Showing posts with label defamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defamation. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2026
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Israeli archeologists’ discovery suggests the Bible is wrong about camels
EndrTimes:
Here's a scoop. Yet, another attempt (in a long sequence by so-called experts and scholars) to diminish the authenticity and veracity of the Holy Bible. In vain, they will continue to challenge the Word of God; but will fail in convincing the faithful to abandon their Faith.
Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University claim camels came to biblical lands centuries after the time of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph; scholars debate impact on historical accuracy of the Bible
By Carol Kuruvilla / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, February 13, 2014, 1:25 PM
FoggyImages/Getty Images/Flickr Open
Archeologists analyzed camel bones found in the Aravah Valley in Israel and in the Wadi Finan in Jordan.
New archeological evidence is throwing cold water on the biblical image of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph riding camels through the desert.
A team of Israeli archaeologists has studied the oldest-known camel bones from this ancient period and the results are in — camels reportedly started plodding around the eastern Mediterranean region centuries after the Bible tells us they did.
RELATED: DEAD SEA SCROLLS PUBLISHED ONLINE
After analyzing the facts from radioactive-carbon dating, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University claim the domesticated animal arrived on the biblical scene near the 10th century B.C. Scholars believe Abraham lived at least six centuries before that, Time reports.
Still, stories about the Jewish patriarchs contain more than 20 references to the domesticated camel, according to The New York Times. In Genesis 24, Abraham sends his servant to find a wife for his son Isaac. The servant traveled on his master’s camels.
RELATED: BILL NYE ‘THE SCIENCE GUY’ DEBATES CREATION MUSEUM FOUNDER
Some scholars took these anachronisms as proof that the Bible was written centuries after the events that they talk about.
Frans Lemmens/Getty Images
Camels are mentioned numerous times in the early chapters of the Bible.
Stories about camels in the Bible “do not encapsulate memories from the second millennium,” said Noam Mizrahi, an Israeli biblical scholar, “but should be viewed as back-projections from a much later period.”
RELATED: ANCIENT HEBREW TABLET ON DISPLAY IN JERUSALEM
For the study, Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef dug through the remains of an ancient copper smelting camp in Israel’s Aravah Valley and in Jordan’s Wadi Finan. The bones they found deep under the ground belonged to wild animals that the ancients used to hunt for meat. The domesticated camels could be identified by signs in their leg bones that indicated they carried heavy packages.
The research suggests that camels were introduced to the region suddenly, perhaps as Egyptians traveled along the Mediterranean trade routes.
RELATED: EXPERTS REMAIN SKEPTICAL OF 'NOAH'S ARK' CLAIM
But Bible defenders claim that even though the findings challenge the ancient text’s time line, they do not detract from the overall spiritual message.
“If the biblical writers are not interested in the facts, but rather in getting a message across, then people of faith can concentrate, instead of trying to verify every last item in the Bible, on what the overall message of the story is, not whether it is historically true,” said Carol Meyers, a religion professor at Duke University.
Source
.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
New Alabama Gov. Criticized for Christian-Only Message
Non-Christians Accuse Robert Bentley of Treating Them as Second-Class
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Jan. 19, 2011
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley offended some of his new constituents this week when he told a church crowd that he would only accept as his brothers and sisters those who had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.
"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother," Bentley said Monday at a church service held moments after his inauguration, according to The Birmingham News.
Some non-Christians said they were offended by the comments and questioned whether the new governor would offer equal treatment to people of other faiths and non-believers.
"We live in a country that is hugely diverse," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists, the country's oldest atheist civil rights group. "The governor basically said: 'If you're not like me, you're second class.' This is a man puts the Bible above the Constitution and his preacher above the president. His words are disgusting and bigoted and reinforce Alabama's reputation for being backward and bigoted."
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/alabama-gov-robert-bentley-criticized-christian-message/story?id=12648307
Related: (Latest News)
Alabama Governor Apologizes for Controversial Religious Remarks
Published January 19, 2011
FoxNews.com
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – It took more than two days for Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley to apologize for controversial remarks he made during a Martin Luther King day speech in which he condemned the beliefs of non-Christians.
Bentley, a Republican, told a crowd at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church on Monday that if they haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, they are not his brother or his sister.
On Wednesday afternoon, Bentley issued a public apology: "If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way."
Bill Nigut, the Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, believes Bentley should have been aware of the possible repercussions of his initial statement.
“The governor does not have to be a seasoned politician to understand the impact of remarks like that,” he said. “These are remarks of a man who truly believes what he said, apparently. This seems to be quite clear that Christians are part of an exclusive relationship he has with his brothers and sisters and the rest of us are not.”
Bentley was sworn in shortly before he spoke at the church where the late civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was once a pastor. According to The Birmingham News, during his speech he said it was important for Alabamians to ''love and care for each other." He also told the crowd he is color blind. But just minutes later, he went on to say if they don’t have the same ‘daddy’ then they are not brothers and sisters.
"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said during his speech. ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."
“In the city and the state, there are segments of the population who were offended and others said it was good what he said,” said Joey Kennedy, an opinion writer for The Birmingham News who has closely watched the reaction to Bentley's remarks. “He is not a civilian anymore; he is not a private person anymore. He is the governor of Alabama every day, 24-hours a day.”
Kennedy went on to say that the fact Bentley chose to deliver his remarks in a church doesn’t make it appropriate. “The forum doesn’t matter. Look at the forum, it was a commemoration of Martin Luther King Day to honor the legacy of Dr. King, which was anything but exclusionary,” he said.
Gov. Bentley’s director of communications, Rebekah Mason, sent Fox News a statement on behalf of the governor.
“The governor had intended no offense by his remarks. He is the governor of all the people, Christians, non-Christians alike.”
At this time, he is not scheduled for an on-camera appearance to address Monday’s speech.
For Nigut and the ADL, the statement isn’t enough. He is looking for something more.
“An apology is only meaningful if it is consistent with a sincere understanding of what a person has done wrong. If Gov. Bentley were to say: ‘I realize I was wrong that we are all brothers and sister, and not single out only the ones who believe in Jesus Christ,’” Nigut said.
So is the governor simply exercising the First Amendment or is the statement up for interpretation?
Gene Policinski, the executive director of The First Amendment Center, says Bentley needs to keep in mind, like all public officials, that his office represents all faiths.
“When a politician might reveal his beliefs, it is creating an impression,” Policinski said. “Religion is a part of many peoples’ lives, but there is an implication when a particular faith receives favorable or disfavorable treatment. It is a very difficult line to draw, but it is one any politician has to be aware of.”
Kennedy agrees with the statement that Bentley has First Amendment rights, but he is speaking as the governor, the one person who has the bully pulpit of the state.
“I challenge it was truly a religious forum, it was an audience of a lot of different people,” he said.
Fox News' Elizabeth Prann and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/alabama-governor-apologizes-controversial-mlk-speech/
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Jan. 19, 2011
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley offended some of his new constituents this week when he told a church crowd that he would only accept as his brothers and sisters those who had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.
"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother," Bentley said Monday at a church service held moments after his inauguration, according to The Birmingham News.
Some non-Christians said they were offended by the comments and questioned whether the new governor would offer equal treatment to people of other faiths and non-believers.
"We live in a country that is hugely diverse," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists, the country's oldest atheist civil rights group. "The governor basically said: 'If you're not like me, you're second class.' This is a man puts the Bible above the Constitution and his preacher above the president. His words are disgusting and bigoted and reinforce Alabama's reputation for being backward and bigoted."
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/alabama-gov-robert-bentley-criticized-christian-message/story?id=12648307
Related: (Latest News)
Alabama Governor Apologizes for Controversial Religious Remarks
Published January 19, 2011
FoxNews.com
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – It took more than two days for Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley to apologize for controversial remarks he made during a Martin Luther King day speech in which he condemned the beliefs of non-Christians.Bentley, a Republican, told a crowd at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church on Monday that if they haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, they are not his brother or his sister.
On Wednesday afternoon, Bentley issued a public apology: "If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way."
Bill Nigut, the Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, believes Bentley should have been aware of the possible repercussions of his initial statement.
“The governor does not have to be a seasoned politician to understand the impact of remarks like that,” he said. “These are remarks of a man who truly believes what he said, apparently. This seems to be quite clear that Christians are part of an exclusive relationship he has with his brothers and sisters and the rest of us are not.”
Bentley was sworn in shortly before he spoke at the church where the late civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was once a pastor. According to The Birmingham News, during his speech he said it was important for Alabamians to ''love and care for each other." He also told the crowd he is color blind. But just minutes later, he went on to say if they don’t have the same ‘daddy’ then they are not brothers and sisters.
"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said during his speech. ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."
“In the city and the state, there are segments of the population who were offended and others said it was good what he said,” said Joey Kennedy, an opinion writer for The Birmingham News who has closely watched the reaction to Bentley's remarks. “He is not a civilian anymore; he is not a private person anymore. He is the governor of Alabama every day, 24-hours a day.”
Kennedy went on to say that the fact Bentley chose to deliver his remarks in a church doesn’t make it appropriate. “The forum doesn’t matter. Look at the forum, it was a commemoration of Martin Luther King Day to honor the legacy of Dr. King, which was anything but exclusionary,” he said.
Gov. Bentley’s director of communications, Rebekah Mason, sent Fox News a statement on behalf of the governor.
“The governor had intended no offense by his remarks. He is the governor of all the people, Christians, non-Christians alike.”
At this time, he is not scheduled for an on-camera appearance to address Monday’s speech.
For Nigut and the ADL, the statement isn’t enough. He is looking for something more.
“An apology is only meaningful if it is consistent with a sincere understanding of what a person has done wrong. If Gov. Bentley were to say: ‘I realize I was wrong that we are all brothers and sister, and not single out only the ones who believe in Jesus Christ,’” Nigut said.
So is the governor simply exercising the First Amendment or is the statement up for interpretation?
Gene Policinski, the executive director of The First Amendment Center, says Bentley needs to keep in mind, like all public officials, that his office represents all faiths.
“When a politician might reveal his beliefs, it is creating an impression,” Policinski said. “Religion is a part of many peoples’ lives, but there is an implication when a particular faith receives favorable or disfavorable treatment. It is a very difficult line to draw, but it is one any politician has to be aware of.”
Kennedy agrees with the statement that Bentley has First Amendment rights, but he is speaking as the governor, the one person who has the bully pulpit of the state.
“I challenge it was truly a religious forum, it was an audience of a lot of different people,” he said.
Fox News' Elizabeth Prann and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/alabama-governor-apologizes-controversial-mlk-speech/
Thursday, November 26, 2009
US Tries to Break ‘Religious Defamation’ vs. Free Speech Deadlock at UN
Monday, October 05, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
The U.N. Human Rights Council met in Geneva from September 14 to October 2, with the U.S. for the first time taking part as a member. (U.N. Photo by Jess Hoffman)
(CNSNews.com) – Seeking to break a longstanding impasse between Western and Islamic nations over freedom of expression, the United States has piloted a finely-balanced resolution through the U.N.’s Human Rights Council which the two sides are choosing to interpret differently.
The resolution was adopted unanimously on Friday, the last day of a month-long session of the Geneva-based council which saw the U.S. actively participating as a member for the first time.
Free speech advocacy groups gave the move a cautious welcome, saying it marked an improvement but still posed difficulties.
The clash between freedom of expression and religious sensibilities, fueled by the furor over the newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, has been one of the most consistently divisive issues in the HRC in its first three years of operation.
Critics have accused Islamic governments of trying to shield Islam from scrutiny and criticism in the non-Muslim world, in the same way as they do by enforcing blasphemy laws at home, often at the expense of Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.
The resolution stresses the importance of freedom of expression, calling it “one of the essential foundations of a democratic society” and urging countries to protect it.
It omits the controversial term “defamation of religion,” which the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has successfully inserted into previous such measures at the U.N.
The resolution does, however, refer to “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and condemns any advocacy of “religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” It urges governments to “address and combat such incidents,” in line with their obligations under international law.
Reflecting the fragile compromise, delegates from both sides of the debate made it clear in their statements that they interpreted the key paragraph of the resolution – the one referring to religion – differently.
Speaking on behalf of the European Union, French representative Jean-Baptiste Mattei said the language about stereotyping referred to the stereotyping of individuals, not religions, ideologies or abstract values.
Human rights laws do not and should not protect belief systems, he said, stressing that the E.U. continued to reject the concept of defamation of religion.
But Pakistan’s Zamir Akram, speaking for the OIC, used the terms “negative stereotyping” and “defamation of religions” interchangeably, and said the phenomenon affected not only individuals but also religions and belief systems.
The resolution was sponsored jointly by the U.S. and Egypt, and was seen as part of the Obama administration’s push to improve relations with the Islamic world. In a speech in Cairo last June, President Obama called for a “new beginning” after “years of distrust.”
Egypt is an active member of the OIC, a strong proponent of the religious “defamation” drive and a country frequently accused of violating free speech.
Article 19, a free speech organization, called the vote on the resolution a breakthrough, given the tensions that have marked discussions on the issue at the U.N.’s human rights bodies.
Executive director Agnes Callamard noted in particular the omission of the term “defamation of religion,” although she said “religious stereotyping” was a vague concept that suggested that religions and religious ideas and symbols, rather than religious adherents, may be protected by international human rights law.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a leading opponent of the religious “defamation” push, said the resolution passed Friday was a step in the right direction but still contained problematic language.
“This resolution will be seen as a victory if it is the death knell for the concept of ‘defamation of religions,’” said advocacy officer L. Bennett Graham. “But if it continues to provide international cover for overbroad anti-blasphemy laws around the world, it will only exacerbate the problem.”
Angela C. Wu, the international law director at the Washington-based public interest law firm, said it was time the U.N. abandoned language suggesting that religions, rather than people, deserve protection.
“We are disappointed the new freedom of expression resolution does not make this more explicit,” she said.
The resolution was adopted unanimously on Friday, the last day of a month-long session of the Geneva-based council which saw the U.S. actively participating as a member for the first time.
Free speech advocacy groups gave the move a cautious welcome, saying it marked an improvement but still posed difficulties.
The clash between freedom of expression and religious sensibilities, fueled by the furor over the newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, has been one of the most consistently divisive issues in the HRC in its first three years of operation.
Critics have accused Islamic governments of trying to shield Islam from scrutiny and criticism in the non-Muslim world, in the same way as they do by enforcing blasphemy laws at home, often at the expense of Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.
The resolution stresses the importance of freedom of expression, calling it “one of the essential foundations of a democratic society” and urging countries to protect it.
It omits the controversial term “defamation of religion,” which the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has successfully inserted into previous such measures at the U.N.
The resolution does, however, refer to “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and condemns any advocacy of “religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” It urges governments to “address and combat such incidents,” in line with their obligations under international law.
Reflecting the fragile compromise, delegates from both sides of the debate made it clear in their statements that they interpreted the key paragraph of the resolution – the one referring to religion – differently.
Speaking on behalf of the European Union, French representative Jean-Baptiste Mattei said the language about stereotyping referred to the stereotyping of individuals, not religions, ideologies or abstract values.
Human rights laws do not and should not protect belief systems, he said, stressing that the E.U. continued to reject the concept of defamation of religion.
But Pakistan’s Zamir Akram, speaking for the OIC, used the terms “negative stereotyping” and “defamation of religions” interchangeably, and said the phenomenon affected not only individuals but also religions and belief systems.
The resolution was sponsored jointly by the U.S. and Egypt, and was seen as part of the Obama administration’s push to improve relations with the Islamic world. In a speech in Cairo last June, President Obama called for a “new beginning” after “years of distrust.”
Egypt is an active member of the OIC, a strong proponent of the religious “defamation” drive and a country frequently accused of violating free speech.
Article 19, a free speech organization, called the vote on the resolution a breakthrough, given the tensions that have marked discussions on the issue at the U.N.’s human rights bodies.
Executive director Agnes Callamard noted in particular the omission of the term “defamation of religion,” although she said “religious stereotyping” was a vague concept that suggested that religions and religious ideas and symbols, rather than religious adherents, may be protected by international human rights law.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a leading opponent of the religious “defamation” push, said the resolution passed Friday was a step in the right direction but still contained problematic language.
“This resolution will be seen as a victory if it is the death knell for the concept of ‘defamation of religions,’” said advocacy officer L. Bennett Graham. “But if it continues to provide international cover for overbroad anti-blasphemy laws around the world, it will only exacerbate the problem.”
Angela C. Wu, the international law director at the Washington-based public interest law firm, said it was time the U.N. abandoned language suggesting that religions, rather than people, deserve protection.
“We are disappointed the new freedom of expression resolution does not make this more explicit,” she said.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets with the secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in Washington on October 2, 2009. The 57-member OIC has spearheaded the campaign at the U.N. against the “defamation” of religion, particularly Islam. (Photo: State Department)
A decade of resolutions
“Defamation of religion” resolutions have passed at the HRC for the past three years, and at its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, every year from 1999 to 2005. The U.N. General Assembly has also passed one in each of the past four years.
The most recent resolution at the HRC passed last March by a 23-11 vote, with 13 countries abstaining.
Countries voting in favor included 15 OIC member along with their allies China, Russia, Cuba, South Africa, Angola, Nicaragua, Bolivia and the Philippines.
Canada, Chile and nine European countries voted against. (The U.S. was not yet a member.)
At the General Assembly, where the OIC has less clout than at the 47-member council, observers have seen an erosion of support for the notion of religious “defamation” in recent years, as free speech, religious liberty and humanist organizations have stepped up their advocacy against the OIC campaign.
The most recent resolution passed last December 86-53, with 42 countries abstaining. A year earlier, the vote had gone 108-51, with 25 abstentions.
Wu of The Becket Fund said that despite the concerns about Friday’s HRC resolution, the consensus vote for a freedom of expression measure was hopefully an indication that the tide has changed.
“All eyes should be on next month’s General Assembly vote on ‘defamation of religions,’” she said.
“Defamation of religion” resolutions have passed at the HRC for the past three years, and at its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, every year from 1999 to 2005. The U.N. General Assembly has also passed one in each of the past four years.
The most recent resolution at the HRC passed last March by a 23-11 vote, with 13 countries abstaining.
Countries voting in favor included 15 OIC member along with their allies China, Russia, Cuba, South Africa, Angola, Nicaragua, Bolivia and the Philippines.
Canada, Chile and nine European countries voted against. (The U.S. was not yet a member.)
At the General Assembly, where the OIC has less clout than at the 47-member council, observers have seen an erosion of support for the notion of religious “defamation” in recent years, as free speech, religious liberty and humanist organizations have stepped up their advocacy against the OIC campaign.
The most recent resolution passed last December 86-53, with 42 countries abstaining. A year earlier, the vote had gone 108-51, with 25 abstentions.
Wu of The Becket Fund said that despite the concerns about Friday’s HRC resolution, the consensus vote for a freedom of expression measure was hopefully an indication that the tide has changed.
“All eyes should be on next month’s General Assembly vote on ‘defamation of religions,’” she said.
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)