jkdoyle.com

Very interesting.  Here's an excerpt from the TimesOnline:

The new rules form part of the biggest overhaul to British immigration in 40 years. A points system was introduced, with one intention of combating extremism and prevent preachers of hate coming in. Tier Five, however, which has caught Benny Hinn, was introduced to stop ministers coming in as visitors and then making a quick buck by speaking at events or 'working' while they are here.

Ministers of all faiths now need a letter of sponsorship if they are to do religious work in Britain, even when, as at Excel, the event is free.

I certainly understand why the UK would want to keep Hinn out, but there is a part of me concerned about what the larger implications and impact of these laws might be.  If you're interested in how this might affect everyone, here's a snippet of the Tier System under the new immigration laws :

The five immigration tiers are outlined below. Click each Tier to get more information from workpermit.com:

• Tier 1 Visas: For highly skilled migrants, entrepreneurs, investors, and graduate students. This has replaced the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP), the Entrepreneur and Investor schemes, and the International Graduates Scheme.
• Tier 2 Visas: This is for skilled workers, professional sports people, and clergy members who have a job offer or arrangement with a UK organization that requires their services for an extended period of time. This tier will encompass the current UK Work Permit rules and is expected to go live sometime in the third quarter of 2008.
• Tier 3 Visas: This tier is for a limited numbers of lower skilled workers to fill temporary shortages in the labour market. The UK has indefinitely suspended plans to implement this tier.
• Tier 4 Visas: International Students.
• Tier 5 Visas: For youth mobility and temporary workers, such as those who come under Working Holiday agreements with other countries. It will also cover temporary volunteer workers, sports people taking part in events, and visiting clergy.

Tiers 3 and 5 are temporary migration schemes and if you apply for a visa under one of these tiers, you will not be able to switch to a different tier from within the UK. The UK has also suspended Tier 3 in favour of migrants from the EU; however, this may change depending on labor market demands.

If apply under Tiers 1, 2, or 4, you will be eligible to switch to another tier at any time after you are in the UK if you can meet the requirements of that tier. Tiers 1 and 2 can potentially lead to settlement if permanent residence requirements are met at the time of application.

Here's the summary of Sponsorship:

If you are applying under one of Tiers 2 through 5, you will be required to have sponsorship from a licensed sponsor (an employer, government, or educational institution). The certificate of sponsorship assures the UK that you are able to perform the particular job or course of study, or otherwise fulfills the requirements to enter the UK under the specific tier.

Under Tier 1, you would not require a job offer and thus would not require sponsorship.

The creativity of story-telling through Kseniya Simonova's interpretation of Germany's invasion of Ukraine during WW2 is powerful to watch, but it is also powerful to see how the emotional impact of WW2 still remains in the Ukrainian culture even for generations that never witnessed it.   I think since the last major conflict fought on American soil was in the 1860s, we Americans don't understand Europe's deep-felt resistance to the idea of war.  They seem to understand war's destructiveness as a culture in ways that only our veterans might.

Watch the video to see Simonova's work and see the response to it:

This is a really good post: 

http://jwest.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/people-are-just-not-right-and-they-dont-know-the-bible/

It's actually kind of depressing to see that so many people think that Obama is the anti-Christ.  However, Jim's conclusion is right on.  He basically points out that those making claims that President Obama is the anti-Christ don't know the Bible.   Jim writes:  

You know, don’t you, who the Antichrist is, right?  I do.

παιδια εσχατη ωρα εστιν και καθως ηκουσατε οτι αντιχριστος ερχεται και νυν αντιχριστοι πολλοι γεγονασιν οθεν γινωσκομεν οτι εσχατη ωρα εστιν. εξ ημων εξηλθαν αλλ ουκ ησαν εξ ημων ει γαρ εξ ημων ησαν μεμενηκεισαν αν μεθ ημων αλλ ινα φανερωθωσιν οτι ουκ εισιν παντες εξ ημων (I John 2)

No need for speculation. There have always been, and are now, loads of Antichrists. Don’t waste your time looking for just one.

Ummm...if you can't read Greek, is his point made a bit?

I can't express how frustrated I am with the increasing level of frequency, ignorance, vindictiveness, and delight Christians are exhibiting in making such claims about Obama.  Claims that unfortunately can be too easily found in a growing segment of Christianity that is biblically ignorant, spiritually immature, and "Left Behind" nurtured.  According to the article mentioned in Jim's post, in New Jersey: "Eighteen percent of “conservative” voters think Obama is the Anti-Christ. Seventeen percent are not sure."  Eighteen percent!?  

By the way here's the agreement I will make with those who have publicly claimed that Obama is the Anti-Christ:

• If he is the anti-Christ, I will admit that I was in error in believing that he was not.
• If he is not the anti-Christ, those who have made claims or hints that he is will:
  1. Confess that they have sinned by slandering the name of another person and bearing false witness, acting rashly and foolishly, causing unnecessary division, and teaching others falsehood.
  2. Write a hand-written apology letter to Barack Obama, his wife, and his children for what they have done in regard to his character.
  3. Admit that in doing the confessed errors of point number 1 above, they themselves have acted more anti-Christ than for the things of Christ.

For the record I'm okay with President Obama (or any U.S. President) speaking to children in public schools about the importance of education, as long as it is possible for children (and their families) to opt out.  I think it can be inspirational, educational, and discussion provoking for children to have a President speak to them, and I look forward to talking with my children about their thoughts on it.  After all, this is the leader of our nation, and it is probably good to teach children to pay attention to what the President says, whether we agree with the individual holding the office or not.  For some children it might actually introduce and create an interest in politics beyond the common American adult model of simply listening to talk-radio and watching sound-bite entertainment news reports (imagine that).  

However, as we all know there really is very little difference between the Republicans and Democrats.  A guaranteed consistency is that each will always blame, accuse, and deried the opposing party for acting exactly as they would if the shoe was on the other foot.  This was true for the bail-out and it is true on this school speech issue.  Here's an excerpt from a Washington Post article back in 1991 when the first President Bush wanted to broadcast a speech to schools (it could almost be run today, just replace the names of Democratic players with Republican ones):

House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.

The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.

“The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’ ”

Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town.  [...]

Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to “start using precious dollars for campaigns” when “we are struggling for every silly dime we can get” for education programs.

I just want to say this:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

in response to the actions of the Oklahoma State Legislature as reported in to this article:

Well, it's official: Oklahoma's state legislature is investigating the University of Oklahoma for hosting a speech by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

. . . 

. . .  Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton requested substantial information relating to the speech from Vice President for Governmental Relations Danny Hilliard. Representative Hamilton's exhaustive request included demands for all e-mails and correspondence relating to the speech; a list of all money paid to Dawkins and the entities, public or private, responsible for this funding; and the total cost to the university, including, among other things, security fees, advertising, and even "faculty time spent promoting this event."

Look, there are many things that are said on University (and Seminary) campuses that I disagree with...but this is America.  We actually believe that free expression of ideas is a good thing, and that somehow in the free marketplace of ideas that thinking people can make decisions for themselves regarding what is true and valuable.  As a believer, I have no issues with Richard Dawkins speaking, and I don't think God is worried that Dawkins is speaking, as He seems to allow him to go on doing it.  We should encourage our universities to bring in a variety of speakers from different worldviews and religions.  I would love for OU to bring in some great theologians to speak. 

I am embarrassed that my state's legislation has done this.  It is damaging to the reputation of higher education in our state, and it runs counter to the ideals that have made this country so great.   

There has been much news lately concerning President Obama's bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (see here, here, here, here, here, and here --get the picture ?).  I'm not sure what is more frustrating to me, those overly angry at this, or the White House for foolishly attempting to say that he didn't do it:

Q    And then one unrelated question.  When the President met with King Abdullah, there was something that took place that I believe the White House explained as just the President being taller than the King.  We took a look at the video, and it does appear that the President actually bowed to King Abdullah.  Did he bow or didn't he?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think he bent over with both -- to shake with both hands to shake his hand.  So I don't --

Q    It appears to show one hand, that he was just --

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I --

Q    Did he bow or didn't he?

MR. GIBBS:  No.  But I think this meeting was like a week ago, right?

Q    That's right, but this is something that a lot of people are still talking about today.

MR. GIBBS:  I can only imagine it is of great cause and concern for many people struggling with the economy.  (Laughter.) 

when he clearly did:

Ah, American Politics! 

I'm not really sure that this story deserves the press it is getting.  From the perspective of President Obama's intent, it seems to me that he made the gesture without thinking about it (it doesn't seem to be very formal).  However, such a mistake can be a serious issue for a President in the world of international politics.  In matters of foreign diplomacy and protocol, small unintentional or thoughtless blunders can certainly have far reaching effect and communicate something other than intended or needed.  A good example is George W. Bush speaking of a "crusade against terror " and then going to war in the Middle East, or American soldiers in Mogadishu being unaware of the great insult displaying the bottom of one's shoe can carry in Middle Eastern and Muslim cultures.  However, I don't think this blunder and breach of tradition gives us reason to accuse Obama of pandering any more to the Saudis than former Presidents.   Remember President Bush holding hands with the crown prince?  I think we've been politically bowing to Saudi Arabia for a good while as our straw has reached accrroossss the ocean to drink their milkshake.  Or maybe their straw has been siphoning off of us?  It's difficult to tell.

King Jehu bowing to Shalmaneser III on the Black Obelisk.

Israel is making horrible decisions regarding it's actions in Gaza.  This week a report by HaAretz (and picked up by Reuters and numerous other news agencies ) contains interviews detailing incidents like this one:

Aviv:  "One of our officers, a company commander, saw someone coming on some road, a woman, an old woman. She was walking along pretty far away, but close enough so you could take out someone you saw there. If she were suspicious, not suspicious - I don't know. In the end, he sent people up to the roof, to take her out with their weapons. From the description of this story, I simply felt it was murder in cold blood."

Zamir: "I don't understand. Why did he shoot her?"

Aviv: "That's what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn't have to be with a weapon, you don't have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him. With us it was an old woman, on whom I didn't see any weapon. The order was to take the person out, that woman, the moment you see her." 

Not only this, the materials given to the soldiers by the rabbinate which spoke of a religious war of "expelling" the gentiles:

Ram:  "There was a huge gap between what the Education Corps sent out and what the IDF rabbinate sent out. The Education Corps published a pamphlet for commanders - something about the history of Israel's fighting in Gaza from 1948 to the present. The rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles, and ... their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war."

Fortunately, Ram, as a commander, attempted to interject a more truthful reality:

Ram:  "From my position as a commander and 'explainer,' I attempted to talk about the politics - the streams in Palestinian society, about how not everyone who is in Gaza is Hamas, and not every inhabitant wants to vanquish us. I wanted to explain to the soldiers that this war is not a war for the sanctification of the holy name, but rather one to stop the Qassams." 

The entire report is disturbing on a number of levels.  I think the last thing that Israel wants/needs politically is to engage in a religious war to "vanquish the Gentiles".  Change "gentiles" to "infidels" and it sounds way too familiar.  The racist overtones which allow soldiers to see all Palestinians as terrorists and threats to Israel also unfortunately brings up thoughts of similar statements made by those who have persecuted Jews throughout the centuries. 

 An excerpt from the beginning of Rush Limbaugh's CPAC speech:

[Laughter] Now the opportunity here to address the nation, a serious one, it really is. And I want to take it seriously. I want to address something. I know that people are probably watching this who never have listened to my program and may not even really know what conservatism is. They think they do based on how they've been told -- the way we've been impugned and maligned and so forth. One of the things that is totally erroneous about me -- and I just want to get this up front -- is that I'm pompous. [Laughter] And that I am arrogant. Neither of these things are remotely true. I can tell you a joke to illustrate this. Larry King passed away, goes to heaven. He's greeted by Saint Peter at the gates. Saint Peter says, "Welcome, Mr. King, it's great to have you here. I want to show you around, give you an idea of what's here, maybe you can pick a place that you'd like to reside." King says, "I just have one question: Is Rush Limbaugh here?" "No, he's got a lot of time yet, Mr. King." So Saint Peter begins the tour. Larry King sees the various places and it's beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says "Rush Limbaugh." 

[Laughter] And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says: "I thought you said he wasn't here." "He said, he's not, he's not. This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh."

[Laughter] [Applause] So you see I'm not pompous.

It reminds me of the scene of Herod Agrippa in Josephus Antiquities 19:345-346 (compare with Acts 12):

“. . . and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another (though not for his good), that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.”  Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery . . ."

I hate to admit it, but there was a time many years ago when I listened to Rush Limbaugh, and then I realized how empty (and truly pompous) his rhetoric was.  It's hate.  It's division.  It's destroying the American political system.  He is what he condemns. 

And now he has made himself out to be greater than God for the sake of humor.  Good luck with that, Rush.

I keep hearing little things concerning the growth of anti-Semitism/anti-Judaism in Europe and other sections of the world.  It is very troubling.  The recent rehabilitation/reinstatement of Bishop Richard Williamson, a revisionist holocaust denier,  by Pope Benedict has brought the issue even more to the forefront.  Unfortunately, I don't think his views are all that rare in some circles, even among academics.  For a glimpse of Bishop Williamson's views, watch the interview below:

 Dorothy King, on her blog PhDiva, wrote about the growth of anti-semitism in Europe just a little while ago.  She wrote : 

Many people are drawing comparisons between the current financial crisis and the Great Depression. A few are even comparing it to the economic crisis of 89 BC. Fewer are noting the parallel rise in anti-Semitism, but the historical comparisons are striking.

In ‘30s Germany anti-Semitism began with boycotts and intimidation. Attacks on European synagogues are rising, and most have had armed guards posted outside since 9/11.

. . . 

A Patrons' dinner at a museum (I was a guest, not a Patron of course). Conversation flowed smoothly until I said, in reference to academic research, that I try to avoid reading German. My fund manager neighbor turned on me - "You're a Jew, aren't you" - and launched into a diatribe of abuse. I avoid reading German because my German is particularly poor. I now avoid such dinners, as I did not appreciate being called “you bloody bitch” by his wife when I tried to leave.

A leading auction house had been trying to hire me for years, and I agreed to an interview. The interviewer asked me the origins of my surname. I said Jewish. He proceeded to tell me that I wasn't 'qualified' to be a secretary there. My CV is ... but let’s not even go into that one. The Nuremberg Laws made employment for Jews illegal, though Jews had been having difficulties finding employment before that.

Foolishly, I was prepared to write it off as one bad egg at the auctioneers. I subsequently agreed to give a lecture for some of their clients. Whilst we were waiting, the charming blue eyed blond man assigned to look after me announced that "Seinfeld" should be banned from television. Possibly – I don’t watch it. Then he added that "Friends" should be too. My curiosity aroused, I asked why. "Because it makes Jews look normal" came the response.

Here is my prediction (duh!):  Barack Obama will be our next president.  Especially since the Republican pundits on TV are already talking about McCain in the past tense:  "It was difficult for McCain to overcome . . . "

In light of that, here are a few thoughts:

1.  For all the "losers" who are followers of Jesus:  Remember that the Scripture tells us to pray for our leaders and seek their welfare.  Don't let your anger, frustration, or whatever over this election remove you from your obligation to love others (including politicians).  Remember that it is only four years, only 1460 days.  Despite the statements of many emails and outspoken "conservative" leaders, our country is founded upon a system built to ensure that one man can't do unmanageable damage.  In light of that, relax and be glad that you have that system.  it should also be said that a lot of angry, ignorant, fear-mongered, and religiously intolerant things have been said during this campaign season.  If you are guilty or responsible for any of this, it also may be good if you apologized to someone or at least admitted that you have behaved in a manner that did not increase Christ's honor in the eyes of others.

2.  For all the "winners" who are followers of Jesus:  Remember that only Obama is just a man and a politician.  He is not going to bring about the change that only people by taking action in their own lives can bring.   He's not going to put food on your table.  He's not going to make you healthy.  He's not going to make you happy or bring peace to the world.  He may accomplish a few good things, but probably not most of what he talked about during his campaign    The reality is that if you want change, you will have to act on the kind of change you want to see.  My friend Mark Riddle expresses this pretty clearly here.   As I reminded those in point #1, you also should remember that our country was not built to run on the desires or influence of one man.  Be a pragmatist not an idealist is probably a safe call.  And don't forget, as I posted on earlier this year , the more that someone tells you that they are "not the politician" this should only confirm that they are.

3.   The Downside Overall: Obama winning will unfortunately be tainted by the very valid claim that this election was bought through campaign financing and spending.  Obama spent more than anyone ever before, and his success after backtracking on campaign financing will ensure that future campaigns will see the only way of winning as getting and spending larger and larger amounts of money.   

4.  The Upside Overall:  Whatever side you were on...its now time to move on as a group of "United States".  This is an historic moment for our country.  What a great thing that in a democratic nation such as ours a person representing an ethnic minority can be chosen as our leader.  It says something about who we are, about how far we have come in our issues with certain types of racism.  Racism is still an issue, but this will change the whole "race" conversation, even if it just brings it back to the forefront.  It also speaks volumes about opportunity and equality in our nation to a world that is made up mostly of people of color.  It means that the values of those amazing documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, continue to define and redefine who we are.  As one who has not been entirely thrilled with either option in the Presidential election, I am  proud of what the choice of Barack Obama says about us and look forward to how it plays out.