Monday, April 23, 2007

Memorial Day 2007 in Israel

Memorial Day in Israel is an unusual experience. As one who has studied modern Israeli history, I'm fully aware of the human cost that has been absorbed by this small nation in her effort to survive in this neighborhood. And the traditional observance here, seems to keep that cost in the forefront of the minds of Israel's citizens.

Since the first moments of her existence she has been in a battle for survival. Actually, that battle for survival started well before David Ben Gurion announced the independent statehood of the modern state of Israel on May 14, 1948. Since that monumental announcement, Israel has been engaged against her enemies with a formal war in each decade: 1948, War of Independence; 1956, The Sinai Campaign; 1967, The Six Day War; 1973, The Day of Atonement War; 1982 The [First] Lebanon War; 1990, The [First] Gulf War*; and 2006, The [Second] Lebanon War.

Though objective "experts" generally suggest that Israel was the victor in all these wars, except perhaps the 2006 Lebanon War, the cost in human life has been heavy. And Memorial Day is dedicated to the memory of those who gave their lives in military service to this country.

It is observed differently, and I think more personally in Israel, than I have noticed in the United States. All across the nation, during Memorial Day, the air raid sirens will sound twice in an unbroken, somber wail: One minute at 8:00 in the evening and then for two minutes the next morning at 11:00.** Everything comes to a halt when the siren begins. Cars stop (even on the highway) and the occupants generally get out and stand at attention. Those on the streets, stop in their tracks and stand at attention. It is actually quite moving to see this in action.

In addition to the observance of a moment of personal silence during the sirens, throughout the day, there are memorial services in every community, as well as at every military cemetery. Places of entertainment are also closed and the radio stations play reflective, nationalistic songs, which help keep the public's thoughts sober and contemplative, and perhaps appreciative of the sacrifice of so many.

Another important way that Memorial Day is different in Israel than in the United States is that it is directly connected to Independence Day, which is the next day. So, as Memorial Day closes out at sunset, Independence Day, opens in all its splendor. It's as if the calendar testifies, "without sacrifice, there is no celebration." I like this better than the month long separation between the two days in the American calendar.

*At the request of President George H.W. Bush, Israel didn't actively participate in the 1990 Gulf War, though they did receive "retaliatory" scud missiles from Iraq.
** The Jewish day starts in the evening, the the first sound at 20:00 and the second at 11:00.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

The New Generation

"We live in a generation now where dudes are chicks and chicks are dudes."

Leane Reyes, 16, a senior at Fresno (CA) High School explained why Cinthia Covarrubias has her vote for prom king.

A girl is being selected as prom king? Possibly. In an effort to avoid litigation, the school's lawyers recommended that the administrators of Fresno High School reverse their decision to allow Cinthia to be considered only for prom queen and not king. They did. And she is now in the running for prom king.

Is this representative of what we have to look forward to from the new generation?

The whole story is here.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

The '08 Presidential Candidates Speak

The United States Supreme Court just upheld the law commonly known as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the major 2008 presidential candidates have all offered their reaction to the court's decision.

However, before I let them speak for themselves, I think it is appropriate to give some background to the "partial birth abortion" procedure.

For the purpose of the law to ban partial birth abortion, the US Congress defined a partial birth abortion as,
"An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)" [Emphasis added]

Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive entry titled "Intact Dilation and Extraction," (a.k.a. partial birth abortion and PBA) that outlines the historical, medical and legal background of this controversial procedure. Additionally, Wikipedia's entry, Partial-Birth Abortion Act Ban, provides a good summary of the issues that surround the law itself.

The National Right To Life organization offers a series of slides that provide a visual overview of the PBA procedure. This set of 5 black and white illustrations are fairly simple, but give an objective representation of what happens when a mother chooses to abort her late term baby. WARNING: Though the slides are simple and without sensationalism, they may be very disturbing and probably very enlightening to most people.

Other links that I think offer helpful insight to the PBA procedure are:
The Naitonal Right to Life
Priests for Life

Now that you have had a chance to be informed about the PBA procedure, I offer the presidential hopeful's thoughts about the US Supreme court's decision to uphold the ban on PBA.

John Edwards
John Edwards for President

Apr 18, 2007

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban.

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose." [Emphasis added]

[According to this press release, Senator Edwards believes it is vitally important that Democrats win the 2008 election so that they can preserve a woman's right to choose to have her baby partially delivered before killing it.]

Rudy Giuliani

"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion," Giuliani said in a statement on the 5-4 decision. "I agree with it." [Emphasis added]

[According to this article, when Giuliani ran for Senate in 2000, he said he would not vote to restrict a woman’s right to undergo the procedure [PBA]. So, one must wonder if Rudy has had a genuine change of heart, or an expedient, politically motivated one.]

Hillary Clinton
From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision

4/18/2007

Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." [Emphasis added]

[In discussions like this, I always wonder about the rights and lives of the children, the most vulnerable and unwilling participant of this activity. In this case of PBA, we're talking about a live baby that has it's head all the way outside the mother's body; or, in the case of a forced breach birth, has all of it's body save it's head outside the mother's body. ]

Sam Brownback

"I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation’s citizens, born and unborn.” [Emphasis added]

Barak Obama

'I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women." [Emphasis added]

[Please allow me a few questions Mr. Obama: Would it matter to you if the baby was "aborted" one hour after full delivery? Would it matter to you if a mother and father agreed to kill their 2-year old daughter because she was terribly inconvenient to their desired lifestyle, or because they realized they can't love her the way a child deserves to be loved? Should the government interfere in the very personal decisions between parents? What if they asked a doctor to be involved? Should the presence of a doctor prevent the government's interference in the very personal decisions between a doctor and patients. I wonder why I don't ever hear about equal rights for the most vulnerable among us. ]

Tom Tancredo
Tancredo Applauds Supreme Court Decision to End Late Term Abortions

4/17/2007 Contact: Alan Moore 703.255.9898

(Washington, D.C.) Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb.

Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions.

This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade. [Emphasis added]

Mitt Romney

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Boston, MA - Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement praising the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act:

"Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us." [Emphasis added]

John McCain

For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007 Contact: Danny Diaz 703-650-5550

"Cherish The Sanctity Of Life:" Statement By Senator McCain


ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following statement:

"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life." [Emphasis added]

In reality, I don't think there is any significant difference between a late-term partial birth abortion and a late-term enutero abortion. In both cases, a living child, has its life taken from it. I guess the PBA "seems" more ghastly because the child is so close to being outside the mother's body, thus reaching the arbitrary point of medical and legal protection.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

What Would You Say?

What would you say if this 10 year-old boy told you “[bad] things happen to you because you don’t wear a kipa (a.k.a. yarmulke or skullcap) and eat kosher food”? That’s what happened to me.

I had occasion to be at his school and he befriended me while I was waiting for his principal. His school is a private, religious, elementary school with an enrollment of about 80.

To say that I was the odd man out would be a dramatic understatement. Although I made a special effort to dress in long pants and a hat before going there, I was clearly the outsider, with no chance of ever fitting in. However, he was friendly and conversational. The other kids mostly stared at me, much like I do a strange fish featured on the National Geographic Channel.

He told me that his class had just finished studying the book of Joshua, so I asked him to give me the short story version of Joshua. He started regaling me with a Midrashic story of Joshua beating up three thieves. He enjoyed doing karate chops and shadow punches as he mimicked Joshua’s clear and overwhelming victory over the bad guys. I enjoyed seeing his excitement, though I was disappointed that he didn't include anything about Joshua from the Bible in his summary.

During our conversation, it was clear that, in spite of his willingness to engage me in conversation, he, like the rest of his classmates, viewed me as an outsider, too. I didn’t look like him, therefore, it was obvious that I didn’t eat like him either. His comments revealed that the two criteria he used to determine my standing before HaShem (God) were my dress (especially the type of head covering) and my food.

He was surprised to find out that we actually buy kosher food. (It’s not so hard in Israel. In fact, it is more difficult to buy non-kosher food here.) However, it only took him one more question to reveal that we don’t “really” buy kosher food: we don’t buy food authorized as kosher by his particular group. “If it isn’t [a particular kosher stamp], it is not really kosher. They just trick people like you with all the other kosher stamps,” he said with complete assurance.

Though the hat I had chosen to wear allows me entrance to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, it wasn’t an approved head cover in his world. After all, it wasn’t a black kipa like he wears. However, there is still hope for me: If I stop eating non-kosher food and wear a black kipa, bad things will stop happening to me.

While I wouldn’t expect a ten year-old to see the irony of this conversation, I didn’t miss it. When I asked him how many brothers and sisters he has, he said, “I have three sisters, but I only say two because the youngest [an infant] is about to go to heaven.” (I found out later that his youngest sister has a serious heart problem and he has 4 brothers.) The problems I was there to speak with the principal about weren’t even on the “problem scale” compared to the death of an infant.

It never occurred to him that the proper head cover and kosher stamp hadn’t prevented bad things from happening to his family. The only thing he could clearly see is that I was an outsider invading his world, which must be the reason for my problems.

Questions:
1. How would you respond to his conclusions? Would you challenge him or simply not accede to his position?
2. How would you offer him encouragement and hope regarding his sister’s health condition?
3. How would you share the gospel with him?

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Don't Be All Nice!

2 Timothy 2:24-26 - And a sevant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him; to do his will.

Once I received a call to help distribute New Testaments to convention goers in Tel Aviv. By God’s grace, “we” were able to distribute a couple hundred New Testaments (at least twice that many the previous night) before the professional anti-missionaries arrived. Still, before the pros got on the scene, we had a number of “negative” encounters with people who were angry about our activities.

One encounter, in particular, was with one of the civilian security guards. He was screaming all the usual things at one of the members of our group: “Get out of here with your foreign stuff! This is the Holy Land, land of the Jews not Christians. What you’re doing is illegal. I’m going to call the police.”

I usually learn something on these outings and God was generous to me once again. As I watched this encounter between "our guy" and the angry, armed-guard I noted a few things:

First, “our guy” spoke to the angry man in Hebrew, but the angry man always responded in English. Not because he couldn’t speak Hebrew, but rather to try to persuade the on-lookers that “our guy” was bringing a foreign religion to the Jewish people. This was a mostly unsuccessful, but interesting tactic for sure.

Second, “our guy” never raised his voice or tried to compete with the angry man. He simply smiled and spoke very calmly, responding to each of his complaints. The fact that “our guy” was calm and polite eventually caused the angry man to snap: In desperation, and apparently referring to 2 Tim 2:24, he shouted, “Don’t be all nice!!" “Our guy” simply smiled and walked a few steps away from the angry man.

If those who are vocally (sometimes physically) opposing our efforts are not professionals, they generally give up in frustration if we don’t engage them in loud arguments. Smiling really seems to take the air out of their sails.

At the same event mentioned above, I had a military security guard opposing me. He, too, was frustrated that I never got heated up. After about 20 minutes of unsuccessfully trying to persuade me, he moved to others from our group. He was supposed to be providing security for this event, but he spent about an hour trying to convince us how wrong we were for handing out New Testaments. Finally, in frustration he went and sat in the shade and pouted. Now that was a cute site: a soldier armed with an M16, sitting and pouting like a small child. His spirits lifted, though, when the “professionals” arrived.

Interestingly, it is not uncommon for bystanders who don’t agree with our message to defend our actions. What an interesting sight to see: unbelievers loudly arguing our case with those who oppose us. It seems that the more we smile and stay calm in the midst of being shouted at, the more unbelievers come to our defense.

We are to correct our opponents in a spirit of humility (2 Tim 2:25). Clearly, this is easier said than done. The flesh, my flesh, screams for the opportunity to send a zinger back at people who are saying all manner of filthy things against me and Jesus. (Grammatically the order of “me and Jesus” is wrong, I know, but I wanted to be accurate in portraying how the flesh sees things: ME first.) However, God desires, even demands that we respond to our opponents in humility.

The answer to this dilemma is found in Galatians 5:16-17: “I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.”

Our objective in humbly correcting our opponents is to see them repent (2 Tim 2:25-26). Please note, however, that it is not us who brings them to repentance, but God who grants repentance. This is God’s work and he desires to use humble tools to accomplish His work. The emphasis should not be on our labor/efforts, but on God’s grace in bringing a sinner to repentance. Often, however, during large outreach efforts, one can hear “our guys” standing around conversing about the labor instead of God’s grace. Perhaps this is a sign that we are not as humble as we should be.

We must keep in mind that the “bad guys” are ensnared by the devil and are being held captive by him to do his will (2 Tim 2:26). And he clearly hates the distribution of God’s word/truth in any form. This is a spiritual battle.