"Jesus is Muslim!!!"
This was the title of the lecture at the community college at Dupage County in Illinois, College of Dupage (COD), organized by the Muslim Student Association (MSA) on April 30.
More than 100 people were there, including professors, but mostly Muslims, and some converts to Islam, with a self-imposed segregation between males and females in seating arrangements. In addition, two tables, one for boys, and one for girls, each on a different side of the room, were set for refreshments. They wanted to make sure that boy and girls would not mix.
A disciple of the late famous South African Muslim apologist Ahmed Deedat, Isra, a veiled woman in her late thirties who hails from New York, gave the presentation. She tried to prove from the Bible that Jesus practiced the religion of Muhammad, who preached Islam around 600 years after Christ walked the earth.
As usual with minorities in the US, the lecturer was handled with kid gloves by Christians in the audience. No body dared ask the question whether the lady lecturer was being anachronistic or not, especially at the start.
The lecturer asked who understood the title of the lecture ("Jesus is Muslim"). I had to throw something at her. So, I said: "First, I am glad that you used the present tense of the verb to be (is) in the title of the lecture, which means that you believe that Jesus is alive. Secondly, if Islam is submission to the will of God, and you say that Jesus submitted to the will of his Father and went to the cross, then, in this sense you may say he is Muslim."
She ignored the issue of the crucifixion and reiterated that since Jesus submitted to the will of God in many ways, then "Jesus is a Muslim."
The atmosphere was so tense, and the moderator started to look at me with great animosity, avoiding my raised hand all the time.
Then, the lecturer asked the question: "What was Jesus' first miracle?"
A Christian in the audience said that it was changing water to wine. She commented: "No. According to the Quran, Jesus' spoke in the cradle in order to defend his mother against the accusation of adultery."
The lecturer quoted the chapter entitled Mary in the Quran:
[19.27] And she came to her people with him, carrying him [baby Jesus] (with her). They said: O Marium! surely you have done a strange thing.
[19.28 ] O sister of Haroun! Your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.
[19.29] But she pointed to him. They said: How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle?
[19.30 ] He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;
[19.31] And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live;
[19.32] And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed;
[19.33] And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.
[19.34] Such is Isa, son of Marium; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute.
In order to draw the attention of female students, she commented: "Note how Jesus defends his mother in the Quran, while in the New Testament he calls her 'woman' rudely."
Second Premise: Jesus called God his father and the father of his followers, and never claimed that he is God.
She quoted John 20: 17, when Mary Magdalene saw the resurrected Jesus at the tomb:
Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Third Premise: Jesus fasted like Muslims. She quoted Matthew 6: 16- 18
16 "And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
The lecturer commented that Muhammad gave his followers the same commandments whenever they fast.
Fourth Premise: Jesus prayed like Muslims pray. She quoted Matthew 26: 39
" And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed (…)"
"Have you seen how Muslims pray? They prostrate themselves like Jesus did."
Fifth Premise: "Jesus greeted his disciple like Muslims do: Peace be with you, which is in Arabic Assalamu Alaykum."
The lecturer quoted John 20: 19:
Jesus came and stood among them and said, " Peace be with you!"
After the lecturer finished her presentation, she took questions and avoided my raised hand again and again, until the audience commented saying, "This guy has been waiting for ever."
After waiting "forever," I thought that there was no point in arguing with her as long as she picked and chose from the Bible. So, I decided to ask the question which was like the elephant in the room:
"The title of your lecture and your premises makes me put the thesis of your presentation in a different way: Instead of saying that Jesus is Muslim, why don't you ask the question: 'Was Muhammad Jewish?'"
Then I added quickly before she had the chance to answer my question:
"Muhammad prayed towards Jerusalem, before his emigration to Medina. He prayed twice a day, like Jews, before his emigration too. In addition, Muhammad fasted Yum Kippur, and fasted twice a week like Pharisees."
Then a Christian sitting next to me mentioned that the Quran abounds with biblical stories and narratives from the apocrypha.
She was fit to be tied, and glared at me saying: "Mister, why don't you gather some people, set some platform, and give a lecture?"
Well…as if she truly foretold my plans: Starting the first student club of its kind, "Muslims for the Messiah," I will certainly do that.
By Hicham Chehab
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Rome Calls for Positive Secularism
29 Oct 2010
Middle East Christians are told to embrace secularist drive | Austen Ivereigh
Austen Ivereigh
guardian.co.uk Comment Thu 28 Oct 2010 13:00 BST
Catholic bishops in the Middle East have called for Christians in the region to be advocates of separating faith and politics
Seldom has such dazzling headgear gathered in one place. A meeting of Catholic bishops from the Middle East has just ended in Rome. For two weeks, some 180 patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops of six different churches – Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Greek-Melkite, Maronite and Armenian – discussed the challenges facing Christianity with their Latin-rite brothers, with Pope Benedict listening in.
An expanding Israel and the rise of political Islam figured heavily. So too did the emigration of Christians in the region, which has accelerated in the last 15 years to the point where there is a real prospect of Christians disappearing from some parts of the cradle of Christianity. The area known as Dora in Baghdad used to be nicknamed "the Vatican of Iraq". But the seven churches, seminary and bible college have all closed since 2003. In Iraq, almost every Catholic family knows someone who has been kidnapped or killed. Churches have been car-bombed. No wonder close to half of the 800,000 Iraqi Christians before the US occupation have fled abroad.
But Iraq is exceptional. So, too, is the West Bank, where land belonging to Christian Arabs – like other Palestinians – is seized by Israel in the name of security, then handed over to settlers; or Jerusalem, where Palestinians are being forced from their homes. Mostly, in places such as Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, or Jordan, Christians live peacefully with Muslims. Yet they keep their heads down, aware that, even though their forebears were citizens of the region long before the Muslims, the latter increasingly – at least in some parts – equate rights with religious allegiance.
That's why the Synod's call for Catholics and other Christians to be advocates in the region of a "positive secularism" – the term the bishops used was "positive laïcité", after a 2007 speech by Nicholas Sarkozy – is, at least, bold. It may also surprise Catholics in Europe and the US who criticise the secularist drive to separate faith and politics to find the church in the Middle East at the forefront of arguing that faith and politics should be, ahem, separate.
Sceptics will be quick to point out one of the basic rules of religious co-existence throughout history: secularism always looks better to religious minorities who have the most to lose from theocracies. And there's truth in that in the Middle East. Caught between Israeli expansionism and Islamic radicalism, the future of the tiny Christian minority depends, in large part, on basic rights of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience – on building, as the Synod put it, "an all-inclusive, shared civic order", in the words of its working document, that protects "human rights, human dignity and religious freedom".
But this isn't only about survival. Christianity is the religion that gave rise to secularism. Laïcité is a Christian by-product; secularism a Christian heresy. The church has always promoted a distinction between the two spheres – temporal and spiritual, civic and religious – without ever, of course, agreeing where the border between them lies. When Pope Benedict bowed to his audience of politicians at the conclusion of his Westminster Hall speech, he was deferring to the legitimate sovereignty and proper autonomy of the political sphere – while at the same time asserting the church's right to hold that sphere to a transcendent ethical horizon.
Separation, in other words, but not divorce. The principle has been clear ever since St Thomas Aquinas said that sins and crimes are different things; and at least since the second Vatican council, the Catholic church has argued that religions should not be privileged by the state, that the state cannot coerce in matters of faith, and that citizenship is not contingent on beliefs or membership of institutions. All residents of a country, whatever their faith or lack of it, are social actors with a stake in society and the legitimate right to seek to shape it.
Yet separation does not imply exclusion; it does not mean making of the state and the public square a faith-free zone, as secularists and humanists seek to. The so-called "neutral" state is, in reality, the attempt to impose an ideology – an individualist, humanist form of thinking. A secular theocracy is just as much a theocracy as an Islamic one. "Positive" secularism – as opposed to the "aggressive secularism" deplored by Pope Benedict in the UK in September – means a separation of religion from the state, but at the same time allowing faith the freedom to run schools, offer services, and build the common good, according to the principles and values that nourish it. Such a "positive secularity" allows for faiths (alongside non-religious beliefs) to seek to shape society on equal terms, benefitting from the freedom accorded to them by the state, but not depending on state sponsorship or legal privilege.
Arguing for a "positive secularity" is not easy in the Middle East, where regimes are pressurised by millenarian and fundamentalist movements – whether Zionism or radical Islam – which seek to link rights to religious allegiance. Yet the three religions of the Middle East have a long history of peaceful, respectful coexistence – the many exceptions to this story do not negate the truth of it – and a theology to underpin it. Universal human rights are not concessions of the state but intrinsic to every human being, whose dignity lies in his creation by God. That is the root of our citizenship – not our nation, tribe or religion.
They be few – and shrinking. But Christians in the Middle East, the region's "indigenous citizens", are well-placed to invite Judaism and Islam to embrace a healthy secularism.
Send to a friend
Contact us
Go back to the web story
Browse guardian jobs
Soulmates dating
Search for a date now
Get text alerts
Sponsored features
Mobile marketing
Win Tickets to the Friends Provident t20 final
Enjoy England- take part and win
News | Sport | Business | Culture | Most read | Money | Comment | Environment | Travel | Life & Style | All sections
m.guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Mobile | Standard/Desktop
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Middle East Christians are told to embrace secularist drive | Austen Ivereigh
Austen Ivereigh
guardian.co.uk Comment Thu 28 Oct 2010 13:00 BST
Catholic bishops in the Middle East have called for Christians in the region to be advocates of separating faith and politics
Seldom has such dazzling headgear gathered in one place. A meeting of Catholic bishops from the Middle East has just ended in Rome. For two weeks, some 180 patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops of six different churches – Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Greek-Melkite, Maronite and Armenian – discussed the challenges facing Christianity with their Latin-rite brothers, with Pope Benedict listening in.
An expanding Israel and the rise of political Islam figured heavily. So too did the emigration of Christians in the region, which has accelerated in the last 15 years to the point where there is a real prospect of Christians disappearing from some parts of the cradle of Christianity. The area known as Dora in Baghdad used to be nicknamed "the Vatican of Iraq". But the seven churches, seminary and bible college have all closed since 2003. In Iraq, almost every Catholic family knows someone who has been kidnapped or killed. Churches have been car-bombed. No wonder close to half of the 800,000 Iraqi Christians before the US occupation have fled abroad.
But Iraq is exceptional. So, too, is the West Bank, where land belonging to Christian Arabs – like other Palestinians – is seized by Israel in the name of security, then handed over to settlers; or Jerusalem, where Palestinians are being forced from their homes. Mostly, in places such as Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, or Jordan, Christians live peacefully with Muslims. Yet they keep their heads down, aware that, even though their forebears were citizens of the region long before the Muslims, the latter increasingly – at least in some parts – equate rights with religious allegiance.
That's why the Synod's call for Catholics and other Christians to be advocates in the region of a "positive secularism" – the term the bishops used was "positive laïcité", after a 2007 speech by Nicholas Sarkozy – is, at least, bold. It may also surprise Catholics in Europe and the US who criticise the secularist drive to separate faith and politics to find the church in the Middle East at the forefront of arguing that faith and politics should be, ahem, separate.
Sceptics will be quick to point out one of the basic rules of religious co-existence throughout history: secularism always looks better to religious minorities who have the most to lose from theocracies. And there's truth in that in the Middle East. Caught between Israeli expansionism and Islamic radicalism, the future of the tiny Christian minority depends, in large part, on basic rights of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience – on building, as the Synod put it, "an all-inclusive, shared civic order", in the words of its working document, that protects "human rights, human dignity and religious freedom".
But this isn't only about survival. Christianity is the religion that gave rise to secularism. Laïcité is a Christian by-product; secularism a Christian heresy. The church has always promoted a distinction between the two spheres – temporal and spiritual, civic and religious – without ever, of course, agreeing where the border between them lies. When Pope Benedict bowed to his audience of politicians at the conclusion of his Westminster Hall speech, he was deferring to the legitimate sovereignty and proper autonomy of the political sphere – while at the same time asserting the church's right to hold that sphere to a transcendent ethical horizon.
Separation, in other words, but not divorce. The principle has been clear ever since St Thomas Aquinas said that sins and crimes are different things; and at least since the second Vatican council, the Catholic church has argued that religions should not be privileged by the state, that the state cannot coerce in matters of faith, and that citizenship is not contingent on beliefs or membership of institutions. All residents of a country, whatever their faith or lack of it, are social actors with a stake in society and the legitimate right to seek to shape it.
Yet separation does not imply exclusion; it does not mean making of the state and the public square a faith-free zone, as secularists and humanists seek to. The so-called "neutral" state is, in reality, the attempt to impose an ideology – an individualist, humanist form of thinking. A secular theocracy is just as much a theocracy as an Islamic one. "Positive" secularism – as opposed to the "aggressive secularism" deplored by Pope Benedict in the UK in September – means a separation of religion from the state, but at the same time allowing faith the freedom to run schools, offer services, and build the common good, according to the principles and values that nourish it. Such a "positive secularity" allows for faiths (alongside non-religious beliefs) to seek to shape society on equal terms, benefitting from the freedom accorded to them by the state, but not depending on state sponsorship or legal privilege.
Arguing for a "positive secularity" is not easy in the Middle East, where regimes are pressurised by millenarian and fundamentalist movements – whether Zionism or radical Islam – which seek to link rights to religious allegiance. Yet the three religions of the Middle East have a long history of peaceful, respectful coexistence – the many exceptions to this story do not negate the truth of it – and a theology to underpin it. Universal human rights are not concessions of the state but intrinsic to every human being, whose dignity lies in his creation by God. That is the root of our citizenship – not our nation, tribe or religion.
They be few – and shrinking. But Christians in the Middle East, the region's "indigenous citizens", are well-placed to invite Judaism and Islam to embrace a healthy secularism.
Send to a friend
Contact us
Go back to the web story
Browse guardian jobs
Soulmates dating
Search for a date now
Get text alerts
Sponsored features
Mobile marketing
Win Tickets to the Friends Provident t20 final
Enjoy England- take part and win
News | Sport | Business | Culture | Most read | Money | Comment | Environment | Travel | Life & Style | All sections
m.guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Mobile | Standard/Desktop
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Monday, October 4, 2010
My Ordination Story at NID
http://www.peopleablaze.org/Index.asp?PageID=13127
Leader of Arabic Outreach Now Ordained, Installed
September 2010
Above: District President Rev. Dan Gilbert, right, bestows the blessing on Hicham Chehab during his ordination at Peace, Lombard. Below: Other scenes from the ordination.
Pastor Hicham Chehab grew up in a world of bitter animosity between Muslims and Christians, which he experienced personally in a physical attack when only about 7. By age 13 he was recruited by an extremist Muslim group, but a study of the Sermon on the Mount, during college, brought him to faith. Pastor Chehab later earned an M.A. in the history of the Arabs and did Ph.D. studies in the history of Islam. He emigrated to the U.S. from Lebanon and completed his pastoral education at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
While enrolled in the seminary, Chehab came to Northern Illinois to work in Arabic outreach through a partnership that included the Northern Illinois District LCMS, Trinity Lutheran Church in Roselle, and a board representing POBLO (People of the Book Lutheran Outreach mission society out of Detroit) and other area congregations.
This summer, a new local mission society was formed to work with this ministry. Chicagoland Lutheran Muslim Mission Association includes sustaining congregations:
Peace Lutheran Church, Lombard
St. Paul Lutheran Church, Brookfield
St. John Lutheran Church, LaGrange
Trinity Lutheran Church, Roselle
Trinity Lutheran Church, Lisle
And supporting congregations:
St. John Lutheran Church, Lombard
St. Mark Lutheran Church, St. Charles
Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Alsip
Tabor Lutheran Church, Chicago
Hicham Chehab was ordained as a pastor in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and installed as associate pastor at Peace Lutheran Church in Lombard, Illinois, on August 15, 2010. He will continue to serve as missionary of the Chicagoland Lutheran Muslim Mission Association, which planted Salam Arabic Church, conducts campus ministry and provides assistance to new immigrants and refugees.
Leader of Arabic Outreach Now Ordained, Installed
September 2010
Above: District President Rev. Dan Gilbert, right, bestows the blessing on Hicham Chehab during his ordination at Peace, Lombard. Below: Other scenes from the ordination.
Pastor Hicham Chehab grew up in a world of bitter animosity between Muslims and Christians, which he experienced personally in a physical attack when only about 7. By age 13 he was recruited by an extremist Muslim group, but a study of the Sermon on the Mount, during college, brought him to faith. Pastor Chehab later earned an M.A. in the history of the Arabs and did Ph.D. studies in the history of Islam. He emigrated to the U.S. from Lebanon and completed his pastoral education at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
While enrolled in the seminary, Chehab came to Northern Illinois to work in Arabic outreach through a partnership that included the Northern Illinois District LCMS, Trinity Lutheran Church in Roselle, and a board representing POBLO (People of the Book Lutheran Outreach mission society out of Detroit) and other area congregations.
This summer, a new local mission society was formed to work with this ministry. Chicagoland Lutheran Muslim Mission Association includes sustaining congregations:
Peace Lutheran Church, Lombard
St. Paul Lutheran Church, Brookfield
St. John Lutheran Church, LaGrange
Trinity Lutheran Church, Roselle
Trinity Lutheran Church, Lisle
And supporting congregations:
St. John Lutheran Church, Lombard
St. Mark Lutheran Church, St. Charles
Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Alsip
Tabor Lutheran Church, Chicago
Hicham Chehab was ordained as a pastor in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and installed as associate pastor at Peace Lutheran Church in Lombard, Illinois, on August 15, 2010. He will continue to serve as missionary of the Chicagoland Lutheran Muslim Mission Association, which planted Salam Arabic Church, conducts campus ministry and provides assistance to new immigrants and refugees.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Could Religion Play a Positive Role in ME Peace?
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/09/can_religion_solve_conflicts_in_the_middle_east.html
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Crescent Symbol and Islam!
http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm
The crescent moon and star is an internationally-recognized symbol of the faith of Islam. The symbol is featured on the flags of several Muslim countries, and is even part of the official emblem for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The Christians have the cross, the Jews have the star of David, and the Muslims have the crescent moon, right?
What is the history behind the crescent moon symbol? What does it symbolize or mean? How and when did it become associated with the faith of Islam? Is it a valid symbol for the faith?
The crescent moon and star symbol actually pre-dates Islam by several thousand years. Information on the origins of the symbol are difficult to ascertain, but most sources agree that these ancient celestial symbols were in use by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberia in their worship of sun, moon, and sky gods. There are also reports that the crescent moon and star were used to represent the Carthaginian goddess Tanit or the Greek goddess Diana.
The city of Byzantium (later known as Constantinople and Istanbul) adopted the crescent moon as its symbol. According to some reports, they chose it in honor of the goddess Diana. Others indicate that it dates back to a battle in which the Romans defeated the Goths on the first day of a lunar month. In any event, the crescent moon was featured on the city's flag even before the birth of Christ.
The early Muslim community did not really have a symbol. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic armies and caravans flew simple solid-colored flags (generally black, green, or white) for identification purposes. In later generations, the Muslim leaders continued to use a simple black, white, or green flag with no markings, writing, or symbolism on it.
It wasn't until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city's existing flag and symbol. Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty. There is speculation that the five points on the star represent the five pillars of Islam, but this is pure conjecture. The five points were not standard on the Ottoman flags, and as you will see on the following page, it is still not standard on flags used in the Muslim world today.
For hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire ruled over the Muslim world. After centuries of battle with Christian Europe, it is understandable how the symbols of this empire became linked in people's minds with the faith of Islam as a whole.
Based on this history, many Muslims reject using the crescent moon as a symbol of Islam. The faith of Islam has historically had no symbol, and many refuse to accept what is essentially an ancient pagan icon. It is certainly not in uniform use among Muslims.
This leads to the question of alternatives. What other "symbol" represents the faith? Is it necessary to even have a symbol? Take our poll, then come join us for a discussion in the Forum.
The crescent moon and star is an internationally-recognized symbol of the faith of Islam. The symbol is featured on the flags of several Muslim countries, and is even part of the official emblem for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The Christians have the cross, the Jews have the star of David, and the Muslims have the crescent moon, right?
What is the history behind the crescent moon symbol? What does it symbolize or mean? How and when did it become associated with the faith of Islam? Is it a valid symbol for the faith?
The crescent moon and star symbol actually pre-dates Islam by several thousand years. Information on the origins of the symbol are difficult to ascertain, but most sources agree that these ancient celestial symbols were in use by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberia in their worship of sun, moon, and sky gods. There are also reports that the crescent moon and star were used to represent the Carthaginian goddess Tanit or the Greek goddess Diana.
The city of Byzantium (later known as Constantinople and Istanbul) adopted the crescent moon as its symbol. According to some reports, they chose it in honor of the goddess Diana. Others indicate that it dates back to a battle in which the Romans defeated the Goths on the first day of a lunar month. In any event, the crescent moon was featured on the city's flag even before the birth of Christ.
The early Muslim community did not really have a symbol. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic armies and caravans flew simple solid-colored flags (generally black, green, or white) for identification purposes. In later generations, the Muslim leaders continued to use a simple black, white, or green flag with no markings, writing, or symbolism on it.
It wasn't until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city's existing flag and symbol. Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty. There is speculation that the five points on the star represent the five pillars of Islam, but this is pure conjecture. The five points were not standard on the Ottoman flags, and as you will see on the following page, it is still not standard on flags used in the Muslim world today.
For hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire ruled over the Muslim world. After centuries of battle with Christian Europe, it is understandable how the symbols of this empire became linked in people's minds with the faith of Islam as a whole.
Based on this history, many Muslims reject using the crescent moon as a symbol of Islam. The faith of Islam has historically had no symbol, and many refuse to accept what is essentially an ancient pagan icon. It is certainly not in uniform use among Muslims.
This leads to the question of alternatives. What other "symbol" represents the faith? Is it necessary to even have a symbol? Take our poll, then come join us for a discussion in the Forum.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Nasa and Islam
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1080246
Muslim pandering 'not good for the country'
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 7/8/2010 5:00:00 AM
A conservative media watchdog thinks the mainstream media has virtually ignored the NASA administrator's recent outlandish statement that the "foremost" mission of the space agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden made that announcement on the English language version of Al Jazeera, which Jeff Poor of the Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute believes was a questionable move in and of itself.
He questions how Bolden described space travel as an international collaboration in which Muslim nations must be a part.
"My suspicion is it's just one of those PC things that he was directed...from the Obama administration to do, trying to send a new message," Poor presumes. "I just don't think that's good for the country."
He feels that the strongest condemnation of Bolden's comments perhaps came from syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on the Fox News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier.
"This is a new height in fatuousness. NASA was established to get America into space and to keep us there," Krauthammer argued. "This idea to feel good about their past [and] trying to make achievements is the worst combination of group therapy, psychobabble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy."
He further suggested that the NASA administrator should have been fired for deviating from the intended purpose of NASA.
Muslim pandering 'not good for the country'
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 7/8/2010 5:00:00 AM
A conservative media watchdog thinks the mainstream media has virtually ignored the NASA administrator's recent outlandish statement that the "foremost" mission of the space agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden made that announcement on the English language version of Al Jazeera, which Jeff Poor of the Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute believes was a questionable move in and of itself.
He questions how Bolden described space travel as an international collaboration in which Muslim nations must be a part.
"My suspicion is it's just one of those PC things that he was directed...from the Obama administration to do, trying to send a new message," Poor presumes. "I just don't think that's good for the country."
He feels that the strongest condemnation of Bolden's comments perhaps came from syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on the Fox News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier.
"This is a new height in fatuousness. NASA was established to get America into space and to keep us there," Krauthammer argued. "This idea to feel good about their past [and] trying to make achievements is the worst combination of group therapy, psychobabble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy."
He further suggested that the NASA administrator should have been fired for deviating from the intended purpose of NASA.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Good Devotion
Hidden Hands of God
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”.
Proverbs 3:5
We all have times when our plans don't work out the way we want or our plans are gone to no return. We get delayed, interrupted, and inconvenienced. It's easy to get frustrated and fight against everything that doesn't go our way. But I am learning and I pray that we all as body of Christ would trust the Lord in a way that would bring us to the assurance that not every interruption is bad. Not every closed door means we're doing something wrong. Not every delay means we're not where we're supposed to be. There is something I call divine interruption or the hidden hands of God where God, on purpose, will delay us to protect us from an accident. On purpose, He will close a door because it's not His best. Sometimes, God will allow us to be inconvenienced so we can help someone else in need. We have to be willing to press through difficulty so we can be at the right place at the right time.
His word says in Romans 8:28 “ and we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him”.
This verse is not only about God working things for your good but it’s also about giving you the privilege to partnership with Him ministering to others.
The next time you're interrupted, delayed, or inconvenienced, don't start thinking, "This is a pain. This is getting me off schedule." No, get a new perspective. Look for what God wants to do because it could be divine interruption or divine protection. Trust Him today because He is directing your steps.
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”.
Proverbs 3:5
We all have times when our plans don't work out the way we want or our plans are gone to no return. We get delayed, interrupted, and inconvenienced. It's easy to get frustrated and fight against everything that doesn't go our way. But I am learning and I pray that we all as body of Christ would trust the Lord in a way that would bring us to the assurance that not every interruption is bad. Not every closed door means we're doing something wrong. Not every delay means we're not where we're supposed to be. There is something I call divine interruption or the hidden hands of God where God, on purpose, will delay us to protect us from an accident. On purpose, He will close a door because it's not His best. Sometimes, God will allow us to be inconvenienced so we can help someone else in need. We have to be willing to press through difficulty so we can be at the right place at the right time.
His word says in Romans 8:28 “ and we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him”.
This verse is not only about God working things for your good but it’s also about giving you the privilege to partnership with Him ministering to others.
The next time you're interrupted, delayed, or inconvenienced, don't start thinking, "This is a pain. This is getting me off schedule." No, get a new perspective. Look for what God wants to do because it could be divine interruption or divine protection. Trust Him today because He is directing your steps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
