Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Homenaje a la amistad

María Fontaine

Cuando se muda una persona, un amigo cercano, algunos sin querer, preguntamos: «Si Dios me ama tanto, ¿por qué permite que me dejen mis amigos más cercanos? Necesito mucho a esa persona. Ahora que no está conmigo, tengo una sensación de pérdida, de que me falta algo. Señor, ¿por qué no hiciste que fuera de otra forma?»

Es probable que los discípulos de Jesús se sintieran de forma muy parecida. Al fin y al cabo, imagínense la sensación de pérdida que tendrían cuando Jesús los dejó. Jesús, el Hijo de Dios, que había estado con ellos día tras día, enseñándoles a amar, prodigándoles instrucción, aleccionándolos para que supieran cómo comunicarse sabiamente con los demás y llevar a cabo la misión, apoyándolos, ayudándolos, escuchándolos, consolándolos. Él era todo para ellos, ¡compartió todo lo que tenía con ellos! ¿Pueden imaginarse una pérdida mayor que esa? Deben haber sentido un desgarro emocional, una sensación de pérdida y de incertidumbre en cuanto a cómo seguirían adelante sin Él.

Tengo la certeza de que esos días en aquel aposento alto fueron momentos de gran búsqueda interior, de tratar de entender todas las preguntas que deben haberles pesado tanto en el corazón. Sin embargo, cuando miraron al Espíritu Santo para que les diera consuelo —a quien Jesús les dijo que enviaría—, encontraron la fe y el valor para seguir adelante y llevar a cabo lo que Jesús confiaba que harían. Sabían que no podían fallarle, aunque Él ya no estuviera con ellos físicamente y aunque sintieran una gran pérdida. Con la ayuda del Espíritu Santo, hallaron consuelo y el ungimiento para llevar a cabo Su obra. ¡Fíjense en lo que sucedió cuando Sus discípulos empezaron a atender a quienes necesitaban el amor y la vida que Jesús les había dado! El Espíritu obró poderosamente por medio de ellos. Con esa experiencia, se acercaron más que nunca a Jesús, porque todo lo que Él les había entregado empezó a crecer y a manifestarse abundantemente en otros por medio de ellos.

Nuestras amistades son versiones en miniatura del mismo principio. Cuando Dios permite que se rompa el círculo por un tiempo —a veces hasta que lleguemos al cielo—, nuestras amistades tienen la posibilidad de empezar su propia reacción en cadena que afecte y mejore la vida de muchos, y también la nuestra con creces. El vínculo de amistad que ustedes tienen con alguien es una manifestación del amor de Jesús; Su Espíritu fluye a través de ustedes y hacia ellos; y a través de ellos hacia ustedes.

Lo mejor que pueden hacer para manifestar el cariño que le tienen a un amigo es hacer que la vida de ustedes sea un ejemplo vivo de todo lo que esa persona significa para ustedes, y todo lo que esa amistad les ha traído. Cuando aprovechan toda la belleza, bondad, amabilidad y enseñanzas que aprendieron juntos, se convierte en un testimonio vivo de su amistad, lo que atrae a otros y hace que esa amistad tenga un significado incluso mayor.

El Señor dio unas palabras bellas y consoladoras acerca de la amistad; quiero reproducirlas en este documento.

Jesús dice:

«Aprovecha lo que esta amistad te ha enseñado, lo valioso que adquirieron el uno del otro; y toma la determinación de demostrar el cariño que tienes por ese amigo al emplear todo lo has ganado. Lo que tu amigo te ha dado y que ha compartido contigo se ha vuelto parte de ti y seguirá bendiciéndote a ti y a otros. Es el regalo que te ha entregado ese amigo. El regalo que le des a tu amigo es emplear todo eso, de modo que se multiplique lo que esa amistad les ha ofrecido.

»Descubrirás que una parte de ese viejo amigo se mantiene viva y crece en tu vida, de modo que seas una mejor persona, una persona más prudente. Es la manera perfecta de mantener viva esa amistad en tu corazón. Válete de eso para entablar amistad con tantas personas como puedas. Así, la amistad se vuelve total de verdad.

»Esa es una razón por la que hay gran y potente unidad en el Cielo. Todos los lazos de amistad y de amor que creas en la Tierra se convierten en un gozo eterno para ti en el Cielo. Allí te darás cuenta que jamás has perdido un amigo, sino que la partida de cada uno en el plano físico causó que se iniciara la comunicación, tanto contigo como por medio de ti, con todos los amigos que habrás tenido en esta vida.

»Si tienes amigos que siguen contigo o que están cerca, aprecia su valor. Si tienes amigos que se van o que se han ido, o si te mudarás y te despedirás, festeja la cercanía que han tenido y el regalo que ha sido; y esfuérzate por cultivar otras relaciones parecidas.»

A continuación reproducimos algunas frases acerca de la amistad. Ya sea que tengas amigos que se hayan trasladado a otro continente, que se hayan ido al Cielo a estar con Jesús, que sean viejos amigos o nuevas amistades, que uno te acompañe y otro esté ausente, o que pienses en Jesús, tu mejor amigo, estas reflexiones pueden ayudarte a que te concentres en el bello regalo que nos da Dios: la amistad.

*

Un amigo verdadero es un regalo de Dios; y solo Él, que creó los corazones, puede unirlos. Robert South

*

Al decir «amistad» se intenta expresar el mayor amor, el desinterés más extremo, la comunicación más abierta, los sufrimientos más nobles, la verdad más seria, el consejo más sincero y la mayor unión de pareceres de la que son capaces los hombres y las mujeres valientes. Jeremy Taylor

*


Un amigo fiel es un refugio seguro; el que lo halla ha encontrado un tesoro. Libro de Sirácides 6:14

*

Un amigo puede considerarse la obra maestra de la naturaleza. Ralph Waldo Emerson

*

Amistad: Ser una mano fuerte en la oscuridad para alguien en tiempos de necesidad. Hugh Black

*

La amistad requiere que haya una gran comunicación entre amigos. De lo contrario, no puede ni nacer ni existir. San Francisco de Sales

*

La amistad es una responsabilidad, no una oportunidad. Benjamín Franklin

*

Un verdadero amigo se desahoga con franqueza, aconseja con justicia, ayuda de buena gana, se aventura con audacia, acepta todo con paciencia, defiende con valor, y no deja de ser un amigo indiscutible. William Penn

*

Cultiva las cualidades que deseas que tenga un amigo, porque alguien quiere que seas su amigo. Anónimo

*

¡Ah!, el consuelo indescriptible de sentirse a salvo en compañía de una persona; no tener que sopesar las ideas ni medir las palabras, sino expresarlas todas —como son, paja y grano juntos—, sabiendo que una mano fiel las tomará y las pasará por el tamiz, guardará lo que tenga valor y, luego, con un soplo de bondad, eliminará el resto. George Eliot

*

Para el mundo, eres solo una persona. Sin embargo, podrías serlo todo para una persona. Anónimo

*

Los buenos amigos se parecen a las estrellas. No siempre los ves, pero sabes que siempre están ahí. Anónimo

*

Un amigo es alguien que te da fuerzas con oraciones, te bendice con amor y te anima infundiéndote esperanza. Anónimo

*

No necesitamos tanto de la ayuda de nuestros amigos como de la confianza en esa ayuda. Epicuro

*

Mi mejor amigo es el que saca lo mejor de mí. A quien le puedo decir: «Me gusto más cuando estoy contigo». Anónimo

*

La amistad que brota del corazón no puede congelarse debido a la adversidad, al igual que el agua que mana de un arroyo no puede congelarse en el invierno. James Fenimore Cooper

*

El amigo es aquel que es como otro yo. Cicerón

*

Caminar con un amigo en la oscuridad es mejor que caminar solo en la luz. Helen Keller

*

Los amigos son el medio por el que Dios nos cuida. Anónimo

*

Los amigos son como ángeles que nos siguen por la vida. Anónimo

*

Cada amigo representa un mundo en nuestro interior. Un mundo que tal vez no surge hasta la llegada de ese amigo; solo en ese encuentro nace un nuevo mundo. Anais Nin

*

Ningún amor, ni amistad, puede cruzar la senda de nuestro destino sin dejar una huella eterna. Francois Mocuriac

*

Fue una gran bendición haber conocido a alguien a quien me costó decirle adiós. Anónimo

*

Todos tomamos distintos caminos en la vida, pero a donde sea que vayamos, llevamos un poquito unos de otros. Tim McGraw

*

Ni tiempo ni distancia pueden disminuir la amistad de quienes están mutuamente convencidos de su valía. Anónimo

*

El descubrimiento más bello que pueden hacer los amigos de verdad es que pueden crecer por separado, sin distanciarse. Elisabeth Foley

*

Entre amigos no hay distancia excesivamente grande, pues el amor le da alas al corazón. Anónimo

*

Con cada amigo que amo y que ha sido trasladado a las oscuras entrañas de la tierra, una parte de mí ha quedado enterrada allí. Sin embargo, la contribución de ellos a mi felicidad, fortaleza y comprensión, me sigue sosteniendo en un mundo cambiado. Helen Keller

*

Los verdaderos amigos nunca se alejan; tal vez los separe la distancia, pero siguen unidos de corazón. Anónimo

*

VER que has perdido un ser querido.
INVERTIR en otros las bendiciones de la amistad.
DETERMINAR que las amistades perdidas viven en nosotros y en quienes se cruzan en nuestro camino.
ATAR lazos eternos de amistad que rodeen a los demás y perduren por siempre. Anónimo

*

Los recuerdos son eternos; jamás mueren. Los amigos permanecen unidos y nunca se despiden para siempre. Anónimo

Artículo publicado por primera vez en diciembre de 2011 y actualizado en septiembre de 2012. Traducción: Victoria Martínez y Antonia López.

Eu Te Amo! – Você Pessoalmente!

Maria Fontaine

Fiquei muito triste quando ouvi dizer que alguns de vocês às vezes acham que o Senhor está distante, que não passa de um Poderoso em algum lugar na atmosfera que certa vez expressou o Seu amor por meio do imenso sacrifício de Seu Filho -- mas que na realidade Ele não está muito interessado em você pessoalmente, nos seus problemas, nas situações que o deixam triste e confuso, amedrontado, sem esperança ou sozinho.

Talvez sinta que Jesus o ama de maneira genérica, mas não entende como Ele poderia amá-lo de forma calorosa, íntima e pessoal como o seu melhor amigo, ou alguém apaixonado por você que quer participar de cada detalhezinho da sua vida, conhecer todos os seus pensamentos, seus mais profundos desejos e ficar na sua companhia o tempo todo. Alguém que deseja fazê-lo feliz, que está sempre pensando em você e em como suprir suas maiores necessidades, sem deixar o amor que sente por você ser afetado por seus erros e falhas, muito pelo contrário, olhando além deles e vendo o seu coração.

Você não entende como Jesus haveria de querer realmente se sintonizar em cada aspecto da sua vida, em todos os detalhes relativos a você apenas e garantir que supre cada pequena necessidade, sempre ao seu lado, pronto para acolhê-lo em Seus braços e consolá-lo quando está triste, participar de sua alegria, acalmá-lo e espantar os temores, e explicar situações e coisas que o perturbam.

Eu já ouvi pessoas dizendo, “Não entendo como Jesus poderia me amar tanto assim ou estar feliz comigo. Sou ruim demais. Já cometi tantos erros! Não consigo superar meus problemas pessoais, além de que não tenho nenhum talento… Sou incapaz de fazer grande coisa pelo Senhor. Eu me sinto um zero à esquerda. Tem um monte de gente melhor do que eu que pode fazer o trabalho do Senhor e que Ele deve amar muito mais.”

Fico de coração quebrado quando ouço que alguém diz isso ou sequer pensa isso, pois sei o quanto Jesus ama cada um individualmente de uma maneira muito especial e profunda. Para mim uma das coisas mais lastimáveis neste mundo é alguém não entender e não saber o quanto Jesus o ama.

São muitas as manifestações do grande amor do Senhor por cada um de nós. Primeiro, Ele morreu por nós. E também designou a cada um onde testemunhar e servir a Ele de uma maneira específica e sob medida. Ele o chamou e escolheu. O maravilhoso conselho e instrução que o Senhor nos deus na Bíblia e em outros escritos inspirados, sem falar dos conselhos que dá continuamente em profecia para os que desejam é uma outra grande manifestação do Seu amor presente no nosso dia a dia. Além do mais, o Senhor quer que saiba que cada pessoa é ímpar e especial, e que Ele Se preocupa com cada mínimo detalhe da sua vida intimamente, assim como o faz com outros especificamente.

Jesus disse:

“Nem um passarinho cai ao chão sem que o seu Pai o saiba.”[1] E você não vale muito mais do que as aves? Meu querido, peça e receberá, para que o seu gozo se cumpra.[2] Desejo preencher o seu coração com o Meu amor e gozo inefável. Eu o amo com um amor eterno. Você é especial para Mim.[3] Você, Meu precioso pequenino é querido para Mim.

Não dê ouvidos ao Maligno que deseja afastá-lo de Mim, pois Eu o amo de verdade. Venha, fique Comigo na Palavra e manifestarei o Meu amor por você. Se permanecer em mim o Meu amor se manifestará e, conforme você der, também receberá.[4] Encha o seu coração com o Meu amor por meio da Minha Palavra. Farei milagres por você e verá toda a alegria que lhe tenho preparada, além do Meu amor inescrutável.

*

Meu queridíssimo, ouço os seus pensamentos, e conheço os seus mais profundos anelos, temores e inseguranças. Ouço tudo e a todos conheço. Você vive como se precisasse provar algo aos outros, acha que estou distante por causa das suas falhas, erros e pecados, considera-se ruim demais. Acha que o castigo por essas coisas e que não poderia jamais amá-lo incondicionalmente.

Tenta fazer o que é certo, ser bom, falar de Mim para os outros. No entanto, às vezes acha que estou muito distante e não consigo ouvi-lo, não falo com você nem Me importo. Mas fico muito triste ao ver que nutre esse tipo de pensamento. Nada poderia estar mais longe dos meus verdadeiros sentimentos por você!

Você é o Meu amado em quem Me comprazo! Por favor, renuncie a essas dúvidas! Encha-se com o Meu Espírito. Você é muito precioso para Mim e o amo muito. Mas é preciso rechaçar essas mentiras para poder vivenciar o Meu amor. Precisa lançá-los fora! Precisa dar o passo de fé de acreditar que o amo.

Conheço os seus erros, mas o amo assim mesmo. Sei dos seus pecados, mas não o desamparo. Estou bem ao seu lado e cuido de você. Fico triste, muito triste quando você não acredita nisso, não aceita o Meu amor nem Me inclui na sua vida. Acha que é culpa minha que se sente tão distante de Mim, mas não é. Eu amo você! Precisa acreditar que não estou tão longe assim. Eu não quero castigá-lo. Você não precisa ser bom o suficiente para Mim nem se esforçar tanto para sentir-se digno do Meu amor. Você édigno. Mas isso não importa, pois o amo de qualquer forma.

Pare de tentar ser bom o suficiente para Mim, pois jamais conseguirá. Jamais conseguirá fazer o suficiente, mas isso não tem nada a ver. Eu o amo exatamente como você é. Não precisa se preocupar. Venha aqui e ficaremos juntinhos conversando e desfrutando da companhia um do outro. Serei para você mais do que uma luz e melhor do que um caminho conhecido.[5]

Publicado originalmente em janeiro de 1995. Atualizado e republicado em agosto de 2012. Tradução Hebe Rondon Flandoli. Revisão Denise Oliveira.


[1] Mateus 10:29.

[2] João 16:24.

[3] Jeremias 31:3.

[4] João 15:4; Lucas 6:38.

[5] Lucas 1:79.

No Chance of Life By Chance


In the 1700’s, many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800’s, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from nonlife…in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason for the return of this unsupported belief is that science has been defined to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative—the creation of life by an intelligent designer.

Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and reproducing itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Yet, most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life despite the ever increasing amount of evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could never happen. It would be easier to believe that a chemical manufacturing facility found on Mars had built itself.

A classic experiment used to support the belief that life “built itself” was first proposed in 1953 by Stanley Miller. In this experiment, sparks were discharged into an apparatus through which common gases were circulated. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were then collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing a few of the 20 amino acids required by living cells. These results have been heralded as proof that life could have arisen by itself. However, dozens of major problems with this experiment, (clearly understood for more than 30 years), still go unanswered and are not even mentioned to students.1

For instance, our early atmosphere is assumed to have had no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would be impossible. The fact that oxidized rocks throughout the geological record indicate that oxygen has always been present is ignored.

In addition, the same gases which can react to form amino acids in the presence of sunlight undergo known reactions which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases simply could not have been around long enough for life to have developed. Further-more, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed. Where is this “cold trap” in nature?

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life uses only L stereotypes of these random amino acids. Yet, equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from the random, equally reactive mixture produced in this experiment? And what about the other required types of amino acids which have never been formed in this experiment?

These are just some of the myriad problems regarding the fanciful idea that life generated itself. What this experiment really proves is that life could not possibly have developed in this manner. Yet, students are told just the opposite.

No experiment has ever shown that matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that life only comes from pre-existing life. As you search for the truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... is God.



1. Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., Olsen,R.L., The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Chapter 4, Philosophical

Library, 1984.

'We believe that the USA is the major player against Syria and the rest are its instruments'

Posted: 29 Aug 2012 03:31 AM PDT

Robert Fisk, The Independent, 28 August 2012
The battle for Damascus could be heard inside the Foreign Minister’s office yesterday, a vibration of mortars and tank fire from the suburbs of the capital that penetrated Walid Muallem’s inner sanctum, a dangerous heartbeat to match the man’s words.

America was behind Syria’s violence, he said, which will not end even after the battle for Aleppo is over. “I tell the Europeans: ‘I don’t understand your slogan about the welfare of the Syrian people when you are supporting 17 resolutions against the welfare of the Syrian people’. And I tell the Americans: ‘You must read well what you did in Afghanistan and Somalia. I don’t understand your slogan of fighting international terrorism when you are supporting this terrorism in Syria’.”

Walid Muallem spoke in English and very slowly, either because of the disconcerting uproar outside or because this was his first interview with a Western journalist since the Syrian crisis began. At one point, the conflict between rebels and government troops in the suburbs of Douma, Jobar, Arbeen and Qaboun—where a helicopter was shot down—became so loud that even the most phlegmatic of Foreign Ministers in a region plagued by rhetoric glanced towards the window. How did he feel when he heard this, I asked him?

“Before I am a minister, I am a Syrian citizen, and I feel sad at seeing what’s happening in Syria, compared with two years ago,” he said. “There are many Syrians like me—eager to see Syria return to the old days when we were proud of our security.”

I have my doubts about how many Syrians want a return to “the old days” but Muallem claims that perhaps 60 per cent of the country’s violence comes from abroad, from Turkey, from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the United States exercising its influence over all others.

“When the Americans say, ‘We are supplying the opposition with sophisticated instruments of telecommunications’, isn’t this part of a military effort, when they supply the opposition with $25m—and much more from the Gulf and Saudi Arabia?”

Of America’s power, Walid Muallem had no doubt. The Americans, he says, succeeded in frightening the Gulf countries about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, persuaded them to buy arms from the US, fulfilling Franklin Roosevelt’s 1936 dream of maintaining bases for oil transportation.

“We believe that the US is the major player against Syria and the rest are its instruments.” But wasn’t this all really about Iran? I asked, a dodgy question since it suggested a secondary role for Syria in its own tragedy. And when Muallem referred to the Brookings Institution, I groaned.

“You are laughing, but sometimes when you are Foreign Minister, you are obliged to read these things—and there was a study by the Brookings Institute [sic] called The Road to Tehran, and the result of this study was: if you want to contain Iran, you must start with Damascus…

“We were told by some Western envoy at the beginning of this crisis that relations between Syria and Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas are the major elements behind this crisis. If we settle this issue, they [the Americans] will help end the crisis. But no one told us why it is forbidden for Syria to have relations with Iran when most if not all the Gulf countries have very important relations with Iran.”

For the Syrian Foreign Minister, the crisis started with “legitimate demands” subsequently addressed by “legislation and reforms and even a new constitution”. Then along came “foreign elements” who used these legitimate demands “to hijack the peaceful agenda of the people”.

There followed a familiar tale. “I don’t accept as a citizen to return back centuries to a regime which can bring Syria backwards. In principle …no government in the world can accept an armed terrorist group, some of them coming from abroad, controlling streets and villages in the name of ‘jihad’.”

It was the duty of the Syrian government to “protect” its citizens. Assad represents the unity of Syria and all Syrians must participate in creating a new future for Syria. If Syria falls, its neighbour countries will fall. Muallem travels to the non-aligned summit in Iran tomorrow to burnish what he calls their “constructive efforts” to help Syria.

I asked about chemical weapons, of course. If Syria had such weapons, they would never be used against its own people, he said. “We are fighting armed groups inside Aleppo, in the Damascus suburbs, before that in Homs and Idlib and this means fighting within Syrian cities—and our responsibility is to protect our people.”

Court Clears Israeli Army Over Death of U.S. Activist

Posted: 29 Aug 2012 03:32 AM PDT

Reuters, August 28, 2012
HAIFA, Israel (Reuters)—An Israeli court on Tuesday cleared Israel’s military of any blame for the death of American activist Rachel Corrie, who was crushed by an army bulldozer during a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Gaza.

Corrie’s family had accused Israel of intentionally and unlawfully killing their 23-year-old daughter in March 2003, launching a civil case in the northern city of Haifa after a military investigation found the army was not responsible.

Judge Oded Gershon said the death was a “regrettable accident” and invoked a clause that absolved the army because the incident had happened during a war-time situation.

“She did not distance herself from the area, as any thinking person would have done,” he told a packed courtroom.

Corrie, from Olympia, Washington, had joined a small group of international activists trying to stop the Israeli army from demolishing houses in the southern Gaza town of Rafah during the height of a Palestinian uprising.

Her friends said she was wearing a bright orange vest at the time of the incident and was standing on a mound of earth, but had lost her footing as the bulldozer advanced. The driver said he had not seen her and did not hear the cries to stop.

Corrie’s mother, Cindy, denounced the verdict and accused the court of looking to shield the military from justice.

“I believe that this was a bad day not only for our family but a bad day for human rights, for humanity, the rule of law and also for the country of Israel,” she told reporters.

The family said it would appeal the ruling.

Corrie’s death made her a symbol of the uprising, and while her family battled through the courts to establish who was responsible for her killing, her story was dramatized on stage in a dozen countries and told in the book “Let Me Stand Alone”.

Senior U.S. officials criticized the original military investigation into the case, saying it had been neither thorough nor credible. But the judge said the inquiry had been appropriate and pinned no blame on the army.

Corrie’s mother, who struggled to hold back her tears, said she felt let down not just by the Israeli legal system but also by U.S. diplomacy.

“Rachel was a human being and we as her family deserved accountability,” Cindy Corrie said. “The (Israeli) state has worked extremely hard so that the truth behind what happened to my daughter is not exposed.”

U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market

Posted: 29 Aug 2012 03:40 AM PDT

By Thom Shanker, NY Times, August 26, 2012

WASHINGTON—Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.

Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals.

The American weapons sales total was an “extraordinary increase” over the $21.4 billion in deals for 2010, the study found, and was the largest single-year sales total in the history of United States arms exports. The previous high was in fiscal year 2009, when American weapons sales overseas totaled nearly $31 billion.

A worldwide economic decline had suppressed arms sales over recent years. But increasing tensions with Iran drove a set of Persian Gulf nations—Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman—to purchase American weapons at record levels.

The agreements with Saudi Arabia included the purchase of 84 advanced F-15 fighters, a variety of ammunition, missiles and logistics support, and upgrades of 70 of the F-15 fighters in the current fleet.

In keeping with recent trends, most of the weapons purchases, worth about $71.5 billion, were made by developing nations, with about $56.3 billion of that from the United States.

Dogs of War


Posted: 29 Aug 2012 03:48 AM PDT

By Evan Morris, The Word Detective
Dear Word Detective: Any dog owner can well-understand such metaphors as “dogs” for feet (especially dog-tired feet), “dogging” somebody for pestering them, and even “dirty dog” (when I see my best friend rolling in the grass, I know it is bath time). But “dogs of war” for soldiers? I know it comes from Shakespeare, but did he make it up out of whole cloth? Was it a pure metaphor from having seen vicious dogs fighting? Or did they train attack dogs way back then?—Steve Ford.

I haven’t done a rigorous count, but I’d be surprised if there weren’t more phrases and idioms in English involving dogs than any other animal, although cats are obviously also very popular, followed by the ever-popular livestock idioms. But from “dog eat dog” to “a dog’s life” (not a happy one) to “dogleg” (a sharp bend in something) to “hair of the dog that bit you” (a hangover remedy containing alcohol) to “putting on the dog” (possibly from aristocrats who carried small dogs as fashion accessories) to “going to the dogs” (falling to ruin, but originally, according to Plutarch, simply meaning “in an uproar”), it’s apparent that man’s best friend is also man’s most convenient metaphor. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) mentions a nifty one I’d never heard, “to keep a dog and bark oneself,” meaning “to do the work for which one employs others” (“Investors can monitor their portfolios … but mainly let the chosen professionals do their job. After all, why keep a dog and bark yourself?” UPI, 2001). Words to live by, if you can afford them. I guess the rest of us will have to go bark ourselves.

The phrase “dogs of war” does indeed come from Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Act III, in Mark Antony’s soliloquy after Caesar’s assassination. Consumed by foreboding after the murder, Antony predicts chaos for Rome as Caesar’s legacy: “And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge, With Ate by his side come hot from hell, Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice, Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war.” (Ate, incidentally, was a Greek goddess who personified ruin and destruction.)

By “dogs of war” Shakespeare meant destruction, chaos and death on a mass scale, but he was aware, in concocting the metaphor, that dogs had been used in warfare since ancient times, including in Greece, Rome and even Egypt. As sentinels and guards outside encampments, scouts and trackers, and even as weapons of attack, dogs have been employed by armies just about as long as there have been armies, and many military forces (including those of the US) still use dogs for a variety of tasks.

In using the concrete “dogs of war” as a metaphor for the chaos of warfare, Shakespeare created a powerful and vivid phrase, which, not surprisingly, tends to pop up whenever essayists bemoan humanity’s predilection for self-destruction. But the publication in 1974 of Frederick Forsyth’s novel The Dogs of War gave a new currency and a slightly different meaning to the phrase. In Forsyth’s book, set in post-colonial Africa, the “dogs of war” are professional mercenaries, soldiers-for-hire hired by a British industrialist to overthrow the government of a country in order to gain access to its mineral wealth. The popularity of Forsyth’s book and its subsequent Hollywood film adaptation popularized the phrase “dogs of war” as a synonym for “mercenaries” or, a bit more loosely, “enthusiastic and amoral proponents of military action.” Oddly, neither definition has yet made it into the OED.

Incidentally, “to cry havoc” in Shakespeare’s time (and Caesar’s, too) was a specific military command ordering soldiers in battle to loot and seize spoils from the enemy. “Havoc,” from the Old French “havot” (looting), may have been derived from the Latin “habere,” to have.” Shakespeare’s use of the phrase as part of his metaphor probably contributed to the broadening of “havoc” (often combined with “play” or “wreak”) to its modern meaning of “confusion, disorder, or destruction” (“The noise and clatter of high-revving engines can play havoc with a driver’s nerves,” 1969).

The Power of Persevering Prayer

By Andrew Murray

Download Audio (11.7MB)

Jesus told His disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. “And the Lord said, ‘Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly.’”1

Of all the mysteries of the prayer world, the need of persevering prayer is one of the greatest. That the Lord, who is so loving and longing to bless, should have to be asked, time after time, sometimes year after year, before the answer comes, we cannot easily understand. It is also one of the greatest practical difficulties in the exercise of believing prayer. When, after persevering pleading, our prayer remains unanswered, it is often easiest for our lazy flesh, and it has all the appearance of pious submission, to think that we must now cease praying, because God may have His secret reason for withholding His answer to our request.

It is by faith alone that the difficulty is overcome. When once faith has taken its stand on God’s Word and the name of Jesus, and has yielded itself to the leading of the Spirit to seek God’s will and honor alone in its prayer, it need not be discouraged by delay. It knows from Scripture that the power of believing prayer is simply irresistible; real faith can never be disappointed. It knows that just as water, to exercise the irresistible power it can have, must be gathered up and accumulated until the stream can come down in full force, so there must often be a heaping up of prayer until God sees that the measure is full, when the answer comes. It knows that just as the peasant farmer has to take his ten thousand steps to sow his tens of thousands of seeds, each one a part of the preparation for the final harvest, so there is a need for often repeated persevering prayer, all working out some desired blessing. It knows for certain that not a single believing prayer can fail of its effect in heaven, but has its influence, and is treasured up to work out an answer in due time to him who perseveres to the end. It knows that it has to do, not with human thoughts or possibilities, but with the Word of the living God. And so, even as Abraham through so many years “Against all hope, in hope believed” and then “through faith and patience inherited the promise.”2

To enable us, when the answer to our prayer does not come at once, to combine quiet patience and joyful confidence in our persevering prayer, we must especially try to understand the words in which our Lord sets forth the character and conduct, not of the unjust judge, but of our God and Father, toward those whom He allows to cry day and night to Him: “He will not keep putting them off; He will see that they get justice, and quickly.”3

He will avenge them quickly, the Master says. The blessing is all prepared; He is not only willing, but most anxious, to give them what they ask; everlasting love burns with the longing desire to reveal itself fully to its beloved and to satisfy their needs. God will not delay one moment longer than is absolutely necessary; He will do all in His power to expedite and rush the answer.

But why, if this is true and His power is infinite, does it often take so long for the answer to prayer to come? And why must God’s own elect so often, in the middle of suffering and conflict, cry day and night? He is waiting patiently while He listens to them. “See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains.”4 The farmer does, indeed, long for his harvest, but knows that it must have its full amount of sunshine and rain, and he has long patience. A child so often wants to pick the half-ripe fruit; the farmer knows how to wait until the proper time.

Man, in his spiritual nature too, is under the law of gradual growth that reigns in all created life. It is only in the path of development that he can reach his divine destiny. And it is the Father, in whose hand are the times and seasons, who knows the moment when the soul or the church is ripened to that fullness of faith in which it can really take and keep the blessing. Like a father who longs to have his only child home from school, and yet waits patiently until the time of training is completed, so it is with God and His children: He is the patient one, and answers quickly.

The insight into this truth leads the believer to cultivate the corresponding dispositions: patience and faith, waiting and anticipating, are the secret of his perseverance. By faith in the promise of God, we know that we have the petitions we have asked of Him.5 Faith takes and holds the answer in the promise as an unseen spiritual possession, rejoices in it, and praises for it. But there is a difference between the faith that thus holds the Word and knows that it has the answer and the clearer, fuller, riper faith that obtains the promise as a present experience. It is in persevering, not unbelieving, but confident and praising prayer, that the soul grows up into that full union with its Lord in which it can enter upon the possession of the blessing in Him. There may be in these around us, there may be in that great system of being of which we are part, there may be in God’s government, things that have to be put right through our prayer before the answer can fully come: the faith that has, according to the command, believed that it has received, can allow God to take His time; it knows it has prevailed and must prevail. In quiet, persistent, and determined perseverance it continues in prayer and thanksgiving until the blessing comes. And so we see combined what at first sight appears contradictory—the faith that rejoices in the answer of the unseen God as a present possession and the patience that cries day and night until it be revealed. The quickness of God’s patience is met by the triumphant but patient faith of His waiting child.

Our great danger, in this school of the answer delayed, is the temptation to think that, after all, it may not be God’s will to give us what we ask. If our prayer be according to God’s Word, and under the leading of the Spirit, let us not give way to these fears. Let us learn to give God time. God needs time with us. If only we give Him time—that is, time in the daily fellowship with Himself, for Him to exercise the full influence of His presence on us, and time, day by day, in the course of our being kept waiting, for faith to prove its reality and to fill our whole being—He Himself will lead us from faith to vision; we shall see the glory of God. Let no delay shake our faith. Of faith it holds good: first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. Each believing prayer brings us a step nearer the final victory. Each believing prayer helps to ripen the fruit and bring us nearer to it; it fills up the measure of prayer and faith known to God alone; it conquers the hindrances in the unseen world; it hastens the end. Child of God, give the Father time. He is patiently listening to you. He wants the blessing to be rich, and full, and sure; give Him time, while you cry day and night. Only remember the word: “I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly.”

The blessing of such persevering prayer is unspeakable. There is nothing so heart-searching as the prayer of faith. It teaches you to discover and confess, and to give up everything that hinders the coming of the blessing, everything that may not be in accordance with the Father’s will. It leads to closer fellowship with Him who alone can teach us to pray, to a more entire surrender to draw near under no covering but that of the blood and the Spirit. It calls for a closer and more simple abiding in Christ alone. Christian, give God time. He will perfect that which concerns you.6 “Patience—quickly,” this is God’s watchword as you enter the gates of prayer: be it yours too.

Let it be thus whether you pray for yourself or for others. All labor, bodily or mental, needs time and effort: we must give up ourselves up to it. Nature discovers her secrets and yields her treasures only to diligent and thoughtful labor. However little we can understand it, in spiritual farming it is the same: the seed we sow in the soil of heaven, the efforts we put forth, and the influence we seek to exert in the world above, need our whole being: we must give ourselves to prayer. But let us hold firm the great confidence that in due season we will reap if we don’t give up.7

Only give God time. And then keep crying out day and night. “Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly.”8

By Andrew Murray.9 Published on Anchor August 2012.
Read by Simon Peterson.


1 Luke 18:1–8.

2 Romans 4:18; Hebrews 6:12.

3 Luke 18:7–8.

4 James 5:7.

5 1 John 5:15.

6 Psalm 138:8.

7 Galatians 6:9.

8 All Scripture references are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright © 1978 by the New York Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan.

9 Andrew Murray (1828–1917) was a South African Dutch Reformed leader and author of devotional writings. Born in Cape Town, South Africa, Murray became a noted missionary leader and was one of the chief promoters of the call to missions in South Africa.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Israel breaks silence over army abuses

Posted: 28 Aug 2012 03:17 AM PDT

Donald Macintyre, The Independent, 26 August 2012
Hafez Rajabi was marked for life by his encounter with the men of the Israeli army’s Kfir Brigade five years ago this week. Sitting beneath the photograph of his late father, the slightly built 21-year-old in jeans and trainers points to the scar above his right eye where he was hit with the magazine of a soldier’s assault rifle after the patrol came for him at his grandmother’s house before 6am on 28 August 2007.

He lifts his black Boss T-shirt to show another scar running some three inches down his back from the left shoulder when he says he was violently pushed—twice—against a sharp point of the cast-iron balustrade beside the steps leading up to the front door. And all that before he says he was dragged 300m to another house by a unit commander who threatened to kill him if he did not confess to throwing stones at troops, had started to beat him again, and at one point held a gun to his head. “He was so angry,” says Hafez. “I was certain that he was going to kill me.”

This is just one young man’s story, of course. Except that—remarkably—it is corroborated by one of the soldiers who came looking for him that morning. One of 50 testimonies on the military’s treatment of children—published today by the veterans’ organisation Breaking the Silence—describes the same episode, if anything more luridly than Hafez does. “We had a commander, never mind his name, who was a bit on the edge,” the soldier, a first sergeant, testifies. “He beat the boy to a pulp, really knocked him around. He said: ‘Just wait, now we’re taking you.’ Showed him all kinds of potholes on the way, asked him: ‘Want to die? Want to die right here?’ and the kid goes: ‘No, no…’ He was taken into a building under construction. The commander took a stick, broke it on him, boom boom. That commander had no mercy. Anyway the kid could no longer stand on his feet and was already crying. He couldn’t take it any more. He cried. The commander shouted: ‘Stand up!’ Tried to make him stand, but from so much beating he just couldn’t. The commander goes: ‘Don’t put on a show,’ and kicks him some more.”

Two months ago, a report from a team of British lawyers, headed by Sir Stephen Sedley and funded by the UK Foreign Office, accused Israel of serial breaches of international law in its military’s handling of children in custody. The report focused on the interrogation and formal detention of children brought before military courts—mainly for allegedly throwing stones.

For the past eight years, Breaking the Silence has been taking testimonies from former soldiers who witnessed or participated in human rights abuses in the occupied territories. Most of these accounts deal with “rough justice” administered to minors by soldiers on the ground, often without specific authorisation and without recourse to the military courts. Reading them, however, it’s hard not to recall the Sedley report’s shocked reference to the “belief, which was advanced to us by a military prosecutor, that every Palestinian child is a ‘potential terrorist’”.

The soldier puts it differently: “We were sort of indifferent. It becomes a kind of habit. Patrols with beatings happened on a daily basis. We were really going at it. It was enough for you to give us a look that we didn’t like, straight in the eye, and you’d be hit on the spot. We got to such a state and were so sick of being there.”

Some time ago, after he had testified to Breaking the Silence, we had interviewed this soldier. As he sat nervously one morning in a quiet Israeli beauty spot, an incongruous location he had chosen to ensure no one knew he was talking, he went through his recollections about the incident—and several others—once again. His account does not match the Palestinian’s in every detail. (Hafez remembers a gun being pressed to his temple, for example, while the soldier recalls that the commander “actually stuck the gun barrel in the kid’s mouth. Literally”.)

But in every salient respect, the two accounts match. Both agree that Hafez, on the run after hearing that he was wanted, had slipped into his grandmother’s house before dawn. Hafez showed us the room in his grandmother’s house, the last on the left in the corridor leading to her room, where he had been hiding when the soldiers arrived. Sure enough, the soldier says: “We entered, began to trash the place. We found the boy behind the last door on the left. He was totally scared.”

Both Hafez—who has never read or heard the soldier’s account—and the soldier recall the commander forcing him at one point during his ordeal to throw a stone at them, and that the boy did so as feebly as possible. Then, in the soldier’s words “the commander said: ‘Of course you throw stones at a soldier.’ Boom, banged him up even more”.

Perhaps luckily for Hafez, the second, still uncompleted, house is within sight of that of his aunt, Fathia Rajabi, 57, who told us how she had gone there after seeing the soldiers dragging a young man behind a wall, unaware that he was her nephew. “I was crying, ‘God forbids to beat him.’ He recognised my voice and yelled: ‘My aunt, my aunt.’ I tried to enter but the two soldiers pointed their guns at me and yelled rouh min houn, Arabic for ‘go away’. I began slapping my face and shouting at passers-by to come and help. Ten minutes later the soldiers left. I and my mother, my brother and neighbours went to the room. He was bleeding from his nose and head, and his back.”

The soldier, who like his comrades mistook Ms Rajabi for the boy’s mother, recalls: “The commander said to [her]: ‘Keep away!’ Came close, cocked his gun. She got scared. [He shouted:] ‘Anyone gets close, I kill him. Don’t annoy me. I’ll kill him. I have no mercy.’ He was really on the edge. Obviously [the boy] had been beaten up. Anyway, he told them: ‘Get the hell out of here!’ and all hell broke loose. His nose was bleeding. He had really been beaten to a pulp.”

Finally, Hafez’s brother Mousa, 23, a stone cutter who joined his aunt at the second house, recalls a second army jeep arriving and one soldier taking Hafez’s pulse, giving Mousa a bottle of water which he then poured over Hafez’s face and speaking to the commander in Hebrew.

“I understood he was protesting,” says Mousa. This was almost certainly the ‘sensitive’ medic whom the soldier describes as having “caught the commander and said: ‘Don’t touch him any more. That’s it.’” The commander goes: ‘What’s with you, gone leftie?’ And he said: ‘No, I don’t want to see such things being done. All you’re doing to this family is making them produce another suicide bomber. If I were a father and saw you doing this to my kid, I’d seek revenge that very moment.’”

In fact Hafez, did not turn into a “suicide bomber”. He has never even been in prison. Instead, the outcome has been more prosaic. He no longer has nightmares about his experience as he did in the first two months. But as a former mechanic he is currently unemployed partly because there are few jobs outside construction sites and the Hebron quarries, where he says his injuries still prevent him from carrying heavy loads, and partly because he often does “not feel I want to work again”. And he has not—so far—received any compensation, including the more than £1,100 he and Mousa had to spend on his medical treatment in the two years after he was taken.

The report by Sir Stephen Sedley’s team remarks that “as the United Kingdom has itself learned by recent experience in Iraq, the risk of abuse is inherent in any system of justice which depends on military force”. Moreover, Britain, unlike Israel, has no organisation like Breaking the Silence that can document, from the inside, the abuse of victims like Hafez Rajabi who never even make it to court.

But as the Sedley report also says, after drawing attention to the argument that every Palestinian is a “potential terrorist”: “Such a stance seems to us to be the starting point of a spiral of injustice, and one which only Israel, as the occupying power in the West Bank, can reverse.”

Breaking the silence: soldiers’ testimonies

First Sergeant, Kfir Brigade. Salfit 2009. “We took over a school and had to arrest anyone in the village who was between the ages of 17 and 50. When these detainees asked to go to the bathroom, and the soldiers took them there, they beat them to a pulp and cursed them for no reason, and there was nothing that would legitimise hitting them. An Arab was taken to the bathroom to piss, and a soldier slapped him, took him down to the ground while he was shackled and blindfolded. The guy wasn’t rude and did nothing to provoke any hatred or nerves. Just like that, because he is an Arab. He was about 15, hadn’t done a thing.

“In general people at the school were sitting for hours in the sun. They could get water once in a while, but let’s say someone asked for water five times, a soldier could come to him and slap him just like that. I saw many soldiers using their knees to hit them, just out of boredom. Because you’re standing around for 10 hours doing nothing, you’re bored, so you hit them. I know that at the bathroom, there was this ‘demons’ dance’ as it was called. Anyone who brought a Palestinian there—it was catastrophic. Not bleeding beatings—they stayed dry—but still beatings.”

First Sergeant, Combat Engineering Corps. Ramallah 2006-07. “There was this incident where a ‘straw widow’ was put up following a riot at Qalandiya on a Friday, in an abandoned house near the square. Soldiers got out with army clubs and beat people to a pulp. Finally the children who remained on the ground were arrested. The order was to run, make people fall to the ground. There was a 10- to 12-man team, four soldiers lighting up the area. People were made to fall to the ground, and then the soldiers with the clubs would go over to them and beat them. A slow runner was beaten—that was the rule.

“We were told not to use it on people’s heads. I don’t remember where we were told to hit, but as soon as a person on the ground is beaten with such a club, it’s difficult to be particular.”

First Sergeant, Kfir Brigade. Hebron 2006-07. “We’d often provoke riots there. We’d be on patrol, walking in the village, bored, so we’d trash shops, find a detonator, beat someone to a pulp, you know how it is. Search, mess it all up. Say we’d want a riot? We’d go up to the windows of a mosque, smash the panes, throw in a stun grenade, make a big boom, then we’d get a riot.

“Every time we’d catch Arab kids. You catch him, push the gun against his body. He can’t make a move—he’s totally petrified. He only goes: ‘No, no, army.’ You can tell he’s petrified. He sees you’re mad, that you couldn’t care less about him and you’re hitting him really hard the whole time. And all those stones flying around. You grab him like this, you see? We were mean, really. Only later did I begin to think about these things, that we’d lost all sense of mercy.”

The trouble with freedom


Posted: 28 Aug 2012 03:12 AM PDT

John Gray, BBC, 24 Aug. 2012
In February 1917, a young boy was reading a Russian translation of one of the books of Jules Verne in a street in St Petersburg (at the time called Petrograd) where a bookseller had laid out his stock in the snow.

The boy heard a commotion and, looking up from the book, saw a terrified man being frog-marched down the street. The ashen-faced figure was one of the city’s policemen, who were among the last functionaries of the Tsarist regime to remain loyal.

Discovered hiding on the roof of a building, he had been brought down to be taken to what he evidently feared would be his end. What happened to the man cannot be known, but his deathly white face as he was marched away made an enduring impression on the boy who witnessed the scene.

Aged seven at the time, the young boy went on to be the philosopher and historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin, who spoke of the episode repeatedly in conversations I had with him towards the end of his life. He often contrasted the mood of optimism that accompanied the February revolution with the darker atmosphere that followed the Bolshevik coup in October of the same year.

Yet the incident occurred during the first of these upheavals, and it was clear that the impact it had on him had nothing to do with any differences between the two revolutions. But I believe there may have been a subtler effect on Berlin’s thinking, which has something important to say to us today.

Not long after the start of the 21st Century, we like to tell ourselves an uplifting story in which freedom expands whenever tyranny is overthrown.

We believe that freedom and democracy are inseparable, so that when a dictator is toppled the result is not only a more accountable type of government but also greater liberty throughout society.

This belief forms the justification of the repeated attempts by Western governments to export their own political model to countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. In this simple and seemingly compelling story, freedom and democracy are a package that can be delivered anywhere in the world.

An older generation of thinkers recognised that freedom and democracy don’t always go hand in hand. The 19th Century liberal John Stuart Mill was a life-long campaigner for greater democracy, but he also worried that personal liberty would shrink once governments could claim to express the will of the majority.

Born in 1872 and dying in 1970 at the age of 98, Mill’s godson Bertrand Russell agreed and shocked many people when he observed that while Britain after World War II was a more democratic society than the one he’d grown up in, it was also in some ways less free. For Russell, as for Mill, liberty was one thing, democracy another. It’s a deeply unfashionable view, but I think essentially correct.

Where this older generation differed from many today is that they thought of freedom as a lack of restriction on how we can act. Being free meant simply the absence of obstacles to living as we choose. While it’s a view that’s been criticised because it seems to see individuals as being separate from society, it seems to me to capture better than any other what freedom means and why it’s important for every human being.

We need freedom because our goals and values are highly diverse and often quite different from those of the people around us. Having a voice in collective decisions—the basis of democracy—is a fine thing, but it won’t protect your freedom if the majority is hostile to the way you choose to live.

Many will tell you that this danger can be dealt with by bills of rights that put some freedoms beyond the range of political interference. But politics has a habit of finding ways around the law, and when the state is weak declarations of rights tend to be unenforceable.

Once you think of freedom as living as you choose, you’ll see that it’s not just tyrants that stand in its way. The world is full of failed and enfeebled states in which the main threats to freedom come from organised crime, ethnic conflict and militant sectarian groups.

If you live in some provinces of Mexico, you’re likely to be more afraid of ruthless drug cartels than of corrupt and ineffectual governments. In parts of the Balkans in the 1990s, you’d be afraid of lawless militias, operating on ethnic lines but often intertwined with organised crime. In these cases, it’s a condition of near-anarchy rather than tyranny that threatens freedom.

In other cases, it’s the power of fundamentalism that can most threaten your freedom.

Think of Iraq. You only have to consider what happened to the Marsh Arabs, whose ancient way of life was destroyed by draining the marshlands and blowing up villages, or the use of chemical weapons against Kurds, to recall how severe Saddam’s repression could be. Yet freedom wasn’t enhanced for everyone once the dictator had been removed.

Today, if you’re an Iraqi woman and opt for a lifestyle that fails to square with a narrow interpretation of religion, you’re at risk of violent attack from fundamentalist groups. If you’re known to be gay, you risk being hunted down and killed.

If you belong to a religious minority such as Christians or Mandeans (a branch of Gnosticism that was practised in the region for about 2,000 years), you face persecution and the risk of extinction.

The country has a type of democratic government, but the state is too weak and fractured and politics too dominated by sectarianism to prevent these assaults on freedom. Syria is different from Iraq in many ways, but it’s hard to avoid fearing that a similar pattern may be emerging there.

In the reassuring story we like to repeat to ourselves, the emergence of these new threats is just a phase—in time these countries will achieve the type of freedom-loving democracy that we believe we enjoy. But we can say this only because we’ve forgotten our own history and neglect the dangers we currently face.

The democratic nation-states that exist in Europe today came into being in a process—extending from the French revolution through the collapse of the Habsburg empire after WWI to the break-up of former Yugoslavia—that included repressing the freedom of minorities, and the process hasn’t ended with democracy and freedom co-existing in harmony as we like to think.

The far right is on the march in many European countries, using its rights to attack minorities. The dictatorships of the 1930s are unlikely to return, but toxic democracies based on nationalism and xenophobia could emerge in a number of countries and be in power for long periods.

Coming from Russia, where the despotism of the Tsars was replaced by a far more repressive system of government, Isaiah Berlin didn’t need English liberal thinkers to teach him that the overthrow of tyranny doesn’t by itself expand liberty. Where he was at one with them was in understanding that liberty is a fragile achievement that can be undermined in many different ways.

We’ve come to believe a story in which freedom is the natural human condition, which only tyrants prevent everyone from enjoying. The reality is that when a tyrant is toppled we can’t know what will come next.

When we tell our tale of freedom spreading across the world, we might pause to think for a moment of the young boy who looked up from his book to see a terrified policeman being dragged off to an unknown fate.

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith