Pedro e Paulo Coragem e Fé. filme completo - portugês
Sunday, February 16, 2014
If Kerry Wants To Make Peace in the Middle East, He Should Just Put God In Charge
By Adam Garfinkle, Tablet, February 13, 2014
The current negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, are likely sometime this year to culminate in an agreed FAPS—that is, a Framework Agreement for a Peace Settlement—but only by means of studied, deliberate ambiguity: a generous use of weasel words, the allowance of unilateral reservations, a nonbinding status, and the careful avoidance of the more intractable issues. One of those supposedly intractable issues, as everyone knows, is Jerusalem.
Except that it really isn’t intractable at all. There’s no reason to tiptoe around Jerusalem in the current negotiations because a solution is there for the taking, is even sort of obvious, and has been obvious for many years.
It’s clear that the two sides, Israeli and Palestinian, will never agree that the other should have exclusive national sovereignty over the city, or that one should have “more sovereignty” than the other, which is anyway oxymoronic unless we allow the Mad Hatter to define sovereignty. Only two alternatives remain: Split or share sovereignty 50-50 (also an oxymoron), or, much better, agree to leave the question of national sovereignty over Jerusalem permanently in abeyance, and instead acknowledge the sovereignty of God. The Zero Option, in other words; or, if you prefer, the God Option.
I say this solution has been obvious for a while because the last time the two sides at least seemed close to a deal, in the spring and summer of 2000, four proposals along these lines had been put forth. First there was King Hussein of Jordan. The king, who died in February 1999, had been saying for years that the holy places in the city should be above conventional sovereignty and that sovereignty should be God’s. He never suggested that the entire city, or even the entire Old City, should be handled that way, but he didn’t rule it out either.
Of course Jordan had a role historically in the city, so Hussein’s motives were not entirely disinterested. After the Old City fell into Israeli hands in June 1967, Jordan still ran the waqf, the Islamic endowment, on Haram al-Sharif, or the Temple Mount, for many years—until somewhat grudgingly granting that role to the Palestinian Authority. The king also used his own family money to regild the dome on the Dome of the Rock back in 1993 and 1994. A dozen years or so ago Jordan was Jerusalem’s third suitor, and the logic of Hussein’s idea was to keep suitors one and two at bay for as long as possible. Whatever the motive, the king deserves credit for giving first voice, as far back as the early 1980s, to ideas about shared control without repartition and divine sovereignty for the core symbolic parts of the city.
Another advocate in 2000, also with a parochial interest of a sort in a God Option, was Michael Sabbah, the Roman Catholic patriarch. He picked up where King Hussein left off and widened the applicable scope of the idea. A third, who was simply trying to help, was Hebrew University law professor—and later winner of the Israel Prize—Ruth Lapidoth. For what it’s worth, I had the same idea in June 1981, which struck somewhere over the Atlantic during a plane ride from New York to Amman. I jotted down the essence on a piece of paper and remembered it later, during those heady, occasionally hopeful days between the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993 and Camp David in 2000.
The main problem with Jerusalem, the Old City in particular, is not anything to do with security or voting or collecting taxes or providing basic services or recording land titles or establishing rational municipal boundaries—although, truth to tell, all these matters could use some concerted attention. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to pragmatic, quotidian arrangements, things work pretty well most of the time.
No, the real problem is symbolic. Jerusalem, beyond being a real place, is a very symbolic place. It’s too symbolic for its own good, perhaps, but it is what it is. Because of this, neither side can countenance concessions in matters of principle. Even were Israeli or Palestinian leaders to consider such a thing, rabid partisans of one side or another—probably both—would crucify them for all their trouble. (I use the word advisedly.) It’s just not possible to divide a mystical whole. Things or places with the aura of eternity floating about them somehow defy the law of integers.
The two sides—and others with an interest like Hashemite Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Christians of various descriptions—can far more easily swallow a no-national-sovereignty solution. Human nature being what it is, it’s much easier to accept not having something if your rival doesn’t have it either.
Moreover, the religious leaders who swarm the city would likely be embarrassed to deny sovereignty to God, so the idea might get a boost by default from the unlikeliest but sweetest source of all: the forced magnanimity of the otherwise voraciously self-interested. Hypocrisy often transforms itself into the advance wave of a new truth, and that could be the case here as well.
The Zero Option is not about the internationalization of Jerusalem but about its complete symbolic de-nationalization. No foreign nationals or international bureaucrats are necessary, or desirable, in this scheme. Indeed, if the two sides adopt the Zero Option for Jerusalem, it would mean not more institutional flags, crests, and political icons in the Old City, but no flags, crests, and political icons anywhere in the Old City. In a two-state solution Jerusalem would remain Israel’s capital, as it has always been, with the Knesset well beyond the walls of the Old City. A Palestinian state could have its capital in East Jerusalem, but no government offices of any kind could be located, in perpetuity, in the Old City.
Jerusalem would then in the fullness of time have a much better chance of becoming a genuine city of peace, a genuinely holy place, if nationalism and politics bowed for once to a unified expression of the oneness of humanity, a central tenet of all monotheistic faiths. The symbolism of God’s sovereignty in Jerusalem might eventually engender real tolerance among all the city’s inhabitants, instead of the mere forbearance we mostly have now.
The Zero Option for Jerusalem has one more argument solidly in its favor: It leaves the resolution of all geographically specific theological tussles in and around the city up to God—which, of course, is the case anyway. Will the Jews build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount, after maybe an earthquake destroys al-Aqsa? Will Mohammed descend upon the city crossing the Western Wall, mounted on Buraq, during the Day of Judgment? Will Jews and Muslims both be surprised when Jesus returns to the city, skipping down from the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, to declare the Kingdom of God? None of the above? One of the above? All of the above? Let God sort it out.
We should be lucky enough to get to a point where solving Jerusalem is all that stands between hope and success. But if we do, solving Jerusalem need not prove that hard, especially if the Zero Option is written into the developing FAPS now. It could be that neither side would endorse the idea right away, but both will come to see that it’s the only way in the end to crack the nut. In the meantime, we would be wise to take God’s silence over the issue as a sign of his assent.
The current negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, are likely sometime this year to culminate in an agreed FAPS—that is, a Framework Agreement for a Peace Settlement—but only by means of studied, deliberate ambiguity: a generous use of weasel words, the allowance of unilateral reservations, a nonbinding status, and the careful avoidance of the more intractable issues. One of those supposedly intractable issues, as everyone knows, is Jerusalem.
Except that it really isn’t intractable at all. There’s no reason to tiptoe around Jerusalem in the current negotiations because a solution is there for the taking, is even sort of obvious, and has been obvious for many years.
It’s clear that the two sides, Israeli and Palestinian, will never agree that the other should have exclusive national sovereignty over the city, or that one should have “more sovereignty” than the other, which is anyway oxymoronic unless we allow the Mad Hatter to define sovereignty. Only two alternatives remain: Split or share sovereignty 50-50 (also an oxymoron), or, much better, agree to leave the question of national sovereignty over Jerusalem permanently in abeyance, and instead acknowledge the sovereignty of God. The Zero Option, in other words; or, if you prefer, the God Option.
I say this solution has been obvious for a while because the last time the two sides at least seemed close to a deal, in the spring and summer of 2000, four proposals along these lines had been put forth. First there was King Hussein of Jordan. The king, who died in February 1999, had been saying for years that the holy places in the city should be above conventional sovereignty and that sovereignty should be God’s. He never suggested that the entire city, or even the entire Old City, should be handled that way, but he didn’t rule it out either.
Of course Jordan had a role historically in the city, so Hussein’s motives were not entirely disinterested. After the Old City fell into Israeli hands in June 1967, Jordan still ran the waqf, the Islamic endowment, on Haram al-Sharif, or the Temple Mount, for many years—until somewhat grudgingly granting that role to the Palestinian Authority. The king also used his own family money to regild the dome on the Dome of the Rock back in 1993 and 1994. A dozen years or so ago Jordan was Jerusalem’s third suitor, and the logic of Hussein’s idea was to keep suitors one and two at bay for as long as possible. Whatever the motive, the king deserves credit for giving first voice, as far back as the early 1980s, to ideas about shared control without repartition and divine sovereignty for the core symbolic parts of the city.
Another advocate in 2000, also with a parochial interest of a sort in a God Option, was Michael Sabbah, the Roman Catholic patriarch. He picked up where King Hussein left off and widened the applicable scope of the idea. A third, who was simply trying to help, was Hebrew University law professor—and later winner of the Israel Prize—Ruth Lapidoth. For what it’s worth, I had the same idea in June 1981, which struck somewhere over the Atlantic during a plane ride from New York to Amman. I jotted down the essence on a piece of paper and remembered it later, during those heady, occasionally hopeful days between the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993 and Camp David in 2000.
The main problem with Jerusalem, the Old City in particular, is not anything to do with security or voting or collecting taxes or providing basic services or recording land titles or establishing rational municipal boundaries—although, truth to tell, all these matters could use some concerted attention. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to pragmatic, quotidian arrangements, things work pretty well most of the time.
No, the real problem is symbolic. Jerusalem, beyond being a real place, is a very symbolic place. It’s too symbolic for its own good, perhaps, but it is what it is. Because of this, neither side can countenance concessions in matters of principle. Even were Israeli or Palestinian leaders to consider such a thing, rabid partisans of one side or another—probably both—would crucify them for all their trouble. (I use the word advisedly.) It’s just not possible to divide a mystical whole. Things or places with the aura of eternity floating about them somehow defy the law of integers.
The two sides—and others with an interest like Hashemite Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Christians of various descriptions—can far more easily swallow a no-national-sovereignty solution. Human nature being what it is, it’s much easier to accept not having something if your rival doesn’t have it either.
Moreover, the religious leaders who swarm the city would likely be embarrassed to deny sovereignty to God, so the idea might get a boost by default from the unlikeliest but sweetest source of all: the forced magnanimity of the otherwise voraciously self-interested. Hypocrisy often transforms itself into the advance wave of a new truth, and that could be the case here as well.
The Zero Option is not about the internationalization of Jerusalem but about its complete symbolic de-nationalization. No foreign nationals or international bureaucrats are necessary, or desirable, in this scheme. Indeed, if the two sides adopt the Zero Option for Jerusalem, it would mean not more institutional flags, crests, and political icons in the Old City, but no flags, crests, and political icons anywhere in the Old City. In a two-state solution Jerusalem would remain Israel’s capital, as it has always been, with the Knesset well beyond the walls of the Old City. A Palestinian state could have its capital in East Jerusalem, but no government offices of any kind could be located, in perpetuity, in the Old City.
Jerusalem would then in the fullness of time have a much better chance of becoming a genuine city of peace, a genuinely holy place, if nationalism and politics bowed for once to a unified expression of the oneness of humanity, a central tenet of all monotheistic faiths. The symbolism of God’s sovereignty in Jerusalem might eventually engender real tolerance among all the city’s inhabitants, instead of the mere forbearance we mostly have now.
The Zero Option for Jerusalem has one more argument solidly in its favor: It leaves the resolution of all geographically specific theological tussles in and around the city up to God—which, of course, is the case anyway. Will the Jews build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount, after maybe an earthquake destroys al-Aqsa? Will Mohammed descend upon the city crossing the Western Wall, mounted on Buraq, during the Day of Judgment? Will Jews and Muslims both be surprised when Jesus returns to the city, skipping down from the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, to declare the Kingdom of God? None of the above? One of the above? All of the above? Let God sort it out.
We should be lucky enough to get to a point where solving Jerusalem is all that stands between hope and success. But if we do, solving Jerusalem need not prove that hard, especially if the Zero Option is written into the developing FAPS now. It could be that neither side would endorse the idea right away, but both will come to see that it’s the only way in the end to crack the nut. In the meantime, we would be wise to take God’s silence over the issue as a sign of his assent.
Belgian lawmakers clash over child euthanasia bill
By John-Thor Dahlburg, AP, Feb 12, 2014
BRUSSELS (AP)—Belgian lawmakers clashed sharply on Wednesday over whether to grant terminally ill children the right to ask to die, a legal option already possessed by the country’s adults.
The issue is pitting backers who see it as a question of mercy against opponents who claim the law is rushed, flawed and lacking medical rationale. Despite the spirited debate in the House of Representatives, the bill is widely expected to pass on Thursday.
“Our responsibility is to allow everybody to live, but also to die, in dignity,” said Karine Lalieux, a Socialist member of the House of Representatives who favors extending Belgium’s 2002 euthanasia law to minors under 18, with the added conditions that their parents approve and they understand what the decision means.
Sonja Becq, a Christian Democratic colleague, denounced the potential change, saying modern-day science is capable of relieving pain in very sick children until their illnesses runs their natural course.
“We cannot accept that euthanasia be presented as a ‘happy ending’,” she said. Belgium sets legal limits on who can legally acquire cigarettes and alcohol, she said—so why not for euthanasia?
The Senate, the other chamber of the federal legislature, adopted the legislation by a wide margin in December. If it passes in the House, all that would be needed for child euthanasia to become legal in Belgium is the signature of King Philippe, normally a formality.
The only other countries to have legalized euthanasia are two of Belgium’s neighbors, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. In the Netherlands, children between 12 and 15 may be euthanized with parents’ permission, while those who are 16 or 17 must notify their parents beforehand.
To guarantee that sick children understand what euthanasia signifies, Belgium’s proposed legislation requires they demonstrate to a psychologist or psychiatrist that they possess the “capacity of discernment.” Parents would also have to agree with their child’s choice.
As with adults who seek euthanasia, the children would have to be in a state of unrelieved suffering, be afflicted with a terminal illness and be near death.
Foes of the law in the House said the proposal was full of holes.
“Can you tell me what a ‘state of discernment’ means?” asked Becq.
Does near death mean “three days, three weeks, six months?” asked Steven Vanackere, another Christian Democrat.
Though one survey has found 75 percent of Belgians in favor of extending the euthanasia law to children, there has been vocal opposition, with Andre Leonard, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, in the vanguard.
This week, an “open letter” carrying the names of 160 Belgian pediatricians was issued to argue against the new law, claiming there is no urgent need for it.
Other doctors have come out in favor, and say that only a handful of children, all teenagers, would be entitled to seek application of the law each year.
BRUSSELS (AP)—Belgian lawmakers clashed sharply on Wednesday over whether to grant terminally ill children the right to ask to die, a legal option already possessed by the country’s adults.
The issue is pitting backers who see it as a question of mercy against opponents who claim the law is rushed, flawed and lacking medical rationale. Despite the spirited debate in the House of Representatives, the bill is widely expected to pass on Thursday.
“Our responsibility is to allow everybody to live, but also to die, in dignity,” said Karine Lalieux, a Socialist member of the House of Representatives who favors extending Belgium’s 2002 euthanasia law to minors under 18, with the added conditions that their parents approve and they understand what the decision means.
Sonja Becq, a Christian Democratic colleague, denounced the potential change, saying modern-day science is capable of relieving pain in very sick children until their illnesses runs their natural course.
“We cannot accept that euthanasia be presented as a ‘happy ending’,” she said. Belgium sets legal limits on who can legally acquire cigarettes and alcohol, she said—so why not for euthanasia?
The Senate, the other chamber of the federal legislature, adopted the legislation by a wide margin in December. If it passes in the House, all that would be needed for child euthanasia to become legal in Belgium is the signature of King Philippe, normally a formality.
The only other countries to have legalized euthanasia are two of Belgium’s neighbors, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. In the Netherlands, children between 12 and 15 may be euthanized with parents’ permission, while those who are 16 or 17 must notify their parents beforehand.
To guarantee that sick children understand what euthanasia signifies, Belgium’s proposed legislation requires they demonstrate to a psychologist or psychiatrist that they possess the “capacity of discernment.” Parents would also have to agree with their child’s choice.
As with adults who seek euthanasia, the children would have to be in a state of unrelieved suffering, be afflicted with a terminal illness and be near death.
Foes of the law in the House said the proposal was full of holes.
“Can you tell me what a ‘state of discernment’ means?” asked Becq.
Does near death mean “three days, three weeks, six months?” asked Steven Vanackere, another Christian Democrat.
Though one survey has found 75 percent of Belgians in favor of extending the euthanasia law to children, there has been vocal opposition, with Andre Leonard, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, in the vanguard.
This week, an “open letter” carrying the names of 160 Belgian pediatricians was issued to argue against the new law, claiming there is no urgent need for it.
Other doctors have come out in favor, and say that only a handful of children, all teenagers, would be entitled to seek application of the law each year.
100 Americans die of drug overdoses each day
By Harold Pollack, Washington Post, February 7, 2014
By now, virtually everyone has heard that actor Philip Seymour Hoffman died last Sunday of an apparent heroin overdose. What fewer people know is that, on the same day, roughly 100 other Americans also likely died from drug overdoses—statistically speaking.
The rise of fatal overdoses over the last 15 years is startling. In 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 38,329 fatal drug overdoses in the United States, more than double the 16,849 fatal overdoses observed in 1999.
Overdosing is now the leading cause of accidental death in the United States, accounting for more deaths than traffic fatalities or gun homicides and suicides. Fatal overdoses from opiate medications such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone have quadrupled since 1999, accounting for an estimated 16,651 deaths in 2010.
By now, virtually everyone has heard that actor Philip Seymour Hoffman died last Sunday of an apparent heroin overdose. What fewer people know is that, on the same day, roughly 100 other Americans also likely died from drug overdoses—statistically speaking.
The rise of fatal overdoses over the last 15 years is startling. In 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 38,329 fatal drug overdoses in the United States, more than double the 16,849 fatal overdoses observed in 1999.
Overdosing is now the leading cause of accidental death in the United States, accounting for more deaths than traffic fatalities or gun homicides and suicides. Fatal overdoses from opiate medications such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone have quadrupled since 1999, accounting for an estimated 16,651 deaths in 2010.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
The Peace that Passes Understanding! - How do we get it?
As I was reading the Bible last night, I came across the verse, “Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful, and the end of that mirth is heaviness.” (Proverbs 14:13) And later, “The righteous has hope in his death.” (Proverbs 14:32b) Those verses got me into thinking. It was the second time recently where verses about sadness and death seemed to reach out to me. Maybe it was a result of the sudden death of the son of a friend of mine. It brought back to me the death of my own son.
But how do we get “that peace which passes all understanding” which is spoken of in God’s word? I did a Google check and found Philippians 4:7 was the reference I was looking for. It says, “And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”
Ultimately, it is only God that can give us the peace of mind that we seek. We may have a cup of wine, or a good meal. We may watch a television program or movie and laugh while relaxing together. I had done that, that same night. But at last, as I lay down to sleep, I was still worried about some situations in my family that seemed to be unresolved. There seemed to be some blockage holding things back.
Why is it I do not have that peace that His word speaks of? His sweet voice came to me in my conscience, “You need to pray and commit things to Me. That’s where you will find the peace.” And, so, I did. Because unless we come into the presence of God, no matter how much amusement we seek to stop us of from thinking and being anxious about the future, we will not find peace. The word amusement actually means “away from thinking, or not thinking.” Like the word atheist means “one who does not believe in God.” The word “muse” means “to think,” therefore “a - muse” means “to not think.” We have amusements to stop us from thinking, because often our thoughts are anxious thoughts. Jesus has told us not to take any anxious thought for tomorrow. But how do we do that. It is easier said than done.
We may have health problems, or financial problems. We may have problems with our children or grandchildren. How can we get rid of that heavy feeling, that worry that we feel, be it from our own lacks, or darts from the enemy? I have found the only real cure is coming into the presence of God in prayer and praise, in song and reading His word and pouring out my heart and mind to the Lord.
God has promised to give us peace which passes all understanding. But that peace can only be found if we spend time in the presence of the Prince of Peace – Jesus Christ. His word says, “Great peace have they which love Thy law and nothing shall offend them.” (Psalm 119:165) We need to spend time meditating on His word. We need to spend time in prayer and thanksgiving. We need to spend time pouring out our hearts, our minds, our troubles to Him who is the author and finisher of our faith.
God says, “I will keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Me, because he trusts in Me.” (Isaiah 26:3 paraphrased) Jesus says, “Come unto Me all you that labor and are heavy laden. Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me for I am meek and lowly in heart and you shall find rest unto your souls.” (Matthew 11:28) In other words, we shall find the peace of mind and heart when we cast our burdens unto the Lord and rest in Him. When we rest in the Lord, we know everything is going to be alright because we trust in Him.
When l found the verse about peace after writing this, the verses before and after it confirmed what I have shared. Philippians 4:6 the verse before the “peace” verse says, “Be careful (or anxious) for nothing.” In other words do not be anxious or worried. “But in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your request be known unto God.” You see, we need to bring those worries to God in desperate prayer. That’s why it says “prayer and supplication.” When we do, the next verse follows. “And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”
Philippians 4:8, the verse after the “peace” verse, gives us some instruction on how to maintain that peace once we have found it. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Paul goes on to say in the next verse that if we do the things which he has taught us “the God of peace shall be with you.”
Let “the peace of God which passes all understanding … keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” Amen!
