Conference yukon::christian

	Humphrey made the right call.

    Glen,
    
      I think you are wrong on this one.
    
      The Declaration of Independence states rather emphatically that
      the reason we all have equal rights is because those rights have
      been endowed by our CREATOR.
    
      Its in our own government documents.  I believe public schools 
      should be able to mention God in the same highly generic terms
      our own founding documents uses.  Benevolent Creator who endows 
      all persons with certain unalienable rights.
    
      The way I see it, one morality was suggested.  Was it meant to
      replace all other moralities?  Or was it one with which to choose
      from?  There is nothing wrong with sharing a morality that is
      so generic - regardless of its source when the morality itself
      is communicated *as a matter of choice*.  As an option. 
    
    						Tony

	Tony, there are so many variations of Christianity that who gets to
choose which ones will be studied, and which parts are not allowed? This is why
the right call was made.


Glen

      But Glen, they were proposing a program that referred to a
      behavior type that occurs accross all religious faiths and
      even atheism.
    
      I'm sure there are some atheists who see abstinence as a
      viable choice for school children.
    
      Perhaps the messenger was a religious group, but the message
      did not prefer any specific religion.
    
    						Tony

The school's ban on the program was overturned in an emergency order Friday
morning by a Federal court.  Friday afternoon the students were allowed to put
up posters and sign up students to make the pledge for abstinence.

Attorney's for the students had argued that the school's action violated a
1990 Supreme Court decision and the Federal Equal Access Act, which follows:


                            THE EQUAL ACCESS ACT

                        (20 U.S.C. Sections 4071-74)

DENIAL OF EQUAL ACCESS PROHIBITED

Sec. 4071.

  a. It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives
     Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny
     equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any
     students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum
     on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other
     content of the speech at such meetings.

  b. A public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever such school
     grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum
     related student groups to meet on school premises during
     noninstructional time.

  c. Schools shall be deemed to offer a fair opportunity to students who
     wish to conduct a meeting within its limited open forum if such school
     uniformly provides that:

       1. the meeting is voluntary and student-initiated;

       2. there is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the
          government, or its agents or employees;

       3. employees or agents of the school or government are present at
          religious meetings only in a nonparticipatory capacity;

       4. the meeting does not materially and substantially interfere with
          the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school;
          and

       5. nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly
          attend activities of student groups.

  d. Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the United
     States or any State or political subdivision thereof-

       1. to influence the form or content of any prayer or other religious
          activity;

       2. to require any person to participate in prayer or other religious
          activity;

       3. to expend public funds beyond the incidental cost of providing the
          space for student-initiated meetings;

       4. to compel any school agent or employee to attend a school meeting
          if the content of the speech at the meeting is contrary to the
          beliefs of the agent or employee;

       5. to sanction meetings that are otherwise unlawful;

       6. to limit the rights of groups of students which are not of a
          specified numerical size; or

       7. to abridge the constitutional rights of any person.

  e. Notwithstanding the availability of any other remedy under the
     Constitution or the laws of the United States, nothing in this
     subchapter shall be construed to authorize the United States to deny or
     withhold Federal financial assistance to any school.

  f. Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to limit the authority of
     the school, its agents or employees, to maintain order and discipline
     on school premises, to protect the well-being of students and faculty,
     and to assure that attendance of students at meetings is voluntary.

DEFINITIONS

Sec. 4072. As used in this subchapter-

  1. The term "secondary school" means a public school which provides
     secondary education as determined by State law.

  2. The term "sponsorship" includes the act of promoting, leading, or
     participating in a meeting. The assignment of a teacher, administrator,
     or other school employee to a meeting for custodial purposes does not
     constitute sponsorship of the meeting.

  3. The term "meeting" includes those activities of student groups which
     are permitted under a school's limited open forum and are not directly
     related to the school curriculum.

  4. The term "noninstructional time" means time set aside by the school
     before actual classroom instruction begins or after actual classroom
     instruction ends.

SEVERABILITY

Sec. 4073. If any provision of this subchapter or the application thereof to
any person or circumstances is judicially determined to be invalid, the
provisions of the remainder of the subchapter and the application to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

CONSTRUCTION

Sec. 4074. The provisions of this subchapter shall supersede all other
provisions of Federal law that are inconsistent with the provisions of this
subchapter.

| <<< Note 15.6 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>

| But Glen, they were proposing a program that referred to a behavior type that 
| occurs accross all religious faiths and even atheism.

	Then they don't need to state they are from a religious organization,
right? I mean, I know many have been told they don't need to state they are
from ,insert group here> by many in here who think this should happen. It can't
be pick and choose as then all one becomes is a hypocrite. 



Glen

      re: -1
    
      I see Glen.  So your argument is that it is unconstitutional
      to state _what_ they are?
    
      If they chose not to state what they are, but remained what they
      are, it would have been OK?  How is concealing truth more proper 
      here?
    
      Clearly then, Madelain Murray OHare (sp?) should have been thrown
      out of court according to your reasoning for she declared WHO SHE
      IS (i.e. what religion/belief system she is - atheism).
    
      I don't see any way your brand of church state separation can 
      accomadate the Declaration of Independence. i.e. the historical
      context of the fathers who founded this nation.  The document
      itself mentions God.
    
      Hmmm, they shouldn't have done that, huh?  That was perhaps our
      first document.
    
      But, they did and our nation was established on that.  We took
      things too far.
    
    						Tony
                                          

| <<< Note 16.8 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>

| If they chose not to state what they are, but remained what they are, it would
| have been OK?  How is concealing truth more proper here?

	In a public school, under the laws we have now, it isn't the thing to
do. Basically I don't care what group is promoting what. But under the law, the
right decision was made.

No, Glen, under the law (posted in .-4) the principal very clearly made the
wrong decision, and a court has tentatively agreed and let the students
proceed with their protected expression.

The law very clearly states that if a school allows ANY extracurricular
activity, it must allow ALL lawful extracurricular activities, and the
law explicitly states that the school may not prohibit an activity
because of religious content.

By allowing the Chess Club to put up posters announcing a Chess Tournament,
the school is required to allow the Christian Club to put up posters
announcing an abstinence program.

That, Glen, is freedom of religion.

/john

    Humphrey shows just how far this country has drifted from God.  How
    long will we continue to cut off our noses to spite our face?  

    It is amazing at how uninformed Christians are today of their actual
    legal rights.  Call the American Center for Law and Justice and get your
    free fact sheet.

      This country is socialist.  There is a conspiracy headed by
      the Federal govt./Federal Reserve (internatinal elitist bankers)
      and others to overthrow the United States and implement a
      New World Order.
    
      We haven't been a republic since we (essentially) haven't had
      sovereigns.
    
      If Thomas Jefferson/Paul Revere/etc. were here right now, they'd
      be plotting overthrow.
    
    						Tony

    Regardless of you stance on conspiracies or the War Powers Act, et.
    al., the recent trends in this country are blatantly anti-Christ.

    .11:
    
    Come, come now!  Don't you agree that people breathe more freely after
    they've had their noses removed?
    
    Dick

re: Cathedral of the Pines.

How sad.  I've always enjoyed that place.

Paul

	Why would it matter what the color of Jesus is for this or any play? I
think some people need their heads examined. :-)

I'd ask the same question, Glen.  People are people.

And Jesus wasn't white, either.  Certainly not Anglo-Saxon.

I might question his ability to faithfully portray Jesus based on the fact that
he's also portraying the devil, though...  I'd have to know more about the
situation before I'd make that call, but I would be interested in knowing more
about that...

Paul

    Is that just because a man can portray a devil in a theatrical role
    that he may not be able to portray Jesus in a theatrical role?
    
    I would rather see more Christians portray Jesus in their role in life!

	It was because he was black. When people call and ask when the white
Jesus is going to ne on stage, then you have a problem.


Glen

>	It was because he was black. When people call and ask when the white
>Jesus is going to ne on stage, then you have a problem.

I agree with you, Glen.

 _
| \
 \ \    <--- Mark being put on the wall!!!
  \ \
   \ \_
   |   `.
 ._|_|   \
 |__      |
    `--.   \
        \   \

But I think Granpa Brown's child (name??) was referring to my comment in the
last paragraph of .18.

Paul

re.19

The more we "try" the more we will fail. 

ace

    re: .21
    
    >   <--- Mark being put on the wall!!!
    
    and what, pray tell, did Mark do to deserve being put on the wall? ;')
    
    H :')

    Sorry that I do not get to get into notes too often but to clarify what
    was said in .19 I could not understand why anybody would have a problem
    with an actor portraying the devil in one place and Christ in another.
    
    I also would like to see Christians act more like Christ.  We cannot
    expect non-Christians to act like Jesus even though they may seem to be
    doing just that.  The story of the good Samaritan comes to mind.
    
    I hope the discouraging comment about the more we try the more we fail
    will not take away hope.  More positively, the more we try the better
    chance we have to succeed.  I cannot say that we will succeed every
    time but if you do not try at all then you know you have failed.

re.24

I understand what you are saying. I think we fail because we
don't realize that our trying is precisely the thing that is
frustrating us from succeeding. We are like drowning people
who must stop struggling before the Lifeguard will haul us to
safety. Once we realize that in ourselves we are nothing, our
contributions are worthless, and our service to God is inadequate
at best, then the Lord may have a start with us. Only when we realize
our utter helplessness and put our total confidence in Him and His
doing will we experience success. This is what I mean by the more we
try the more we will fail. Only Christ is successful. We must allow
Him to do the doing.

Ace

 re 15.7


 I heard a litte report on it last night, but didn't hear any more details..

 Tragic..



 Jim

	Mike,

	Yes, I saw it.  Sickening, but not surprising.
I seem to recall that some kids found and opened the box.

	Some local pro-lifers (not actually under the
authority or supervision of the local Operation Rescue,
but claiming to be under the authority of other Operation
Rescue groups out west) have been staging their own version
of "Show the Truth at the High Schools".  They have been
using the goriest of their posters of dead and dismembered
babies.  My wife and I are concerned that this approach is
bad, both for establishing a relationship of trust with
students and their parents, and for general "public relations".
We have voiced our concerns, with no immediately apparent effect.
Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" herself) was finally won over to
Christ, and to a pro-life stand, by the friendship of a child.

	Bob Sampson

>The Rev. Laurene Lafontaine in Colorado has said "This is a very sad moment
>in our church's history.  This amendment ... effectively imposes a purity
>code ... and is going to be very problematic to enforce."


 I wonder if this person has ever taken a glance at the Bible.


 Jim

    
    Amen.  I was thinking similar words.
    
    			-JimGle-
    

>The Presbyterian Church (USA) has voted to require that all unmarried
>ministers, deacons, and elders be celibate.

As a member of this denomination, I rejoice, but I know that there is still a
LONG battle to be fought over this issue.

It is frightening to me that such a statement is even questioned, let alone
hotly controversial.  It speaks with such sad eloquence on the fallen state
of our society, and of the churches in our society.

Paul

    Another Amen.  Their leaders need to do a word study on "fornication."

    Yeah,
    
    I was trying to see where the problem is?
    
    Not that I haven't been guilty of fornication and/or adultery myself
    (no, I will *not* supply details! ;'} Those were mistake (read "willful
    disobedience") that I have confessed and repented of.
    
    I am praising God to see the Pressie's (well, one flavour anyway) are
    taking this step.
    
    H
    
    (a Pressie in Aussie ;')

	Harry,

	The problem (as you and I both know) is that complete chastity
from the heart is *humanly* impossible.  Our only hope is the very Life
and Breath of God, living and loving within us.  But thanks be to God,
who continually gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

	Bob^3

  With men things are "Humanly impossable", but with GOD all things are....
    possable! The plus is that when we are in the obedience of GOD, we are
    in the will of GOD and then we will be in the abundant blessings of GOD.
    
    I pray this will happen with this denomination and all other
    interviduals who  are in such condition.
    
                     In Christ's love..............Jack Perry
    P.S. PRAY for the HOLY SPIRIT will soften the hearts of them/us!
    

    Gender neutral?  <scratches head>

 "Our parent, which art in Heaven", for example.



 
Jim

The following two replies were moved here to this discussion note from note
15, specifically in response to reply 15.10

Paul
Co-Moderator

>The folks who publish the NIV are introducing a "gender neutral translation"
>in the UK, and plan on introducing it in the US by 2000.  It will replace
>the current NIV.

This is an issue that typically generates a pretty strong response, either
positive or negative.  And I think it's important that we not just react -
either negatively, by assuming that any attempt to do this is an attempt to
modify the original meaning to suit our currently popular sensibilities, or
positively, assuming that 'gender-neutrality' is always a good thing in all
circumstances.

Whether any instance is a good thing or not really depends on WHERE and WHY
things are being made 'gender-neutral.'  In some places, 'gender-neutrality'
is actually MORE accurate than most current translations.  In others, it is
not, and in some places it directly changes and alters the meaning of the
text.

For example, in the original greek, there are two words which are both
commonly translated as "man" or "men."  One is "aner" which specifically
means a man or a male person.  The other is "anthropos" which means "human
being" without reference to gender.  Making the translation more accurately
reflect this is probably a GOOD thing, and is certainly not a BAD or WRONG
thing.  Mt 4:19 is probably MORE accurately translated as "'Come, follow me,'
Jesus said, 'and I will make you fishers of people,'" since it uses the word
'anthropos,' not 'aner.'  I would have no difficulty with a translation that
did things like this.

But the reason I'd have no difficulty is because it is STILL an attempt to
accurately translate the original into our current language, with a
recognition that our current language is always changing.  A number of years
ago, "men" did mean "humans" to most people.  But languages change, and
that's just not the case any more to many, many people.  We might WANT it to
still be the case, but it really isn't.  And there's nothing wrong with an
attempt to translate the original thoughts and ideas into the language we
really use.

But, when 'gender-neutral' is held up as something which the Word must then
be shoehorned into, that's something else altogether.  Instead of putting the
Word first, and seeking to do our best to understand it in our current
language, we are putting our sensibilities first, and blatantly changing what
the Word says to fit.  And that is NOT a good thing.

For example, when Jesus told us to pray "Our Father..." He didn't just choose
the word 'Father' accidentally.  He had a purpose for it.  We may not
understand that purpose, but that doesn't give us the right to change it.  So
when it goes to the point of saying "Our parent..." we've left the path of
seeking to heed the Word, and have embarked on the path of making the Word
heed us.

I'll reserve judgement on this new NIV translation until I see what it
actually does in the way of 'gender-neutrality.'

Paul

The Vatican has condemned the gender neutral NRSV, recommending continued use
of the RSV or the NAB, REB, and others.

The NRSV is only horizontally neutral (brethren becomes brothers and sisters,
etc.); is the new NIV to be only horizontally neutral, or is it (much worse)
to be vertically neutral (God our Father -> God our Parent) as well?

/john

re .38 are you sure it is both vertically and horizontally neutral?

/john

 I'll try to remember to enter some of the article later tonight.




 Jim

 My understanding is "vertical".




Jim

    I'm not NIV+

    /me shakes head... and who was it that said the NIV was a New Age
    Translation?
    
    I'm not surprised.

Could we keep this conversation together now?  :-)

Paul

Again - there's no problem with neutrality because the original languages
reflect that.  Beyond that, it is tampering with the Word to fit our own
sensibilities.

And that's not just horizontal/vertical.  Pretty much all of the vertical
'neutrality' would be tampering with the Word.  But note that while most of
the NT references to 'men,' when used in a general sense, are appropriately
translated as neutral without tampering, it would be just as much tampering
with the Word to make the few places that specify "men" neutral, just because
we think they ought to have been neutral.

Paul

 What astounds me is the apparent belief that God would be pleased with His
 Word being altered to fit a political agenda, or that man (humanity) considers
 itself superior to God in such matters.

 Though, I guess I shouldn't be astounded.

 The article I read last night mentioned a rather large non-denominational
 church in the Chicago area which has adopted a "gender neutral" philosophy
 to the point where it's leadership MUST adhere to same, and they intend to
 use a gender neutral "translation".



 Jim

    What about the parts that are gender specific to women?
    
    I can see some sort of strange permeatations to a few verses, that's
    for sure.
    
    I have no problem with using gender neutral terms to those words that
    are *supposed* to be gender neutral (mankind, for example), but I fear
    that this new translation will go far beyond this form of proper
    linguisical update.
    
    So, let's see, the new and "improved" prayer template would go
    something like this:  "Our Parent, who art in heaven, hallowed be Its
    name... "
    
    Nope.  Just doesn't cut it with me.
    
    
    
    -steve

    Wife submit to your husband;
    
    person submit to your person
    
    Husband's love your wives as Christ loved the church
    
    person love your person as Christ loved the church
    
    I can see where gender neutral is applicable, but it also tears down
    God's design for family.
    
    I can't believe any BAC could accept this...

    
    Goodness, if 'they' made the Bible gender neutral, it would take away 
    my fun with Eph 6:4
    
       Fathers, do not exasperate your children... 
    
    so, does this mean that mothers CAN exasperate their children? 
    
    I think not. 
    
    If 'they' can use gender neutral pronouns for those passages that ARE 
    gender neutral, it could help a lot to interpretation. 
    
    Mary Jo 
    Colorado Springs 
    

	Illegal by what criteria, John?  Israel was coerced into promising
not to build further *Jewish* settlements in certain "disputed" areas within
its own sovereign borders.  However, the agreement is contingent upon the
other parties' fulfillment of their roles in the agreed "peace process";
i.e. not to wage or foment war on Israel.  In order to survive, Israel must
continue to assert its basic right as a nation of people (of varied races and
faiths) to secure its own borders, using all necessary and effective means.

	Why not spend some of your indignation on those who continue to
wage a *highly* illegal and immoral "guerilla war" on the people of Israel?
I consider the building of Jewish settlements by Israelis to be not nearly
as provocative as the detonating of terrorist bombs on city buses, the
launching of missiles at these settlements from the "disputed areas", etc.

	Yes, Mossad and the defense forces have definitely over-reacted,
on many occasions.  But, where is your outrage against the attackers of
Israel who go on killing people day after day?

	Let the UN GA do all the posturing it wants.  It's strange
how that "august body" never gets around to condemning or fighting 
state-sponsored terrorism against Israel.  That might gain them a
little credibility.

Those are _not_ being built within its own sovereign borders.

The resolution condemns the building on territory which is recognized
under international law as occupied territory, *outside* the borders
of Israel.

Under the Geneva Convention, building in occupied territories and moving
civilian populations into occupied territories is expressly forbidden.

/john

	As you well know, John, the original tract of land designated for
the state of Israel included the entire trans-Jordan region.  The British
later reneged under pressure, and took away nine-tenths of this land,
opting to instead create the new client-states of Jordan and Iraq.

	Unsatisfied with nine-tenths of the land, Israel's enemies
threatened to attack, and finally mustered the courage to actually
attack, the remaining sliver of land still known as Israel.  In its
own defense, Israel drove the invaders back entirely, out of Judea,
Samaria, and the Golan heights.  Thus they won a defensible border.

	The member states of the UN have voted it best to once again
strip Israel of its remaining land area, at least back to the pre-1967
indefensible borders.  This does not constitute "international law",
but rather a very ugly form of lawless international aggression,
against a sovereign nation.  That's how I see it, John, regardless
of who might disagree.

	Again, anything the UN has to say might gain some credibility
if they would occasionally vote to condemn Red China, or Iran, or
Syria, for *their* grossly immoral and illegal activities.  As it
stands, the UN rhetoric against Israel bears a striking resemblance
(at least in its imbalance) to the rhetoric coming from our current
US executive branch regime (e.g. in its advocacy of death for the helpless).

	And again, why is your outrage expressed against Israel for building
a few lousy Jewish settlements on "disputed" but hard-won land, and yet you
express no outrage against the avowed enemies of Israel, who wage their
public-relations campaign with bombs?

>As you well know, John, the original tract of land designated for
>the state of Israel included the entire trans-Jordan region.

I know quite well that you are completely wrong.

To see how the land was to be divided, take a look at this page at Israel's
Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

	http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/peace/part181.html

A larger version of the same map is at

	http://bulova.zko.dec.com/group/covert/partition.jpg

All of the disputed construction is outside the borders of the state of
Israel.

/john

>And again, why is your outrage expressed against Israel ...
>and yet you express no outrage against the avowed enemies of Israel,
>who wage their public-relations campaign with bombs?

When will you stop beating your wife?

You are bearing false witness against me.  I am on record condemning
all forms of terrorism, be it with bombs or with bulldozers.

/john

    I think it is rather blind and very unChristian-like to continue to
    harp on God's chosen people and the land that God gave them.  God's
    Word declares what the antisemites haven't.  Read and heed.

>>And again, why is your outrage expressed against Israel ...
>>and yet you express no outrage against the avowed enemies of Israel,
>>who wage their public-relations campaign with bombs?
>
>When will you stop beating your wife?
>
>You are bearing false witness against me.  I am on record condemning
>all forms of terrorism, be it with bombs or with bulldozers.
>
>/john

	I'm not bearing false witness against you.  I haven't accused you
of anything (and I won't).  I'm just stating what I'm hearing from you in
this string, and asking you the reason for the expression of outrage against
Israel (for building Jewish settlements in the "disputed" areas; a phrase you
omitted when quoting me above), without any accompanying outrage against the
recent terror tactics of Israel's enemies.  If you don't care to answer my
question, that's your perogative.  But it was an honest question, which I
asked because I'd really like to know.

	I will peruse the Israeli web site, but I don't expect any
surprises.  Go back in time, before Israel was allowed to become a
nation, and I expect you will find my synopsis to be quite correct.
You might have to do some digging, though, because it is a history
that many would prefer not to tell.

	John,

	Here is an *abridged* timeline.  The original is on the Israeli
Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site.  Perhaps this note can serve as a
framework for our discussion of what really happened and when, regarding
the establishment of national borders, etc.  I cut out most of the items,
which I did not recognize as contributing directly to the discussion.

	1922 is an especially relevant year to this discussion, in which
Britain, under pressure from the League of Nations, begins to renege on
its plans for a Jewish state in Palestine.

	Thank you, John, for directing my attention to this web site.
I may very well have been incorrect in some details.  Please bring these
to my attention.  To me, though, the overall timeline confirms the gist
of what I stated.  Israel's enemies have never accepted its very existence,
and to this day are trying to push back that nation's borders straight into
the Mediterranean.  The peace process, with its negotiated boundaries, is
meaningful only to the extent that all parties genuinely implement its
provisions.

	You mentioned East Jerusalem, possibly only as an example, or
possibly as a major concern.  Perhaps you could e-mail an inquiry for us,
to [email protected], asking Israel itself how it would define its
own sovereign national borders at the present time, and how exactly it would
expect those borders to change (if at all) as the peace process progresses.
If you were to post your inquiry and their response (assuming there is one),
that would clear up any erroneous speculation on my part.

	HTH,
	Bob Sampson

   Linkname: ZIONISM: Timeline of Events
        URL: http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/zionism/timeline.html
       size: 1050 lines

Mail all queries to [email protected]
   Centenary of Zionism
                              TIMELINE OF EVENTS

   1897
     * First Zionist Congress is convened (29 August); adoption of the
       Basle program, calling for the establishment of a national home
       for the Jews in the Land of Israel; Theodor Herzl, the congress'
       initiator, writes in his journal: "In Basle I founded the Jewish
       State... In...fifty years, everyone will realize it."

   1901
     * Fifth Zionist Congress; the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet
       LeIsrael) is founded by the Zionist Organization for the purpose
       of purchasing land in the Land of Israel to be the "eternal
       possession of the Jewish people"
   
   1902
     * Sixth Zionist Congress; discussion of the British government's
       offer of a territory in Uganda for Jewish settlement; the offer
       causes a major split in the movement, and while approved by a
       majority of delegates is later abandoned
   
   1907
     * Eighth Zionist Congress; decision is made to proceed with
       political Zionism (international efforts to obtain a charter for
       the Jews in Palestine) and practical Zionism (settlement); it is
       acknowledged that both are necessary and together form a whole

   1917
     * 400 years of Ottoman rule are ended by British conquest; British
       General Allenby enters Jerusalem
     * Balfour Declaration is issued, pledging the British government's
       support for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in
       Palestine (2 November)
   
   1918
     * First meeting of Chaim Weizmann (head of the Zionist Commission,
       sent by Britain to Palestine and later first president of Israel)
       with the Emir Feisal, head of the Arab nationalist movement
   
   1919
     * Weizmann and the Emir Feisal sign an agreement for close
       collaboration between their respective national movements;
       agreement is later repudiated by Arab nationalists

   1920
     * Supreme Council of San Remo Peace Conference resolves that the
       Mandate for Palestine be conferred on Great Britain

   1921
     * Chief Rabbinate is instituted by Mandate authorities; Rabbi
       Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook is appointed first Ashkenazi Chief
       Rabbi of Palestine; Rabbi Ya'akov Meir - first Sephardi Chief
       Rabbi, with the title of Rishon LeZion
   
   1922
     * League of Nations confirms British Mandate for Palestine, citing
       the Balfour Declaration in the preamble of the Mandate
     * The Council of the League of Nations and Great Britain decide that
       the provisions for a Jewish National Home would not apply to the
       area east of the Jordan River - three-fourths of the territory
       included in the Mandate, which eventually becomes the Hashemite
       Kingdom of Jordan
     * Churchill White Paper is published, giving a restrictive
       interpretation to the Balfour Declaration and limiting immigration
     * The Palestine Order in Council (in effect a constitution) is
       promulgated by the British Mandatory authorities

   1923
     * Thirteenth Zionist Congress; lengthy discussion regarding the
       Zionist Organization, which begins this year to fulfill the tasks
       required of a "Jewish Agency"

   1929
     * Sixteenth Zionist Congress; a Jewish Agency is constituted, as
       stipulated in the Mandate, to represent the Jewish community in
       Palestine vis-a-vis the British authorities, foreign governments
       and international organizations (from 1923 these tasks had been
       partly filled by the Zionist Organization in Palestine)

   1933
     * Hitler comes to power in Germany
     * Eighteenth Zionist Congress; conflict between labor and
       revisionists continues

   1936-39
     * A three-year period of disorder and violence known as the Arab
       Revolt (against Jewish immigration and land purchase by Jews),
       during which hundreds of Jews are murdered
     * Tel Aviv port is built, in answer to closure of Jaffa port during
       Arab general strike

   1936
     * Some 50 new settlements are established in outlying areas, set up
       in one day and ready to defend by nightfall, known as the
       "stockade and watchtower settlements"

   1937
     * Peel Commission recommends partitioning Palestine into two states,
       one Jewish and one Arab, with an area including Jerusalem and a
       corridor to the sea to remain under British administration
     * Twentieth Zionist Congress; it is resolved to negotiate a more
       favorable partition of Palestine with the British government
   
   1938
     * Aliya B, "illegal immigration" of Jews from Europe, begins; by
       1948 almost 100,000 illegal immigrants will arrive

   1939
     * 1939 White Paper is published, restricting immigration and the
       sale of land to Jews
     * Twenty-first Zionist Congress; strong opposition to the White
       Paper and support for illegal immigration are expressed
     * World War II breaks out (1 September); a master plan to liquidate
       the Jewish community in Europe is put into motion by Nazi Germany;
       some six million Jews, including 1.5 million children, are
       murdered by the Nazis between 1939 and 1945 (the Shoah -
       Holocaust)

   1941
     * The Patria, carrying illegal immigrants about to be deported to
       Mauritius, is sabotaged by the Haganah to prevent its sailing; it
       sinks in Haifa harbor with 250 aboard
   
   1942
     * The Struma, returning to Europe after British insistence that it
       would not be allowed into port in Palestine, founders in the Black
       Sea and all 770 persons aboard perish

   1945
     * World War II ends (8 May)
     * General Sir Alan Cunningham is appointed last High Commissioner
     * Two Lehi members (Eliyahu Hakim and Eliyahu Bet Tzuri) are hanged
       by the British in Egypt for the assassination of Lord Moyne, the
       British Minister of State for the Middle East, in Cairo
   
   1946
     * Jewish defense organizations (Haganah, Etzel and Lehi) join
       together to carry out actions blowing up road and railway bridges
       which link Palestine with neighboring states
     * Black Saturday (29 June) - Mandatory government arrests many Jews,
       including members of the Jewish Agency Executive, exiling many to
       Cyprus, conducts searches for Palmach members and arms caches, and
       intensifies policy against illegal immigration
     * South wing of King David Hotel, the seat of the Mandate government
       and the British army, is blown up by Etzel; 80 killed
     * The Arab economic boycott is first applied by the Arab League
       against the Jewish community in Palestine (subsequently against
       the State of Israel)

   1947
     * 4500 refugees who left Europe on the Exodus are not allowed to
       disembark in Palestine and are sent back to Europe
     * Seven Etzel and Lehi members are hanged by British for attacks on
       the British military; two commit suicide in their prison cell
     * Etzel hangs two kidnapped British sergeants in retaliation
     * UN decides on establishment of Jewish and Arab states in
       Palestine, by a vote of 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions; Arab riots
       against yishuv begin (29 November)

   1948
     * State of Israel is proclaimed (5 Iyar - 14 May) by David
       Ben-Gurion, hours before the British Mandate is due to end (15
       May)
     * War of Independence begins (15 May) as the armies of Egypt, Syria,
       Jordan and Lebanon and a contingent from Iraq attack the new
       state; in 15 months of intermittent fighting, all invaders are
       repulsed
     * Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is founded, incorporating all the
       pre-state defense organizations
     * First census finds a population of 872,700 in Israel - 716,700
       Jews and 156,000 non-Jews

   1949
     * Armistice agreements are signed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and
       Lebanon
     * Jerusalem is divided between Israel and Jordan, with Jordan
       holding the Old City and east Jerusalem, and Israel retaining the
       western and southern parts of the city
     * Mass immigration begins, from Arab countries of Middle East and
       North Africa and displaced persons from Europe
     * Jerusalem is declared capital of Israel by the Knesset
     * Israel becomes 59th member of UN
     * Operation Magic Carpet - aliya of Jews from Yemen - begins

   1950
     * Government ministries are moved to Jerusalem
   
   1951
     * Twenty-third Zionist Congress, the first to meet in Jerusalem;
       adoption of the Jerusalem program, resolving to work towards the
       consolidation of the State of Israel, the ingathering of the
       exiles in Eretz Israel and the unity of the Jewish people

   1954
     * Egypt stops Israeli freighter, Bat Galim, from passing through the
       Suez Canal, contravening the cease-fire agreement
     * Israeli intelligence fiasco in Egypt causes a scandal (Esek Bish)
       which continues for nearly a decade and forces Israel's Minister
       of Defense, Pinchas Lavon, to resign

   1956
     * Sinai Campaign is launched by Israel, Great Britain and France
       after terrorist incursions, an Egyptian blockade of the Straits of
       Tiran and the signing of a tripartite military alliance by Egypt,
       Jordan and Syria; in the course of the fighting, Israel captures
       the Gaza Strip and the entire Sinai peninsula
   
   1957
     * Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, is
       assured free passage of its shipping through the Suez Canal

   1960
     * Twenty-fifth Zionist Congress; a constitution is adopted
       introducing far-reaching reforms and decentralization; the Zionist
       Organization's name is changed to the World Zionist Organization

   1967
     * Six-Day War (6-11 June)
     * Jerusalem is liberated
     * The Golan Heights are taken by Israel after fierce fighting
       against attacking Syrian forces
     * Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Sinai peninsula come under Israeli
       control
     * Jerusalem officially reunited, and its municipal boundaries
       expanded
     * Open Bridges policy across the Jordan River bridges, for goods and
       people, is instituted by Israel
     * UN resolution 242 adopted, providing an agreed framework for
       settling the Arab-Israel dispute (22 November)
     * Military government is established in administered areas

   1968
     * Twenty-seventh Zionist Congress, the first to meet in reunited
       Jerusalem, adopts additions to the Jerusalem program relating to
       Jewish unity, centrality of Israel, aliya and Jewish education
       abroad


   1969-70
     * War of Attrition, sporadic military actions by Egypt along the
       Suez Canal, escalate into full-scale localized fighting until a
       renewed cease-fire is achieved

   1973
     * Yom Kippur War - on the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the
       Jewish year, Egypt and Syria launch a coordinated surprise attack,
       repulsed by Israel after unprecedented fierce fighting and heavy
       losses

   1974
     * Separation-of-forces agreement is signed with Egypt
     * Gush Emunim, a movement dedicated to Jewish sovereignty over
       historical Israel (advocating settling Judea and Samaria) becomes
       active

   1975
     * Israel signs treaty with EC, instituting a free trade area for
       industrial products and leading to a significant increase in trade
     * UN passes resolution equating Zionism with racism
     * Disengagement agreement is signed with Syria

   1977
     * Egyptian President Sadat visits Jerusalem, breaking the cycle of
       Arab rejection of Israel

   1978
     * Camp David Accords, constituting a basis for peace between Israel
       and Egypt, as well as a basis for solving the Palestinian issue,
       are signed by Israel and Egypt
     * Operation Litani - in response to attacks on civilians in northern
       Israel, Israel takes action against terrorist strongholds in
       southern Lebanon

   1979
     * Peace Treaty with Egypt is signed, marking the end of 31 years of
       hostility and five costly wars
     * Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat are awarded Nobel Peace
       Prize

   1980
     * Basic Law: "Jerusalem, Capital of Israel" is passed by Knesset

   1981
     * Memorandum of Understanding is signed with USA, forming the basis
       for civilian and military cooperation
     * Iraqi nuclear reactor is destroyed by Israel Air Force, weeks
       before it is due to go critical and pose a grave threat to Israel
       and the rest of the world
     * The Golan Heights Law is passed by the Knesset

   1982
     * Israel completes withdrawal from Sinai in accordance with the
       Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty
     * Operation Peace for Galilee is launched against PLO terrorist
       strongholds in Lebanon used for attacks against northern Israel;
       the IDF withdraws from Lebanon in 1985, retaining a presence in a
       security zone in southern Lebanon

   1984
     * Operation Moses brings some 7000 Jews from the ancient Jewish
       community of Ethiopia to Israel

   1987
     * Palestinian uprising (intifada) begins in the West Bank and the
       Gaza Strip

   1989
     * Mass immigration of Jews from the former Soviet Union begins

   1990
     * Labor party ministers resign from the government over lack of
       progress in the peace process

   1991
     * Israel is attacked by Iraqi Scud missiles during Gulf War
     * Middle East Peace Conference convenes in Madrid, bringing together
       representatives of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the
       Palestinians
     * UN Security Council rescinds the resolution equating Zionism with
       racism
     * Operation Solomon - most of the Jews remaining in Ethiopia, some
       15,000, are brought to Israel in a massive 25-hour airlift

   1993
     * Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements
       is signed by Israel and the PLO as the representative of the
       Palestinian people
   
   1994
     * Gaza-Jericho Agreement between Israel and the PLO is signed in
       Cairo
     * Israel-Jordan peace treaty is signed, establishing full diplomatic
       relations
     * Morocco and Tunisia interest offices are opened
     * Rabin, Peres and Arafat are awarded Nobel Peace Prize

   1995
     * Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is signed by
       Israel and the PLO, providing for broadened self-government by the
       Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
     * Treaty of Association is signed with EU, broadening trade
       relations between Israel and the EU
     * Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is assassinated by a Jewish extremist
       at a peace rally; Shimon Peres becomes prime minister
   
   1996
     * IDF redeploys in the West Bank, including withdrawal from six West
       Bank cities, implementing the interim agreement
     * Trade representation offices are established in Oman and Qatar

   1997
     * Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron signed between
       Israel and the PLO

What do you mean "begins to renege" in 1922?

Show me where there were any concrete plans for creating a Jewish state before
1947, when the UN set the boundaries.

If you're talking about the Balfour Declaration of 1917, that was a completely
worthless statement which said in its entirety:

  "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine 
  of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best 
  endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly 
  understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and 
  religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the 
  rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Nowhere did it say anything about what the borders of this "national home"
would be, and by saying that nothing shall be done to prejudice the civil
rights of existing non-Jewish communities it explicitly disavowed the idea
that this "national home" would have the right to expropriate Arab land.

As for the Bible saying that this land belongs to the Jews, I have two
comments on that:

	1. What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but
	   loses his soul?  Haven't you people read enough of the
	   Gospels to know what Jesus said to those people who expected
	   God to provide a solution to the geopolitical situation in
	   first century Palestine?  God's solution is for neighbors
	   to live in peace and love each other, not to steal or covet
	   each other's property.

	2. Why should the descendants of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
	   Mary Magdalene, Peter, Zaccheus, and the thousands of
	   Jewish Christians accounted for in the Bible -- the Christians
	   who live in East Jerusalem today, Christians like Hanan
	   Ashrawi -- have to give up their land to European immigrants?
	   There is enough land there for everyone, if they will just
	   cooperate and build together for peace.

These people should all be able to live together in peace, in two sovereign
states with an economic union and free travel between the two parts.

As for "not saying anything about the bombings" -- I certainly have, elsewhere,
_when_ bombings occur.  And I hadn't said anything in this string because
(thank God) there hasn't been a bombing this week, but there _has_ been a UN
resolution, and that's what I intended to discuss.

Some terrorist setting off a bomb in Tel Aviv _does_not_ give Bibi the right
to take away land east of Jerusalem, outside Israel's recognized international
boundaries, that belongs to peaceful Christian and Moslem people.

/john

|	   loses his soul?  Haven't you people read enough of the
|	   Gospels to know what Jesus said to those people who expected
|	   God to provide a solution to the geopolitical situation in
|	   first century Palestine?  God's solution is for neighbors
|	   to live in peace and love each other, not to steal or covet
|	   each other's property.
    
    Haven't you read enough of the Bible to know that God always honors His
    covenants (which includes the land He gave Israel) and that
    Anti-Semitism is Satanic?

      Ohhh, Mike...
    
      You really didn't have to flame that hard!
    
      Please consider respecting other's 'inferior' beliefs!
      I am open to the possibility that one of the biggest
      purposes of God has been, and needs to be, to reproduce
      the character of His Son in a last generation.
    
      That generation called Jacob, the generation who seeks
      God's face (Psalm 24:6) while ascending to higher and
      higher levels of sanctification (by God's grace of course)
      until surviving even the time of Jacob's trouble (Jeremiah
      30:4-7). The Jacob who overcomes as their type Jacob did 
      all the way to the point of inhabiting Mount Zion.
    
      And, as overcomers, being Israel.
    
      						Tony

> Anti-Semitism is Satanic

Yes, he who hates his brother is a murderer, whether that brother is a
semite or a member of any other nation.

However, calling on Israel to obey international law and calling on Israel
to obey God's commandments to not covet or steal is not anti-semitism.

And nothing in God's Covenant with the Hebrew people entitles a group of
mostly secular people to form a Jewish state that includes East Jerusalem
or entitles them to bulldoze land which belongs to other children of Abraham.

/john

Note .48 set hidden, mail sent to author.

Paul
Co-Moderator

Sorry, Tony. John has brought this topic up in several conferences and it gets a
little tiring.

John, It appears you have lost sight of the big picture and God's covenant
with Israel.  A Christian shouldn't be anti-Israel and the Abrahamic covenant.
    
It is sort of ironic that you would be willing to endlessly debate our Jewish
friends in BAGELS about this topic, but at the same time ignore the atrocities
your church has committed to both Jews and Christians.

|However, calling on Israel to obey international law and calling on Israel
|to obey God's commandments to not covet or steal is not anti-semitism.

...God's commandment/covenant includes Israel maintaining the land God gave
them.

|And nothing in God's Covenant with the Hebrew people entitles a group of
|mostly secular people to form a Jewish state that includes East Jerusalem
|or entitles them to bulldoze land which belongs to other children of Abraham.

Neither does it entitle them to give away the land God gave them.  The only
child of Abraham that God recognized is Issac.  

| <<< Note 16.50 by PHXS01::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| It is sort of ironic that you would be willing to endlessly debate our Jewish
| friends in BAGELS about this topic, but at the same time ignore the atrocities
| your church has committed to both Jews and Christians.

	If I didn't read that the above came from you, I never would have
guessed it. Mike, things that are similar in nature have been brought to your
attention (losing site) many a time, but you let it go by the wayside. Why do
you expect John to do what you won't?




Glen

|Look toward the future.  Bad things in the past do not justify bad things
|in the present.
    
    All the more reason to leave Israel and their land alone.  Palestine's
    error of the past doesn't justify them trying to take Israel's land
    today.

>It is sort of ironic that you would be willing to endlessly debate our Jewish
>friends in BAGELS about this topic, but at the same time ignore the atrocities
>your church has committed to both Jews and Christians.

I don't ignore anything.  Why don't you post a list of atrocities that
we Anglicans have done to Jews and Christians (we probably killed more
Roman Catholics than Jews) and I'll apologize for them.

If you're referring to Roman Catholics, I'll remind you that the current
Pope has made it very clear that the Roman Catholic Church needs to do
penance for its past actions.  He can and has apologized, and I don't
need to do so.

If you're referring to the Protestant Reformers such as Calvin and all the
people they killed, then I'll let others do the apologizing for them.

Look toward the future.  Bad things in the past do not justify bad things
in the present.  Just because Henry VIII killed some people in 1533 doesn't
mean that Netanyahu can take away land in 1997 that belongs to Christians
and Moslems.

I'm not anti-Israel.  But I am opposed to the taking of land from its
rightful owners.  There is _no_ scriptural basis for the Israeli
government having control of that land rather than the Palestinian.

/john

>Palestine's error of the past doesn't justify them trying to take Israel's
>land today.

Sorry, Mike, but East Jerusalem simply _does_not_ belong to the Netanyahu
government.

The Palestinians are children of Abraham, too.

/john

	John,

	Perhaps you should take up this issue with Bibi directly, then.
It's clear to me by now that I don't have anything to say to you about
this, that you didn't already know.

	TTFN,
	Bob Sampson

    John,
    
    	FWIW, I would contend that Israel's position is that this
    "disputed" territory lies within Israel's sovereign national borders.
    The negotiated peace process first allows for increased autonomy of
    the "Palestinians" (Arabs living within Israel) within certain
    "disputed" areas of Israel.  The establishment of a Palestinian
    State comes afterward, if at all.
    
    IMHO,
    Bob Sampson

    John,
    
    	Perhaps you might consider a different approach in communicating your
    concerns.  Tell us the personal stories of the people who are affected
    by these provocative Israeli actions.  Give us some specifics, with
    which we can empathize.
    
    	I just learned that an exchange student at my step-daughter's high
    school has won a local scholarship (the Boettcher), but will have
    to forfeit the opportunity, because she is an Israeli citizen, and
    her mandatory tour of duty in the IDF is about to begin.  This would
    not be necessary if Israel weren't under a constant state of siege.
    
    Bob Sampson

Re:                   <<< Note 15.20 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
                         -< Is That Really Necessary? >-
    Hi Tony,
    
>        Does someone need a personal story to validate the wrongness
>        of something?
    
    	Not necessarily, but it sure helps sometimes.  Israel's actions
    in this case could range anywhere from outright theft of land
    (as John insists) from completely innocent inhabitants, to proper
    punishment of treasonous acts, e.g. harboring terrorists.  A little
    background might shed some light on the subject.
    
>        Am I to be chastised for saying the Nazi holocaust was wrong
>        on the basis that I lack a personal account?
    
    Huh?  We're talking possible theft of land here, which is not quite
    the moral equivalent of extermination, and we haven't established
    for a fact that theft of land has actually taken place.  I'm not
    "chastising" anyone, either.  I'm questioning the factual basis for
    John's assertions, and suggesting a more personal approach.  Also,
    there is no lack of personal accounts of the Nazi Holocaust, given
    a little investment in research.
    
>        John makes a lot of sense to me.  If I was a landowner in that
>        area and Israel just plain took my land, I'd be upset.
    
    	Exactly!  If that is indeed the case, then the personal tragedy
    needs to be told.  We need to hear about the actual landowners who
    actually had land stolen from them by Israel.  The eyewitness accounts
    can establish the facts.
    
    	Bob Sampson

    John,
    
    Thank you for that post.  It provides tangible evidence that there is
    and has been violence from both sides, and that violence is all the
    more ugly when committed, encouraged, or abetted by the ruling
    authorities.
    
    The first release dealt with a case in which two men entered a house,
    apparently undetected by the family.  The summary execution of the
    two men in connection with a bus bombing certainly doesn't square with
    our American sense of justice, although police here don't hesitate to
    blow away a suspect if they believe he poses an immediate threat.
    
    The destruction of the house and prohibition against rebuilding it
    also seem harsh, although similar things have happened to landowners
    in America, often in the name of protecting the environment, or
    because tenants were accused of a crime.
    
    Mennonites and Church of the Brethren are strict pacifists, aren't
    they?  You don't suppose the CPT reports could be biased in favor
    of one side vs. the other, do you?  I'm glad CPT is there, mind you,
    putting themselves on the line, trying to defuse volatile situations,
    and giving IDF further motivation to do the right thing (good for
    public relations).  Tensions are understandably high between Jews
    and Arabs right now in Israel.  One thing the CPT workers might not
    witness, while keeping peace on the streets of Hebron, are the bombs
    and missiles exploding in other cities of Israel.  I hope they do
    also notice the level of violence directed against the IDF as well.

	A well-documented (albeit very one-sided and impersonal) report from
the president of the Zionist Organization of America, focusing on the PLO's
obligations and failures under the peace accords, can be found at:

        URL: http://www.emet.com/zoa.htm
       size: 1778 lines

	My replies from topic 15 (which is for news stories)
have been moved here to topic 16 (which is for discussion of topic 15).
Moderators, please feel free to repair the damage as appropriate.

>Moderators, please feel free to repair the damage as appropriate.

To do this, they can most easily move your replies back to where they
came from in topic 15 and then move the whole group over here.

Otherwise they will not be in order.

/john

Hi Bob,

�	My replies from topic 15 (which is for news stories)
� have been moved here to topic 16 (which is for discussion of topic 15).
� Moderators, please feel free to repair the damage as appropriate.

You'll have to identify explicitly which replies (the new, 16.* numbers) 
you intend to go in note 15, as it is not clear from an initial perusal 
which are 'news' and which are 'comment' - some are certainly one and some 
the other, but some have a mixture, which this format isn't geared up to 
support.

							Andrew

	Andrew,
    
    	Only the two replies marked with asterisks on the left really
    have much "news" content, so they *could* remain lodged in topic
    15 when the smoke clears, if you like.  John noted that an exchange
    took place in topic 15, and that I've disrupted the sequence by
    moving only my replies to 16.  Whether to fix this, and how best
    to accomplish the fix, I don't know.  John's suggestion to surgically
    restore each of my replies back to the gaps left in topic 15, then
    move everyone's responses to John's original post to topic 16, seems
    as good a solution as any.
    
    	My replies listed immediately below were originally entered in
    16 (well, more or less; some may have been moved from 15 right away):
    
          CUJO::SAMPSON      25-APR-1997   16.36  illegal? really?
          CUJO::SAMPSON      26-APR-1997   16.38  more like international lawlessness
          CUJO::SAMPSON      27-APR-1997   16.42  let's debate the issues, John
*         CUJO::SAMPSON      27-APR-1997   16.43  from "100 years of Zionism; a timeline"
    
    
	My replies listed immediately below were moved (by me) from topic
    15, where they were formerly interspersed with other replies:
    
          CUJO::SAMPSON      28-APR-1997   16.55  let us dunderheads know how it goes
          CUJO::SAMPSON      29-APR-1997   16.56  ask Bibi if he sees it your way
          CUJO::SAMPSON      29-APR-1997   16.57  spell it out for us
          CUJO::SAMPSON      29-APR-1997   16.58  personal stories would be helpful
          CUJO::SAMPSON      29-APR-1997   16.59  helpful, maybe a bit dated
*         CUJO::SAMPSON      29-APR-1997   16.60  a counterbalance
    
    
    	My replies listed below can be deleted when all is well again:
    
          CUJO::SAMPSON      30-APR-1997   16.61  sorry, but they really belong here
          cujo::sampson      (whenever)    16.64  (this reply)

Hi Bob,

It wasn't clear where in note 15 the two notes you identified came from, so
going as close as I could by date, I moved the time-line to 15.10, and the
web reference to 15.15.  To do so is a very simple command from the
character cell interface while you're reading the note, eg: 

Notes> Set note /note_id=15.20

If you want it elsewhere, you can do it yoursef, as you are the author.

However, it seems the tip of the iceberg, as notes 15.14-15.21 and 
15.25-15.26 are discussion rather than news too, and no doubt shuffling 
them into 16.* would confuse some... ;-)

						Andrew
						co-moderator

I don't recall reading a single CPT report that was pro-Israel or that spoke
of Palestinian aggression against Jews. Have there been any such reports from
them? I know such incidents have happened. I also wonder if they are not rather
one-sided?

Leslie

Re:                       <<< Note 16.59 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>
                        -< helpful, maybe a bit dated >-

    
>    Mennonites and Church of the Brethren are strict pacifists, aren't
>    they?  You don't suppose the CPT reports could be biased in favor
>    of one side vs. the other, do you?  I'm glad CPT is there, mind you,
>    putting themselves on the line, trying to defuse volatile situations,
>    and giving IDF further motivation to do the right thing (good for
>    public relations). 

    Re: 15.32
    
    for this very reason our church started a petition, and circulated it
    to other churches, to send to the Knesset.  We obtained thousands of
    signatures that we sent them to discourage them from passing this bill.
    
    Mike

But remember, they think that they are _justified_ in thwarting your church's
attempts to carry out the Great Commission, because they know that the
conversion of the secular majority of their population to Christianity will
change things forever.

/john

    ...but our God is omnipotent and isn't finished dealing with His people
    yet.

"dealing with his people"?

What do you mean?  Deliberately withholding the grace of Our Lord Jesus
Christ from them as a group?

I don't think so.

/john

    I don't believe that's what I said.  God is still dealing with Christians 
    too.

    .72  has been set hidden pending review with the author.
    
    Nancy

    Re: 15.37
    
    I've heard about this and it is about time.  There have been more
    Christians martyred in the last few decades than in the entire
    2000-year history of the church.  Check out the web sites for Voice of
    the Martyrs and/or Open Doors International for the biggest offenders
    (most of which are in the 10-40 window).
    
    Mike

	FWIW, my perusal of Jerusalem Post articles (both pro and con)
leads me to believe that the Har Homa location is in *southeast* Jerusalem,
within the municipal boundaries.  This unused land was "expropriated"
(taken away, with reasonable compensation) from its former owners by
the Israeli government.  About 75% of the land had been formerly owned
by Jews, and about 25% had been formerly owned by Arabs.  Supposedly,
a proportionate number of Arabs will live at Har Homa, and other housing
is to be built for Arabs in other parts of Jerusalem.

re 15.40

March Coverage

Yep.  And there were a few thousand in the March for Jesus, and only
a hundred or so in the "other" march.

But the March for Jesus isn't news.

The "other" march, as the only one of its kind in the world, gets the
attention of the PC media.

The _only_ coverage of the *Boston* March for Jesus was as the final
paragraph of the "other" march, where it was reported that a shouting
match ensued between the two groups, with the March for Jesus group
telling the other group "Jesus loves you" and "the devil has you confused"
and the other group yelling "Jesus loves me, too."

A separate National Briefs article (about two column inches) mentioned
the March for Jesus as a global event but didn't say anything about Boston.

/john

That's progress, at least.  I've scanned every inch of the Globe after the
March for Jesus for the past three years, and this is the first time they've
even MENTIONED the event.

That they mentioned it at all is a victory.

Paul

    ...they mentioned Jesus a lot in that brief sentance or two! :-)

    Re: .76
    
    > telling the other group "Jesus loves you" and "the devil has you
    > confused" and the other group yelling "Jesus loves me, too."
    
    These people were arguing about saying the same think? Oh well, I have
    to say I found that kind of funny. Imagine having someone yell at you
    "Jesus loves you" and yelling back "Jesus loves me, too", then after a
    pause realizing that that's exactly what they had said.
    
    John, how long did the shouting match go on? :)
    
    Peter