Good Wednesday Morning to All Who Survived 2017.
Bob, I sent you some information and suggestions under a separate
post. Hope it helps. If not, write me off-list and I can connect you
with several folks in the Seattle Deaf Blind community.
***
Bob wrote: "I endorse Hamas because it is the only courageous militant
element that
engages against Israeli invaders."
A straightforward statement. And of course it is intended to convey
strong resolve by a courageous People.
But if we change the names, we might say, "I
endorse White Supremacy because it is the only courageous militant element that
engages Satan's invaders.
Or we might say, "I
endorse the National Federation of the Blind, because it is the only
courageous militant element that engages against ignorant sighted
workers for the blind."
What I am suggesting is that Bob's words, intended to send a message
of strong conviction and fearless willingness to aggressively defend
his beliefs, will only create an identical statement from the
opponents. Show me where in all of Man's History, where such a bold
statement caused Peace to break out? The only option remaining to the
opponent is to save face by sounding equally brave and resolved.
These are the words of Warriors, not Peace Makers. And the
interesting thing is that as brave as these words appear, they are the
words of cowards. Think about it. Rising up above the war cries to
promote peaceful negotiations takes far more courage than does the act
of arming ones self.
If we were only able to rise above national boundaries, religious
differences, and physical differences, and look to those attributes we
share in common, and begin to work to solve those needs faced by
people everywhere, we just might see signs of Peace on the horizon.
But we are so spell bound, so conditioned by our various Masters, that
we build walls against those people we should be embracing. Bob says
he and I will never agree. He has implied in the past that this is
because I do not understand Truth, as Bob knows it to be.
But rather than telling Bob that one of us is Right and one of us is
Wrong, I can agree that both of us are right, in so far as our
individual beliefs meets our individual needs...just as long as we can
resist pushing our beliefs on the other. It makes no difference to me
if Bob and Allah are on first name terms, and Bob will live eternally
in the Here After. And it should not matter to Bob if I believe that
my contribution is in the Here and Now, and that I have no belief in a
Here After. I can sit and listen to Bob's explanation, and share mine
without either of us feeling the need to change our basic beliefs. I
may tell Bob that in my mind there are no Absolutes other than Death.
Bob may tell me something different. And then I might look at my
watch and suggest that I buy Bob dinner.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/3/18, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
> How about Christian terrorists?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:11 AM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Christian Zionism, the modern herecy and
> assuring true peace callers
>
> Hi Bob,
> I mostly agree with you here. In my view, evangelicals are to Christianity
> as members of ISIS are to Islam.
> Here's a neat play on words. Instead of calling them evangelicals, perhaps
> we should call them evilgelicals.
> Bob Hachey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Evans
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2018 10:04 PM
> To: undisclosed-recipients:
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Christian Zionism, the modern herecy and assuring
> true peace callers
>
> At least 1 in 4 American Christians surveyed recently by Christianity Today
> magazine said, they believe it is their biblical accountability to
> relentlessly plump for the nation of Israel. This view is commonly known as
> Christian Zionism. The Pew Research Center put the figure at approximately
> 63% among white evangelicals. Christian Zionism is pervasive within mainline
> American evangelism. It is broadly endorsed among charismatic and
> independent congregations. This includes the Assemblies of God,
> Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, as well as many of the independent mega
> churches. It is less prevalent within the historic denominations, which show
> significant repute for the work of the United Nations, support for human
> rights, the rule of international law and empathy with the Palestinians.
> Despite the explicit abnegation of Christian Zionism by mainstream Christian
> bodies, many registered and nondenominational Churches across the States
> emphasise the alleged religious obligation to incalculably stand by Israel,
> politically and with full financial backing. They claim their perspective is
> theologically justified. Thus, the foundation of Israel in 1948 fulfills a
> biblical prophecy for them.
> So, who is to be considered a Christian Zionist? To answer this thoroughly,
> there are major factors to measure someone's stance and ideology. First,
> political orientation. In the United States, if someone happened to be
> Republican or he strongly boosts for that particular party, he is most
> likely to be listed as a Christian Zionist. Second, regional base. By good
> chance, many of those who reside in southern States are in favour of
> Christian Zionism. Note, I
> haven't extrapolated. I used a lucid quantifier to purposely
> indicate a considerable amount. Third, Xenophobia. Christian Zionists are
> constantly assaulting foreign visitors and licit residents. They
> unrelentingly call for unconscionable expatriation. Fourth, racism.
> They act superiorly and they disgrace ethnic minorities. They diss and
> assault them in a staidly despicable manner. Fifth, Islamophobia. They
> methodologically demonise Islam. They viciously misportray its
> essence. They misquote its text, they shamelessly lie about its tenets.
> Sixth, warmongering. Despite their counterfeit sentiments of promoting
> peace, they incessantly advocate for warfare. In one of his damnable rallies
> on last Fourth of July, hellion Donald Trump spoke simultaneously to
> veterans and faith leaders. They both spatted to his intolerably belligerent
> remarks. Seventh, Americanism. Unlike respectable nations, they coerce
> whoever wishes to interculturally communicate with them to become wholly
> Americanised in character. They basically manipulate them. Eighth, hate
> speech. Instead of attempting to coexist with various ethnic descents, they
> unstoppably exercise disparagement. They are at the slightest, bigoted,
> fanatic, irresponsible, detestable, repellent and intimidating. Ninth,
> Buttonholing for Israel's aggression and invasion. Christian Zionists are
> infinitely colluded and possessed by Israeli military aspirations.
> They tolerate enormous atrocities committed by insensate Israeli soldiers.
> They hardheartedly watch on television, Palestinian children throwing
> Israeli tanks with stones. Tenth, Dissimulation. Christian Zionists are
> conspicuously notorious of deceiving lay citizens. They always terrify them
> from foreign visitors. They are excessively xenophobic. Ultimately, who is
> this message for? In plainly parlance terms, it is for Zionist pastors and
> preachers. I am here to deliver them fear. Donald Trump era has brought you
> turbulent development. It exposed your genuine figure. There are high
> mountains to climb. As you are boosting for warfare, we are advocating for
> Jihad in return.
> Numerous evangelical Christians came out to be what they truly are.
> They aren't able to hide their actual intent of intemperately disseminating
> evil. At the same time, as always, I ought to hold the cane from the middle.
> This is not a rant against all Americans, Christians or even Jews. Despite
> your faith or the lack of, philosophical or political orientation, people
> who are willing to refrain from imposing aggression or foreign intervension
> in our own affairs are warmly welcome. I proudly collaborated with cecity
> associations across the States. We prosperously held projects for
> implementing accessibility and advocated for perfect independence to those
> who live with sight loss. I have a brilliant Mormon friend called Alison.
> She is a loving person. She is truly loyal and respectful. She lives in
> Utah. We mutually have incredible deference for each other's faith and
> cultural origin. I truly admire her unfeigned commitment to family and
> kinship ties. I am only strident with those who insist to adhere uncongenial
> temperament. I have strong ties to my faith and heritage. It is not because
> I was born Muslim. I studied at deep length and concentration Islamic
> theology. I took various curricula on Koran commentary, Hadith discipline,
> Shariah jural, classical Arabic, Islamic history, philosophy and eminently
> prestigious English class at the British Council. I wholeheartedly maintain
> this foreign language to fend for my heritage and identity.
> Unlike secularised and civilly defeated Muslims, I am inconvenient to
> unethically indoctrinate. Fortuitously, I am sufficiently conscious of what
> is occurring. Thence, I competently recognise what to apprise and what to
> despise. I demonstrate in this post the crucial necessity to persistently
> repudiate antagonisation acts while at the same time, sustaining respectful
> friendship and positive inclusion. This is what Islam prescribes. We are
> religiously enjoined to be pious of the divine while being just and dutiful.
> Islam has decisive precepts for
> states of peace and war. Shariah jural has been filled with
> detailed and accurate maxims. It ranges from territorial jurisdiction to how
> to go to the toilet. Allah hasn't left us clueless of even the littlest
> matters as for the latter. This is our identity and we are quite proud of
> it. Anyone attempts to plague us to provoke our offence, he'll instantly be
> countered with what he may not like. So, watch out. It wholly depends on
> your initial disposal. The way you'll act, you'll be rewarded. If you aim to
> instigate hostility, retaliation is to be radically anticipated. If you
> intend to be peaceful, your proposal will appreciatively be rivaled. Hate is
> not our fete. Our purpose is to integrate. Cordially, Bob Evans
> ___________________________
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment