iran with total estrangement from the West — the limiting of its gas imports, the choking-off of its banking system — if it continues its nuclear program.

To do this, he must convince Europe, China and Russia that a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic for Middle East stability as well as for their own economies. If he’s unwilling to take military action against Iran, President Obama might soon enough be forced to design a containment strategy meant to scare a nuclear Iran into something resembling quiescence.

Talk of containing Iran after it acquires a nuclear capacity, however, does not make the Israelis (or Iran’s Arab adversaries, for that matter) happy and, in fact, might push them closer to executing a military strike. The president, who has shown he understands the special dread Israelis feel about their precarious existence, surely knows this.

Last year, during his campaign, he told me, “I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens.”

Mr. Netanyahu says he supports Mr. Obama’s plan to engage the Iranians. He also supports the tightening of sanctions on the regime, if engagement doesn’t work. But there should be little doubt that, by the end of this year, if no progress is made, Mr. Netanyahu will seriously consider attacking Iran. His military advisers tell me they believe an attack, even an attack conducted without American help or permission, would have a reasonably high chance of setting back the Iranian program for two to five years.

Around the world, this would be an extraordinarily unpopular step, but Mr. Netanyahu knows he would have much of the Israeli public behind him. Even the man who delivered the eulogy at his brother’s funeral, the far more dovish Shimon Peres, has assimilated the lessons Benzion taught his sons.

When I visited recently with Mr. Peres, who is now Israel’s president, I asked him if there is a chance that his country has over-learned the lessons of Jewish history. He answered, “If we have to make a mistake of overreaction or underreaction, I think I prefer the overreaction.”

———–
Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic, is the author of “Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror.”

 http://www.honestreporting.com/

COMMUNIQUE: 14 May 2009

Ignoring the Real Causes of Christian Exodus
Time reporter blames Israel and the West for Muslim intolerance

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,

Pope Benedict’s visit to Israel this week has increased media attention on the plight of Christians in the Middle East and their declining numbers. But while the visit should serve as an opportunity for an honest look at Christian flight, one reporter blamed Israel and the West instead.

In a Time Magazine article describing Christian apprehensions over Pope Benedict’s visit, Time magazine’s Andrew Lee Butters calls the presence of Christians in the region “a reminder of the multi-sectarian and tolerant history of Arab and Islamic culture.” However, this tolerance is threatened, he writes, “from the rise of religious extremism.”

At this point, one would assume Butters would delve into largely overlooked issues such as

1) the persecution of Christians in the PA and Gaza,
2) creeping fundamentalism,
3) the intimidation of Christian media
4) forced conversions
5) Christians frozen out of the Palestinian national dialogue.

But instead, Butters points his finger in the opposite direction: “Clash-of-civilizations pundits and Western leaders like the Pope often ignore how the West helped spark such intolerance, especially through its one-sided support of Israel.”  

Butters would be hard pressed to prove that Europe has been “one-sided” in its support for Israel. More importantly, however, Butters’ statement implies that Muslims are not responsible for their actions because the West backs Israel’s right to exist in peace with its neighbors. In fact, Butters goes even further, calling Israel’s creation “a disaster for Christians in the Middle East.”

Many of the Palestinian refugees who fled or were forced from their homes in 1948 — never to be allowed back — were Christians. The flood of Palestinian refugees into Lebanon helped spark a civil war between Muslims and Christians there. And the ongoing occupation of the West Bank is strangling the life out of those Christian communities that are left.

Blaming Israel for the civil war in Lebanon ignores the complex political arrangements in Lebanon at the time and the destabilizing effect of the PLO inside Lebanon’s borders. He also neglects to mention what might be strangling the life out of the 2,000 Christians living in Gaza. But Butters doesn’t stop there. He also holds Israel responsible for Muslim abuses of Christians in Egypt:

The ongoing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has also helped fuel the rise of Islamic extremism, especially in countries that have unpopular peace agreements with Israel. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition to the American-backed Mubarak dictatorship, waged a small-scale terror campaign against both the government and the country’s Coptic Christians during the 1990s.

According to Butters, therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t ultimately responsible for “small-scale terror” against the Christians it carries out. It’s really Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories that is behind it all.

The BBC’s Tim Franks also covered the decline of Arab Christians in Bethlehem. In his article, Franks quoted several Palestinians who claim that Christians are leaving the city because of Israel’s security barrier. However, Franks also acknowledges that there could be another reason for the exodus.

Privately, some Christians in Bethlehem say another factor sometimes motivates their decision to leave – concern about the rise of radical Islam – but they are unwilling to put such views on the record.

Indeed, Frank’s admission is consistent with finding from Justus Reid Weiner, who has researched the plight of Christians in the Palestinian territories extensively. According to Weiner, Arab Christians rarely speak about their situation in public:

The human rights crimes against the Christian Arabs in the disputed territories are committed by Muslims. Yet many Palestinian Christian leaders accuse Israel of these crimes rather than the actual perpetrators. This motif has been adopted by a variety of Christian leaders in the Western world. Others who are aware of the human rights crimes choose to remain silent about them.

The media has on obligation to report the truth. Insist that reporters tell the whole story when they cover the plight of Christians in the Middle East.

This is only the beginning – perhaps the beginning of a new UN – it is clearly the end of the old UN.

For those of us who need the UN because we want to see a new regime for the planetary environment, and who were ready to bend backwards watching misdeeds and foibles at the UN, these days are a very serious matter. We saw the self destruct of the diplomatic toy the world set up in order to navigate the irate political seas of the world mafiosi – this after we thought the world learnt from the facts of the Holocaust that happened to the Jewish People by what was considered a bunch of rather civilized Europeans. Now we saw the Swiss hiding again behind a self declared neutrality when it comes to watch murderers and calculating that there is a good boon to their economy from the potential spoils from murder. Then the pious Vatican? They do not miss a word when it comes to non-believers being put against stakes.

And the Africans that cry justifiably Apartheid but do not stop to listen to sufferings that were at least as great as theirs – and they should know this – it was the Jews that stood by them more then anyone else. Personally, I was happy like a clam when great man Sisulu took me and a group of good people to see Robin Island … how many African leaders went to visit Ausschwitz? Did anyone of them take the March of the Living and try to think about this in terms like I did when I sat to watch the first session of the Parliament of the new South Africa? I was there because the South Africans – black and white – wanted the world to understand that the change of governance does not mean the end of South Africa. We met then absolutely everyone who was someone – black, white, or Indian – and we thought indeed that new ethics for the world were just born there. Those were the days …

Yes, our website follows the UN and developed a proven disrespect for the institution, but we were open to all points of view and we were critical of what Western States did to Iran or Africa. We were and are in disagreement with many Israeli policies and posted articles that showed our attempt of being progressive and just. I went years ago with Uri Avnery of Israel to visit the Palestinian leadership at the Orient House – at the time the residence of a budding acceptable repectful and self respecting Palestinian Government House. Just because of these past attempts at watching the right things being done, we have no respect for what the UN planned for Geneva 2009, or accomplished in Durban 2001, for these events we can refer only in scatological language and we still hold back from writing the details of this stench.

* * * * *

From: Eye on the UN <list@eyeontheun.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Subject: Durban Diary, day one: Ahmadinejad’s ugly entrance

For Immediate Release:
April 21, 2009
Contact:   Anne Bayefsky
 info at EYEontheUN.org

Durban II Alert

Durban Diary, day one: Ahmadinejad’s ugly entrance

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in The New York Daily News.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appearance in Geneva Monday at the UN’s so-called anti-racism conference, Durban II, made the point better than anyone else. The UN’s idea of combating racism and xenophobia is to encourage more of it. Ahmadinejad was the very first speaker as the substantive session opened. Handed a global megaphone by the UN, out flowed unadulterated hate speech.

The phenomenon was astonishing. The UN provided a platform for a virulent antisemite on the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler. In the name of fighting intolerance, they translated his words into six languages and broadcast them around the world. As he entered the grand room at the UN’s Palais Wilson, he was met by a round of applause. And this is what he said.

He began by denying the Holocaust: The “Zionist regime” had been created “on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of holocaust.”

And he continued with a genocidal agenda: “the egoist and uncivilized Zionism have been able to deeply penetrate into their political and economic structure including their legislation, mass media, companies, financial systems, and their security and intelligence agencies. They have imposed their domination to the extent that nothing can be done against their will. As long as they are at the helm of power, justice will never prevail in the world. It is time the ideal of Zionism, which is the paragon of racism, to be broken. The world Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuse religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces.”

As he spoke, the European Union countries that had not withdrawn earlier finally stood up and walked out. But they didn’t really understand what had just happened at all, for when he was finished, all but the Czech Republic went right back in.

Ten countries have now boycotted this second Durban hatefest: Canada, Israel, the United States, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. The rest of the world remains inside, providing legitimacy to a forum for hatemongering. They are under the impression that there is no lasting damage being done here either to the credibility of the institutional host or to the cause of protecting human rights. They are wrong.

And the real victims of human rights are all the poorer for it.

For a complete source of information on Durban II
see www.EYEontheUN.org

EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.

HUDSON INSTITUTE   |   90 Broad Street   |   Suite 2003   |   New York, NY 10004

.

* * * * *

We understand that besides the original 10 countries that refused to go to that UN Tragedo-Comedy – we know   there were further 24 member States that walked out at the first Ahmedinejad proud transgression – that is the rest of the EU and St.Kits and Nevis. We do not have the list of those that were present and stayed – that is we believe that some stayed away without any declaration.

We know that the UN will not make lists available – we know this from previous odorous UN events when we were not able to get lists of countries even when actual votes were taken by country name. let alone when the question was just presence in the room. BUT WE KNOW THAT Russia, The Ukraine, Japan, Norway, China, were also there and listened and who knows, probably enjoyed what they heard. So did Jordan and Egypt besides those we mentioned in our introduction.

Nobody has yet written about the remaining 140 countries. how many chose to go down with the UN sinking ship. How many Africans, How many of our friends from the Small Island Independent Developing States? We will want to know because our future backing we give them is here at stake!

* * * * *

And now the Afterthoughts that came to my mind while watching tonight TOSCA at the Israel Opera at the magnificent culture center, next to the Golda Center, in the middle of Tel Aviv.

The voices were first class, the production astonishing as it was mixed media and instead of moving furniture what was being moved around were projections. the view was covered with church images – lots of Madonas, crosses and images of Jesus. In the sold out hall, my estimate was that about 15% were speaking Russian and among the men present, about 10% had their head covered with traditional modern-orthodox crocheted yarmulkes.

Today was the memorial of the victims of the Holocaust. According to Jewish tradition the eve of the Memorial Day no shows or entertainment occurred in Israel. during the day there were various events related to the Memorial, but the evening belonged to the following day – this as per the sequence from The Creation in the Bible. So tonight there was the opening of TOSCA at the Opera.

We all know that Darwin thought out the concept that we all descended from apes – so an ape can give birth to man, but it occurred to me that from Ahmedinejad there is no way that a man can be born in today’s Iran. But really, my thoughts were not about man but about God. This because I saw all these yarmulkes on the heads of Jews that came to see this great Opera that deals with subjects of the Church. Trust me – I saw there at least 5 men with red Yarmulkes – some, with neatly trimmed full beards could have passed as Cardinals of the Church. This on the evening following the Memorial to the Holocaust in which Pope Pius XII did not lift a finger to help the Jews. You know that old saying – the Church hated the Jews because it never forgave them that they had to turn a Jew into their God. Is that why the Vatican did not walk out from that Center of hatred at the UN in Geneva? Does not the Vatican believe it represent today a full billion of believers, a number about equal to the number of Muslims in the world today? Did they just reject those red yarmulkes I saw at the TOSCA performance tonight?

From this observation my mind got more and more feverish. See – the Jews of Israel helped the world by extinguishing the iraqi and Syrian budding nuclear bombs. Now, watching the Iranian, what will they have to do? Is the world just going to let things evolve so that the first nuclear war between two states with nuclear weapons will inevitably be a war between Israel and Iran?

Catholic Church Excommunicates Doctors Who Helped 9-Year-Old Rape Victim.
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet at 3:00 PM on March 5, 2009.

This is probably the most repugnant thing you’ll read in a while.

A 9-year-old girl in Brazil was impregnated with twins after being repeatedly raped by her stepfather. Doctors decided the child’s uterus was too small to safely carry a baby, let alone two, and with the mother’s permission performed an abortion. The Catholic Church not only tried to stop the procedure, but announced today that all the adults involved in terminating the pregnancy will be excommunicated from the Church — including the doctors and the girl’s mother.

So far Church officials have been silent on what judgment they plan to mete out to the man who impregnated a small child.

—————–

From the BBC:

The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, told Brazil’s TV Globo that the law of God was above any human law.

He said the excommunication would not apply to the child because of her age, but would affect all those who ensured the abortion was carried out.

While the action of the Church in opposing an abortion for a young rape victim is not unprecedented, it has attracted criticism from women’s rights groups in Brazil

This is totally insane – the problem is the Catholic highest Chair – the Pope – not this lowly bishop. It was the Pope who started this all by removing the Chuch opposition to clergy that expresses this sort of Holocaust-denial views.
The problem is that this Pope, and quite a few of his predecessors where FAILABLE in their ETHICS’ Decisions. So it is – and it requires the Pope’s Clear renunciation of what was seen as his pardon of Jew-hatred. Even Jew-hateres at the UN understood that the Holocaust is worse then the Cardinal Sin.

From Times   (of London) Online – February 27, 2009.

Critics reject ‘apology’ from Holocaust-denial bishop Richard Williamson.

Chris Smyth

The British bishop whose denial of the extent of the Holocaust embroiled the Pope in an international outcry has had his attempt to defuse the row rejected by religious and educational groups worldwide.

Bishop Richard Williamson last night issued a grudgingly-worded apology for the offence caused by an interview on Swedish television, in which he said that no Jews were killed in the gas chambers.

His words were today dismissed as “empty” because he refused to say whether he still believes that such claims were “lies”.

“The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy,” Bishop Williamson said in a statement released by the Zenit Catholic news agency.

RELATED LINKS

Holocaust-denial bishop arrives in Britain

Holocaust-denial bishop heads for Britain

Holocaust-denial Bishop in line for speaking date

MULTIMEDIA
BLOG: Williamson and David Irving link up

“Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.”

Bishop Williamson said he was only giving his opinion as a non-historian. “An opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available, and rarely expressed in public since.”

He added: “However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologise.”

Mark Frazer, a spokesman for the Board or Deputies of British Jews, said: “The Jewish community and many more besides will be unmoved by this apology. The Vatican were very clear that Richard Williamson must recant, yet he continues to refuse to do so. Sadly, this late regret comes across as nothing more than an empty sentiment from a man under the pressure of public scrutiny.”

Iris Rosenberg, spokeswoman for the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, said: “If he is looking to repent, he needs to admit that he was wrong in denying the truth.”

Stephen Smith, founder of Britain’s Holocaust Centre, said the apology was “far from complete”.

Dr Smith said: “If Bishop Williamson is sincere in his apology and, recognising the harm caused by his original statement, recognises the truth that was the Holocaust, I invite him to visit us at the Holocaust Centre at any time so that his views in future are based on historical fact rather than 20-year-old anti-Semitic myths.”

Pope Benedict XVI lifted Bishop Williamson’s excommunication in January, days after the interview was broadcast, leading to an explosion of incredulous anger.

The Vatican said his aim had been to bring the Society of St Pius X, the ultraconservative sect to which Bishop Williamson belongs, back into full communion with the Church and that he had been unaware of Bishop Williamson’s views. The Pope was subsequently forced to condemn the bishop’s remarks and speak out strongly against anti-Semitism.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, said Bishop Williamson’s statement was “not the kind of an apology that would end this matter; because it failed to address the central issue. The one thing he doesn’t say, and the main thing, is that the Holocaust occurred, that it is not a fabrication, that it is not a lie,” he said. “If you want to make an apology, you have to affirm the Holocaust.”

Jewish groups in Italy called the apology “thoroughly ambiguous” and Dieter Graumann, vice-president of the Central Council for Jews in Germany, told the Handelsblatt newspaper that the statement was “thoroughly bungled.”

Bishop Williamson would not respond to request to clarify his views.

———————-

Merkel attacks Pope for Holocaust-denier’s pardon

Pontiff’s decision to rehabilitate controversial bishop provokes outraged reaction in Germany

By Tony Paterson in Berlin

The Independent, Wednesday, 4 February 2009

AFP/GETTY
Pope Benedict XVI, who has been accused of bringing disgrace upon the Catholic Church by Der Spiegel magazine

Germany’s four-year love affair with its own Bavarian-born Pope was in tatters yesterday after Chancellor Angela Merkel accused the pontiff of giving the impression that Holocaust denial was “permissible” through his decision to pardon the British-born bishop, Richard Williamson.

Ms Merkel’s extraordinary decision to wade in to a worsening row between the Vatican and Jewish and Catholic leaders worldwide came just over a week after the Pope formally rehabilitated Bishop Williamson, who said in a recent interview: “Not a single Jew died in a gas chamber.”

The German conservative leader said it was not her custom to intervene in church affairs, but added: “This is different when it comes to matters of principle, and I believe it is a matter of principle when… the impression is created that denying the Holocaust could be permissible.”

Related articles

• Paul Vallely: Benedict has shut his mind to the real world

Ms Merkel demanded that the Pope make it “absolutely clear” that there could be no Holocaust denial and that there “must be positive dealings with the Jews”. In what amounted to a blistering condemnation of the Pope’s handling of the crisis, she added: “In my view, these issues have not yet been satisfactorily clarified.”

The Vatican hit back just hours later, with spokesman Federico Lombardi declaring that the German Pope’s position on the Holocaust and Holocaust denial “could not be any clearer”.

There was speculation yesterday that Ms Merkel’s decision to publicly criticise Benedict XVI had followed a sea change in the German Catholic Church leadership’s attitude to him. Her onslaught came only hours after Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz called the decision to rehabilitate Bishop Williamson a “catastrophe”.

Bishop Williamson, a 68-year-old Cambridge graduate, made the comments on Swedish television a fortnight ago. He was pardoned as part of a move by the Pope in late January to overturn the excommunication of four bishops ordained by the arch-conservative Society of Saint Pius X. The decision has been interpreted as a clear demonstration of the shift to the right that was already under way in the Vatican. But in Germany the response to the Pope’s actions been a mixture of dismay, anger and disappointment.

In marked contrast to jubilant German newspaper headlines of April 2005 which greeted the new Bavarian-born pontiff and reluctant member of the Hitler Youth with the words: “We are the Pope” – this week’s front cover of Der Spiegel magazine carried a photograph of Benedict XVI and the headline: “A German Pope disgraces the Catholic Church.”

Last week, Israel’s Chief Rabbinate suspended ties because of Bishop Williamson’s reinstatement. “Without a public apology and recanting it will be difficult to continue the dialogue,” the Chief Rabbinate director-general Oded Weiner said. Germany’s Central Council of Jews announced last week that it, too, was cutting ties. Salomon Korn, the council’s vice-president, accused Benedict XVI of undoing all the efforts to reconcile Jews and Catholics that had been started by his predecessor Pope John Paul II. “A German Pope of all people – and this is how the world will see it – has pardoned a Holocaust denier, and that just before Holocaust Memorial Day,” Mr Korn said. “I thought I was dealing with a considerate and far-sighted man. Obviously I was wrong.”

A new wave of embarrassment swept Germany and Austria earlier this week following the Vatican’s decision to promote a priest who claimed that the Harry Potter books “spread Satanism” and that Hurricane Katrina was an act of “divine retribution”.

Der Spiegel yesterday quoted Vatican insiders who suggested that the Pope was surrounded by lackeys who shielded him from the media. Hans Küng, a well-known Catholic theologian, said: “Benedict XVI is so cut off from the real world that he has no idea how disastrously his actions are received.”

The unacceptable faces of CatholicismRichard Williamson

British bishop consecrated by schismatic French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Has said the Vatican is controlled by Satan and once declared the historical evidence was “hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers… I believe there were no gas chambers.”

Floriano Abrahamowicz

Regarded as unofficial chaplain of Italy’s separatist Northern League. He told an Italian newspaper: “I know the gas chambers existed… but I don’t know if anyone was killed in them. I know that, in addition to the official version, there is another version based on the observations of the first Allied technicians to enter.”

Gerhard Maria Wagner

Appointed auxiliary bishop in the Austrian city of Linz last week. In 2005 he suggested that disasters such as Hurricane Katrina were the result of “spiritual environmental pollution”. “It is surely not an accident,” he added, “that all five of New Orleans’s abortion clinics… were destroyed.”

——————————————–

Merkel Criticizes Pope On Holocaust Denier
Vatican’s Pardon of Bishop Is Decried

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the Vatican should state that there can be no holocaust denial. (Adrian Moser – Bloomberg News)

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, February 4, 2009; Page A11

BERLIN, Feb. 3 — German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a stern rebuke Tuesday to Pope Benedict XVI, accusing the Vatican of giving “the impression that Holocaust denial might be tolerated” by welcoming a disgraced bishop back into the church.

Benedict, the first German pope in 500 years, has faced a fierce backlash from his home country for reversing the excommunication of a bishop who has questioned whether the Nazis systematically killed 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

Several leading German Catholics have joined in the criticism in recent days, openly wondering whether Benedict and the Vatican knew what they were doing in rehabilitating the bishop, Richard Williamson, who has not backed away from his comments on the Holocaust.

In a radio interview Monday, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the bishop of Mainz, said Benedict’s order was “a disaster for all Holocaust survivors” and called on the Vatican to apologize. Werner Thissen, the archbishop of Hamburg, called the case “dreadful” and accused Benedict’s advisers of bungling the episode.

The Vatican has distanced itself from Williamson’s views. Last Wednesday, Benedict declared his “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews and warned against the dangers of denying the Holocaust.

But the pope’s comments only fanned concerns among many Germans that he was not taking the situation seriously enough.

It is a crime in Germany to deny the existence of the Holocaust. Merkel, the daughter of a Lutheran pastor, said the German pope has a special responsibility to speak out more clearly on the subject.

“The pope and the Vatican should clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial and that there must be positive relations with the Jewish community overall,” Merkel told reporters in Berlin. She said the Vatican’s efforts to explain itself were “not yet sufficient.”

The Vatican fended off the rare public criticism from the chancellor, saying that Benedict had properly addressed the controversy in his remarks last week. “The condemnation of declarations which deny the Holocaust could not have been any clearer,” Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said in a statement.

Benedict was forced as a teenager to serve in the Hitler Youth in his native Bavaria, although he and his family were opposed to the Nazis.

He has tried to build closer ties between Jews and Catholics since he became pope in 2005. He visited a synagogue in Cologne during his first trip to Germany as pontiff and made a pilgrimage to the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp the following year.

But the pope’s efforts have been undermined by his decision to rehabilitate Williamson, a British-born bishop who lives in Argentina.

Williamson was excommunicated two decades ago after he was consecrated as a bishop — without papal consent — by a conservative Catholic sect, the Society of Saint Pius X.

Benedict agreed to reverse the excommunications of Williamson and three other bishops last month in an attempt to repair a rift between the sect and the Vatican. But his action was overshadowed by Williamson’s views on the Holocaust.

In an interview broadcast on Swedish television a few days before his excommunication was lifted, Williamson asserted that historical evidence is “hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.”

Instead, he asserted that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews died in Nazi concentration camps, and “not one of them by gassing in a gas chamber.”

Top Muslims to meet pope: Groundbreaking Vatican talks to promote interfaith dialogue.

(ANSA) – Rome, November 3 – Leading Muslim scholars arrived in Rome on Monday ahead of groundbreaking talks with top Catholic officials. Nearly 60 delegates will gather in the Vatican on Tuesday morning for two days of meetings aimed at forging closer ties between the two faiths.

On Thursday, the two delegations will discuss their ideas during an audience with Pope Benedict XVI and a final declaration will be released in the afternoon.

Led respectively by the Grand Mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mustafa Ceric, and the head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the delegations will discuss ways to improve relations between the world’s two largest religions. The meeting is the fruit of an interfaith initiative by a broad coalition of influential Muslim clerics and scholars, the Common Word group.

***

Set up to bridge the growing gap between Islam and Christianity, in October 2007 the group sent an open letter to Pope Benedict, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and 25 other Christian leaders calling for interfaith collaboration.

Originally signed by 138 figures, the number of high-profile Sunni and Shiite Muslims adhering to the letter’s principles has since doubled and includes the religious heads of 43 countries, among which Saudi Arabia and Iran.

***

The Vatican meeting comes just two weeks after a similar round of talks in the UK with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

***

A precise agenda for the Vatican event has not been published although each side is expected to raise a range of initiatives aimed at promoting peace and mutual understanding.

Cardinal Tauran emphasized the importance of discussing religious freedom.

”If Muslims have places of worship in Europe then it is normal that the reverse should be true in societies where Muslims are the majority,” he said in an interview with French Catholic daily La Croix.

However, he said reciprocity was not a precondition for the talks, which he said offered ”real glimmers of hope”.

***

The discussions had to look at ways to convert such dialogue with the elite into a connection with the masses, he added.

The Secretary of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Religious Dialogue, Pier Luigi Celata, said the talks should try to identify the real reason for continuing tension between Christianity and Islam.

”It would be interesting to see whether these tensions are shaped by social, economic, ideological, political and exploitative factors on both sides, rather than by actual religious differences,” he said.

Pope Benedict has made inter-religious dialogue a priority of his papacy and has worked hard to mend relations with Islam since he upset Muslims around the world with his comments on the prophet Mohammed in 2005.

The pontiff sparked anger after citing a medieval emperor who said Islam was a ‘violent’ religion at a lecture in Regensburg, Germany.

In an effort to demonstrate his commitment to fostering goodwill among religions he re-established the Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue in 2007 after having merged it with the Council for Culture at the start of his pontificate.

________________________________________________________________
This and all “other news” issues can be found at http://www.other-net.info/index.php

 

Presents

What the United Nations Does on the Holiest Day
of the Jewish Calendar, Yom Kippur:

Provides a global platform to encourage hatred and violence against the Jewish State

October 9, 2008

Geneva, the Durban II “anti-racism” conference Preparatory Committee

Watch video here.
Durban II: A Conference to demonize Israel
October 9, 2008: The planning committee of an “anti-racism” conference listens politely to the racism coming from the Syrian Arab Republic, and BADIL, a Palestinian NGO

EYEontheUN videos are produced by Anne Bayefsky and Lana Zizic.

Antisemitism at the UN under the guise of “combating racism”

Iran – a Vice-President of the Durban II PrepCom – thinks the antisemitism expressed by the Iranian President is not relevant

October 10, 2008

Geneva, the Durban II “anti-racism” conference Preparatory Committee

Watch video here.
More attempts to silence NGOs

October 6, 2008: Anne Bayefsky (Joint Statement of the Hudson Institute, the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists)

EYEontheUN videos are produced by Anne Bayefsky and Lana Zizic.

Full Asian text:   http://blog.unwatch.org/wp-content/uploa…
CONTRIBUTION OF THE ASIAN REGION TO THE DURBAN REVIEW CONFERENCE, 8 OCT 2008

Selections:

From preamble:

Recalling the 2001 Tehran Declaration and Programme of Action by the Asian Preparatory Meeting… [This text contained the most vitriolic language against Israel.]

From operative section:

18. Recognize Jerusalem as a city of reverence and religious sanctity for three major religions of the world and call for an international effort to bring foreign occupation, together with all its racial practices, to an end, especially in holy shrines dear to the three religions;

19. Reaffirm that a foreign occupation founded on settlements, its laws based on racial discrimination with the aim of continuing domination of the occupied territory, as well as its practices, which consist of reinforcing a total military blockade, isolating towns, cities and villages under occupation from each other, totally contradict the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity, a form of genocide and a serious threat to international peace and security;

26. Express deep concern at the plight of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons who were forced to leave their homes because of war and racial policies of the occupying power and who are prevented from returning to their homes and properties because of a racially based law of return, and recognize the right of return of the Palestinian refugees as established by the General Assembly in its resolutions, particularly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, and call for their return to their homeland in accordance with and in implementation of this right;

27. Re-emphasize the responsibility of the international community to provide international protection for the Palestinian people under occupation against aggression, acts of racism, intimidation and denial of fundamental human rights, including the rights to life, liberty and self-determination;

68. Express deep regret the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinians as well as other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence such as to prevent the enjoyment of fundamental rights, express our deep concern about this situation and renew the call for the cessation of all the practices of racial discrimination to which the Palestinians and the other inhabitants of the Arab territories occupied by Israel are subjected;

69. Reiterate that the Palestinian people continue to be denied the fundamental right of self determination and urge member States to look at the situation of Palestinian people during the Durban Review Conference and implement the provisions of DDPA with a view to bring lasting peace in the Middle East;

***

THE UN WATCH asks   UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and rights commissioner Pillay   to denounce denounce now this vitriolic Asian text accusing Israel of “apartheid and genocide.”

Geneva, October 10, 2008 — To prevent the derailing of a world conference on racism, independent human rights group UN Watch today called on UN chief Ban Ki-moon and rights commissioner Navi Pillay to immediately denounce a submission by Asian states that accuses Israel of “racial practices” against Palestinians, “a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity, a form of genocide,” as well as “aggression, acts of racism, and intimidation.”   (See full text below.)

“The Asian submission for the Durban 2 declaration reproduces almost verbatim the vitriolic incitement and hateful rhetoric of demonization that was produced at the Tehran planning meeting at the 2001 lead-up to the original Durban debacle,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch.

“This was the poison that with supreme diplomatic efforts was mostly removed from the final Durban declaration — only after European states showed their readiness to walk out — but was adopted by the non-governmental forum, in a text that High Commissioner Mary Robinson summarily refused to forward to the UN, and which was denounced again last week by High Commissioner Pillay as a betrayal of the anti-racism cause.”

“The key lesson learned from 2001 was that the UN’s highest officials cannot stay silent until the very end, but must rather act immediately to denounce the language of incitement and demonization as soon as it rears its ugly head,” said Neuer.

“The fingerprints of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who openly calls for the destruction of a UN member state, are all over this text. Governments and UN officials who want to safeguard the principles of human rights and the anti-racism cause must speak out forcefully, and fast,” said Neuer.

“French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the U.K., the Netherlands and other states have expressly warned that a repeat of the 2001 hateful rhetoric would force them to walk out of the April 2009 conference, and so the 53 Asian states who did this now bear full responsibility for the consequences of their provocation. Those who will suffer, however, will be the world’s millions of victims of racism and ethnic intolerance, from Darfur to Chechnya to Tibet.”

***

www.SustainabiliTank.info suggests humbly that during the time that Jerusalem was in Arab hands it was not a city equally accessible to all religions. Since the end of the British Mandate, it was only with the Israeli Government reclaiming its Capital of yore that the city is equaly accessible to all religions and the present circumstances in the Islamic world are no show of confidence that such freedom is possible under any other rule – be assured that also not if it were a UN city.  

If the UNSG does not speak up on the Durban issue, this endangers not just the Jewish people, but the basic credibility of the UN itself – the international marshmallow when the topic is Human Rights versus the Power of Arab League Oil Money.
=================

News Resources – Israel and the Mideast:

• Gaza Tunnel Owners Register with Hamas, Get Electricity
  Owners of the scores of tunnels running under the Gaza-Egypt border have registered with the Hamas authorities, pledged to pay workers’ compensation and hooked up their operations to the electricity network. In one place, dozens of large tents, each marking a tunnel work site, were pitched just yards from an Egyptian watchtower beyond the border wall. Hamas inspectors are notified of each delivery and check it on site. Officials from the municipality of Rafah confirmed they supervise tunnel operations. (PMC-PA)
• Rise in Number of Israeli Arab IDF Recruits in 2008 – Yoav Stern
  The number of Israeli Arab Bedouin recruits to the IDF has increased dramatically in the first nine months of 2008. The number is estimated to have increased by 50 to 100 from the beginning of the year, bringing the total number of recruits in 2008 to some 300. The rate of non-Bedouin Arabs’ recruitment has also increased in recent years. The law exempts non-Druze Arab citizens from compulsory military service.
  Lt. Amir Juamis, 27, of Beit Zarzir, who commands a military team, was asked how he feels about fighting with his people on the other side of the border. He said: “A terrorist is a terrorist. Islam doesn’t say you have to kill. He comes to kill here and can kill a Jew or an Arab. It’s my duty to prevent that.” (Ha’aretz)
• Iranian Boy to Undergo Surgery in Israel – Nurit Felter
  A 12-year-old Iranian boy suffering from brain cancer is scheduled to arrive in Israel on Friday for emergency surgery. The boy, who already underwent surgery in Tehran, was later admitted to a Turkish hospital. The Turkish doctors suggested the family seek medical assistance in Israel, and so they did, through Israeli liaison Jacob Levin. “When a child’s life is at stake, religion and origin play no part,” said Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit. “If we can help, we are more than willing to do so.” (Ynet News)

Global Commentary and Think-Tank Analysis (Best of U.S., UK, and Israel):

• The President Who Will Deal with Iran – Michael Gerson
  Economic downturns are wrenching but cyclical. Nuclear proliferation is more difficult to reverse, creating the permanent prospect of massive miscalculation and tragedy. America’s next leader may be known to history as the president who had to deal with Iran. Former chief UN weapons inspector David Kay says the Iranian regime is about 80% of the way toward its nuclear goals – perhaps two to four years from “effective, deployable weapons.”
  Kay believes that by simply saying a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, America is set up for a choice between “suicide” (a disastrous military attack on Iran) and “humiliation” (a galling acceptance of the unacceptable). Instead, Kay calls for a new round of “skillful diplomacy” to persuade Iran to stop at what he calls “virtual capability” – a global recognition that it could produce nuclear weapons in short order, without all the drawbacks caused by actually producing those weapons.
  Kay seems resigned to a policy of containment – holding Iran directly responsible if it transfers nuclear weapons to terrorists, providing nuclear guarantees to our friends in the region so they don’t feel pressured to develop their own. The problem with this approach? Iran may be a different proliferation threat from any we have faced before. The regime cultivates ties to violent nonstate proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. Iran’s religious radicalism introduces an unpredictable element of irrationality. The writer, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, served as a policy adviser and chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush from 2000 to 2006. (Washington Post)
• Iran’s Political Motivation for Ridiculing the Holocaust Again – Richard L. Cravatts
  Iranian and Arab Holocaust denial has been growing in incidence, and particularly as part of Ahmadinejad’s strategy. The Muslim world has taken this revisionist effort to another level: accusing Zionism of creating and perpetuating the Holocaust lie for the express purpose of justifying Israel’s creation and the subsequent subjugation of the Palestinians.
  Muslims want the occurrence of the Holocaust to be proven false to eliminate the cataclysmic social and political event that led the world to accept and endorse the creation of the Jewish state. It is also politically expedient to position the Palestinians as the ultimate victims among victimized peoples, and this is much easier without the inexpressible evil of the Holocaust as core element of Israel’s tragic heritage. (History News Network)
• Islamic Leaders Seek to End Jewish Sovereignty in Israel – Ron Ben-Yishai
  An examination of the words uttered and written by the leaders of Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, and even Syria, easily reveals their aspirations. Their strategy has a clear and defined long-term objective – bring about Israel’s end as a sovereign Jewish entity – as well as two intermediate objectives.
  The first midterm goal is to make Israeli society crumble on the inside, in a bid to prompt Jews to emigrate and undermine their motivation to defend themselves, to the point where one military blow (either nuclear or conventional) would suffice to achieve the final objective. The second midterm goal is to gradually minimize Israel’s territory, in a manner that would turn our population into a convenient and concentrated target for mortar shells, rockets, missiles, and terror attack, while making it difficult for the IDF to offer protection. This territorial objective also has a religious aspect: Liberating every centimeter of land, which in their view belongs to Muslims. (Ynet News)
• UK Prime Minister Lauds Israel as “Symbol of Hope” – Jonny Paul
  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid tribute to the tenacity and achievements of the Jewish people on Monday and said that Israel is “a symbol of hope from which all the world can learn.” Brown told the United Jewish Israel Appeal, “For 2,000 years, until 1948, the persistent call of the Jewish people was ‘next year in Jerusalem.’ For 2,000 years there was not one piece of land anywhere in the whole world that you could call your own.”
  “For 2,000 years you had history but not a home. For 2,000 years you lived in the artistic and cultural and intellectual and scientific and political realm of every continent but you had no home. For 2,000 years you endured pogroms in so many countries, then the horror of the Holocaust – which is the shame of mankind – because you had no home yet for 2,000 years, yet nothing – no prison cell, no forced migration, no violence, not even the Holocaust itself – could ever break the spirit of a people yearning to be free.”
  “What remarkable achievements Israel has achieved,” he said. “A history of ingenuity that is a lesson to the boundless capacity of mind and spirit. Eight citizens have already been awarded Nobel prizes. In Israel today, there are more hi-tech industries, more symphony orchestras, more universities and research institutions than countries that are 100 times the size of Israel. The language of the Bible made the living tongue again, so your story, the story of Israel, is the symbol I identify with as a symbol of hope from which all the world can learn.” (Jerusalem Post)
• The Financial Crisis and the Arab World – Jonathan Spyer
  The seven stock markets in the oil-rich Gulf states shed around $150 billion of their capitalization in the course of the past week. The Arab world may well prove particularly vulnerable to the world economic downturn since a disproportionately large amount of Arab wealth is invested in global stock markets. The Kuwait Investment Authority, for example, placed a $2b. investment in Merrill Lynch last year. Merrill Lynch, of course, no longer exists. Instead of investing in education and in industry, money has been gambled on the stock markets, or invested in glittering real-estate projects, built by foreign labor and using foreign know-how. The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, Herzliya. (Jerusalem Post)

From:      news at religionandecology.org
Subject: August 2008 UNEP News Clippings
Date: September 9, 2008

THE FORUM ON RELIGION AND ECOLOGY (backed by UNEP).

August 2008 UNEP News Clippings.
August 6, 2008

Polluted Ganges must be cleaned, gurus demand

Rhys Blakely
Bombay
The Times Online

A coalition of gurus has issued an ultimatum to India’s fragile Government: purify the chronically polluted Ganges, the river revered by Hindus, or face protests and political ruin.

Ganga Raksha Manch, a newly formed alliance of celebrity holy men, is demanding urgent action to cleanse the holy waterway, which has become a noxious cocktail of human and industrial waste, before a general election that must be held before May.

For full story, visit:
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo…

***

August 7, 2008

Pope says Catholic Church has undervalued environment

ROME: Pope Benedict XVI has told a meeting of priests that protection of the environment had been undervalued by the Catholic Church in the past, but said materialism was the biggest threat to the planet.

For full story, visit:
 http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080806185…

***

August 8, 2008

Jewish groups add voices to green concerns

Ed Stoddard
Reuters

DALLAS – Following a path blazed by other U.S. religious groups, a diverse coalition of Jewish organizations has outlined its concerns regarding the environment and called for action from Congress and the Administration.

Spearheaded by the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, it calls among other things for an aggressive 80 percent cut in carbon reductions by 2050.

For full story, visit:
 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/200…

***

August 13, 2008

Biofuels soon to be measured by international standards

By Jerome Grosse
Lausanne

300 experts and representatives of the public and private sector have come together in the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, housed at the EPFL Energy Center, to develop global norms for the economic, social, and environmental impacts of biofuels.

For full story, visit:
 http://actualites.epfl.ch/presseinfo-com…

***

August 18, 2008

“Toxic” Indian festivals poison waterways

By Nishika Patel

MUMBAI (Reuters) – Toxic chemicals from thousands of idols of Hindu gods immersed in rivers and lakes across India are causing pollution which is killing fish and contaminating food crops, experts and environmentalists said on Monday.

For full story, visit:
 http://www.reuters.com/article/environme…

***

August 25, 2008

Christians see climate change as moral issue

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

ACCRA (Reuters) – Morality should be a spur for stronger action to fight climate change, which threatens food and water supplies for the poorest in Africa, a group of Christian activists said on Saturday during U.N. climate talks.

For full story, visit:
 http://www.reuters.com/article/environme…

***

August 26, 2008

Church’s light relief to save the world

Martin Wainwright
The Guardian (UK)

The Church of England has gently modified God’s first injunction in a new green guide for members, which suggests: let there be a little less light.

Clergy and congregations are being encouraged to cut the increasingly popular floodlighting of ancient churches to reduce parish carbon emissions.

For full story, visit:
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…

***

August 28, 2008

CATHOLIC ONLINE

Dominican’s Siena Center Presents Year-long Series on Sustainability

River Forest, IL — Dominican University’s Siena Center will explore the topics of sustainability and stewardship of the earth from a number of perspectives during a series of lectures throughout the fall. The series, titled “Sustainability and the Christian Tradition,” will consider what our stewardship of the earth and care of creation demands of thoughtful Christians, and how this relates to the larger struggle for social justice in the world.

For full story, visit:
 http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline….

–
If you would like to subscribe or unsubscribe from this email, please send an email to  news at religionandecology.org with the appropriate command in the subject line.

UNEP NEWS RELEASE – 2008/31

World Heritage Push for Garden of Eden: Italy Backs Bid to List Iraqi Marshlands Following Completion Of UNEP Restoration Project.

KYOTO/NAIROBI, 5 September 2008–A plan to list as a World Heritage Site an
area known as the Fertile Crescent, and thought by some to be the location
of the Biblical “Garden of Eden”, was unveiled today by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) in cooperation with the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The initiative, to be supported by funding from the Government of Italy,
aims to further the protection and conservation of a significant wetland of
global cultural, natural and environmental importance.

The Marshlands, spawning grounds for Gulf fisheries and home to species
like the Sacred Ibis, were almost totally drained and destroyed by the
former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein during the 1990s and early 21st
century.

Dams upstream on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which feed the fabled
area, had also aggravated the decline. By 2002 the 9,000 square km of
permanent wetlands had dwindled to just 760 square km.

UNEP estimated then that these wetlands would be completely lost within
three to five years unless urgent action was taken.

The World Heritage management support plan, announced at the end of a
meeting in Kyoto, follows a four-year, $14 million UNEP project to restore
the ecological viability of the site, while bringing sustainable
livelihoods to the Marsh Arabs.

***

The Marsh Arabs, the 5,000 year-old heirs of the Babylonians and the
Sumerians, and their wetland home had been targeted by the former Iraqi
Government forcing an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 into exile or camps in
and outside Iraq.

With the collapse of the Saddam Hussein Government in mid-2003, local
residents began breaking the drainage embankments and opening the
floodgates to bring water back into the marshlands.,

The UNEP marshland management project, which commenced in 2004 with funding
from the UN Iraq Trust Fund, the Government of Japan and the Government of
Italy, has been working with the Iraqi Environment Ministry and local
communities to accelerate improvements.

These include environmentally-friendly methods that are providing safe
drinking water for up to 22,000 people, the planting of reed banks and beds
as natural pollution and sewage filters and the introduction of renewable
energies such as solar.

A Marshland Information Network has been established. Training in
satellite and field monitoring and wetland restoration and management has
also been part of project which today completed its final evaluation phase
at the Kyoto meeting.

During this meeting, the Iraqi Ministry of Environment also requested UNEP
to provide support for accession to multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs) in order to take part in the international environmental challenges
but also opportunities facing the planet.

MEAs range from the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to the Convention of
Migratory Species and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Narmin Othman, the Iraqi Environment Minister who is in Japan for the
event, said: “I am very happy that we are now going to work towards making
the Marshlands a National Park and a globally important World Heritage
Site.”

“Because of what Saddam Hussein did, the marshlands were in danger of
completely disappearing as was the centuries-old culture of the Marsh
Arabs. It had become an ecological but also a human tragedy”, she said.

“Now we have 50 to 60 per cent of the marshlands back we can look forward
to further improvements and putting them on the map as Iraq’s first mixed,
natural and cultural World Heritage Site as befits an area of global
significance”, added Minister Othman.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director,
said: “I would like to thank the Governments of Japan and Italy for their
support and congratulate the Iraqi people on these extraordinary
achievements.”

“The work in the Iraqi marshlands may have been unique and challenging for
a whole variety of reasons. But the lessons we have learnt go beyond
Iraq’s border. They provide a blue print for the restoration for the many
other damaged, degraded and economically-important wetland ecosystems
across the world”, he added.

***

Mr. Steiner said he looked forward to working with the Iraqi Government and
cooperating with UNESCO on developing a comprehensive management plan en
route to securing a World Heritage Site listing and thanked the Government
of Italy for its invaluable support.

Chizuru Aoki of UNEP’s International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC)
in Japan, which has been coordinating the project, said today that the
Italian funds would be used to draw up and implement a sustainable
preservation and management plan.

This will include pilot projects on community-wide ecosystem management and
cultural preservation as well as capacity building, jointly with UNESCO and
the Iraqi authorities.

According to UNESCO, the earliest that Iraq could envisage a submission to
the World Heritage Committee might be 2010 which, if approved could see the
Marshlands of Mesopotamia listed as World Heritage in 2011.

“It is essential that we continue to work with the Iraqi partners, UNESCO,
as well as other relevant organizations to help Iraq move towards this
goal”, Ms. Aoki said.

***

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

The Iraqi Marshland Project:  http://marshlands.unep.or.jp/

UNEP’s Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch Iraq Reports:
 http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications…

Downloadable maps and images at www.unep.org?

For more information, please contact: Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson and
Head of Media, +41-79-596-5737 or +254-733-632755, or
 nick.nuttall at unep.org“,

Yukio Yoshii, Senior Liaison Officer, UNEP International Environmental
Technology Centre, +81-6-915-4591, or  yukio.yoshii at unep.or.jp

Habib El-Habr, Director and Regional Representative, UNEP Regional Office
for West Asia, +973-178-12-777, or  habib.elhabr at unep.org.bh.

***********************************
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Eco Friendly Tourism, European Union, Futurism, Geneva, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Nairobi, Paris, Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Real World's News, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, Rome, UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Vatican

Discuss this article