Posted on

Obligation to respect not share our faiths

http://bit.ly/UwqmZ0
Obligation to respect, not share, our faiths
Date: December 28 2012

Each Christmas, my family receives more greetings and gifts from my Muslim friends than from fellow Christians. We treasure many handmade cards by Muslim children who do not celebrate Christmas. We cannot trivialise these efforts as tokenistic as they are annual and original. They are well-worded messages of peace in English and Arabic. I only wish we took the time to reciprocate this goodwill gesture at the two Islamic Eids each year.

Throughout my childhood, we would be visited by Lebanese Muslim friends laden with gifts. This did not mean they suddenly elevated the prophet Issa to Jesus the son of God. Their faith was not compromised. As I write this article, there is a knock on the door as Ahmad, my late father’s carer during his disabling Alzheimer’s, arrives looking like a bearded, smiling Santa bearing gifts. When asked, ”You do this but you are a Muslim?”, he replies, ”I do this because I am a Muslim”.

Twice this year, Australian Muslim leaders were swift to disown rather than explain behaviour that was both un-Islamic and un-Australian.

Before the unauthorised and short-lived Facebook fatwa on Christmas greetings, there was September protest that was notorious for its ”behead all those who insult the prophet” placard. On both occasions, leaders were swift to extinguish the flames, learning from past experiences that a flame can quickly morph into an international inferno through modern media.

The leaders need to be congratulated for their damage control and their voice of reason. The Facebook post was promptly removed and their Christmas greeting was written high in the sky – literally.

The Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, wisely provided perspective and disarmed the stone throwers with the comments that ”there is difference between showing respect for someone’s belief and sharing those beliefs” and that the ”foundations of Islam were peace, co-operation, respect and holding others in esteem”.

This contrasts with the temporary message that was posted on the Lebanese Muslim Association Facebook page, which was borrowed verbatim from an international website. The Fatwa section at Islamweb.net was asked if it was haraam, or sinful, for Muslims to celebrate or congratulate Christians during Christmas. Its response was: ”The disbelievers spare no efforts to draw the Muslims away from the straight path … celebrating such feasts is actually imitating disbelievers … whoever imitates a nation is one of them … a Muslim is neither allowed to celebrate the Christmas Day nor is he allowed to congratulate them.” It’s a view not shared by Australian Muslim leaders, a diversity that is not unusual in all religious teachings.

Islamweb is ”designed to enrich the viewer’s knowledge and appreciation of Islam … [among] Muslims and non-Muslims alike about the mission of Islam” by adopting ”balanced and moderate views, devoid of bias and extremism”. But this all needs to be put into perspective before being imported into the Australian context, highlighting the growing dangers of the instant, borderless, copy-paste, digital age.

Let any Australian religious order that has never innocently copy-pasted from a global site throw the first stone. Even from church pulpits, our priests have been critical of non-Christian practices, cautioning about staying on the straight path, avoiding the consumer culture of Christmas celebrations, and putting Christ back into Xmas, literally.

When I greet my Muslim friends for Eid al-Adha and Eid al-Fitr, it does not mean I share in the celebration or I am losing my religion. I am merely extending goodwill and am happy that they are happy.

This is not the first time Australian Muslims have copy-pasted concepts from abroad and inadvertently caused controversy for failing to consider the context of Australia. Only 18 months ago, the Islamic evangelical initiative MyPeace mounted billboards stating ”Islam: Got questions? Get answers”, followed by ”Jesus Prophet of Islam”, which provoked outrage and vandalism. The posters were adopted directly from the Chicago-based GainPeace, which was keen to demonstrate that ”Islam is not synonymous with terrorism”.

The public relations damage to the Muslim community is difficult to undo. Which is why all responsible leaders need to think twice before borrowing from overseas contexts. They may be copy-pasting a viral problem, not a safe solution.

Posted on

Syrians deserve a third way

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14500
http://bit.ly/YqHou9
Published in ON LINE opinion
Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate

Syrians deserve a third way
Posted Friday, 21 December 2012

‘All we are saying is give peace a chance’ was the theme of the anti Vietnam war movement in 1969, thanks to the guiding star of John Lennon. And it may as well be the theme of the anti war movement in Syria today, thanks to the guiding star of a Melkite nun Mother Agnes Miriam. This star of hope is rising in the night sky and wise people of all creeds seek its solace.

This fearless woman has indiscriminately nursed and sheltered many wounded civilians and foreign mercenaries near her Homs monastery ironically named ‘St James the Mutilated’. She has even negotiated with the government to release dissidents. This optimistic soul retains her faith that the uniting spirit of reconciliation will prevail against the dividing forces of revolution.

The reconciliation or Mussalaha movement paths a third way – a way towards peace. Not the status quo of the authoritarian regime where dissonant voices were crushed. Not a bloody revolution that is fuelled and financed from foreign powers. But a third way – evolution that is driven by the will of the Syrian citizens in their own time and in their own way. Driven by their love of re-building their secular society, not ripping it apart along sectarian battle lines. It is this majority of ordinary peace loving people who have been forgotten when the conflict is crudely portrayed as ‘Assad versus rebels’.

During the latest Friends of Syria summit in Marrakesh, Morocco on 13 December, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces was endorsed by 90 of the 114 countries attending as the ‘legitimate voice of the Syrian people’. Foreign Minister Bob Carr was swift in following suit: ‘Australia joins the United States, the UK, France and many others in acknowledging the Syrian opposition and further delegitimizing the Assad regime’ so that we can support ‘adherence to democratic principles [by] … a credible alternative for Syria once a political transition occurs’.

How can the forcible overthrow of a sovereign government by foreign forces (via their rebels, jihadists and mercenaries) lay the foundations for a new Syrian democracy? With a presidential election scheduled for 2014, how can outsiders pre-empt the outcome on behalf of the exiled minority when there are 23 million citizens in Syria? How can we turn a blind eye to the lethal cocktail of Coalition agendas that include fatwas to replace the secular society with a sectarian caliphate: ‘Christians to Beirut and Alawites to their graves’?.

The Syrian National Council has been allocated 22 of the 60 seats in this new ‘government in waiting’. Its newly appointed chairman George Sabra wasted no time in declaring the SNC’s new direction: ‘Quite clearly, we want weapons’.

If the current regime is heavy handed and murderous, then the second way of an armed revolution is just as violent. Titles such as revolutionary, forces and weapons do not spell less bloodshed. Cynically assuming that we suffer from collective amnesia, the US-Saudi led sponsors of this revolution are repeating similar tactics to those deployed in the overthrow of the other Baathist secular state: Iraq.

Ten years ago, lies about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and al Qaeda connections were propagated by the US-UK alliance to justify the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Earlier this month, we again witnessed ‘leaks’ from the US Pentagon about Syrian ‘chemical weapons’. On cue, US defence Secretary Leon Panetta beat the drums of war that ‘there will be consequences…[if] the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons…on their own people’.

We have heard such scaremongering as a pretext for war all before, and we know that the consequences unleashed a civil war inside Iraq with no end in sight. So alarm bells should point us to a healthy scepticism: where is the evidence to support this serious claim? Why are foreign jihadists and mercenaries deceitfully included as ‘their own people’?

Hence the second way of revolution is a vicious cycle of war and propaganda that is hell bent on assuming power and serving the sponsors, with very little reference to serving the Syrian citizens.
The third way of reconciliation has no place for weapons, as the theatre of war is replaced by a round table where citizens talk to each other, not about each other. The enemy is rehumanised rather than dehumanised. This Mussalaha movement is not romantic. It is real ‘reconciliation from below’ starting from families, clans and civil society who are ‘tired of the conflict’.

It was born within civil society in Homs in June around the monastery of Mother Agnes. Another inter denominational meeting in Deir Ezzor culminated in the participants rejecting ‘sectarian violence and sectarian denominational strife, as preconceived ideological and political opposition are urgently required.’

Even the Syrian government embraced the concept and appointed a Minister for National Reconciliation, Ali Haidar, who assembled a Mussalaha committee to ‘unite the children of Syria in love and reconciliation’. He pledged that his ministry would be ‘the dwelling of all Syrians, without exception’. He attended another Reconciliation forum in Homs on 14 October where multi-faith leaders sort to ‘restore a ‘city free of weapons and gunmen’. While it is easy to dismiss this as tokenistic and ‘too little too late’, this door has always been open to unarmed dialogue, whereas such reconciliation is invisible on the National Coalition agenda.

In October, Mother Agnes visited Australia as part of her international mission to promote this movement. Contrary to the popular narrative that exiles are fleeing from the Syrian army, she is fleeing from the rebels. The ten point plan that she presented to Australian politicians during her visit is pro negotiation, anti war and anti propaganda. She warned of the fate of the Christians in Syria if a sectarian regime was installed, especially the Christians of Antioch which is the oldest church in the world. There are branches of this grass roots multi faith Mussalaha movement globally, including Australia.

Of course such grass roots initiatives go largely unnoticed because they present a challenging counter narrative.

Although the uprising in Syria may have started in Dara’a as a popular movement in March 2011, that was quickly hijacked by militants and jihadists with a different agenda. The new popular movement is Mussalaha.

It is time for a counter revolution that puts people first.
Joseph Wakim founded the Australian Arabic Council and is a former multicultural affairs commissioner.

Posted on

Christmas Recipe for Human Culture

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14493&page=0
http://bit.ly/VR7waZ

ON LINE opinion – Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate

Christmas recipe for human culture

Posted Thursday, 20 December 2012

As families prepare to congregate around the Christ child, the carols, the churches, the Christmas trees, and the Santa Claus, there is one other C word that cements them all together: culture.
Families activate traditional recipes to honour, celebrate and top up what has been handed down through generations. But there is one simple recipe that has always intrigued me when making Lebanese yoghurt: culture.

The same word used to describe the same vital process is no coincidence. This age old recipe for sustaining yoghurt culture is more than metaphorical in teaching us about preserving human culture.
The English word culture derives from the Latin word cultura which means to cultivate or till. In sociology, it means to transmit through language and ritual from one generation to the next. In science, it means to grow micro organisms such as bacteria in a nutrient medium under controlled supervised conditions. In yoghurt, the starter culture contains a variety of lactic acids producing thermophillic bacteria.

My grandparents’ generation handed down stories about Lebanese emigrants boarding ships a century ago carrying luggage with one hand and nursing a jar of yoghurt culture or rowbi with the other hand. They would seek favours from the shipping crew to refrigerate the jar so it could be preserved across the sea voyage.

The jar would be protected like a holy grail, containing the DNA of their ancestry, religiously handed down across generations. A century ago, the loss of that edible culture amounted to catastrophic severing of the ancestral culture because it was a living link to their unique family flavour. A child who had accidentally eaten the starter culture from the fridge was accused of culture-cide.

Like a chicken-egg quandary, debates abound about which came first – the culture or the yoghurt. What is not debated is that yoghurt cannot be made without some starter culture from a previous batch. Like human culture, yoghurt cannot be created from scratch – it needs a clone sample from a parent body.

Boiling the milk, whether full cream or skim, enables fermentation. Like human culture, it needs high heat to be borne out of passion and purity.

The boiled milk is then transferred to a heat proof bowl which will become its stable home environment for the duration of its batch life. The milk needs to cool to a tepid temperature. The traditional method for testing this is dipping your pinkie until you can count to ten comfortably – the only time that a human hand touches the mixture like a literal handing down anointment.

Human culture is best preserved if it is passed on in lukewarm moderation, not with hot-blooded cultural chauvinism, nor with cold-blooded cultural cringe, or cool indifference.

The refrigerated jar of culture is opened and the active living bacteria are ready to be embedded.
To prevent any culture shock, it is mixed with some of the tepid milk so it is more fluid and ready to permeate the new host body.

It is stirred in gently so that the DNA imbues its unique flavour, language and rituals.

It is essential that this new mixture can set as it only incubates in a still and warm setting. Like a newborn baby, the mixture must never be rocked or shaken. In some Christian traditions, the mixture is blessed with the sign of the cross before being covered, like tucking a baby to sleep, or preparing for a miracle as the milk transforms to yoghurt. It is covered with a woolen blanket, and kept in one stable location such as the kitchen bench. As it needs about 8 undisturbed hours to set, it is usually safest to leave it overnight so it ferments while we are sleeping.

If opened or moved during this incubation period, the mixture would neither ferment nor cement, but fragment. Like humans, if it lacks consistency as a child, the culture is harder to define.
In the morning, the blanket and lid are carefully removed. Two table spoons are removed from the heart of the yoghurt as the starter culture for the next batch so that the cycle can be repeated and regenerated perpetually. The yoghurt is then transferred to the fridge and ready for human cultural celebrations.

The yoghurt has culture, identity and a solid foundation. It can now transform from mono-cultural which is delicious, to multi-cultural where it can be enhanced with a fruit salad, olives, herbs, as a frozen dessert, as a savoury dip or mixed with a meaty main course.

The significance of yoghurt in Lebanese DNA extends beyond a staple dish in their cultural cuisine. It is the genesis of their country’s name. In many Semitic languages such as Assyrian and Hebrew, variations of the word Laban mean white, which was used to name the perennial snow capped mountain range in Lebanon, as stated over seventy times in the Old Testament. The same word Laban was adopted in Arabic to name yoghurt.

Hence we have come full circle, with some dreaming of a white Christmas, where the cultural celebration is not complete without Laban illuminating the banquet.

The culture not only sustains the generations. It preserves a civilisation.
________________________________________

Posted on

Render unto Caesar: Israel and the Catholic Church must have their day in court

http://bit.ly/UVitY6

Render unto Caesar: Israel and the Catholic Church must have their day in court

Joseph Wakim ABC Religion and Ethics 17 Dec 2012

The public faces of Israel and the Catholic Church in Australia, Pell and Netanyahu, need not to fear the criminal courts. It may earn them greater respect, to replace the suspicion and resentment.

What do abuses of power by church clergy and the Israeli government have in common? Both flirt within civil spheres while they skirt the criminal courts.

Both church and Israeli leadership have portrayed violations against children and Palestinians respectively as anything but criminal. The defence mechanisms deployed by both theocratic institutions bear striking similarities. As their sanctity is subjected to unprecedented scrutiny, they may face unprecedented accountability to the law of the land.

With the Gillard government’s launch of the Royal Commission into “institutional responses to child abuse,” Catholic Cardinal George Pell has had to reconstruct paedophilia more as a crime than a sin. By biblical definitions, sins disobey divine laws and make a “separation between you and your God.”

Under Catholic Canon Law, sins are forgivable through the sacrament of confession and the fulfilment of the prescribed penance. Contrary to popular misconceptions, absolution is neither an absolute guarantee nor a revolving door. If the sin is a crime, the confessor may be told “no absolution without first confessing to the victim, handing yourself in to the police, and treating your addiction.”

The confession can remain confidential, and the sin can remain forgivable, but “conditions apply.” Sacred laws and secular laws are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sins should be surrendered to God, but crimes should be surrendered to the courts – and the two can be both compatible and concurrent. Enough experienced clergy have declared that child abuse is rarely confessed, as paedophiles tend to be more pathological and do not see themselves as sinners.

In past practice, such perverts were (mis)managed and transferred internally as serial sinners who are forgiven and “will try not to sin again.” Instead, they could have been treated as serial criminals who infiltrated and polluted their holy order and need to be stripped of their collars and cloth then surrendered for punishment as well as penance.

Cardinal Pell should have focused less on the “seal of confession is inviolable” and more on “nobody is above the law of the land.” Even Jesus Christ was subjected to trials in both courts, albeit unjustly. His charge of blasphemy was heard before the Sanhedrin Court under Jewish law, and had this charge upgraded to treason before Governor Pilate under Roman law. Contrary to the false witnesses, Jesus never shunned secular obedience nor the law of the land, but instructed his followers to “render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.”

Hence, this does not challenge the theology of forgivable sins, but couches them into dual accountability, which is integral to this message of Jesus.

Criminal courts have never been perfect, but they cannot be skirted. If these institutions and leaders have nothing to hide, then they should have nothing to fear.

Just as the confessional has been exempted from the mandatory reporting of child abuse as a criminal offence, Israel expects to be exempted from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. It expects those harmed by its “apartheid policies” to remain silent and relinquish their right to access the ICC, or face further financial bribery from its American accomplice.

Ironically, Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s vindictive “talking point” after the recent UN decision was that, “The Palestinians will quickly realize that they made a mistake when they took a unilateral step that violated agreements with Israel.” And yet the only unilateral step is the latest roll out of 3000 Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Netanyahu seeks a bilateral solution by pretending that “our conflict with the Palestinians will be resolved only through direct negotiations,” as if they were two equal sides. But the real solution is multilateral by taking the territorial violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity to the ICC.

With some Israeli leaders believing that they have a divine right to all of the Promised Land that was given to Abraham and his “seed,” this would resonate with the defence of some Catholic leaders that Canon Law is above the law of the land. The parallels extend to paradoxes about those skirting the criminal justice system: How can “men of the cloth” who ostensibly represent holiness stoop to such evil acts? How can descendants of Holocaust survivors on the holy land preach “never again” yet practice or condone such inhuman acts? How can authorities charged with the custody of weaker parties, holy lands and minors betray that trust with crimes?

Both authorities may need to literally surrender land for peace. While the church may need to sell estates to pay for civil damages and criminal trials, the Israeli government may need to roll back the settlements so that Palestinians have a viable sovereign state.

There is growing disquiet among both church laity and Israeli citizenry over the skirting of criminal culpability. These voices prefer their leadership to “come clean” so that those corrupting their core values are exorcised: voices like veteran Israeli soldiers who testified against abuses in Breaking the Silence; voices like the Catholic laity who reconcile Canon Law with secular law.

The public faces of these powerful institutions – Cardinal George Pell and Benjamin Netanyahu – do not need to fear the criminal courts. But when they were silent about the unholy atrocities committed by their lower ranks, there were screams by those violated. By facing the law of the land, they are reconciling with the rest of the human family. This may earn them greater respect and openness, to replace the suspicion and resentment.

Joseph Wakim established the Streetwork Project for exploited children in Adelaide in 1986, was appointed Victorian Multicultural Affairs Commissioner in 1991, and founded the Australian Arabic Council in 1992. In 1996, he received the Commonwealth Violence Prevention Award for his anti-racism work. In 2001, he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) for his anti-racism campaigns.

Posted on

Israel’s Level Playing Field

http://bit.ly/TOYav8

There is a four letter word that blinds us every time we try to make sense of the Israeli-Palestinian reality on the ground. The word is as loaded as a suicide bomber or a cluster bomb: “side”.

We hear it when our media interviewers endeavour to avoid bias and show balance: “So to be fair, now let’s hear from the other side…”

We hear it in the public discourse and talkback that follows: “They are always blaming each other for the blockade and the rockets. I think each side is equally in the wrong.”

We hear it from politicians, such as our Foreign Minister Bob Carr, calling for “both sides to exercise a high degree of restraint”.

The word side subtly suggests equality of two nations, two armies, two peoples.

What Israelis and Palestinians share is their love of the land and their religiosity.

But beyond this, their comparative military muscle and political power is beyond “sides” because of the sheer scale of Palestinian military inferiority: one to one thousand fold.

Australian born spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister, Mark Regev, perpetuates this propaganda of parity when he asks, “How would you respond to rocket fire attacks from terrorists?”

The latest in a series of “surgical” assaults on Palestinian targets has been translated as “Operation Pillar of Defence” for Western audiences, but in Hebrew means “Pillar of Cloud”, after a story from the book of Exodus, where God adopts the form of a pillar of cloud to protect the Israelites and confuse the Egyptian army. Indeed, using the word “side” blows a pillar of cloud to obfuscate some obvious facts about the inequality.

Only one side has the backing of “the most powerful nation on Earth”, by US President Barack Obama’s own admission; a nation ready to (ab)use its power of veto to block any motions against Israeli aggression, and block any motions for Palestinian statehood, even the upcoming bid for UN non-member observer status on 29 November.

Only one side has the most sophisticated technology and weaponry, made in the US, to actually obliterate Gaza into non existence, or indeed a pillar of cloud.

Only one side deploys unmanned drones for military surveillance so that the eye in the sky is constantly invading its neighbour’s sovereign airspace.

Only one side has imposed a unilateral blockade since 2007 as collective punishment for electing a Hamas government, depriving 1.6 million people of essentials and of any semblance of a normal life.

Only one side has the infrastructure to sound the sirens so that its citizens have some advance warning to seek shelter and survive an attack.

Only one side can assassinate a leader, such as Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari on 14 November, and escape international condemnation.

Only one side still milks the “war on terror” rhetoric to justify their “self defence” against a population under siege.

Only one side predictably unleashes an assault against its neighbours with impunity in the lead up to elections, and is more interested in the numbers of political points scored than the Palestinian people killed.

This was the case with Operation Lightning Strike one month before the March 2006 election. This was the case with Operation Cast Lead three months before the February 2009 election. And this is now the case in the lead up to the 22 January election. The incumbent Israeli prime minister plays the politics of fear while assuring his voters that only he could protect them. The incidental quota of killings is about 100 Palestinians for every Israeli.

The pillar of cloud blinds us to the growing chorus of enlightened people who refuse to be locked into sides, but are rising above the pillar, cloud, missiles and drones to see an ever shrinking Palestine.

Such people have liberated themselves from the shackles of sides. People like Israeli historian Ilan Pappe who visited Australia in September and declared, “the less Zionist I became, the more Jewish I became”. People like veteran Israeli soldiers who have confessed and denounced their inhuman abuses against occupied Palestinians in their courageous and collective testimonial “Breaking the Silence”.
Carr must privately know the truth about Gaza, but cannot admit it publicly, as he warns Israel of the “danger of the world seeing it as a disproportionate reaction”.

Enough smoke and mirrors. The word “side” flattens a turbulent terrain into a level playing field. It blinds us to the mountains, valleys, deserts and walls that differentiate the occupier from the occupied. The only level playing fields in the past have been those homes that have been bull-dozed to a series of ground zeros to make way for settlement expansions. The level playing fields of the future will be those created by the devastating effects of Operation Pillar of Cloud.

Posted on

Clerical Error: Look East for reason why celibacy vow should be axed

http://bit.ly/TZCelo
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/clerical-error-look-east-for-reason-why-celibacy-vow-should-be-axed-20121114-29ce4.html

Published: November 15, 2012

The royal commission into ”institutional responses to child abuse” will not have the authority to review one vexed issue: the mandatory vow of clergy celibacy.

While we should be careful not to confuse correlation with causation, one compelling question cannot be avoided – why do Eastern Catholics and other churches with married clergy rarely encounter claims of child sex abuse?

As a Maronite Catholic, with an uncle who was a married priest with four children, this choice of celibacy or marriage has been functional since the church’s foundation.

Catholic churches in the East, the birthplace of Christianity, have always had married clergy.

There is no evidence that the reverence or sanctity of their clergy is compromised by matrimonial or paternal responsibilities.

Their capacity to empathise and advise is actually enhanced by first-hand experience.

The ordination of married men as priests may not directly redress the child abuse stigma that has dogged the church hierarchy. But it may inject a new breed of ”fathers” who should be instinctively protective of children, and thereby permeate the culture of the clergy.

For the first millennium, married priests were commonplace in all churches. Then in 1074, Pope Gregory VII announced anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy, as ordination marked the end of married life – “priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives”. This was enshrined during the First Lateran Council in 1123, when Pope Calistus II decreed that clerical marriages were invalid.

At that time, the Roman Catholic Church in Europe was understandably concerned about illegitimate children tainting the priesthood and children of married priests inheriting church property.

Today, the Roman Catholic Church allows married men to become deacons, yet their freedom to marry does not compromise their commitment.

Another compelling question cannot be avoided: why are Eastern Catholic churches flourishing in Australian congregations, and harvesting a new generation of priests, both locally and abroad? They are sowing seeds in fertile soil that is aerated with a healthy mix of celibate monks and married priests.

In many of their masses for youth, the pews overflow so that it is standing room only. Roman Catholic visitors are perplexed at how their Eastern counterparts seem to be swimming against the tide.

The Eastern Catholics are not tainted by the litany of abuse scandals, and many of their priests are family men who have much more to lose than their priesthood if they abuse their power.

Being close-knit communities, any suspect behaviour cannot be dealt with by relocation to other parishes as the global grapevine grows all the way back to the home country.

To be fair, the healthy growth and spiritual glue of Eastern Catholics may also be attributed to the geographic proximity to the birthplace of Jesus, the recent canonisation of several saints, the leaning on pillars of faith to survive wars, and the post Arab Spring prayer that Christian minorities do not become an endangered species.

In the short term, the royal commission revelations are likely to deter Australians from pursuing priesthood, and the clergy is likely to attract fewer recruits among their faithful flock.

While the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, hopes a royal commission will vindicate the Catholic Church canopy and shed any remaining bad apples, the tree trunk and its branches may become a no-go zone during the cull.

But this may be the perfect time for in-house renovations and reform.
Although the Vatican may have no ”appetite” for reviewing clergy celibacy, Cardinal Pell could whet his appetite by revisiting the vibrant Eastern Catholic churches. He could then respectfully request that the Vatican revisits the question of celibacy among the clergy.

Rather than argue the case for married priests, as if this was a dangerously radical idea, his proposal could be to revisit what used to be the norm for priests in the first half of the church’s history.

Rather than asking why married men should be allowed to become priests, the more pertinent question is why not?

This is not some risky venture into unchartered terrain, but a return to the roots of the church and a grafting with the Eastern branch of the same tree. It would open the doors to a pool of clergy with a wider diversity of life experiences. They would inevitably enrich the clergy culture and it would also help close the doors to opportunistic paedophiles who traditionally sought shelter under the branches of ”forgiveness”.

In all my encounters with Eastern Catholic clergy, there was never a hint of suspicion about sexual predators or grooming among married or celibate priests. Yet the celibate Christian Brothers who taught me seemed incomplete and craved affection.

Married men are already in a position of responsibility and authority, and should therefore be less likely to crave positions of power.
Even Jesus chose a wide cross-section of people, many of whom were married men, to be his ministers to the four corners of the world.

If married priests can provide hope as both ”small f” and ”capital F” fathers, then this may be the perfect time to learn something from the East, where it all began.

Posted on

Carr Calls For Syria Assassination

http://bit.ly/QfnBXg
Published on newmatilda.com (http://newmatilda.com)
________________________________________
10 Oct 2012

Carr Calls For Syria Assassination

By calling for the murder of Bashar al-Assad, Foreign Minister Bob Carr has shown both his hypocrisy and his lack of understanding about our “allies” in the Syrian uprising, writes Joseph Wakim

Public figures must think twice before commenting about someone’s death.

Veteran broadcaster Alan Jones has learned this lesson after “cyber democracy” took Australian decency into its own hands. They have inscribed an epitaph for his career: you reap what you sow.

But it appears that Foreign Minister Bob Carr has learnt nothing about the volatility of the “death sentence”. His “brutal and callous” call for the assassination of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad on ABC Four Corners on Monday was utterly un-Australian, and warrants immediate sanction by Julia Gillard.

Our foreign minister represents a liberal democracy where murder is a crime and the death sentence has long been outlawed. Assassination should not be part of Australia’s strategy to end the proxy war between Iran and Israel that is fought on Syrian soil.

Carr’s comments are yet another example of the foreign minister is trying to force-fit the Libyan template over Syrian territory.

Carr’s rationale that “an assassination combined with a major defection … is what is required to get, one, a ceasefire, and, two, political negotiations” smacks of dangerous naivety. It ignores the fact that to the president and his supporters, Syria is fighting its own “war on terror” and defending its sovereign territory. This religious war has been proudly sponsored by the US and its Gulf allies — the undemocratic kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Rather than creating a cease fire, an assassination would escalate the war beyond the five volatile Syrian borders. Does Carr seriously think that Iran, Russia and China would sit idly by as yet another regime is militarily toppled?

Carr concludes that “we’ve got nothing to do but trust the spirit of the Arab Spring”. The embers of the Arab Spring were actually extinguished long ago by what he himself calls “religious fanatics … who want another form of dictatorship”. The “jihadists,” who answer to fatwas from Saudi sheiks for a holy war to ethnically cleanse Syria from non-Sunnis, want a Salafist theocracy, not a secular democracy. Ironically, Carr’s call for an assassination aligns him with Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey — “your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty”.

When asked about the presence of Islamic extremists or al Qaeda in the uprising, Carr insists that “the truth is … nobody knows … outside Damascus, observation doesn’t exist”. His sources are all sworn enemies of the Syrian regime — The Friends of Syria, Gulf leaders and Western leaders — and of course they will not concede that extremists have hijacked the uprising.

Inside Syria, observation and monitoring does exist and the al-Qaeda presence has been repeatedly revealed. Journalist Robert Fisk interviewed so-called Syrian rebels inside a Syrian military prison in August, only to find that most were “recycled” foreign mercenaries. Inconvenient facts and counter-narratives such as this cannot be dismissed as pro-Assad propaganda, although Fisk’s piece in particular has drawn some criticism, including from Syrian political dissident Yassin Al-Haj Saleh.

Moreover, Carr has an immediate opportunity to be enlightened by a visiting Syrian nun who has been at the centre of the violence, tending to the war wounded. Despite repeated requests to meet with him, Mother Agnes-Mariam from St James Catholic monastery in Homs has been shunned. She has been forced to flee to Lebanon after being warned that the rebel forces, our allies and future assassins, plotted to abduct her.

Why? Because she was outspoken about the “aggressive armed gangs … abducting people, beheading, bringing terror even to schools”. Like Fisk, she confirms that only about one in 20 rebels are Syrian. She has witnessed how the uprising “steadily became a violent Islamist expression against a liberal secular society” and testifies to a “hidden will to empty the Middle East of its Christian presence”. This darker truth belies the “spirit of the Arab Spring” in Carr’s fantasy.

Unlike Carr, Mother Agnes has a peaceful solution that is gaining momentum — Mussalaha (reconciliation) — a grass roots movement for dialogue and negotiation among Syrian citizens of all ethnic and religious backgrounds who “reject sectarian violence and are tired of war”.

Unlike Carr, her method not assassination and defection, but disarmament — “freeing them of this massive foreign interference and this media instigation for violence”. As part of her international peace mission to the Vatican and the EU, she will lead a delegation of Nobel Prize laureates to Syria next month.

It is abhorrent that Carr links assassination with “what Kofi Annan said was essential”. Like Mother Agnes, Annan promoted disarmament.
Above the negotiation table, the US-Saudi-Qatar axis talked about a political solution, but under the table they sabotaged his “peace plan” with a lucrative supply chain of arms, while criticising those who vetoed more military solutions.

Why is Carr afraid to meet with Mother Agnes? Because she will disarm him of his “just war” theory, and force him to face the facts that he has put us in bed with the terrorists. She may even enlighten him that it was not Libya that endured 17 years of civil war, as he stated, but Lebanon — for 15 years. Like Alan Jones, he should know better, but chooses not to.
________________________________________
Source URL: http://newmatilda.com/2012/10/10/carr-calls-syria-assassination
Links:
[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/radio-broadcaster-alan-jones-blames-cyber-bullying-for-commercials-being-pulled-from-show/story-e6frg996-1226490322476
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-04/interview-with-bob-carr/4302980
[3] http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120814/syria-us-proxy-war-iran-saudi-arabia-qatar-sunni-shiite
[4] http://mideastmedia.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/provocative-sheikhs-views-aired.html
[5] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-syrias-road-from-jihad-to-prison-8100749.html
[6] http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/18/51930/Books/Syrian-writer-Robert-Fisk-is-indoctrinated-by-Syri.aspx
[7] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/christians-emptied-from-middle-east/story-e6frg6so-1226489418086
[8] http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/Syria/press.asp?NewsID=1236&sID=41

Posted on

Muslim majority rises to be heard

http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/muslim_majority_rises_to_be_heard_noo7xtNSXelD4Md2H2jo6N
Muslim majority rises to be heard

What do Muslim leaders condemning the Sydney violence have in common with Pope Benedict condemning the Syrian violence?

Both highlighted forgiveness as a shared monotheistic virtue.

Muslim lawyer Mariam Veiszadeh declared on ABC radio on Sunday morning that “our prophet was constantly ridiculed and repeatedly assaulted and abused, but every time he responded with dignity, restraint, kindness and showed patience”. A case in point from the Hadith is the story of the prophet’s pilgrimage to Ta’if to preach about God. When the locals abused and stoned him, he prayed for forgiveness of their sins because “they did not know what they were doing”.

During his inaugural three-day visit to Lebanon, Pope Benedict preached a change of heart for those who desire to live in peace, especially in Syria. He said that this involves “rejecting revenge, acknowledging one’s faults, accepting apologies without demanding them and, not least, forgiveness”.

It was a sobering reminder that none of the monotheistic faiths have a monopoly on forgiveness. This flies in the face of the popular perception that while Muslims only abide by “an eye for an eye”, only Christians abide by “turn the other cheek”.

Apart from reclaiming forgiveness as central to Islam, this was a milestone moment in the history of Muslim advocacy in Australia for other reasons that must go unnoticed.

As an advocate for over 25 years, I have watched Arab and Muslim reactions inflame and subjugate their respective communities. In the 1980s, leaders would anxiously apologise for the extreme behaviour of extreme minorities, as the culprits were dumped at their feet. In the 1990s, they would try to explain and justify the behaviour so as not to offend the culprits in this vulnerable minority group in Australia. After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, leaders began to disown the behaviour as un-Islamic, echoing John Howard’s coined phrase un-Australian.

But the weekend events drew a new line in the sand: Muslim leaders disowned both the criminal behaviour and the culprits as not true Muslims, but as Australians committing crimes in Australia: The individuals responsible for the violent outburst run completely contrary to Islamic tradition.

This was reiterated yesterday by the Muslim leaders’ press conference in Lakemba where the president of the Lebanese Muslims Association, Samier Dandan, condemned “the actions of a very small minority” and urged that we all “leave this matter in the hands of law enforcement agencies”.

He could have also commended the community for alerting the police about the text messages and the plans for a demonstration, thereby protecting innocents and indeed the US Consulate.

These “good relations” were conceded by Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione. This solidarity with police contrasts with the wall of silence that dogged the bike gang violence earlier this year.

Apart from condemning the criminals, Mr Dandan also condemned the vilification, both of the placard holders and the inflammatory film, and demonstrated that leaders have not been silent about the spark. However, his call for Muslims to “respond only to directives from reputable centres and mosques” may be preaching to the converted, as the bad apples prefer to take the law into their own hands and are unlikely to attend the mainstream mosques.

Leaders are fed up with these individuals dragging the community through the mud and essentially put on trial, and have shaken the tree so that these bad apples fall and roll into their own trials in courts. Leaders no longer talk about the Muslim community as singular but as plural. Unlike the Australian Catholic Church with Cardinal George Pell as its singular head, Muslims have no such hierarchy.

The abhorrent behaviour of the self-appointed defenders of the prophet, intoxicated with heroic hatred, drew swift, unanimous and un-orchestrated condemnation from all Muslim leaders. For a change, the first leadership faces we saw were Muslim women, not a sheikh. And for a change, it was their voices of reason, not voices of radicals, that were given centre stage. While the police resorted to capsicum spray to avert what could have been fatalities, these leaders sprayed their own Hazchem fire extinguishers to avert another wave of Islamophobia.

Ironically, those who responded to the Cronulla riot style SMS alert “We must defend his honour” have much in common with the instigators of the spark – the creators of the amateur film that mocks the prophet.

Both the movie makers and these trouble makers appear to be no strangers to crime and very unforgiving. They rely on social media, endanger innocents, disrespect the law and ignite violent confrontations.

The unreleased movie is ultra-insulting to any cinema audience, not only to Muslims, as it features “spaghetti western” scenes and a talking donkey. The YouTube trailer in English was brought home to the Arab and Muslim audiences on September 8 when it was dubbed in Arabic and featured on Egypt’s Al-Nas TV. This Islamic TV station strives for the normal upbringing of Muslim personal behaviour and ethics and its website includes a list of fatwas.

Equally provocative is Al Hayat TV or KMN whose vision is to “unveil the deceptions of Islam” and whose mission is to help “new (Muslim) converts develop a deeper understanding of Christianity”. This apocalyptic channel believes that “the kingdom must reach out to the Muslim world and the whole world and then shall the end come”. The movie makers such as Coptic convicted criminal Bassily Nakloula have grown out of this branch and have endangered the lives of an already endangered Coptic minority in the new Egypt.

Such cable TV stations preach inter-faith hatred, not dialogue or forgiveness, and they are beamed into Australian homes. They are the fuel that spread the flame.

These bad apples have much in common and grow on similar branches. Both Christian and Muslim leaders have a moral duty to shake them from their trees, or amputate the branch. The bad apples should fall at the feet of the law, not the faith. More importantly, the fact that these bad apple branches are grafted overseas poses a legal challenge for anyone serious about uprooting it from Australia. They heed a call to violence from global satellites, not a call to prayer from Australian minarets.

NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldis is in a unique position to stem the violence. He was born in Egypt and understands both the Coptic and the Muslim sensibilities. He can communicate in a language of peace, just as former prime minister Kevin Rudd spoke Mandarin to the Chinese government.

The mature Muslim response on the weekend has heralded a new era, where the voice of the majority, not the minority, has been given the prominence it deserves.
Australia can be a beacon to the world that our brand of multiculturalism has been moulded by those imported, and is good enough to be exported.

Joseph Wakim is the founder of Australian Arabic Council and former Multicultural Affairs Commissioner

Posted on

Al-Qaeda now a US ally in Syria

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/alqaeda-now-a-us-ally-in-syria-20120910-25oby.html
Canberra Times
September 11, 2012

bit.ly/Nktmow

Al-Qaeda now a US ally in Syria

While we reflect on the 11th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on American soil, there is a blinding light that may obscure our view: this sworn enemy now fights hand in hand with the US against the Syrian regime.

The historic State of the Union address by US president George W. Bush on September 20, 2001 is loaded with morals and principles about good and evil.

The president’s ultimatum was clear: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

In Syria, there is mounting evidence that Al Qaeda and its allies are actively deploying terror tactics and suicide bombers to overthrow the Assad regime.

Syrian citizens who prefer the secular and stable state to the prospect of an Iraqi-style sectarian state may well be turning this same question around to the US government: are you with us, or with the terrorists?

This week, head of the Salafi jihad and close ally of al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, pledged ”deadly attacks” against Syria as ”our fighters are coming to get you” because ”crimes” by the regime ”prompts us to jihad”.

Bush referred to al Qaeda as the enemies of freedom: ”the terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews”. But Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ”your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty …
Alawites are more infidel than the Jews and Christians”. Because the new jihad targets Alawites rather than Jews and Christians, does this render them better bed fellows?

By his own admission, Bush stated that al Qaeda was ”linked to many other organisations in different countries … They are recruited from their own nations … where they are trained in the tactics of terror … They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction”.

Yet this is precisely how the foreign jihadists in Syria have been described by reporters. They are funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they collaborate with the Free Syrian Army which is aided and abetted by the US.

Bush condemned the Taliban regime because they were ”sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder”. Eleven years later, the parallels produce an uncomfortable truth.

If only the Syrian uprising was as simple as the Arab Spring narrative where citizens seek democracy and freedom. But those unarmed protests have long since been hijacked by a cocktail of agendas which have little to do with Syrian democracy, and more to do with a proxy war to create a sectarian Sunni state that weakens Shi’te Iran’s main partner in the region.

Bush was correct in claiming that al Qaeda ”want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan” – who were all US-Israel allies at that time.

But his list stopped short of mentioning Syria or Iraq, the real targets of al Qaeda. Why does overthrowing Syria, using the same terror tactics, fail to attract the same degree of outrage?

Bush continues: ”We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”

This pledge appears to have fallen on its own sword, given the funding of the jihadists in Syria. The terrorists have bred and spread across borders, which is the opposite of Bush’s prophecy.

The US administration must come clean about its financial aid. It cannot use one hand to sign a blank cheque to the rebels, and the other hand to cover its eyes to their immoral and illegal tactics. It cannot hide behind ”the end justifies the means” as there are too many innocent lives at stake.

Bush rode off on his high horse: ”We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom”.

If the principles and morality are to be taken seriously, then they need to be applied consistently.

The US regime should be actively and publicly distancing itself from the foreign terrorists and Salafist jihadists that are proliferating within sovereign Syria.

It should be condemning al Qaeda for its militant intervention. It should be condemning the Saudi sheikhs who issue fatwas for an Alawite holocaust.

The wisdom that we see is grief over the al Qaeda crime 11 years ago, yet covert collaboration with this sworn enemy today.

Perhaps the US is applying another principle that they may have learned from their pragmatic Arab allies – the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Posted on

Syria Needs Elections, Not Arms

http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/03/syria-needs-elections-not-arms
3 Aug 2012

Now that Kofi Annan has resigned as special envoy, the only solution left in Syria is a presidential election. But internationally sponsored violence will complicate things, writes Joseph Wakim
If Syrians re-elected their president in a free and fair election, would the rebels and their sponsors pack up and go home?

Imagine if the UN Supervision Mission in Syria extended its mandate to beyond August to monitor a national referendum on the Syrian presidency. Threats, violence and boycotts could be prevented, and all eligible citizens could vote free from fear or favour.

We have seen UN Peacekeeping missions provide security, technical, logistical and educational support for referendums and elections at polling stations in volatile areas. During the past two decades, the UN has provided such assistance to over 100 countries such as Cambodia in May 1993, East Timor in August 2001 and South Sudan in January 2011.

Syrian citizens already cast their votes at the unprecedented multi-party elections on 7 May, where 7125 candidates, including 710 women, competed for the 250 seat People’s Assembly.

But the last presidential election was held in May 2007 and “officially” gave Bashar Al-Assad 97.6 per cent approval to continue for his second seven year term. This was farcical given that he was unopposed. Yet since the Arab Spring ignited Syria in March 2011, tens of thousands of civilians, soldiers and rebels have perished in an international proxy war.

Syria has become increasingly militarised thanks to Russia, China and Iran, who are propping up and protecting the regime, while US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and al Qaeda are arming, aiding and abetting the rebels, suicide bombers, terrorists and their mercenaries. It was revealed this week that the Obama Administration was collaborating with Saudi Arabia and Qatar to channel military and communications aid to a secret “nerve centre” in Adana, a Turkish city about 100 kilometres from the Syrian border.

It is no surprise that UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan has announced his resignation from the post. He must have been tempted to lose his diplomatic demeanour and overturn the “negotiation table”. These key stakeholder nations talk about a political solution but under the table they sabotage his “peace plan” with a lucrative supply chain of arms. Hence he criticised the “clear lack of unity” and “finger pointing and name calling in the Security Council”. In case there was any question about which side Annan was referring to, White House spokesman Jay Carney was quick to blame Russia and China.

While the disparate rebel groups and their sponsors demand that Assad must step down to save Syria from further bloodshed, the terror tactics of the rebels have alienated citizens who support the president. A circuit breaker could be brokered if all parties disarm and the next presidential election is brought forward from 2014.

If the Syrian National Council ostensibly represents the majority, then it must honour the free will of the citizens and look forward to greater legitimacy. If the Assad regime ostensibly retains the confidence of its citizens, then it should have nothing to hide or fear, and should look forward to vindication.

It is already on the public record that the president will only stay if it is the will of his people, not the Baath Party. In a February 2012 referendum that saw the end of the Baath Party monopoly, Assad also ushered in a reform that would cap any president to two seven-year terms.

Assad should order his supporters to fully cooperate with the UN Monitors. If he fails to gain the majority of votes, he should honour the will of the citizens and step down, facing the consequences under national and international laws — whether it be amnesty, exile or trial.

Similarly, the Syrian National Council should order the Free Syrian Army and all its international collaborators to back off, so the voice of the people can prevail. If Assad is re-elected, then those claiming to be the legitimate opposition must equally honour the will of Syria’s citizens.

It means the Syrian National Council may become a political party in the new pluralistic political system. The Free Syrian Army would disarm, perhaps with an amnesty, and disband immediately. The remaining Salafists, terrorists, suicide bombers and mercenaries would “return to sender”.

Most importantly, their international sponsors such as the USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey would have to honour the UN monitored result and immediately cut supply to the rebel militias. Who could argue with this fair proposal?

The USA does. While they are ostensibly interested in democracy and peace, their unspoken agenda has nothing to do with Syria. It has everything to do with two other countries: Iran and Israel, which were prominently in the news before the Syrian uprising but have since disappeared off the radar.

The US insists Iran is making a nuclear weapon, despite the country’s insistence that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Israel is threatened by the possibility of another nuclear power in the region, especially given Iran’s allies on its border — Syria and Hezbollah.

So if the US does not wish to provoke the ire of a potentially nuclear Iran, as it may indirectly endanger Israel, what is the next best contingency to protect Israel? Weaken Syria by engineering a “civil war” so that Syria’s army, president and borders are exhausted, and the country self implodes into a non threatening neighbour.

Of course, what will be said in public would be more benevolent: we cannot accept the outcome of the UN monitored presidential election because those in exile or who have sought asylum in Turkey could not vote. The Syrian people have lived in fear under a dictatorship for over 40 years, when voting against the president was suicidal.

Only in hot water can we flush out the true colors of this “civil war”.