SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (78335)10/25/2003 11:17:23 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
Ramadan Starts Monday: Islamic Centers In N.America


Reciting Qur’an is high on Muslims’ agenda during Ramadan


By Dina Rashed, IOL Chicago Correspondent

CHICAGO, October 25 (IslamOnline.net) - Because American Muslims do not have a central Fatwa authority but rather a couple of umbrella organizations and hundreds of Islamic centers, there is no one specific day marked as the first day of fasting, yet the majority this year has decided to fast Monday, October 27, marking it as the beginning of Islam’s holy month.

Islamic Society of North America, an umbrella organization operating in U.S. and Canada, has announced earlier that according to the scientific calculations that they follow, the new moon will be born Saturday but will not be big enough to be seen in the sky of North America, and by Sunday it will be big enough to confirm the sighting.

ISNA’s statement said, “The available data indicates that the moon's conjunction will occur Saturday, October 25, 2003, at 12:50 UT i.e., 8:50 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time and 5:50 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time. On October 25, the moon's age will be less than 13 hours at sunset on the West Coast of the U.S.

“It will be impossible to see in North America because it will be very low on the horizon and not far enough from the sun (only about 7 degrees). On October 26, the moon will be able to be seen in most of the world. Therefore, the first day of Ramadan for North America is expected to be Monday, October 27, 2003, insha'Allah.”

ISNA’s decision is also based on jurisdiction of many Muslim scholars who constitute the body of the Fiqh Council of North America, and the Islamic Shura Council of North America.

Three years ago, ISNA’s Shura and Fiqh Councils have come to the decision to follow a scientific moon-sighting based on the visibility of the moon instead of following results of moon-sighting from other Muslim countries.

The rational behind their decision is that the Muslim community in North America has developed demographically and technically enough to be able to make its own decision on moon-sighting like other Muslim communities around the world.

In California, many Islamic centers and smaller mosques will begin their first day of fast Monday as well. The Islamic Center of Southern California, one of the biggest mosques in the golden state, has been adopting such a technique for years.

This technique is based on scientific calculations on the birth of the new moon, but also on the position of the moon in the sky relative to that part of Earth where the specific country lies and whether it is visible or not.

“We require the ability to see the new moon, not to see it with our own eyes, because sometimes the weather conditions do not permit us to do that of course,” said Dr. Mahmoud Abdul Bassit, Director of Religious Affairs of ICSC “we require the scientific visibility of the new moon and not simply its birth to announce the beginning of the lunar month.”

This technique combines science and also goes along with the Ayah that requires a moon visual to fast the days of Ramadan, says Abdul Bassit.

Followers of this technique adopt it for 11 months of year, but follow the decision of Saudi Arabia on the month of Thee Elhejjah, because of the universal ritual of the Hajj.

“As for Hajj, we follow the decision of Saudi religious authorities, because unlike Ramadan where Muslims do perform acts of worship and its rituals themselves, in Hajj we are celebrating the day of Arafa and those who are standing there, so we can’t but to follow the Hajj celebrations as they are performed there,” added Abdul Bassit.

“We have been preaching other communities to use such a technique not only in North America but also in other Muslim countries,” he added.

Many mosques do follow the ISNA decision in an attempt to reach a sense of unity among the Muslim community which is dispersed across the cities and states of North America.

In Chicago, the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIO), which is a federation representing 45 Islamic institutions, mosques and schools, has also announced to follow the same decision. At least two of Chicago’s five biggest Islamic Centers with high immigrant concentration, the Mosque Foundation located in Bridgeview and the Islamic Foundation in Villa Park has already announced the first day of the month to be Monday.

Only one of them, the Islamic Cultural Center of Greater Chicago (ICC) located in Northbrook has announced that Sunday will be the first day of fasting. The ICC does follow a scientific calculation but does not require the visibility of the moon as a requirement to the beginning of the month; the center will hold its first Taraweeh prayers on Saturday night.

The other two community centers, the Islamic Foundation North located in Libertyville and the Muslim Community Center are most likely to follow the same decision of that of CIO and ISNA.

Nevertheless, there remains some other mosques whose Imams decide to follow decision of the mother land from which many of its members originally come from. In such case, the mosques do not follow scientific calculations of North America but rather the jurisdictions of Islamic authorities in these countries.



To: Lane3 who wrote (78335)10/25/2003 11:23:02 PM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
God Squad and the White House:

Evangelicals Sway White House on Human Rights Issues Abroad
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Published: October 26, 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — Shortly after George W. Bush took office, an odd coalition came to the White House to see Karl Rove, the president's powerful political adviser, to ask that the United States intercede in the civil war in Sudan. The group included Charles W. Colson, the born-again Christian who spent seven months in jail for his role in Watergate, and David Saperstein, a Reform rabbi and a longtime lobbyist for liberal causes in Washington.

The two-decades-long war in Sudan was not a front-burner problem for the new administration, and Mr. Rove was not a foreign policy adviser. But the religious strife between Christians and Muslims in a conflict that had killed two million people was of enormous concern to American religious groups, particularly the evangelicals who make up a major portion of President Bush's electoral base.

Mr. Rove, the participants in the meeting recalled, was unusually receptive during a nearly hourlong conversation. "He made it clear how seriously the administration was going to engage on this," said Rabbi Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Close to three years later, the White House has lived up to Mr. Rove's promise to engage not only in peace talks in Sudan, but on other human rights issues of critical importance to American religious groups, most notably sex trafficking and AIDS.

Administration officials and members of Congress say the religious coalition has had an unusual influence on one of the most religious White Houses in American history. The groups have driven aspects of foreign policy and won major appointments, and they were instrumental in making sure that the president included extensive remarks on sex trafficking in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September.

No one disputes that Mr. Bush already cares deeply about those issues and has a personal faith that his advisers say brings a moral dimension to a foreign policy better known for war. "To put it simply, it's a fairly radical belief that a child in an African village whose parents are dying of AIDS has the same importance before God as the president of the United States," said Michael Gerson, Mr. Bush's chief speechwriter and an important White House policy adviser who is a born-again Christian.

But it is also true, religious leaders and administration officials note, that white evangelicals accounted for about 40 percent of the votes that Mr. Bush received in the 2000 presidential election. In 2004, political analysts say, he is unlikely to be re-elected without the strong support of this constituency, which is predominately but not wholly Republican, and which in other years has thrown significant support to southern Democrats like Bill Clinton. Mr. Rove is now tending to the constituency with great care.

"You're not going to run into too many people who are smarter than Karl," said Dr. Richard D. Land, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who is in regular contact with Mr. Rove. "Karl understands the importance of this segment of his coalition, and I think the president understands it. The president feels that one of the contributory factors to his father's loss is that he didn't get as many evangelical votes as Reagan did."

The human rights issues offer a politically safe way for the president to appeal to his base of white evangelicals, who leading scholars and pollsters define by their membership in historically white evangelical denominations, like the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God. Evangelical churches believe that the Bible is truth, that members have an imperative to proselytize and convert and that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

"There are these issues below the radar screen that are of deep concern to the evangelical community, and while they are sincerely held by the administration, they also have the benefit of allowing the president to say, `I have responded to what you wanted me to do,' " Rabbi Saperstein said. "But they're not issues that will alienate large segments of the center in America. These are all-win issues for the administration."

The religious dynamic at the White House reflects a larger change within American evangelicals themselves, and their interest over the last decade in moving beyond the divisive domestic issues that consumed them a generation ago — abortion, school prayer, homosexuality, pornography — into an international arena.

The change is taking place in part because of a new focus on what evangelicals call "the persecuted church," or fellow Christians in other regions of the world who face abuse. The change also stems from leaders' concluding that evangelical groups made little headway on domestic social issues in the 1980's.

"Evangelicals today are more interested in making a difference than in making a statement," said the Rev. Richard Cizik, the vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 43,000 congregations. "We made a lot of statements in the 1980's and got zip."

Mr. Cizik said that evangelicals were now more willing to work with Jewish and feminist groups on certain foreign policy issues and that the failure of evangelicals in the 1980's to meet their goals was in part a failure to collaborate. "Evangelicals have thought historically, `Well, we'll do politics the way we do faith — we'll just convert the opposition,' " he said. "But you can't do politics the same way you do religion."

The groups now find the Bush White House to have an open door, particularly with a president who uses evangelical language in his speeches and credits his faith with helping him to give up drinking.

"There was no movement under Clinton," said Mr. Colson, the founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, who once Mr. Gerson's boss. "We couldn't get anyone to talk to us."

Other religious leaders say that this White House far surpasses the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Mr. Bush's father in its attentiveness.

"Under previous Republican administrations, they would take our calls and often return them," Dr. Land said. "In this administration, they call us. They say, you know, `What do you think about this?' "

The closeness has led to collaboration on policy, most recently on human trafficking. Religious leaders like Dr. Land and Mr. Colson pushed the White House for months to have the president denounce the coercion of women into prostitution around the world and the forcing of men and children into modern-day slavery.

"We certainly encouraged the White House to make it a prominent issue," Dr. Land said, adding that the United Nations speech "was one place we suggested it could be done."

The issue had also risen within the administration, which, as Dr. Land put it, "has a lot more evangelicals in it, and traditional Catholics," than previous administrations. Mr. Gerson, for one, said that he had been talking about international human trafficking for nearly a year, and that it was "bubbling up" on the National Security Council. It was of interest, Mr. Gerson said, to Elliott Abrams, a senior director for Middle East affairs, and to Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, were also focused on the issue, Mr. Gerson said.

About three weeks before Mr. Bush's United Nations address, Mr. Gerson said, "we went in and talked to the president in the Oval Office — Steve, Condi, Andy and myself. He was very interested and supportive of the idea of having trafficking in the speech. And that became the major topic of discussion in the meeting — where it's happening, how large. And he had a lot of questions."

Earlier in the year, religious groups say they successfully lobbied for a new director of the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Office, which was created in 2000 by legislation aggressively pushed by a coalition of evangelicals, Catholics, Jewish groups and feminists. John Miller, a former Republican member of Congress from Seattle who had worked on human rights issues on Capitol Hill, was the group's choice. Mr. Rove is said to have raised concerns that Mr. Miller supported Senator John McCain in the 2000 presidential campaign, but the groups held fast.

"Essentially a variety of people let out the word that this is not the hill you want to die on — this is the guy we want," said Allen Hertzke, the director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma and the author of a forthcoming book, "Freeing God's Children: The Faith-based Movement for International Human Rights."

Mr. Miller, for his part, said the influence of the groups on human trafficking had been substantial. "They're consumed by this issue," he said. "I think it's great. It helped get the legislation passed, it helped spur me, I think it keeps the whole government focused."

The groups were also influential in the development of the president's commitment to fight global AIDS, particularly the part of the policy based on Uganda's A.B.C. campaign, which promotes, in order, abstinence, being faithful and condoms.

Mr. Colson, who has enormous influence among evangelicals because of his books, lectures and radio program, said President Bush personally told religious leaders that he was supporting them on the A.B.C. campaign in a meeting at the White House this spring.

After the meeting, Mr. Colson said he went up to Mr. Bush and said emphatically that faith-based policy worked. "He said, `You don't have to tell me,' " Mr. Colson said the president replied. "He said, `I'd still be drinking if it weren't for what Christ did in my life. I know faith-based works.' "



To: Lane3 who wrote (78335)10/26/2003 4:31:39 AM
From: Solon  Respond to of 82486
 
"waving the flag of the atheist without something like the future of those defendants at stake just doesn't seem constructive to me."

That was not my intent. I was talking about the defensive constellation. There is no offensive paradigm in my thoughts.

"Atheism is hostile to religion. I'm not hostile to it. Perhaps that's only because I'm not a hostile person"

Well, that is a misconception. If atheism were hostile to religion then religion would be hostile to atheism. But such is a misuse of language. Not believing in something does not entail a hostility to it. Some atheists may hate religion rather than simply apppreciating it as a possible danger to be circumspect over...but hostility is only an issue for those whom approach it at that level. It is not a necessary ingredient of my discussion.

Although I can appreciate the idea of atheists and fundamentalists being hostile to 0ne another...it is only necessary that they be open and honest--not that they be hostile.

"We all need to get along and waving the flag of the atheist without something like the future of those defendants at stake just doesn't seem constructive to me."

I wasn't talking about waving flags. I was addressing the right to protect and to inform. I can give myriad current examples if you wish...

I don't think that atheism should be hostile to religion (nor, is it)...but I do think that acknowledging different values is mature and should be accepted (as meaningful to certain peiople) ...



To: Lane3 who wrote (78335)10/26/2003 3:43:38 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Since 1990, 160,000 Christians have been killed per year. The following link is typical of what is preached from Fundamentalist quarters. I could have found many examples from non-Islamic fundamentalism, as well.

If we are going to speak of hostility we need to recognise that atheists and agnostics are ACTIVELY condemned the world over and identified with "falsehood". When one reads the following link one wonders if "you may be right" is a sufficient response, because, indeed...if there is a God, then why may they not be right in condemning all those who think freely?

I don't think the non-believer should seek to duplicate the hostility and contempt which is so often expressed by believers as in this link; but on the other hand, they can hardly be condemned if they tell their accusers to go to Hell.

How long will rational people permit a social climate which treats fundamentalists with kid gloves because we mustn't question matters of faith? Is it wrong to be hostile to religious tenets (from whichever faith or culture) which strips non-believers of all humanity and considers them as disposable?

I guess that is the difficulty I am having with the passivity of agnosticism. It appears at times to give tacit acceptance to the assertions made by those who know what it is they believe in. By allowing that we may be accountable to a deity we encourage fanatics to hold us to that account as they see it to be. Society is moved by subtle assumptions...

One tires of the endless bombardment against the "ungodly". Perhaps it is self-encouraged by reading too many of the wrong links! I ought to find a comics page or something! But it is just that Canadians and Americans have such a skewed picture of how religious forces operate in much of the world. We are so content in the checks and balances of secularism which protects all of us here, and gives us equality regardless of belief or lack of belief.

alminbar.com

I have just been reading about the Heaven's Gate Cult. Truly mind boggling...

rickross.com