One of the tenets of Judaism is tolerance. You'll often see Jews stand up for the oppressed no matter their faith or their politics. Typical is this story of Jews and Arabs marching in East Jerusalem and in other towns across Israel to protest the Israeli policy of evicting Palestinians in East Jerusalem to allow Jewish settlers to take their place.*

Elsewhere, we read about "Breaking Ice," a mountain climbing exercise organized by Coexistence, a Lausanne Switzerland based organization designed to promote dialogue between Arabs and Jews. Four Arabs and four Jews, all Israeli citizens, roped themselves together and climbed the top of Europe's tallest mountain.

Jews defended Muslim police officers in Newark N.J. when they wanted to wear beards.

Orthodox Jews and conservative Moslems both supported the University of California Hastings Law School, a federally funded school in a Supreme Court case over their right to reject a group that discriminated on a religious basis.

Recently, in Arizona a Rabbi joined local Moslem groups in protesting an Islam 101 class run by the Board of Jewish Education because it contained a piece called "Troubling Passages in the Koran." Why? Because certain sections of the Torah (meaning Bible) could be equally misconstrued.

Liberal Jews everywhere continue to seek dialogue, looking to establish an end to hatred. It is a noble goal and certainly within the teachings of the Bible. However, within the Bible are plenty of lessons for the Jews to remember that as The Chosen people their light is always under assault by the dark.

What more evidence is necessary than the recent opening of Holocartoons dot com (it won't be linked here) by Iran's Fars news agency (they say they are the 'Bulwark of Faith and Thought'). The site features the cartoons of Maziar Bijani and is “dedicated to all those who have been killed under the pretext of the Holocaust.” The cartoons can be accessed by clicking on a swastika. Viewers are taught that the Holocaust never happened and according to one newspaper that the lie was initiated so that Zionists could take control of the Middle East and all its resources.

It's what makes the story of the Cordoba Initiative and its wish to build a 13 story $100 million Islamic center containing a culinary school, art studio, athletic center and a mosque just two blocks from where the World Trade Center stood in New York so disturbing. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, the 76 year old rabbi from Philadelphia's Shalom Center says the center will help people learn about Islam and that "The Cordoba Initiative will keep saying that is not what Islam is about," (referencing another statement about bloodshed "in the name of one tradition or another”).

The American Jewish Committee issued a statement saying that if the backers "fully reveal their sources of funding and to unconditionally condemn terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology," If these concerns can be addressed, we will join in welcoming the Cordoba Center to New York. In doing so, we would wish to reaffirm the noble values for which our country stands -- the very values so detested by the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks."

Conservative pundits and groups are adamantly opposed to the mosque on the grounds that it is disrespectful to the victims of the World Trade Center attack. After all, thousands died at the hands of a radical group in the name of Islam. A blogger writing in the Christian publication Soujourner, says that "it is pure fear of the other that is sparking some to say just having Muslims near Ground Zero is offensive." She says Christian opposition is not Christian.

As a Christian, I agree. We believe in religious tolerance. The mosque near Ground Zero does not offend me because it is a mosque. But, if history tells us anything, before too long the tolerant Moslem community that will be at the center each day will find itself being visited by more militant groups. After all, to many Moslems Ground Zero is already a monument to a great victory. Ultimately, the mosque will become a holy place and idealized around the world as THE monument to the 'great victory of Islam.'

To liberal Jews, Christians and secularists this mosque is about the conservatives lack of tolerance. Conservatives, on the other hand are simply asking - why here? Of all places to build a mosque - why at the World Trade Center? And the answer is obvious, this mosque (no matter how hard moderates may try for it not to be) is to ultimately become a shrine of Islam's victory over the West.

One has to wonder, while the Jews hold hands with their Moslem neighbors, will the Ground Zero mosque one day have an exhibit denying that the World Trade Centers ever really fell?

Some Jewish activists support Ground Zero mosque in NYC USA Today 8/6/2010

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2010/08/06/news/nation_and_world/doc4c5b198beaeb6495963262.txt

Israeli outrage over Iranian website calling Holocaust 'sheer lie' Big News Network.com (ANI) Saturday 7th August, 2010
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/holcaust-denying-cartoonist-finds-a-home-online/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Jewish and Arab protesters stage joint effort against evictions http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20100806/FOREIGN/100809811/1011/rss

Jews and Arabs break ice on Mont Blanc http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Jews_and_Arabs_break_ice_on_Mont_Blanc_.html?cid=20291836&rss=true

Sojournerhttp://blog.sojo.net/2010/06/08/forgiveness-fear-and-the-mosque-at-ground-zero/

It is safe to say that most everyone believes in doing "good." There are differences though between conservatives and liberals when it comes to understanding the nature of "doing good." The idea of "good" is naturally rooted to a moral basis. In America, many conservatives base their morals on the Bible while liberals base theirs on what we call secular humanism. Conservatives believe that morality can only come from a higher authority. Liberals believe that morality is shifting, relative and based on the current human condition. For liberals, what made sense a thousand years ago may not make sense today or in the future. For conservatives, right is right and wrong is wrong no matter what the time.

One of the more intense battle grounds over recent years between these two ideas of good has centered on stem cell research. Liberals believe that stem cells from both adults and unused human embryos are viable if drugs and treatments can be developed to help ailing human beings today. Conservatives believe that only adult cells should be used, since an embryo theoretically has an oportunity to grow into a real person. Liberals do not define embryos as real people, believing as they do with abortion that if there is no developed consciousness there is no "person." The question comes down to what is or when does sentient life occur?

The National Institutes of Health define "embryo" as follows - "Embryo—In humans, the developing organism from the time of fertilization until the end of the eighth week of gestation, when it is called a fetus." The NIH says that "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." Since there are humans running around who were fertilized in the laboratory and then placed back into women and birthed naturally, it is safe to say that the successful fertilization of the human egg and its transformation into an embryo infers that the embryo has the potential to become a human being - and thus the debate. To the Liberals the embryo is only potential. To the Conservatives the embryo will become a person unless it is stopped.

But why should we use these embryonic stem cells in the first place? What is wrong with adult cells, especially considering that all the known treatments have evidently come from adult cells and not embryonic ones? I am not a scientist but from my understanding it comes down to this - if you are 60 years old and need a new heart valve and I can grow one from a stem cell - what good is another sixty year old valve? Obviously a simplistic understanding, but the idea is that young cells are better than old. In addition, some of the adult stem cells can invoke an immune response, like a body rejecting a transplant. So, although treatments have been developed from adults, the promise of real breakthrough is in the embryonic ones because of their youth.

But what if the youth and immune response issues could be resolved in adult stem cells? There would be no need for the use of embryos. President George W. Bush initiated a ban on the use of federal funds for the further collection of embryonic stem cells believing that research could eventually prove the efficacy of adult cells. People suffering and dying now from diseases that might be cured by stem cell research derivatives of course demanded that research proceed. Conservatives yelled that real drugs were coming from the adult cells and for the living to ask the yet unborn to give up their potential life was unreasonable and unnecessary. Liberals, not believing that embryos were anywhere close to sentient yelled back that hampering research was akin to murdering the living. The Liberals eventually got their way in 2009 when President Obama made a reversal of the Bush policy one of the first items on his agenda.

Well, recent announcements from two companies called BioTime and International Stem Cell Corp have ended the debate. Patrck Cox writing in the Daily Reckoning states it this way - "Increasingly, by the way, it has become obvious that embryonic stem cells are functionally obsolete in the field of regenerative medicine."

Dr. Michael West of BioTime "published proof that he can turn any adult cell into a completely rejuvenated stem cell. These induced pluripotent stem cells are as powerful as embryonic stem cells, but with none of the disadvantages." Meanwhile, "ISCO has evidence that its nonembryonic parthenogenic RPE cells halt the advance of age-related macular degeneration. These cells prevent blindness just as RPE cells from cadavers and embryonic sources do. . ."

Research in Stem Cells center on Adult Autologous stem cells which are first taken from a donor and then readministered to them. They don't have the immune issue, but they are not considered to be young. Embryonic stem cells are young, but have an immune response.These cells are considered to still have potential. Induced Pluripotent stem cells are adult cells that have been reengineered and have now been proven by BioTime that they can be made young. Parthenogenic stem cells are young and the immune problem has been solved by ISCO.

So, we are now at a point in time where there is no need for the harvesting of human embryos. Will the ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research be reinstituted anytime soon? Considering there is no real need for harvesting embryos for research why not placate half of the country and end it? Somehow I doubt that will happen. After all, when you have a chance to kill people before they are born, as seen with the millions of abortions each year, and can label this population control (or perhaps demographic manipulation to limit the births of certain groups of people is more appropriate) -"choice;" what resistance can a liberal have to now having an opportunity to create people, kill them and then use them as parts?

Read about the breakthroughs here: The Second Huge Stem Cell Breakthrough in a Week - The Daily Reckoning on 3/24/2010 (Agora Publishing) 

National Institutes of Health http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Regardless of President Obama's regular bluster about the previous administration's failed foreign policy - "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology," the aims of America in the world are pretty much the same as they have always been.

Back in 2004 the State Department's goals for providing foreign aid were "to support those countries that are committed to democratic governance, open economies, and wise investment in their people's education, health, and potential."

Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 states it this way: "The key to America’s security and prosperity is a stable and secure world. Our power does not come from our military might alone, but also from our values, our capacity to form strong partnerships, and our ability to improve the lives of others so we do not have to pay the price of global poverty, instability, and ultimately, conflict in the long run."

Isn't it interesting that America, regardless of whether she has a cowboy or a community organizer as President, promotes its security by promoting the "American Way?" By fostering American values and pushing them out to the world we intend to make the world a better place. As a people we must decide what those values are, and therein lies the seeds of success or failure in this policy. Traditionally, I believe the American Way was tied to the Declaration, Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights - or simply life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, in those documents there abides an underlying faith in God. This faith was so strong and so apparent, that it only needed to be referenced. Its existence was obvious and taken for granted. As Patrick Henry stated, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."

The current administration is looking to increase the foreign aid and development initiative. Since they are all about job creation, the 2010 budget asks for an increase over 2009 of 9% to $53.9 Billion and the hiring of another 350 Foreign Service officers. The increase in the budget is the first step toward the ultimate aim of doubling foreign assistance by 2015. The budget provides "significant investments to address health, food security, climate change, basic education, and humanitarian needs around the world. . . and prioritizes funding to fight global poverty through programs that spur economic growth and strengthen democratic governance." All of that seems very standard for any peace loving people, but it may seem excessive to those who don't understand the beauty and freedom of trillion dollar deficits. Most importantly, the administration is apparently committed to fostering Americanism everywhere.

As with all initiatives involving people, success is sometimes fleeting, non-existent or more successful than intended. Apparently one part of the American Way that always makes the most headway with the masses is the pursuit of happiness. More and more the world sees happiness as money. For example, let's look at Africa.

What about Africa? Well, the Secretary of State states in her budget justification that "A particular focus of these efforts is Africa, where we have targeted assistance to address development gaps and support economic opportunity and governance programs." Government documents are difficult to traverse and there are many sub budgets and special budgets and various agencies reporting to each other. But, the International Affairs Budget states that the Sudan will get $296 million, Liberia $147 million, Congo $9 million and Somalia $28 million for various development projects.

That's a lot of money and the signs of success are everywhere, especially in Uganda where "The African country's government claimed human sacrifice was on the increase. According to officials trying to tackle it, the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity - and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly."

The Ugandans have seen the vision of a true Americanism -'get rich quick.' Here in the USA we usually find people getting rich quick in real estate (not so much these days) or the stock market (where you can at least get close to even again to where your portfolio was ten years ago) or on the Internet. Over there they do it differently, as a witch-doctor in northern Uganda says - "They go and capture other people's children. They bring the heart and the blood directly here to take to the spirits."

Apparently, we have forgotten that along with our money we should be sending our greatest natural resource - the faith in God that Americans traditionally have had in abundance. Unfortunately, in today's America sharing that faith with another country would be considered unconstitutional. Well, this is what happens when you take God out of the equation - sometimes people get the wrong message.

Sources:

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs - April 24, 2007

Mission Statement of the US Department of State

John F.Kennedy accepted the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 1960 with many inspiring words including these:

"Our task is not merely one of itemizing Republican failures. Nor is that wholly necessary. For the families forced from the farm will know how to vote without our telling them. The unemployed miners and textile workers will know how to vote. The old people without medical care--the families without a decent home--the parents of children without adequate food or schools--they all know that it's time for a change."

Back in 1960 it was apparently a time needing change because Republican policies had failed, farmers were losing their farms, miners were out of work, the health care system was broken, and education in America was a mess. And the Republicans were most to blame, as then Senator Kennedy said in an interview: " The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party has opposed every single piece of new, progressive legislation of benefit to the people in the last 25 years, social security [applause] social security, housing, minimum wage . . ."

We also learned from the Senator that "the current crisis in our educational system is a crisis caused by our failure to meet our responsibilities over the past 8 years." He also stated that "Underlying any discussion of our educational problems are two basic principles: first, the Federal Government has responsibility to help insure a decent education to all Americans."

So how have we done over the last 48 years? Let's see, sixteen years later in 1976 Democratic Presidential nominee Jimmy Carter stated in his acceptance speech that "We have suffered enough at the hands of a tired and worn-out administration without new ideas, without youth or vitality, without vision and without the confidence of the American people." Regarding education he said: " When the public schools are inferior or torn by strife, their children [talking about the priveleged] go to exclusive private schools." Sounds like the education system was still bad.

But wasn't there something done in the preceding years? After all, Lyndon Johnson, another Democrat was President for five years and when he accepted the nomination in 1964 he stated that " Most Americans want medical care for older citizens. And so do I. Most Americans want fair and stable prices and decent incomes for our farmers. And so do I. Most Americans want a decent home in a decent neighborhood for all. And so do I. Most Americans want an education for every child to the limit of his ability. And so do I. Most Americans want a job for every man who wants to work. And so do I. Most Americans want victory in our war against poverty. And so do I."

Apparently, nothing was done. But surely by 1984 when Walter Mondale was the Democratic nominee for President America must have improved? In his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency he stated that the then current President Ronald Reagan hadn't helped out at all: " Four years ago, many of you voted for Mr. Reagan because he promised you'd be better off. And today, the rich are better off. But working Americans are worse off, and the middle class is standing on a trap door." Health care must have gotten better somewhere along the way because Mr. Mondale was more concerned about education. In fact, he stated that "We will launch a renaissance in education, in science, and learning. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. And this must be the best-educated, best-trained generation in American history. And I will lead our nation forward to the best system that this nation has ever seen. We must do it, we must do it." Whoa! Americans must have been really stupid in the 1980's.

Well, America apparently continued to fail under four more years of Ronald Reagan because in 1988 Michael Dukakis the Democratic nominee for the Presidency said in his acceptance speech that "We’re going to take America’s genius out of cold storage and challenge our youngsters; we’re going to make our schools and universities and laboratories the finest in the world and we’re going to make teaching a valued and honored profession once again." And the farmers? "We’re going to give our farm families a price they can live on, and farm communities a future they can count on."

It's amazing that America survived and prospered at all during these times.

Surely by 1992 life in America must have improved, but the Democratic nominee for President Wiliam Jefferson Clinton had this to say in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention: "That’s why I’m so committed to make sure every American gets the health care that saved my mother’s life and that women’s health care gets the same attention as men’s." Uh oh - healthcare went down the tubes again. "Their taxes are still going up. And the costs of health care, housing and education are going through the roof. Meanwhile, more and more of our best people are falling into poverty even though they work 40 hours a week. Our people are pleading for change, but government is in the way." Yes, we apparently needed change again 32 years later.

However, it seems that life in 1992 was just as hard as life in 1960 according to Bill Clinton -  " Jobs, education, health care- these are not just commitments from my lips; they are the work of my life. . .But you must do your part, you must be responsible. American companies must act like American companies again, exporting products, not jobs. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it. We can do it." Si se puede - Yes, we can! Wait, sorry I just got ahead of myself.

And now we come to today - 2008. The Democratic nominee Barack Obama has this to say about our current plight: "Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. . . Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American." The health care system must really be busted since in 1960 it as only the elderly who couldn't afford it - now it's everybody. But at least he says "finally."