Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Knight and Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta

Photo (Courtesy) http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion-was-different-when-the-anti-choice


Santorum and his family usually attend Latin Mass at Saint Catherine of Siena Church, near Washington, D.C. On November 12, 2004, Santorum and his wife were invested as Knight and Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta in a ceremony at St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York.[132] Santorum traveled in 2002 to Rome to speak at a centenary celebration of the birth of Saint Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei.[133][134] In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter while in Rome, Santorum said that the distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, espoused by President John F. Kennedy, had caused "great harm in America."

All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.[133]

He also said he regards George W. Bush as the first Catholic president of the United States:

From economic issues focusing on the poor and social justice, to issues of human life, George Bush is there. He has every right to say, 'I’m where you are if you're a believing Catholic.'[135][133][136]


The Catholic Church's War on Borders


By David Simcox
Volume 5, Number 3 (Spring 1995)
Issue theme: "Religious lobbies and the immigration debate"






The Catholic Church has developed an elaborate theology of immigration since World War II, and along with this an abundance of moral-political prescriptions it promotes to secular governments for dealing with immigration. These norms have been enunciated by the Vatican, and even more energetically by The Catholic Bishops' Conference (NCCB) here in the United States.

The Church has virtually sacralized immigration, proclaiming it as a 'sacrament of unity,' a process through which the Holy Spirit moves the world toward greater brotherhood. Migration, the Church preaches, witnesses to God's goodness, promotes the unity of the human family, and offers Christians a ministry of love and service to the stranger among us.

Human dignity, as the Church defines it, becomes a critical litmus test of the moral legitimacy of national responses to immigration pressures, just as it has been in Church judgments of other population and reproductive policies. The innate dignity of human beings entitles them to seek work in other lands and to be joined by their families there. This prerogative has in recent decades come to take precedence in Church teaching over the rights of nation-states to protect their borders.

The Church's concept of migrants' rights has moved closer to the absolute since Vatican II. Papal statements in the 1950s at least recognized the need to reconcile the right to migrate with national concern for the common good, as expressed in the regulation of immigration. That prudent approach is heard less now, Since Vatican II, and particularly in the thinking of John Paul II and the U.S. Bishops, any conditions on the right of migrants to cross national borders in search of work or to join family members have all but vanished. In the words of Los Angeles' Cardinal Roger Mahony Catholic social teaching takes what many view to be a counter-cultural position on this matter and insists that the right to immigrate is more fundamental than that of nations to control their borders.1

Oddly, a statement of the Catholic Bishops in late 1994 claimed that 'the Catholic Church has long recognized the right and obligation of nations to control their borders and create systems regulating immigration.' The statement, particularly in asserting states' 'obligation' to control borders, suggest a departure from existing doctrine. But the statement cited no authority for this uncharacteristic position, nor has the concept figured in more recent angry Church discourse on proposition 187 or legal immigration reform.2

The Church's cosmic image of migration as a celestially sanctioned human right, not surprisingly, crimps the debate on immigration regulation for many policy makers, conservationists, advocates of a sound environment and high labor standards, and among millions of ordinary Catholics of good faith. Disputing the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium of a 2000-year old institution is, for many, an intimidating venture.

Moral Imperatives and Institutional Interests

The Church's stress on immigration as a moral imperative has practical as well as mystical roots. Organizational politics, institutional self-interest, and the desire to maximize utility are hard at work. Migration is central to the Church's history of recovery and growth following its losses from the Reformation and the secession of the Church of England. The catholization by Spain, France and Portugal of much of the Western Hemisphere in the 16th and 17th centuries was essentially a work of colonization and migration.

The current immigration mentality of the Church has been deeply influenced by its experiences in the 19th century. In that epoch of mass migration, Catholic-sending nations such as Ireland, Italy and Central Europe populated regions in the Western Hemisphere that were either sparsely populated or heavily Protestant. The most important country of settlement, the United States, was neither heavily Catholic nor culturally congenial to Catholicism.

Catholic immigrants of that era were thus religious pioneers who, though beleaguered and isolated in the host nations, were creating bridgeheads for the spread of the faith in the New World. The Church views itself as having accompanied its sons and daughters in their wanderings. The growth of large Catholic communities in nations where the Church's presence had been weak or non-existent has, for the Church, imbued immigration with a providential character, seemingly a manifestation of God's plan working itself out in the world.

Spiritual and institutional interests have prospered together. Through immigration and high fertility, the Church acquired an important new treasure a community of nearly 60 million souls and contributors in the United States, the World's richest nation. Such temporal power and financial strength counts for a great deal, even in a belief system valuing humility and self-abnegation.

'Since the late 1950s ... the 'common good' of receiving states has been increasingly soft pedaled and in some instances rejected outright.'

But during the 19th century the papacy's outlook on world immigration policy differed from what it is today. The Church's priority mission was to serve spiritually the Catholic immigrants in their new homelands, protect them to the extent possible from discrimination and anti-Catholic hostility, and - in the U.S. - ensure their cultural survival in an overwhelmingly Protestant milieu.3 The U.S. parochial school system is a response to early Catholic feelings that the public schools were expressions of Protestant culture.

Absent then were papal policies asserting the human right of free immigration for all the moral obligation of states to acquiesce in the individual immigration choices of millions. The open immigration policies of the United States and some other major host nations in the 19th century made such special claims unnecessary.

In the 1910s and 1920s Catholic groups, such as the Knights of Columbus and ethnic brotherhoods, fought the mounting restrictionist sentiment. But there is no record of papal opposition to the Johnson-Reed act of 1921 or other major restrictive actions, nor any high-level intimations that such immigration policies contravened God's will.

Radicalization Since World War II

Circumstances in Europe after World War II had much to do with the radicalization of the Catholic Church's teaching on the primacy of immigrants' rights. Major migrations were taking place from the heavily Catholic, labor-surplus countries (Spain, Italy, Portugal and Yugoslavia) to nations such as Germany, Switzerland, France, and the Scandinavian countries, which perceived themselves as labor deficient. Europe was still awash with displaced persons scattered by the war.

It is in this setting that Pius XII issued 'Exsul Familia.' This 1952 document explicitly identified emigration, immigration and family reunification as basic human rights. Worth noting is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in that same period also enshrined the freedom to travel and the right of emigration as fundamental.4 But a series of diplomatic objections by the U.S. and other Western countries in the negotiations had blocked the treaty from asserting a comparable right to immigrate.

Since the late 1950s, in subsequent teaching documents of the Vatican and other magisterial bodies within the Church, the 'common good' of receiving states has been increasingly soft-pedaled and in some instances rejected outright. The depreciation of the sovereignty of nation-states in migration matters has several different roots, some old, some recent. Three Theses

First, the Church, in the very catholicity of its name and in its outlook and mission is universalist. It has never been philosophically comfortable with the modern nation-state with its connotation of exclusion and its claims to be the ultimate community. For the Church, a main reason for the existence of states is to promote the human rights of individuals. Borders are often incompatible with human needs. Suffering this outlook is the biblical and early historical view of the Church as a cosmopolitan, multi-class, multi-cultural community for all. In the words of Paul 'there is no Greek or Jew here, circumcised or uncircumcised, foreigner, Scythian, slave or freeman. Rather, Christ is everything in all of you.' (Colossians 3 11).

'In current discourse [the church] draws on writers like Julian Simon to argue that nations must welcome immigration in their own best interest...'

Another transforming factor has been demographics. In the United States and some other Western nations, falling fertility in the 1960s among long-established Catholic populations dimmed the prospects for further Church growth. Predominantly Catholic immigration from Latin America and Vietnam provided both a new ministry and a new opportunity for expansion of the flock. Immigrants, in the words of Reverend Richard Ryscavage of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, are the 'growing edge' of the Church, as they were in the 19th century, and the 'assurance of the Church's health in the 21st century.5

A final tenet in the Church's open border vision is its faith in cornucopian economics as a response to issues of population growth and resource depletion. In current discourse it draws on writers like Julian Simon to argue that nations must welcome immigra-tion in their own best interest, as it enriches economically as well as culturally and spiritually. Church doctrine in the past has recognized that population in excess of resources can justify emigration. But it overlooks the corollary that excessive immigration can bring a similar imbalance to the receiving countries. Cornucopian economics, it seems, really applies only in Western industrial nations.

Changing priorities in Catholic social doctrine have also reinforced the view of immigration as a supra-national prerogative. The Church's heightened interest in social action to promote human rights to combat dehumanizing structures was both articulated in, and intensified by, the Vatican Councils of the 1960s. The U.S. Church's close exposure to Latin America conditioned its commitment to the 'prefer-ential option for the poor' proclaimed in the literature of liberation theology. Pope John Paul II has made the rights of migrants a major theme of his papacy.

This outlook readily fused with the Church's vision of its area of future growth as the Third World and its increasing identification with the anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist liberation movements in those nations. Also present is an unfolding sense of mission to address the unequal distribution of the world's wealth highlighted in the U.N.'s North-South dialogue. Open immigration into major industrial nations becomes a way of sharing wealth and balancing out past exploitation. For the U.S. 'Sanctuary' movement in the 1980s, acceptance of heavy flows of immigrants and asylum seekers was a form of national atonement for real or imagined U.S. foreign policy misdeeds and economic exploitation in Latin America.

Current Battles of the American Church Against Restriction

The Church's theology of immigration takes operational form in the continuing tactical struggles of the Church against immigration restriction. Here are some of the leading skirmishes in the American hierarchy's ongoing battle

* The Catholic Bishops opposed employer sanctions in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. In scattered areas and diverse ways Catholic religious groups have litigated unsuccessfully against sanctions as an interference with their freedom of religion. In a few cases, they have simply flouted the law. Church leaders backed a coalition of interest groups supporting the Kennedy-Hatch bill to repeal sanctions altogether. It is unclear whether that legislation will reappear in the Republican-controlled 104th Congress.

* Church leaders and organizations were major actors in the coalition of human rights, ethnic, legal and labor groups that in 1989 and 1990 designed and pushed through the 1990 law expanding legal immi-gration 35 percent and creating a new category for easier humanitarian admission 'Temporary protected status.' Failing to get a universal amnesty for illegal aliens in the 1986 law, Church forces and other human rights groups won a special provision for otherwise ineligible immediate relatives of legalized aliens to remain here. High on the Church's agenda now is a new amnesty for those entering since the 1982 cutoff date in the 1986 act who do not otherwise qualify.

* The Catholic Bishops' Conference consistently condemned Proposition 187. California's Catholic dioceses worked assiduously but unsuccessfully in the fall of 1994 to defeat the proposition with special mailings, appeals from the pulpit, media outreach and voter registration drives. Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles once characterized support for the resolution as 'Grave social sin.' The Church remains a major actor among the groups fighting to block implemen-tation of Proposition 187 in the courts.

* At the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, Vatican representatives worked with migrant-sending states in an attempt to establish family reunification as a basic right in the final document of the conference. They were unsuccessful in overcoming the resistance of the U.S. and other migrant-receiving nations.

* Generally, the American Church is well represented in the ad hoc coalitions that have formed to fight the current wave of what they call 'anti-immigrant hysteria' and the drive for tighter controls of legal immigration, and for an end to abuse of asylum and of immigrant access to public assistance.

Recalcitrance among Lay Catholics A 'Shepherd/Flock' Gap

Polls consistently show that individual Catholic views on immigration are only modestly more supportive of generous immigration policies than those of non-Catholics. Some of the difference stems from the higher proportion of foreign born and Latinos among Catholics. But a solid majority of Catholic respondents in polls believe that immigration should go no higher or be reduced. This deviation from official Church doctrine resembles the profile of Catholic public opinion on birth control.

The vote on Proposition 187 indicated wide-spread resistance among the rank-and-file parishioners to the hierarchy's expansionist instincts on immigration. Overall, California Catholics, more than a third of them Hispanic, opposed 187 by 51% to 49%. But non-Hispanic white Catholics - two-thirds of all Catholic voters - favored it by 58% to 42%, roughly the measure's margin of victory statewide. The Los Angeles diocesan newspaper, The Tidings, saw in the results 'a Catholic electorate which increasingly seems to view the statements of its pastoral and moral leaders as having little credibility and urgency.'6

Many Catholic legislators necessarily share the pro-immigration instincts of the powerful ethnic constituencies in which they are rooted. Senator Edward Kennedy, tireless advocate of immigration expansion, particularly from Ireland, is an example. But there has been no shortage of Catholic legislators who have led or supported sound restrictionist efforts.

'The Los Angeles diocesan newspaper saw in the results [of the vote on Proposition 187] 'a Catholic electorate which increasingly seems to view the statements of its pastoral and moral leaders as having little credibility and urgency.''

Well-known was Senator Pat McCarran, a leading Catholic layman, who co-authored the 1952 McCarran-Walter act that preserved national origins quotas and restrictions on Asian immigration. Another, Peter Rodino of New Jersey, originated employer sanctions legislation in the early 1970s, and Ron Mazzoli of Kentucky, a devout Catholic, saw that concept through to enactment in 1986. Mazzoli also favored a far more limited amnesty than Church leaders sought.

Senator Pat Moynihan, as a White House staffer, orchestrated the 1970 Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth, which recommended, among other measures, a freeze on immigration. Currently Moynihan plays a more passive role on immigration issues, although he supports a counterfeit-resistant social security card.

Perhaps most representative within the Church of pluralist views on immigration and the importance of separating the secular and the sacred, was the performance of Father Theodore Hesburgh as chair of the 1979 Special Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policies. Under his leadership, the commission recommended employer sanctions and an immigration ceiling more than a third lower than the present one.

Outlook Continued Confusion Between God and Caesar

The attitudes of lay Catholics in the U.S. on population, environmental and reproductive issues have shifted inexorably away from those of the Vatican and the American hierarchy, shrugging off warnings from the pulpit against what the Church characterized as immoral or inhumane options on these issues. An insecure, impoverished and ethnic-based immigrant population at the turn of the century, American Catholics have achieved the wealth, education and self-confidence, in an increasingly crowded and environmentally threatened world, to define values for themselves.

Yet the Church's governing structure remains hierarchical, highly centralized and enduring. Changing attitudes in the pews are unlikely to profoundly influence the top leadership. The Church's name and organization clout are likely to remain indefinitely at the service of pro-natalism and immigration expansionism, with or without the assent of its millions of loyal contributors. This points up a fundamental irony in the Church's confusion of the realms of God and Caesar the Church hierarchy has power without responsibility - Caesar, not Rome, will be accountable and responsible for the social and environmental costs of disruptions flowing from mass immigration and rapid population growth. ;

NOTES

1 Los Angeles Times, October 9, 1993.

2 Welcoming the Stranger A Reflection on the Current Immigration Debate. Statement of William Cardinal Keebler, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Washington, November 17, 1994.

3 See 'The Scalabrinian Fathers Catholic Apostles to the World's Immigrants' by James S. Robb, in The Social Contract, Vol. V, No. 3, Spring 1995, p. 185-190.

4 'UN Declaration of Human Rights,' Articles 13 and 14, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.

5 Catholic Standard and Times, October 22, 1992.

6 Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1994.


Source


Jeremiah's challenge applies today

As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you.

But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the LORD hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.


Jeremiah 26: 14-15


.

7 tax reasons not to get married

Updated: 12/13/2011 11:22 AM ET.
By Jeff Schnepper

If shacking up goes against your morals, you can blame Uncle Sam for tempting you to sin. Unmarried couples who live together often benefit under the tax code.











1. Bracket breakdown

Say two single individuals lived together in 2011, each with a taxable income of $83,600. They each would pay federal income tax of $17,025, for a total of $34,050. If they got married, their total taxable income would be $167,200, with a tax of $34,886, an increase of $836.

This "marriage penalty" is the result of our progressive tax system. As your income increases, additional dollars are taxed at increasingly higher rates. When two people get married and file jointly, the income of the second spouse is taxed at the highest rate of the first spouse. In the example above, the first dollar earned by the second spouse would be taxed at a marginal rate of 25%. The second spouse has no income taxed at the lower 10% and 15% rates.

More on the marriage penalty

The hit gets more painful as your income increases. Two single individuals, each with a taxable 2011 income of $379,150, would pay tax of $110,016.50 apiece, for a total of $220,033. If they married, the tax cost would become $235,277, a marriage penalty slam of $15,244 -- each year!


2. Medical meltdown

Your medical expense deduction must be reduced by 7.5% of your income (adjusted gross). If your potential spouse earns $100,000, filing jointly would cut your medical expense deduction by $7,500. In the 28% bracket, that would suck an additional $2,800 out of your pockets each year.


Jeff Schnepper





That's why it may be better in certain circumstances for even a married couple with large out-of-pocket medical bills to file as married individuals filing separate returns.

3. Miscellaneous madness

Your miscellaneous itemized deductions, such as employee business expenses, job search costs, investment expenses, and tax planning and preparation fees are also subject to a floor before they can be allowed. The total of your miscellaneous itemized deductions has to be reduced by 2% of your income (adjusted gross). If your potential spouse has $100,000 in income, that will slice $2,000 from your total deduction a year.


4. Social Security slam

As your income increases, more of your Social Security payments becomes subject to tax. Add a second income to the pot and as much as 85% of your Social Security receipts are potentially taxable. If you're getting $2,000 a month -- or $24,000 a year -- that's an additional $20,400 in taxable income. In a 28% marginal bracket, that's an additional tax of $5,712 gone missing from your bank account.


5. AMT terror

The alternative minimum tax is the result of an alternative procedure for computing your tax liability. The AMT is based on your income before deductions for personal exemptions, and adds back certain deductions allowed under the normal tax computation but not under the AMT, such as taxes and miscellaneous itemized deductions. Your income plus these "preference items" is reduced by an exemption amount, and the net result is subject to a flat 26% or 28% rate. You pay the higher of your regular tax or the AMT.

Here's where marriage hurts: First, the 2011 AMT exclusion for two unmarried individuals is $48,450 each, for a total of $96,900. A married couple gets an exemption of only $74,450, a $22,450 difference. At the lower 26% AMT rate, that's a potential $5,837 increase in tax. At 28%, that's a $6,286 hit.


6. Bush benefits

Before 2010, and scheduled to return in 2013, we had reductions in deductions for both a) total itemized deductions and b) personal exemptions, as your total adjusted gross income increases. Marry an individual with substantial income and potentially all of your personal exemptions disappear. In addition, as much as 3% of your income (over a floor amount that changes annually) comes off your total itemized deductions.

Lose two 2011 personal exemptions of $3,700 each and your taxable income is up by $7,400. With a marginal tax rate of 28%, that's an additional $2,072 in tax to be paid.


7. Social Security slam II

This tax benefit keeps a whole lot of seniors living in sin. Depending on the numbers, in many cases two unmarried individuals receive more in Social Security benefits than they would if they were married. Don't look for logic and reason in governmental regulations. It's like finding an honest politician -- they're out there, but they usually don't last long.

Marriage doesn't always result in higher taxes, but it usually does when both spouses are working and earning substantial dollars. On the other hand, if one spouse doesn't work, there will be a marriage bonus (lower taxes) instead of a marriage penalty.

There are, of course, other tax benefits to being married. For example, there's an unlimited marital deduction under the gift and estate tax for gifts and bequests to a spouse. When I told my wife, Barbara, that I was writing a column on the benefits of living in sin, she suggested that she personally was looking forward to enjoying her unlimited estate-tax deduction.



Jeff Schnepper is the author of the best-selling book "How to Pay Zero Taxes," which is in its 29th edition. He is a former professor of taxation, accounting and finance. Schnepper now has a full-time tax planning and legal practice in Cherry Hill, N.J.


Click here to find Schnepper's most recent articles.



Source




Related:



MSN.com articles on marriage on the same day -

Johnny Weir marries boyfriend

Longoria: Too thin after divorce


Monday, January 02, 2012

The Thirty Years' War

Les Grandes Misères de la guerre (The Great Miseries of War) by Jacques Callot, 1632.



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Thirty Years War (disambiguation).


The Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) was fought primarily in what is now Germany, and at various points involved most countries in Europe. It was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history.

The origins of the conflict and goals of the participants were complex, and no single cause can accurately be described as the main reason for the fighting. Initially, the war was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, although disputes over the internal politics and balance of power within the Empire played a significant part. Gradually, the war developed into a more general conflict involving most of the European powers.[9][10] In this general phase, the war became more a continuation of the Bourbon–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, and in turn led to further warfare between France and the Hapsburg powers, and less specifically about religion.[11]

A major impact of the Thirty Years' War was the extensive destruction of entire regions, denuded by the foraging armies (bellum se ipsum alet). Episodes of famine and disease significantly decreased the populace of the German states, Bohemia, the Low Countries and Italy, while bankrupting most of the combatant powers. While the regiments within each army were not strictly mercenary in that they were not guns for hire that changed sides from battle to battle, the individual soldiers that made up the regiments for the most part probably were. The problem of discipline was made more difficult still by the ad hoc nature of 17th-century military financing. Armies were expected to be largely self-funding from loot taken or tribute extorted from the settlements where they operated. This encouraged a form of lawlessness that imposed often severe hardship on inhabitants of the occupied territory. Some of the quarrels that provoked the war went unresolved for a much longer time. The Thirty Years' War was ended with the treaties of Osnabrück and Münster, part of the wider Peace of Westphalia.[12]


Read more



Jews alarmed by Messianic movement boom


12/27/2011


SOS fake Messiah


In an interview with Catholic magazine 30 Giorni, Riccardo Di Segni, Chief Rabbi of Rome speaks out against the rise in Messianic movements

IACOMO GALEAZZI
ROME
SOS fake Messiah. Alarm bells have been raised within the Jewish population, in light of the boom in Messianic movements. The “Messiah” is different from the prophet, in that contrary to the latter, he does not proclaim himself to be a simple intermediary, but a direct incarnation of the divinity or of another divine principle. However, the difference between the two is not always clear. Indeed, it is not unusual for some prophets, who have gained a certain notoriety, to declare that they are of divine descent or considered by the followers as the Messiah.

Among those who condemn the risk posed by these Messianic movements, is Riccardo Di Segni, Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community of Rome (the oldest Jewish Diaspora) who aired his opinions in an interview with Italian Catholic magazine 30 Giorni. “These Messianic movements present themselves to the Jewish world as something new; their mission is aimed solely at Judaism – Chief Rabbi Di Segni said. Judaism does not carry out any missions outside the Jewish community and our traditions are conserved through experimental and ancient mechanisms: schools, synagogues and the family.” One element which is new - Di Segni said - is that “outreach” movements, as they are called in America have been widely promoted and are trying to export the religious message. Judaism - he added - is full of cases of pseudo-Messianism, which history has proven to be false, but which nevertheless still have secret followers. “History is constantly presenting the Jewish population with fatal challenges, and people try to understand these by asking questions – Di Segni explained. This has occurred on many occasions; important answers have been given to important questions and vice versa; there have been great escapes from reality, great illusions, reinterpretations and movements.”

These Messianic movements “take a rigid approach to tradition, in the sense that whatever the master says can never be questioned.” Whereas in other Orthodox Jewish denominations of the Jewish faith, there is still a certain pluralism, certain dynamics and there is a contrasting between possible solutions. “Here, however, there is a sort of doctrinal toughness – Di Segni underlined. Charisma is personal in that it belongs to the chief. This also applies to Messianic movements. What is most shocking is that in some of these movements, the waiting for the Messiah does not involve waiting for a person but for a principle. There is a great deal of debate over this. Orthodox Judaism tends to favour the idea of waiting for a person over waiting for a principle. The debate is not over yet. But to say that Messianism is an era rather than a person, is an idea that is foreign to Orthodoxy.”

It was also a form of rationalisation, Messianism not as a person but as an era, a concept which Italian Judaism also dabbled in: the most significant Messianism comes from within Christianity. Christians say that Christ is the Messiah, that Christianity is Messianism by definition. Judaism sees the Messianic idea as one of many ideas. It is characterised by a tension, a waiting and Judaism could theoretically exist without the Messianic prophesy being fulfilled. “But one of the ways in which Judaism is seen and lived, there are groups in which the Messianic waiting becomes stronger and stronger. And this can either translate into an intense religiosity or into intense politics,” Di Segni explained. And there is a great risk in this. Messianism pushes humanity vigorously through history, but without any idea of where this leads to. Marxism and the movements that grew out of it are also political experiences that have a religious, Messianic undercurrent. “If Messianism gives religion impetus, its impact is positive, but if it becomes an interpretative key, with some people even being conscious of a fulfilled Messianic prophesy, then we are faced with a dangerous situation,” Di Segni warned.

The Hasidic tradition represents a very strong undercurrent in these movements. Hasidism was born in the mid 18th Century as a movement composed of one charismatic leader, who rediscovered the emotive and spiritual dimension of Judaism; this was in contrast, or at least in addition to the intellectual component which had come to dominate throughout the centuries. This movement has a great popular impact and is organised through leaders, who become dynastic leaders of groups that are tied to their master, the Rebbe. But – Di Segni pointed out – even over time, these groups, who also had a significant impact on people, continued to remain closed, they only diffused spirituality within the group. One of the latest ideas was to use the strong influence of this charismatic and authoritative movement, to send people across the world to spread Judaism. “It is a type of mission that was rare in past centuries: perhaps there was no need for such missions because Jews had other ways of organising themselves, whilst today, they feel the need for organisation in order to deal with the dispersion of the Jewish faith,” Di Segni said in conclusion.


Source

Sunday, January 01, 2012

An Oppressed Generation In Captivity!



Volume XXXI Issue I January 2012
Last Trumpet Ministries, PO Box 806, Beaver Dam, WI 53916

Fax: 920-887-2626 Internet: http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/



"Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation."

Isaiah 51:6-8


"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Romans 11:2-5


"And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

Luke 18:7-8


"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."

Hebrews 10:37-39


In this issue of the Last Trumpet Newsletter, we will closely examine the happenings of our day and thoughtfully consider the metamorphosis and progression from our past generations into the generation living on earth today. We are truly living in a time unlike any other point in history, and those who now comprise society are radically divergent from any societal composition of previous generations. We are now seeing the fruition of widespread social conditioning that has stripped our youth of the values that were once so cherished in America and have recently produced a generation of captives who are enslaved by a system designed to watch and control their every move.

Historians have adopted a traditional set of names for the modern generations of western history. For example, those who were born in the late 1800s and fought in the first world war are commonly known as the The Lost Generation. Generations following that time period were dubbed The Greatest Generation, The Silent Generation, The Baby Boom Generation, Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z.

Generation Z is typically regarded to consist of everyone born between 1994 and 2004. These young people are sometimes referred to as "Digital Natives" because they have always known and been immersed by technology. They often prefer to interact with friends and acquaintances online rather than face-to-face. They are known to hold little regard for privacy, and while they are adept at multitasking, the fast-paced acquisition of digital information and entertainment has left them with a highly diminished attention span. Psychologists refer to this condition as "acquired attention deficit disorder." (1)

The oldest members of Generation Z will soon be reaching the age of the majority. I cannot help but wonder if they will be the last generation to reach adulthood. Only God knows for certain, but considering that "Generation Z" was named after the final letter in the English alphabet, the possibility seems strikingly apropos.

In any case, those emerging in future generations, if the Lord will tarry and time remains, will likely be drastically different from any people who have ever inhabited the world in the past. However, God has promised that He will always have a remnant people from every generation. Those who heed the call of our Saviour will receive strength from God to withstand temptation and endure any trouble we may face in this world of turmoil and hostility. If you have not yet fully given your heart to God, I urge you to do so now.

A Very Dark "Black Friday"

Each year retailers around the United States attempt to entice shoppers to their stores on the day after Thanksgiving, also known as Black Friday, by offering deals they are hoping consumers will consider too good to pass up. With an economy still suffering the effects of the "Great Recession," a multitude of shoppers have grown desperate for bargains, and many stores have grown desperate to sell their merchandise. Traditionally, most stores open early in the morning on Black Friday. However, in 2011 many stores opened at midnight or even on Thanksgiving Day itself and transformed what is supposed to be a day to give thanks into a frenzied storm of consumerism. Some folks were so determined to obtain cheap televisions, laptop computers, and other merchandise that they chose to forgo Thanksgiving altogether, instead choosing to spend the day standing in line in front of stores. (2)

Sadly, the clamor for cheap goods seems to bring out the worst in people. On Thanksgiving night in Porter Ranch, California, a woman attacked fellow shoppers with pepper spray in order to gain an advantage over the crowd and obtain the items she wanted. One witness described the scene as follows, "People started screaming, pulling and pushing each other, and then the whole area filled up with pepper spray. I guess what triggered it was people started pulling the plastic off the pallets and then shoving and bombarding the display of games. It started with people pushing and screaming because they were getting shoved into boxes." (3)

Numerous other acts of violence occurred on Thanksgiving and Black Friday around the country. In San Leandro, California, a man was shot in the parking lot of a Walmart store on Thanksgiving night in an attempted robbery gone bad. (4) In Kingston, North Carolina, off-duty police officers working as security guards used pepper spray to subdue an unruly crowd at Walmart. (5) At another Walmart location in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, a woman was shot in the foot as she was loading her merchandise into her car. (6) In South Charleston, West Virginia, a 61 year-old man collapsed at a Target store while shopping on Black Friday. The crowd, unfazed by the elderly man lying on the floor, stepped over and around him and continued to shop. The man eventually passed away. The tragic event caused a co-worker and friend of the deceased man to wonder, "Where is the good Samaritan side of people? How could you not notice someone was in trouble? I just don't understand if people didn't help what their reason was, other than greed because of a sale." (7)

The violent spirit which has been shown to engulf the crowds on Black Friday is very troubling to say the least. If we should reach a point in history wherein the United States economy fully collapses and people can no longer obtain what they want, the behavior of shoppers today is indicative of the angry mobs we would see in the future on a much larger scale.

It is also interesting to note that shoplifting is on the rise, having increased 6 percent in the year 2011 alone. The estimated loss to retailers is expected to be approximately 119 billion dollars. According to a report by Ad Week, one out of every eleven customers at stores is stealing merchandise and 75 percent of those thieves are adults. Speaking of the growing shoplifting problem, Johnny Custer, director of field operations for Merchant Analytic Solutions stated, "Most shoplifters simply succumb to temptation. But add a sense of desperation because of the economy and holiday pressures, and you have the recipe for theft soup." Remarkably, the two most commonly stolen items are filet mignon steak and Jameson whiskey. (8) It certainly seems that many Americans have forgotten the words of Jesus who warned us in Luke 12:15, "Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."

The Watchful Eye Of Big Brother!

In George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell wrote of a totalitarian state that watched the people's every move through the use of telescreens. The people were always told, "Big Brother is watching you." Amazingly, the surveillance technology now in use in the United States far exceeds anything Orwell ever could have imagined.

In a recent case in Nelson County, North Dakota, Sheriff Kelly Janke went to a farm to look for six missing cows. The owners of the farm were uncooperative towards the sheriff and chased him off their property with rifles. In response, the sheriff called in an unmanned Predator B drone. The drone, which is equipped with high-resolution cameras, heat sensors, and radar, flew ten thousand feet over the farm while the sheriff and his officers watched live video on a hand-held 4-inch screen. When they determined that the suspects had finally disarmed themselves, a SWAT team moved in and arrested the men. Speaking of the drone, Sheriff Janke stated, "We don't have to go in guns blazing. We can take our time and methodically plan out what our approach should be." According to retired Air Force General, Michael C. Kostelnik, domestic usage of drones in the United States is not uncommon. In an interview Kostelnik stated that Predator drones are used "in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis." Others have warned that the use of drones for surveillance will likely increase. "Any time you have a tool like that in the hands of law enforcement that makes it easier to do surveillance, they will do more of it," said Ryan Calo, director for privacy and robotics at the Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society. He further went on to say, "This could be a time when people are uncomfortable, and they want to place limits on that technology. It could make us question the doctrine that you do not have privacy in public." (9)

Spy drones are not the only method of surveillance in use by the authorities in America. Surveillance cameras which are capable of reading license plates on cars and tracking drivers' movements are becoming increasingly common as well. The highest concentration of these cameras are in Washington, D.C., and the surrounding areas where 250 of them are constantly watching motorists. Police officers can enter any license plate number into their database, and if the vehicle in question has passed any of the cameras around the city, officers are instantly informed on where the cars have been and when they were there. Law enforcement officials have been gushing over the technology. "The new technology makes our job a lot easier and the bad guys' job a lot harder," said D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier. However, not everyone is enthusiastic about the technology. "It's big brother, and the question is, is it big brother we want, or big brother that we don't want? This technology could be used for good and it could be used for bad. I think we need a conversation about whether and how this technology is used. Who gets the information and when? How long before the information is deleted? All those questions need scrutiny," said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. (10)

A report has now surfaced claiming that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, has awarded a $524,972 contract to a Virginia-based company to record as much talk radio content as possible. "This doesn't give us any enhanced capability, prying into or any 'big brother' concerns because this is information that's being put out on the airwaves. It's very important to our investigators to know what's being reported," stated FBI spokesman Paul Bresson. (11) According to an article in the Daily Mail, the Department of Homeland Security has increased its monitoring of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter in order to monitor trends that may foreshadow an uprising in the United States. (12) It has also been announced that the Library of Congress will be receiving the entire archive of every public Twitter post ever made. (13) For those who do not know, Twitter is a popular website at which users can post short comments up to 160 characters long. These posts, which often contain details of its users' daily lives, are called "tweets." Twitter was heavily used to organize uprisings in places such as Tunisia and Egypt in recent times.

Software which is designed to track faces has now been developed and deployed in places such as malls and bus stations. One such software package is Intel's AIM Suite, which is used on digital signs equipped with facial detection software. If you view these digital advertisements, the technology can detect your approximate age and gender and customize the screen to show ads that it believes you would find interesting. Data is then sent to advertisers detailing how long a consumer was looking at an ad and how far away they are standing from the sign. (14) A company known as Affective Interfaces is hoping to take the technology a step farther and use facial recognition software to detect the emotions of its users. (15) It is also interesting to note that Google has developed a technology deemed so frightening that they decided not to release it. The software would have allowed users to take a picture of a person with their phone which would then compare it to a database and tell you who the person is. "We built that technology, and we withheld it. As far as I know, it was the only technology that Google built, and we decided to stop," said Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman. (16) Although Google has withheld this technology, it would not be surprising if it landed in the hands of our Big Brother government, assuming that it has not already.

I take comfort in the knowledge that ultimately God is in control. Yes, Big Brother is watching, but God is watching Big Brother. In Jeremiah 16:17 we read, "For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes."

Oppressive Legislation!

It is no secret that Barack Obama holds a great disdain for the Constitution of the United States. In an interview with Chicago Public Radio in 2001, Obama made the following statement regarding the Constitution, "I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." (17) I have always considered it amazing that the people of the United States would elect a man who would denigrate the Constitution and then turn and swear on a Bible to uphold the principles of a document he considers to reflect a "fundamental flaw."

Sadly, the United States Congress has just passed the National Defense Authorization Act which effectively nullifies the Constitutional rights of Americans and allows them to be detained indefinitely by the military without due process if they are determined by the government to be terrorists or supporters of terrorism. Section 1031 of the bill contains the following text, "Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war. A covered person under this section is any person as follows: A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored those responsible for those attacks. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." The bill further states that those meeting the above description could be subject to "detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." (18) Some folks have argued that the bill provides an exemption for American citizens in section 1032 which states, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." However, this section, which was intentionally worded in a vague manner, could be construed to mean that the United States military is not required to detain American citizens, but would still have the option of doing so.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the liberal organization known as the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, suggests that the vague exemption in section 1032 does not apply to section 1031 anyway. "The exclusion on Section 1032 only apples to 1032. It doesn't apply to 1031. And that only makes it worse, because any judge is going to say, 'Of course, members of Congress meant for American citizens to be detained because if they didn't, they would have put in the exception they put in one section later,'" Anders stated. (19) Those who wonder about the true intention of the provisions in the bill need to look no further than Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was cosponsor of the legislation. "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat," said McCain. (20) Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who strongly supported the bill, stated on November 17, 2011, "1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland." (21)

A Global Economy At Risk!

For those of us here in the United States, we are painfully familiar with the poor economic conditions that have plagued this country over the last few years. Since 2008 Americans have suffered from high unemployment, stagnant wages, an increase in the cost of living, widespread poverty, and a plethora of other woes. The United States has suffered through hard times before, but with the slow pace at which this country is "recovering," many people have grown weary and hopeless. According to an article published by MSNBC, nearly half of all Americans are now living in poverty. Sheldon Danziger, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, explained the dire situation as follows, "Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify. The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal. If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years." (22)

Unfortunately, the United States is not the only region of the world suffering from poor economic conditions. In Europe, the unemployment rate for youth is 46 percent in Spain, 43 percent in Greece, 32 percent in Ireland, and 27 percent in Italy. (23) As of September 2011, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain had accumulated over three trillion Euros worth of debt. (24) The situation has grown particularly precarious for Italy, which will need to sell more than 30 million Euros worth of bonds by the end of January 2012, or face a possible default on their debt. (25) Fearful over the economic uncertainty in Europe, many corporations have been moving their funds out of the European banking system. "We are starting to witness signs that corporates are withdrawing deposits from banks in Spain, Italy, France and Belgium. This is a worrying development," stated an analyst at Citi Group. (26) There is also an ongoing run on the banks in Greece. At the beginning of 2010, Greek banks held 237.7 billion Euros on deposit. By the end of 2011, that amount had fallen by 49 billion Euros. (27)

The economic crisis in the Eurozone is a cause of great alarm for many. According to a report by The Telegraph, the British military is now working on strategy to cope with a potential "global financial crash." (28) General Martin Dempsey, a top United States military commander, has also expressed worry over the possible collapse of the European economy. "I know that they've taken some measures here with the 17 members of the eurozone to try to better align... monetary and fiscal policy. But it's unclear, to me at least, that that will be the glue that actually holds it together," Dempsey said. Much of his concern is for the 80,000 US troops and 20,000 American civilian workers living in Europe. (29)

The Stirrings Of War!

The potential for war in Iran has continued to grow over the last few months. The constant back-and-forth rhetoric between Israel and Iran has left many people wondering if a war between the two nations is imminent. According to a recent news report, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered his military to prepare for war. In response to these orders, military officials have redistributed long-range Shahab missiles to secret sites throughout the country. Their air force has also formed "rapid reaction units," which have been carrying out exercises. (30) Iran has also added three new submarines to its naval fleet. (31) Additionally, Iran has begun to prepare to move its nuclear facilities underground in an effort to protect them from military attacks. (32) Another news report has claimed that hundreds of North Korean scientists are presently in Iran assisting them in the development of their nuclear capabilities. (33)

In a further development, the United States military suffered an embarrassing loss of property after Iranian forces successfully captured an RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone. The drone, which is worth six million dollars, was called a "significant loss" by defense journalist Robert Densmore. "These Sentinels are pretty rare technology still, and to have one in such good condition, to be lost to a potential adversary like this, is pretty significant, especially because Iran has open ties to Russia and has been courted by China," Densmore said. (34) Speaking of the lost drone, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney stated that Obama should have responded with a quick airstrike against Iran. (35) Instead, Obama decided to simply ask for the drone back. Regarding Barack Obama's request to Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "Given Iran's behavior to date, we do not expect them to comply." In response, Iran mocked Obama, stating that he "begs [us] to give him back his toy plane." (36)

Tensions between the allies of Israel and the supporters of Iran have only continued to increase as we enter the new year. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has now stated that the United States will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and will do whatever is necessary to prevent it. "The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us and that's a red line [and] obviously for the Israelis. If we have to do it, we will deal with it," Panetta declared. (37) Could a war with Iran actually lead to World War III as many people fear? According to the state-controlled Iranian news outlet PressTV, Chinese Major General Zhang Zhaozhong recently made this shocking statement, "China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third world war." (38)

In closing, I know the year of 2011 was certainly very tumultuous, and 2012 has the potential to be even more intense. In fact, recent current events inspired one journalist to write, "With elections and leadership changes in the most powerful countries, Europe in crisis, ferment in the Middle East, and worsening economic hardship driving unrest and discontent everywhere, 2012 could be just as volatile as 2011 if not worse." (39) We need our Saviour now more than ever, and as we draw closer to His return, we will continue to obey His command to watch and pray. I wish to thank all of you who support this ministry. We at Last Trumpet Ministries consider it an honor and a privilege to serve you, and we will continue to do so for as long as we are able. Please remember to mail us your completed renewal form if you have not yet done so. If you have any prayer requests, please do not hesitate to send them our way. Each request is given individual attention by our intercessors. Grace and peace be unto you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Samuel David Meyer



Acknowledgements

01. Elderly Journal, http://www.elderlyjournal.com/generation/generation-z/Characteristics-Of-Generation-Z.html.

02. The Washington Times, November 25, 2011, By Tim Devaney, http://washingtontimes.com.

03. Los Angeles Times, November 25 2011, By Andrew Blankstein, Shan Li, Hailey Branson-Potts, and Dana Castellanos, http://latimes.com.

04. Reuters News Service, November 26, 2011, By Barbara Goldberg, New York, NY.

05. Ibid.

06. Ibid.

07. WSAZ News, November 25, 2011, By Andrew Colgrove, South Charleston, WV.

08. Shine, December 2, 2011, By Joanna Douglas, http://shine.yahoo.com.

09. Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2011, By Brian Bennett, Washington, D.C.

10. The Washington Post, November 19, 2011, By Allison Klein and Josh White, http://washingtopost.com.

11. WMAL AM 630 News, By Mark Weaver, http://wmal.com.

12. The Daily Mail, November 1, 2011, By Daily Mail Reporter, http://dailymail.co.uk.

13. Federal News Radio, December 7, 2011, By Michael O'Connell, http://federalnewsradio.com.

14. CNN Money, December 13, 2011, By David Goldman, http://money.cnn.com.

15. Ibid.

16. CNN, June 1, 2011, By Mark Milian, Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

17. YouTube Video, http://youtube.com./watch?v=11OhmY1obS4.

18. S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, http://thomas.loc.gov.

19. The Progressive, November 30, 2011, By Matthew Rothschild, http://theprogressive.org.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. MSNBC, December 15, 2011, By Associated Press, Washington, D.C.

23. The Telegraph, October 16, 2011, By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, http://telegraph.co.uk.

24. CNBC, September 12, 2011, By Patrick Allen, http://cnbc.com.

25. The Telegraph, November 25, 2011, By James Kirkup, http://telegraph.co.uk.

26. The Economist, November 23, 2011, By The Economist, London, UK.

27. Der Spiegel, December 6, 2011, By Ferry Batzoglou, Athens, Greece.

28. The Telegraph, December 14, 2011, By James Kirkup, http://telegraph.co.uk.

29. BBC News, December 9, 2011, By BBC News, http://bbcnews.co.uk.

30. The Telegraph, December 5, 2011, By Con Coughlin, http://telegraph.co.uk.

31. The Jerusalem Post, November 26, 2011, By Yaakov Lappin, http://jpost.com.

32. Reuters News Service, December 14, 2011, By Fredrik Dahl, Vienna, Austria.

33. Arutz Sheva, December 19, 2011, By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, http://israelnationalnews.com.

34. The Christian Science Monitor, December 9, 2011, By Scott Peterson, http://csmonitor.com.

35. Salon.com, December 13, 2011, By Joan Walsh, http://salon.com.

36. Arutz Sheva, December 13, 2011, By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, http://israelnationalnews.com.

37. Arutz Sheva, December 20, 2011, By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, http://israelnationalnews.com.

38. PressTV, December 4, 2011, By PressTV, http://presstv.ir.

39. Reuters News Service, December 15, 2011, By Peter Apps, London, UK.



Special Note: A new tribute website for Pastor David J. Meyer can now be accessed at http://pastormeyer.org.



Comments regarding this newsletter or topic suggestions may be submitted to editor@lasttrumpetnewsletter.org.

If you would like to submit a prayer request, you may send email to prayer@ltmmail.org or mail it to our postal address.