Bartholomew's Notes

From Arutz Sheva:

Video: Arabs Burning ‘First Temple Cedars of Lebanon’

A group of Jews that ascended the Temple Mount Sunday were shocked to see that ancient beams of wood that had apparently been used during the period of the Holy Temple were being used as firewood by Arabs on the Mount, and off it.

The background is that a number of wooden beams were removed from the Al-Aqsa mosque during refurbishments in the 1930s:

Some of the beams were dated to the first Temple period, others to Roman times, and at least one beam was found to have Byzantine-era designs etched on it.

Some were stored at the Islamic Museum, which is located on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, and  Arutz Sheva alleges that these beams have been exposed to the elements and now dumped; the story cites “reports” as saying that “that the Arabs, who have been trying for years to get rid of the beams, have begun burning them.”

Further:

Organizations that are involved in attempting to secure Jewish rights on the Mount expressed shock at the story. “It appears that this is part of the systematic attempts by Arabs to destroy all connections between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount,” said a spokesperson for one of the groups.

A short accompanying video shows some beams lying in a courtyard, with a small brazier burning some firewood in the background. It’s not at all clear whether these are beams taken from the Islamic Museum, or what is going on.

Certainly, the professionalism of Palestinian archaeology has been debased by denials of the existence of the ancient Jewish temples, and there are serious concerns about how recent building work in the area of the Temple Mount has been conducted (see my posts here and here). However, it’s not clear why the beams would be taken to represent some kind of “evidence” which Palestinians would try to destroy.

As well as the beams at the Islamic Museum, there is a collection held at the Rockefeller Museum, which has been subjected to recent scholarly analysis. In particular, the Journal of Archaeological Science published an article in November 1997 entitled “Comparative Dating Methods: Botanical Identification and 14C Dating of Carved Panels and Beams from the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem”, by Nili Liphschitz, Gideon Biger, Georges Bonani, and W. Wolfli. The authors explain that twenty cypress tie-beams were identified in the 1930s, and that some of these were identified as cedar, “probably Cedar of Lebanon”, in the 1940s. The authors’ carbon-dating work revealed that:

Most of the timbers examined date to the Byzantine period, whereas two cypress beams and one log date to earlier periods (9th–2nd centuries BC).

They also cited earlier study relating to “some other roof-timbers removed from the Al-Aqsa Mosque during the 1960s”, which revealed that one cypress log and a Turkey oak log “dated to the Iron Age, i.e. the time of the First Temple”; the mosque thus incorporated timber “that was already over 1000 years old”. However, the authors do not pronounce on the meaning of this:

…the existence of the cypress logs dated to the 9th–2nd centuries BC in the Al-Aqsa Mosque raises many questions concerning their origin in constructions built more than 1500 years earlier.

For the most part, though, the timbers are Byzantine, and the authors, quoting Procopius, suggest that they derive from constructions undertaken by Justinian and destroyed by earthquakes or Persians in the early seventh century. Other wood was taken from old Roman and Hellenistic buildings.

It therefore seems unlikely that the beams have much to say about “connections between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount”; and if the inference is that a beam may have been part of the First Temple itself, this seems a highly unlikely prospect given the site’s destruction in the early sixth century BCE and again in 70CE.

Having said all that, though, we need to have a proper explanation of the scene in the video. Are historically-valuable remains being destroyed? And, if so, why?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

As is being widely reported:

The Conservative party has suspended Nadine Dorries after it emerged she is to take time off from parliament to be a contestant in ITV’s jungle-based reality show I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here.

…Dorries, who has flown to Australia to prepare for the show – which is set in an outdoor studio in the Queensland jungle – tried to justify the decision by saying the programme would act as a platform to reach the public and raise awareness about issues such as a reduction in the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 20.

She told the Sun: “I’m doing the show because 16 million people watch it. If people are watching I’m A Celebrity, that is where MPs should be going. I’m not going in there to upset people, but I have opinions.”

Of course, Dorries is essentially a narcissist, and it is absurd to imagine that she would have turned down the chance to express her opinions and promote herself on television just because the opportunity happens to clash with her duties as a public servant. Even a threat of de-selection would be unlikely to faze her; Dorries’ deteriorating relationship with the Prime Minister is almost certainly beyond repair by now anyway.

Fleet Street Fox has perhaps the best commentary (links added):

She can generate headlines, practice hypocrisy and nepotism, mislead, money-grab, shag [another woman’s] husband…, take bad advice, is blatantly opportunistic and appears never to have been blighted by self-doubt.

Taking all that on board, she’s an excellent candidate for celebrity.

With the taxpayers’ trough of state denied her and nothing to rely upon except her undeniable flair for guff, fluff and gobbing off, the only route left to her is the George Galloway Expressway, with stop-offs scheduled at Opikville, Midsummer Mensch and Widdecombe Historical Village.

Those supporting her decision include Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home, for which Dorries provides a column; he writes that she had told him about her plans “some months ago”. Also on board is Sally Bercow, wife of the House of Commons Speaker John Bercow; she asserts that appearing on the show is just a bit of moonlighting and that she may inspire “just a few to enter politics”. It’s sad to see Bercow pushing such a weak line for her husband’s benefit; John Bercow had been subjected to a barrage of personally-insulting abuse from Dorries (“oily opportunist”) until he decided upon a policy of appeasement.

Damian Thompson, meanwhile, attacks David Cameron’s decision to suspend her:

Nice one, Dave. You try to save the career of the odious snob [Andrew] Mitchell, but come down like a ton of bricks on a working-class woman who embarrasses you.

However, that’s not the only way by which we can contrast Cameron’s sudden ability to rouse himself now with his failure to act on previous occasions. As the New Statesman‘s David Allen Green notes:

So the Tories suspend #Dorries, not for irregularities over her expenses or falsehoods about bloggers, but because of a “reality show”

I’ve written about those “falsehoods about bloggers” myself; Dorries lies and distortions are designed to discourage critical scrutiny, and they have been used by others in bad faith to put a vigilante gloss on acts of harassment in relation to other matters (I’ve received some fire myself from these elements for daring to point out what’s been going on).

Incidentally, that Fleet Street Fox article includes a background passage worth noting:

 She was accused of having an affair with a married family friend, and when news broke instead of saying ‘well yes, but he had already left his wife and the children are fine with it’ her then media adviser told journalists his wife was an alcoholic. (When she said this to me, I turned off the tape and asked if she really wanted to go down that route. The media expert said yes because it would ‘kill the story’. Sigh.)

At the time, Dorries told a different story on her old Twitter account, which no longer exists. She wrote that “I would never have discussed but was boxed into a corner”, and that she “hated doing that, but had to to defend the kids from horrible lies”.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

How’s this for an offer?

WASHINGTON – The author of the No. 1 Christian book of 2012 and the producer of the No. 1 faith film of 2012 have teamed up for a super-tour of Israel one year from now.

Jonathan Cahn, the author of the runaway bestseller “The Harbinger,” and WND’s Joseph Farah, producer of the documentary based on that teaching, “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment,” the No. 1 faith video for the last 33 straight weeks, will lead a pilgrimage of Israel from Nov. 7 through Nov. 17 next year.

Clicking on that link leads to the tour operator’s website, where we’re promised

Contemporary End-Time Insights from Joseph Farah Plus SPECIAL Guests & Surprises

I’ve written about Cahn’s Harbinger, and his claims to have special insight into “Hebrew mysteries” previously; I’ve also logged some of Farah’s ludicrous pretensions to expertise in prophecy (clue: anyone who bills themselves being a “prophecy expert” or such is a charlatan; such persons should never be mistaken for Biblical scholars).

The tour itself looks like standard devotional fare, taking in sites traditionally associated with Biblical stories and the life of Jesus, as well as touristy experiences such as a “night in a Bedouin tent near the Dead Sea”. There’s also a hokey opportunity “to take part in prophecy by planting a tree in the Holy Land at Neot Kdumim”, but the overall emphasis is on the Biblical past rather than Farah and Cahn’s apocalyptic obsessions.

The tour is being organised by Shalom Almog’s Coral Tours, which specialises in Christian travel to Israel. His clients include Pastor Gary Burd, who runs a Pentecostal biker ministry called Mission: M25 Ministry of Hope. A year ago, Beliefnet described how  “a group of tattooed Texans on a mission of solidarity roared up to Israel’s Temple Mount and joined Orthodox Jews praying Sunday night at the Western Wall”.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

There is renewed attention on 2007 comments made by Mitt Romney on the subject of the return of Christ; Hollywood Reporter notes:

Taped during Romney’s first presidential run on Aug. 4, 2007, the five-minute video features Romney defending his views to conservative radio host Jan Mickelson…

The video has been a hot topic on Twitter since being uploaded to YouTube on Wednesday. Alyssa Milano has tweeted it to her 2.2 million followers, and film critic Roger Ebert and Graham Linehan, the Irish TV writer behind hit U.K. comedy The IT Crowd, have posted it, as well. Linehan then went on a lengthy tear, satirizing Romney’s beliefs.

In fact, although the video was re-uploaded on Wednesday, it’s been available for months; David Brody discussed it for CBN in March, and Tim Murphy at Mother Jones soon afterwards:

…Romney did recommend a [Cleon] Skousen book later in the discussion, when the subject turned to Mormon eschatology. “Cleon Skousen has a book called The Thousand Years,” Romney told Mickelson. The Thousand Years is actually a trilogy that details the 4,000 years that elapsed between the creation of the earth and the birth of Christ. The book, Romney said, could set Mickelson straight on what he actually believes. “It’s throughout the Bible. Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives to stop the war that’s coming in to kill all the Jews… That’s when the coming and glory of Christ occurs.”

Further, for the following one thousand years

…the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri.

This detail may sound particularly risible, but that’s because for most of us the concept of “holy scripture” is bound up with ancient texts whose authors had no clue about the existence of another continent on the other side of the world.

At Religion Dispatches, Joanna Brooks was sceptical of reading too much into Romney’s citation of Skousen:

Truth is, Mitt Romney probably couldn’t care less about Cleon Skousen, except as name to drop when trying to score on conservative talk radio… Forget Skousen. Stop thinking of Mormonism as a fringe religious movement.

We should keep this note of caution in mind. As I’ve written previously, many Christians, if asked, will affirm the imminent return of Christ, but the concept doesn’t really form a operative part of their religious identity or thinking. It’s true that some Christians are more actively interested in the subject, consuming the works of apocalyptic evangelists, just as a wider segment of the general public expresses enthusiasm for pop interpretations of Nostradamus or claims about the Mayan Calender – but this hardly ever translates into patterns of personal behaviour that make sense only in relation to an imminent divine intervention.

Of course, as a specific an relatively narrow religious organisation, the Church of Latter Day Saints allows less room for personal manoeuvre than a general identification with Christianity (or even with Roman Catholicism), but I would need more evidence in order to become seriously concerned that Romney would base foreign policy decisions on the prospect of Christ splitting the Mount of Olives.

However, it’s difficult to recall another presidential candidate expounding in public on the Last Days in such specific detail. Ronald Reagan supposedly discussed Russia and Ezekiel with California State Senator James Mills in 1971, and there are accounts of similar  ruminations while in presidential office, but his efforts to limit nuclear arms suggests that he was far from a fatalist on the issue. In all probability, Reagan’s apocalypticism was a private pop-culture quirk.

More recently, end-times pastor John Hagee had a line to George W. Bush, but evidence that Hagee succeeded in influencing policy is hard to detect.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

As the election approaches, US neo-Pentecostal magazine of record Charisma is urging readers to vote for Romney. The magazine’s owner, Stephen Strang, listed his reasons a couple of days ago, but he’s also heavily promoting evangelists who claim to have received special supernatural signs from God.

First up, Lou Engle:

 …my closest friend (and a true prophet in my life) had a compelling dream concerning Romney’s viability as a candidate. In the dream, Romney was clearly favorable from a divine perspective. After this, the substance of my friend’s dream was immediately confirmed by another prophetic encounter from another well-known prophetic voice… these prophetic experiences seemed to indicate that Romney was a sort of window of mercy to America on several fronts, but chiefly the dividing of Jerusalem.

This may be disappointingly lukewarm, perhaps reflecting the Christian right preference for Rick Perry or Rick Santorum, but James W. Goll (among other things, an instructor at C. Peter Wagner’s Wagner Leadership Institute) more than compensates:

In early 2008 when the U.S. presidential primaries were in full swing, I was given a visitation from the Lord. It was one I did not fully understand at the time…

Then the voice of the Lord came in the dream, Liberalism will reign for a season in the land and then it will become popular for moderacy [sic] to rule, which could ultimately lead to true conservatism…

Suddenly, I was awakened from the dream and the basement room was tangibly filled with the presence of destiny. I then saw in the seer realm a baseball game in action… Then the external voice of the Lord came to me saying, When the nation has been thrown a curve ball, I will have a man prepared who comes from the state of Michigan and he will have a big mitt capable of catching whatever is thrown his way.

…Little did I know at that time that Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, was born in the state of Michigan. Little did I know, when I received this in 2008, that he would win his party’s primary for the 2012 national elections!

Third, we have Rick Joyner:

One of the questions I hear from Christians is the following: How can we vote for a Mormon? That is a good question. Though I am not an expert on Mormonism, I was shown 25 years ago that a great revival would be coming to the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was shown that they were like the Samaritans in Scripture, who did have a mixture in their beliefs, but who were the most responsive to the gospel of any other group.

I discussed Joyner’s appreciation for Mormonism – which includes a semi-endorsement of the unofficial “White Horse Prophecy” – here. Joyner also discussed his concerns about Obama’s alleged Liberation Theology:

…Some believe that the purpose of the Liberation Theology movement was to be a bridge between Christianity and Islam, which would lead Christians to Islam. I could not personally confirm that, but our President claims to be a Christian, yet the fruit of his practice and his policy has done more to hurt Christianity than any previous administration, and he’s done more to help Islam. Any thinking person should ask why would the Obama Administration give Muslims an exemption from the healthcare law, but use it to fundamentally attack the religious liberty of the Catholic Church, as well as other Christians who object to some of its basic tenets? These actions reveal core values, and they are deeply alarming.

As an American, I was also very troubled when our president once responded to the question of why he did not wear an American pin on his lapel—he said he didn’t want to appear to take sides…

Obama did indeed at one time express criticism of the flag lapel fetish, back in 2007 when he was a senator. However, his concern was that it had become “a substitute for I think true patriotism”, not that he didn’t wish to “take sides”; that claim was was an invented quote which Snopes has long-debunked. The “exemption from the healthcare law”, meanwhile, is for Amish and Mennonites, as I noted here, not for Muslims.

In 2011, in the wake of Fukushima, Joyner predicted an imminent earthquake that would destroy the west coast of the USA. One hopes not too many people fled to the east coast to escape.

(H/T Right Wing Watch for some of the links)

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

From the Kampala Daily Monitor, 3 October:

Buganda Road Court has convicted four Kampala pastors, a businesswoman and a musician for conspiring to tarnish Pastor Kayanja’s reputation.

Pastor Kayanja, heads Lubaga Miracle Centre, in Kampala. His accusers claimed that he sodomised several youths at his church.

Pastors Solomon Male, Martin Ssempa, Michael Kyazze and Robert Kaira, together with Ms Deborah Anita Kyomuhendo, a businesswoman and David Mukalazi, a musician, were convicted by Buganda Road Grade I magistrate, Julius Borore.

Ssempa achieved internet fame in 2010 following a graphic presentation in which he conflated homosexuality with coprophilia (“and this one is eating the poo-poo all over the place… I mean, look at these guys, sincerely! Bishop!”).

I discussed the accusations against Kayanja back in 2009, and the trial of his accusers last year. As I noted previously, there is an international dimension to all this: Kayanja has links with Benny Hinn and Paul Crouch (such is the climate of hysteria around homosexuality in Uganda that in 2010 Hinn was himself accused of sex with Kayanja in the notorious Red Pepper newspaper), while Ssempa used to be allied with Rick Warren (although once this became controversial Warren distanced himself from the association), and in 2007 and 2009 he spoke at events organised by the “Every Nation” neo-Pentecostal grouping.

Ssempa and his co-conspirators were fined and ordered to undertake community service; the pastors have been working in hospitals, which has allowed them to continue to promote themselves and their “ministries”. Last week, Ssempa was quoted as saying that

“I have always wanted to do community work so that I exercise the gospel of a good neighbor physically. I’m enjoying every minute of this. In fact instead of 100 hours, I’m going to extend my services to the needy people here for more 100 hours. That’s 200 hours.”

Meanwhile, according to the New Vision:

 “I am glad that I am through with this task which has been instrumental to my life. I have used this period to spread the gospel to the sick and many have devoted themselves to God,” said Kyazze.

Naturally, Ssempa continues to maintain that he is the victim of “injustice”.

(H/T Box Turtle Bulletin)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Pamela Geller writes about the plight of English Defence League leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”), who was recently arrested:

Many of you have responded to my article “Darkness Descending in England” by asking how to help. Legal funds are badly needed. Tommy’s situation in prison is terrible, and they urgently need to raise funds to pay lawyers to address this situation and provide him with the best possible legal defense.

Donations to Tommy’s legal fund can be made online via the EDL website here. Please, do it. SION as well as AFDI are contributing, in addition to all of the other work we are doing, This is a priority. Robinson and Kevin Carroll are part of our international team, members of SION’s President’s council, key players in the worldwide struggle for freedom.

…Demand equal treatment for Tommy Robinson rather than sharia inspired victimisation!

Robert Spencer, as ever, is providing the chorus, with a piece entitled “Urgent: Help defend Tommy Robinson from a monstrously unjust leviathan state apparatus”.

Carroll and Robinson attended an anti-Islam conference organised by Geller in New York on 11 September; Carroll memorably waved around British tabloid newspapers bearing headlines about Christianity in the UK. Robinson’s presence was curious; as the anti-EDL site EDL News noted:

…in September 2010, Robinson travelled over to the United States to attend a 9/11 event with other far right extremists. Upon arrival he was detained at John F Kenedy airport for several hours, refused entry and was then deported. No doubt due to his links with the far right and his lenghty criminal record, which has increased significantly since then with a spell on remand in the UK, a conviction for assault and three days inside a Swiss prison for a rooftop protest that went wrong.

One explanation is someone in high places has pulled strings for Robinson to enter the country. Robinson claimed on Twitter last night that he was sat next to New York State Senator David Storobin.

Now, however, it has been reported that

He tried to use a passport in the name of “Andrew McMaster” to enter the United States on September 10 this year, Southwark Crown Court heard.

Of course, at this moment in time the claim is just an allegation, and we should not infer guilt ahead of legal action. However, it is difficult to see in the arrest evidence of “sharia inspired victimisation”. It has also been noted that Robinson sent a Tweet to Geller on 10 Oct, asking for her phone number and adding “Think there will be some activity this week about my trip to the usa”.

Robinson has also mentioned another allegation:

Arrested on suspicion of assault on Sayful Islam yest in B.Park? U can’t make this up. He still not been arrested for assaulting me on tv?

I blogged on Islam’s assault on Robinson (a slap through a car window) here. It should be remembered that Robinson is reluctant to involve the police in such matters.

A second element in the story is the arrest of 53 EDL members on a motorway soon afterwards; according to the BBC:

The men were heading to a location in east London, but police have not revealed where they were due to gather.

All 53 were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, the Metropolitan Police said.

Geller wrote:

The arrest of over 53 people in the United Kingdom is the beginning of the end for once-great Britain. The leaders of the English Defence League (EDL), Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll, were among those arrested, as well as Paul Weston of the British Freedom Party (BF).

…According to Carroll, Robinson was incarcerated for leaving the United Kingdom and entering the United States fraudulently for our September 11, 2012 Stop Islamization of Nations free speech conference in New York City.

…This is a defining moment in British history, as significant as any major turning point. It is in many respects like the Night of the Long Knives, which marked the point of no return from Nazism for Germany.

Geller’s historical parallel means that she’s comparing the EDL to the Brownshirts, although presumably this is unintentional. Carroll was arrested separately, while Weston was later arrested for breach of the peace while “demanding” information about Robinson at Wormwood Scrubs prison in west London. This turned out to be the wrong location; Robinson was in fact at Wandsworth.

Up until the middle of last year, Geller and Spencer were wary of association with EDL; the alliance was finally cemented in June. Having invested so heavily in the organisation, they have no other option than to continue aggressively to assert a narrative of political persecution; but one wonders if privately they have reservations. The video below, uploaded by “MrlaughingattheEDL” and expanded upon by EDL News, suggests there is good reason for them to be cautious.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

From Bedfordshire on Sunday:

Nadine Dorries refused to apologise after an outburst against this newspaper on Twitter.

The MP… took to the social network site to accuse BoS of lifting the contents of a letter she sent to a rival publication.

…But she was faced with angry demands to say sorry after the document, issued in her name by a PA, was proved to have been sent to BoS in response to a question four days earlier.

However, the MP later claimed she had said SHE hadn’t sent it…

The short version: BoS hack Adam Thompson contacted Dorries’ office for a quote about a strip club; he received an email headed “Dear Adam”, followed by a passage of first-person writing (“I am totally opposed to the objectification of women and on moral grounds…”), and signed off “Nadine”. However, the email was forwarded to him by Dorries’ intern; having failed with her plagiarism smear, Dorries simply changed the story to the claim that she had not been responsible for sending the email, and that Thompson should have known it was not intended for him. The ease with which she abandons one falsehood before self-righteously investing in another is either ludicrous or chilling, probably depending on one’s own experiences with Dorries.

I reproduce below most of her exchange with Thompson; although the row may seem trivial in itself, it once again shows that Dorries has a flagrant – and perhaps sociopathic – disregard for truth. She is a liar and a bully, and if her party is too feeble to censure her we can only hope that she will be repudiated by voters at the first opportunity. I’ve documented other instances in which in she has smeared various individuals, in at least one instance with the assistance of the Bedfordshire on Sunday.

The initial exchange took place on 21 October:

@NadineDorriesMP
Absolutely shocked that BoS have written ‘ in a letter to the BoS the MP’ my letter was to the Beds Times and Citizen, the BoS just lifted

@Adam_BoS
@NadineDorriesMP why was it sent to me on Friday morning then Nadine?!

?@Adam_BoS
@NadineDorriesMP and in response to a question I’d asked you four days before.

@NadineDorriesMP
@Adam_BoS well it wasn’t sent to you from me

@Adam_BoS
@NadineDorriesMP yet it says ‘Nadine’ at the foot of the email. I’ll even send you the email for you to check over.

@NadineDorriesMP
@Adam_BoS who sent it to you on Friday? All of my staff bar one were in the constituency covering surgeries and the bar one didn’t send it

@Adam_BoS
@NadineDorriesMP let me check first thing in the morning. Either Friday or Thursday. I will say this nothing was lifted at all.

@NadineDorriesMP
@adam_bos do please, because you could not possibly have got it on Friday morning.

@NadineDorriesMP
@Adam_BoS And I will say this, you did NOT get it from me.

@Adam_BoS
@NadineDorriesMP Found it. It was sent to me Thurs by Andrea Gordon in response to an email sent to your office email. It starts ‘Dear Adam’

@Adam_BoS
Incase anyone thinks I’m telling porky pies here’s the letter @NadineDorriesMP said I lifted. Notice the ‘Dear Adam’ [Link to picture]

@NadineDorriesMP
@Chrisg_BoS @adam_bos Well, as you can see, it didn’t come from me and shouldn’t have gone to you.

?@Adam_BoS
@NadineDorriesMP @chrisg_bos Yet it did. Addressed to me, replying to an email sent to your address and signed off with the name ‘Nadine’.

@Adam_BoS
@NadineDorriesMP @chrisg_bos Nothing was lifted at all. So how about RT that to your near 11,000 followers along with an apology.

The Bedfordshire on Sunday story about Dorries’ claims appeared yesterday; she registered her objection:

?@NadineDorriesMP
Apparently, the Beds on Sunday has printed a ridiculous story based on my Tweets and my re Tweets.What happened to proffessional [sic] journalism?

@GoJonnyBananas
What @NadineDorriesMP isn’t telling you is that she claimed no-one wrote to @bedfordnews despite documentary proof

@NadineDorriesMP
@GoJonnyBananas I said I hadn’t, and I hadn’t. It was a copy of a letter an itern forwarded on – wont happen again though.

@Lindsay_70
@GoJonnyBananas @NadineDorriesMP ahh ur a lib dem says it all really

?@NadineDorriesMP
@Lindsay_70 @gojonnybananas Yep, that’s why I’ve blocked him. Blocking is bliss

@NadineDorriesMP
@nannachicken @johnjohnbarton @lindsay_70 Facts were right – I said I hadn’t sent it and I hadn’t. how often do I have to say that?

?@NadineDorriesMP
@nannachicken @johnjohnbarton @lindsay_70 I can assure you, the Beds on Sunday have a lot more to apologise to me for than I do to them.

Tim Ireland – who has been the most seriously smeared by Dorries – has added a pertinent comment to the BoS article (link added):

Bedfordshire on Sunday were given ample warning about this MP’s capacity for evasion and invention. I have little sympathy for them, especially when they continue to refuse to retract damaging untruths that they have published/enabled on her behalf. If there are things that Chris Gill wishes to put in the past, then there needs to be a threshold at which your editor says ‘enough’ and finally recognises (and seeks to make amends for) the times he has placed far too much trust in Dorries’ demonstrably calculated falsehoods.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

WND again, this time with a piece from Joseph Farah himself:

JUST 5 YEARS TILL ‘END TIMES’ COMMENCE?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah explains so far dead-on prophecies of 13th-century rabbi

“Five years”? That’s a relief, given that back in July WND was warning us that “2012 DOOMSDAY: IT’S NOT JUST MAYAN CLAIM: Countless cultures predict end-time scenario this year”.

By “exclusive”, Farah means that he has exclusively read something published in a magazine:

Several years ago, Ludwig Schneider, a German-language scholar, discovered an amazing prophecy dating back to 1217 by a scholarly and highly respected rabbi by the name of Judah Ben Samuel.

…Because most of his writings were published so long ago – before the invention of the printing press – and in German, few copies have survived. But Schneider has a copy of Judah Ben Samuel’s prophecy about the nation of Israel and the messianic era and has translated the highlights of it into English and other languages for the magazine Israel Today.

The guts of the story is that the rabbi, writing in 1217, supposedly provided a future history of the Holy Land from 1517 to 2017, successfully predicting the Ottoman conquest of Jerusalem in 1517, the beginning of the British Mandate in 1917, the division of Jerusalem up  until 1967, and finally:

…The rabbi also prophesied that during the 10th Jubilee, Jerusalem would be under the control of the Jews and the Messianic “end times” would begin. The 10th Jubilee began in 1967 and will be concluded in – 2017.

Farah’s source is an article called “Israel: Between Mysticism and Reality”, which was published in Israel Today in March 2008 (page 18). Schneider – actually a former Pentecostal pastor rather than a “scholar” – tells us what Ben Samuel supposedly predicted, but he does not provide any quotations of any length or even give a reference for any primary text. This makes it virtually impossible to check whether Schneider has imposed his own interpretation on Ben Samuel’s work. Schneider also describes Ben Samuel as a “top Talmudic scholar”, which is strange; according to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:

The study of the Talmud, especially as it was treated by his contemporaries, seemed to him fruitless.

We’re told only that “occasionally a halakic writing” is attributed to him.

Not only is the Israel Today article weak; Farah’s presentation of that article is misleading. Farah gives the impression that Schneider has discovered some rare manuscript, but this is not indicated by Schneider himself: assuming that Schneider really did read something written by Ben Samuel, there is no reason to suppose that he went any further than to consult a published edition (probably of the Sefer ?asidim, or a quote attributed to him in some other work). The Jewish Encyclopedia states only that he was said to have known “the exact year of Israel’s redemption”.

Schneider has not “discovered” something written by Ben Samuel, and much less has he “translated” it “into English and other languages”. Rather, it seems that he “discovered” his own hidden meaning in a particular text, which cannot be assessed independently because he hasn’t given any reference. It’s not even clear whether Schneider has done his own work, or is just repeating something derived from elsewhere.

Farah also adds some details about Ben Samuel’s life:

…He was quite famous in his time as the initiator of the Chassidic Ashkenaz, a movement of Jewish mysticism in Germany. He founded a yeshiva in Regensburg and secured many pupils. Legend has it that, as a young man, he was an excellent bowman but knew little or nothing about daily prayers. But once he got serious about his faith, legend has it that he performed many miracles… So renowned was his work, the Bishop of Salzburg asked him to serve as his personal seer.

It is likely that Farah has got these details from the Jewish Encyclopedia, although he’s distorted the information slightly; the Encyclopedia states that

He maintained social intercourse with the Bishop of Salzburg and acted as seer for the Duke of Regensburg.

That’s a significant difference, as Farah’s version suggests Ben Samuel had some kind of official relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps this is why Farah also fails to tell his readers that the legends of Ben Samuel’s miracles include the story that

He miraculously prevented a Jewish child from being baptized.

Joseph Farah purports to be a Christian (although he tends to ignore the commandment about not telling lies): one wonders if he can explain why it is that the Rabbi, despite prophesying the future with supernatural accuracy, did not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and his Lord and Saviour. I’ve discussed the conundrum of Christian fundamentalism’s relationship with Judaism previously.

The story of Ben Samuel’s prophecy has previously been spread around the internet in the form of a message by Pastor F.M. Riley. Riley does not give any source, although his article is probably also derived from Israel Today. Riley also considers “Planet X” to be of apocalyptic significance.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

A bit of easy graft for Politics.co.uk and the Huffington Post this week, in the form of interviews with rentaquote MP Nadine Dorries.

At Politics.co.uk, the discussion turned to Dorries’ religious faith:

Does her view of abortion stem from her faith?

There is a trace of defensiveness in her voice when she answers. “I would say it was absolutely not driven in any way by my faith. It doesn’t influence it in any way at all. My faith…” she trails off for a moment. Then: “…as weak as it is, plays a role in possibly all things, because, I suppose, as a Christian you try to do the right thing always. You try to do good rather than harm, but it’s not even something I consider on the issue of abortion.”

“As weak as it is”? For a politician seen by many as Britain’s answer to the Tea party movement, it’s a remarkable aside. Is her faith waning?

“I think it has in parliament, yeah,” she says, with her customary honesty. “I think it takes such a beating in parliament. It’s such a cynical world. It’s very hard to be a practising Christian in parliament. I think it’s almost impossible, actually. But I’m… my faith is not something that’s a big thing. Do I believe in God? Yes. Do I believe that Jesus lived? Yes. Do I pray? Yes. Do I pray often? No. Am I a sinner? Yes. Frequently. Daily. Minutely. So what does that make me?”

Dorries is of course famously outspoken, but this is not the same thing as having “customary honesty”: when it suits her, Dorries is very willing to be opaque and dishonest.

The above, though, is a clever pose for at least three reasons: it distances religion from her medical arguments concerning abortion; it plays into a narrative of conservative Christian resentment about the current state of the UK; and it ensures that she is able to maintain her alliance with Christian Right groups such as Christian Concern on her own terms. On this last point, it should be recalled that in late 2010 Dorries took up with the estranged husband of an ex-friend; Dorries’ self-justifying and repellent public attacks on this ex-friend brought criticism from the conservative moralist Anne Atkins.

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post article shows the extent to which her political positions are the result of personal grudges:

“Nobody wrongs me and doesn’t pay for it,” she says, referring to Cameron’s 2011 jibe in the Commons that the backbencher was “extremely frustrated”. “There is a saying: ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold.'”

The incident has been widely discussed; Dorries asked Cameron a smart-arse question about Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, and she got a smart-arse reply. It’s unlikely that Cameron intended his response to contain a double entendre, but that’s the way it came out and it looked unattractive, for obvious reasons. Cameron subsequently sent her a text-message apology, which ought to have been the end of the matter. However, Dorries’ milking of her grievance may also be strategic: she used to subject the Speaker, John Bercow, to a barrage of personal abuse until he shut her up by adding her to an advisory body. I looked at Dorries’ deteriorating relationship with the Prime Minister here.

Dorries also used the interview to continue her feud against Chancellor George Osborne, this time going so far as to drag Osborne’s wife, the author Frances Osborne, into the narrative:

Dorries reveals that her personal animosity towards the chancellor was provoked after a “left-wing journalist” told her last year that “Number 11 has just given a story to the Guardian that Cameron is pulling his support [for Dorries’ amendment on abortion counselling]… it came straight from George Osborne, it came straight from No 11.”

She claims the unnamed journalist told her that Osborne “is completely opposed to your agenda, he is completely pro-choice and he’s pushed into it by his wife”, and tells the HuffPost UK: “I just couldn’t believe it… I will never forgive George Osborne for that.”

At the time, of course, Dorries blamed Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats for Cameron’s lack of support for the amendment, and it was this that prompted the “frustrated” comment.

Dorries’ views on abortion are much discussed – she presents herself as being a pro-choice reformer, seeking a legal reduction to 20 weeks. However, as Politics.co.uk notes:

She’s quite open that she’d prefer to see a 12-week limit, as would health secretary Jeremy Hunt. This would also be in line with the European average. Tellingly, she insists she would not campaign for any further reduction, though.

Back in April, at Unity at Ministry of Truth has noted, Dorries attacked the Guardian‘s reporting of her position in a Tweet to Cath Elliott:

I will never, ever, attempt to restrict abortion below 20 weeks EVER. You work for a paper which repetitively prints lies

This was despite the fact that, as Unity also notes, Dorries had actually voted in favour of a reduction to 12 weeks on 20 May 2008. This is just one incidence of dishonest presentation that goes beyond mere “spin” – she has also been caught out misleading Parliament by describing an evangelical anti-abortion counselling charity as being “neither pro-life nor pro-choice”.

As it happens, I take the view that Dorries’ medical arguments about abortion should be considered on their own merits, even though (like Hunt) she may be being less than candid about her real agenda; the strength of an argument is independent of the character of the person who makes it.

However, that’s not Dorries’ own style, and she is herself very quick to impute discrediting motives to opponents. Returning again to the Politice.co.uk article:

“The left are very pro-choice,” she says. “And I think it goes back almost to a time when the left was linked very closely to the eugenicist movement and people like Marie Stopes, who didn’t even attend her own daughter’s wedding because she was marrying a man who was wearing glasses. That’s where I think the left’s historic position on abortion stems from.”

Actually, Stopes didn’t have any daughters – it was her son’s wedding that she refused to attend. Dorries is typically sloppy about such details, which are probably given to her as talking points. This kind of vilification is also vintage Dorries: a year ago, she raised Peter Singer’s views on infanticide as representing the essence of Humanism.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »