Some thoughts about Cain and Abel

The story of Cain and Abel is one of the most famous stories in The Bible. The conflict between the brothers, prior to the sin, is not revealed to us in the text. We have to guess what caused Cain to kill his brother, with the help of the verses before the murder. The story starts optimistically; two brothers were born to Adam and Eve, as we read in Genesis 4:1-2- "וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה. וַתֹּסֶף לָלֶדֶת, אֶת-אָחִיו אֶת-הָבֶל; וַיְהִי-הֶבֶל, רֹעֵה צֹאן, וְקַיִן, הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה" "And the man knew Eve his wife; And she conceived and bore Cain, And said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.' And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, But Cain was a tiller of the ground". However concise those two verses may seem, they actually reflect the beginning of the tension between the brothers. Cain was born first and Eve explained his name in relation to The Lord; she created a man with the help of G-d. Even though he was still a baby, Cain was considered "a man", in the eyes of his mother. This reminds me of the expectations that parents have of their children. Here, maybe Eve expected Cain to mature quickly and become a man, with the help of The Lord, as soon as possible! Perhaps if Adam had named him, his destiny would have been different. In any case, Eve's actions seemed to have produced the opposite of what she had intended. Another point of view has to do with the relationship between Adam and Abel. After his sin in the Garden of Eden, Adam was able to distinguish between good and evil. He probably also understood that he wouldn't live forever and that it was time to create descendants. Maybe he just slept with Eve, without paying attention to the tension that was created after the birth of the 2 sons. A midrash called "Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer" tells us another story about the "knowing" of the man. According to this midrash, Adam knew that Eve was pregnant from Satan and not from him. Abel, on the other hand, was born second, with a negative connotation to his name (foolishness, useless, etc.). Yet his occupation appeared first. Does this mean that he was more important, due to his profession as a shepherd? We know from The Scriptures that the shepherd is a sign of a leader, like Moses the prophet or King David. We also know from other mythologies from the area that there were fights between the workers of the ground and the herders of the flocks. Is this story revealing to us the nature of this tension and those conflicts? The Jewish sages noticed within the above mentioned verses, one word that was repeated three times -the word 'et', which means 'with'. From this repetition they interpreted, that Cain had a twin (girl) that was born with him and Abel had two more girls, who were born with him. Were the two brothers fighting over those girls? (According to some of the Jewish sages, such as Rashi, and also Muslim interpretations, the name of the brothers, who fought over the twins were Kabil and Habil). The once implied conflict between the brothers now continues conspicuously, as we read in Genesis 4:3-5- וַיְהִי, מִקֵּץ יָמִים; וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה, מִנְחָה—לַיהוָה וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם-הוּא מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ, וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן; וַיִּשַׁע יְהוָה, אֶל-הֶבֶל וְאֶל-מִנְחָתוֹ. וְאֶל-קַיִן וְאֶל-מִנְחָתוֹ, לֹא שָׁעָה; וַיִּחַר לְקַיִן מְאֹד, וַיִּפְּלוּ פָּנָיו" "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." Cain's offering wasn't as good as Abel's, because he gave fruit from the ground and that's it, whereas Abel gave the best meat from his flock, including the fat portions. So The Lord favored Abel's offering over Cain's and therefore he reacted to Abel's offering, before reacting to Cain's. In the Epistle to the Hebrews 11:4, we read: בָּאֱמוּנָה הִקְרִיב הֶבֶל לֵאלֹהִים זֶבַח טוֹב מִקָּיִן אֲשֶׁר הָיָה־לוֹ לְעֵדוּת " "כִּי צַדִּיק הוּא בְּהָעִיד אֱלֹהִים עַל־מִנְחֹתָיו וּבָהּ עוֹדֶנּוּ מְדַבֵּר אַחֲרֵי מוֹתוֹ "By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain’s. Through this he received approval as righteous, God himself giving approval to his gifts; he died, but through his faith he still speaks". Like Abel's faith, the story still speaks and will speak forever! For me, this story has one underlying message: Do not be Jealous, be compassionate like The Lord after the sin!

Main phrases of the post + transcription + translation

Hebrew	Transcription	Translation
קַיִן	Qayin	Cain
הֶבֶל	Hebel	Abel
רוֹעֶה	Rô'ê	Shepherd
אֲדָמָה	'ădāmāh	Ground
מֶתַח	metah	Tension
תְּאוֹם	Te'ôm	Twin
קָרְבָּן	qorbān	Sacrifice

Source: http://by126w.bay126.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0

Fighting China’s One Child Policy

Chai Ling fought for human rights at Tiananmen Square. Now she’s taking on China’s One Child Policy.

Chai Ling is no stranger to activism. She was a key leader in China’s 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protest and as a result ended up on the communist nation’s list of the 21 most-wanted students. But since she accepted Christ last year, Chai has been on a mission to expose a practice she says is “hundreds [of] times” worse than the government’s massacre of hundreds of student protestors.

Through her organization, All Girls Allowed, Chai is working to raise awareness about the horrors of China’s One Child Policy. Chai says hundreds of Chinese women commit suicide every day as a result of forced abortion and pressure against women in general. Others have fled the nation. Many families, preferring boys, abort their baby girls, or abandon female infants, advocates say.

“I realized there’s a Tiananmen massacre going on every day and nobody knows about it,” she says.

The daughter of two army medical doctors, Chai had little exposure to Christianity growing up. She says God—or Shangdi—was just a name she came across in a foreign novel at age 10. “It was a word that was forbidden in our society,” she says.

Although she didn’t know much about religion, for some reason she prayed to the name she read about and asked Him to make her an outstanding student—and she was. But 20 years passed without her making a commitment to Christ. After being put on a watch list by the Chinese government, she fled to the U.S., attended Princeton and Harvard, married an American and eventually launched a successful software company. She’s been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Several Christians witnessed to her through the years, including her husband. But it was after attending a U.S. congressional hearing on China’s forced abortion practices that she sensed God calling her. There she heard the testimony of Wujian, a woman who was forced to abort when she became pregnant without a government birth permit .

Wujian testified that she was dragged into a hospital and forcibly injected with two toxic shots to induce an abortion. When the baby did not die, she was taken into an operating room, where her baby was surgically removed and cut into pieces.

Chai says the testimony reminded her of how helpless she felt at Tiananmen Square. And though she had not embraced faith in Christ, she believed only God was big enough to stand against such brutality.

“Wujian’s cry struck me to the core,” Chai says. “If there is anyone who could stop this brutality, it has to be God, and it could only be God.”

After talking with Christian mentors and friends who had been witnessing to her for years, Chai says she came to believe God had a plan for her and that He wanted to use her to take His love to China. She accepted Christ in December 2009 and last June launched All Girls Allowed (allgirlsallowed.org).

The organization is set up to educate the world about China’s One Child Policy and encourage Chinese families not to abort and abandon their baby girls. One way the organization tries to do this is by giving parents a baby shower gift. “We’re going to these cities, primarily in the countryside, and finding couples who are pregnant and educating them about the value of girls,” says Brian Lee, executive director of All Girls Allowed.

Families who choose to keep their baby girls will be given a monthly financial stipend for a year. The organization also supports orphanages and reunites separated families.

Chai says after 20 years her mission to bring hope and freedom to China has not changed. She believes God has been working in her life all along, and today she trusts God to bring the victory in China.”

Read more: http://charismamag.com/index.php/news/29597-exposing-a-silent-massacre#ixzz16A8OtI00

1Malay(sian) Armed Forces

by Zairil Khir Johari

Being Defence Minister must sit well with Zahid Hamidi, for it has turned him into a trigger-happy man. Now, if only he could move his aim away from his own foot.

In my last post I highlighted his jingoistic call to stand up against the ‘neo-colonial’ government of Penang. And just when you think that such a marvelous statement could not be outdone in asininity, he follows it up with this classic piece of pronouncement:

“The reasons (for the low participation of non-Malays in the armed forces) could be because of a fear towards a tight discipline. It could be because of a low spirit of patriotism. It could be because certain ethnic groups had a negative perception of the armed forces and did not encourage participation,” said the minister.

Bravo. As expected, a commotion soon ensued, with denouncements and debates from both sides of the fence. Certainly, such a statement is nothing less than a stinging insult to the countless deeds and sacrifices made by non-Malay servicemen over the course of our country’s history.

Yet at the same time, it does raise a pertinent question. Why does there seem to be such dismal interest in the armed services amongst the non-Malay community (recruitment of non-Malay personnel from 2008-2009 is a paltry 1.2%)?

Dr Lim Teck Ghee, for example, suggests that the low incidence of non-Malay participation in the armed services may in fact be due to socio-economic factors, hence turning the discourse into one involving class rather than race. Others have suggested a lack of awareness and perhaps a remuneration structure that is less than attractive.

While I would not suggest that the salary scheme is not in need of review, nor would I go so far as to say that socio-economic conditions do not play an important role in the issue, I would however like to submit that the crux of the problem is far simpler than envisaged. As pointed out by our first Navy Chief, K Thanabalasingam, it is the simple and pragmatic reason of career advancement that makes non-Malays think twice.

In other words, non-Malays are less interested in joining the armed forces because of unequal promotion opportunities.

Simply ask yourself this: would you join an organisation if you knew from the get-go that no matter how hard you worked, no matter how dedicated you were, you will never receive due recognition simply because you weren’t born on the right side of Bumi?

Of course, Zahid Hamidi has since denied the existence of racial discrimination in the armed forces, citing the fact that there are:

‘A few’ non-Malay generals in the army (three according to my sources)

Two non-Malay admirals in the navy

One non-Malay general in the air force

Now, while the Minister may be proud to boast of the above data as ‘proof’ that non-Malays are able to hold ‘high positions’, I on the other hand see the existence of a racially-based quota system (3-2-1 for Army-Navy-Air Force) that is also evident in every branch and twig of our public service.

What does this (unwritten) quota mean in practical terms? It means that yes, while a non-Malay can definitely earn a ‘star’ or two on his uniform (and nowadays, rarely more than two), he would have to compete with other non-Malays for a share of the available quota. In other words, a non-Malay army officer is reviewed and measured relative to other non-Malays, instead of to all his fellow officers.

Furthermore, in today’s environment, it is virtually impossible for a non-Malay to attain anything more than two stars, much less to be considered as chief of one of the armed services (in contrast, our country’s first Chief of Navy was an Indian Malaysian gentleman who held the post for 9 years).

Now, we ask ourselves, which ‘non’ would be interested to join the armed forces in such a climate? Well, I know of one.

This particular officer, a ‘non’, had enlisted at the age of 18, spurred by dreams of dressing in uniform and defending his country. Today, on the verge of retirement after nearly 40 years of service, and despite being one of the most senior officers (in terms of length of service) in his chosen armed service, he will likely never attain a ‘star’ simply because the ‘non’ quota in his chosen service has already been filled. Never mind his ability, never mind his dedication, never mind that he could be more capable than some of the other ‘stars’ that have passed him by (lucky stars indeed for they were born on the right side of Bumi), he must resign himself to the unfortunate fact that he is, in his own country of birth, a ‘non-entity’.

In contrast, his counterpart in Singapore who was his classmate in Defence College, is now a 3-star general in the island republic. Would this officer be forgiven for wishing he had been born in Singapore instead of Malaysia?

So, dear Minister, what do you have to say about this? Oh wait, I know. You would probably say that this gentleman officer does not deserve to be a general because as a ‘non’, he is innately less patriotic and averse to discipline. What else can it be right? After all, in 1Malay(sia), everything else matters for nought.

Source: http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2010/11/20/1malaysian-armed-forces/

LaBarbera: GA pastor 'Christianizing' sin

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 11/17/2010 3:55:00 AM

A Georgia mega-church pastor has come out of the closet as a homosexual, but the head of a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda thinks the "bishop" is compromising God's Word.

Fifty-two-year-old Jim Swilley of the Church In The Now, an inter-denominational Christian church in Conyers, has stated that the September suicide of a Rutgers University student prompted him to unveil his secret life to his congregation.

According to the Newton Citizen, Swilley's announcement last month was not a surprise to many members of the church. "There are two things in my life that are an absolute. I did not ask for either one of them," he reportedly told his congregation. "Both of them were imposed on me. I had no control over them. One was the call of God on my life...the other thing was my sexual orientation." He continued to explain that he had struggled with his sexual orientation his whole life, always attempting to come to terms with that and his faith in God.

"This so-called 'Bishop' Swilley is a very confused man," laments Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). "He thinks he's being honest about -- quote -- 'who he is,' but actually, he's compromising the Word of God and he's Christianizing sin, which is impossible."

LaBarbera contends Swilley should step down from his ministerial position, stop preaching the Word of God, and repent of his sin and the advocacy of it. Swilly has shared that his congregation has been supportive of his coming out for the most part, but the AFTAH president is not surprised that some members of his church have left.

"There's no doubt in the Bible about whether homosexual practice is a sin," the conservative advocate points out. "He says he knew he was -- quote -- 'gay' since he was a boy. Most boys don't think about sex, much less homosexuality, so we're wondering what happened in his early life. Obviously, he's a confused man."

LaBarbera emphasizes that homosexuality it is not condoned in Christianity, so Swilley has "set about rationalizing his sin, which is very dangerous business." Swilley is the father of four children and is now divorced after a 20-year marriage. His former wife still works for the church.

Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=1233452

用中文何须自我矮化？

（其他两个作者的文章在此文之后）

慧霖的〈大马人的中文水平低落〉蒙水灵秀以〈沟通语言力求简单〉驳斥，我不认同后者的言论，认为大马人用中文何须如她般自我矮化？

首先让我讲讲从收听大马中英语电台播报股市行情得到的感受开始。华语电台通常很单调地从头到尾用“跌”和“长”播报，再不然就是“上”和“下”。而英语电台则一石二鸟地表现文字的优秀，却很自然，很顺畅，不仓促，不公式化，没特意造作，令人听了蛮舒服的。

“上升股”用“upped, rose, increased, soared, climbed, gained, added, plus, shot, grew, got ….”，而“下降股”用“downed, sank, decreased, slipped, dropped, lost, subtracted, minus, shed, ....”。我想，五千年优秀的中文，为何不用丰富形容的传达方式呢？“上升股”可用“上、升、增、扬、攀、得、加、飙、长 ….”，而“下降股可用“下、沉、降、滑、跌、失、减、削、损、少 ….”。

人是求进步而不是求退步的，如果我们中文不好，就应该虚心学习。8字辈及之后出生的中文程度，的确比之前一辈的有江河日下之虞。最近小六UPSR检试放榜，华文作文和理解成绩下滑，令关心中文的各阶层担忧。现在很多非华人学习中文，如果我们这些海外华人只满足于力求简单沟通就算的话，那么迟早都被挤出中国市场分一杯羹的竞争地位，因为许多老外比我们更能掌握中文。

即使是沟通，某些东西必须使用贴切的词汇来形容才生动的。我讲道喜欢用成语，往往一句成语，教友对我的讲章可以多年不忘！烹饪和美食节目也一样，中港台以丰富的词汇形容，肯定更使到观众感到精彩。如果不明白他们谈的形容词或成语的话，多听就明白了，进而可增加自己的中文水平。我本身也从中港台的的各种节目学习到不少新的中文运用。

本地的电视台节目，老套地用“好吃，真好吃，太好吃了”来形容美食，这般的水平肯定必须向中港台学习。试问我们的节目能走到多远？一味满足于“甘榜冠军”而走不出国外，没外国购买，因为沟通语言只力求简单，那我们就继续让观众听“好吃，真好吃，太好吃了”吧！

对于形容一个漂亮的女人，水灵秀说用成语“羞花闭月，沉鱼落雁”令她不知道你是在赞赏她的美貌。以前的选美会是以貌选人，但现在的要求是才貌双全的。若她没有相当的才识，那不是美人！说实话，我在小学从老师学到这两句成语，数十年至今还在用。这两句小学生也懂的成语，如果那个“美女”不知道别人在赞赏她的话也就罢了！

至于歌手费玉清所主持的“清音乐”节目，其实他也常用成语的呢！
---------------------------------

大马人的中文水平低落

2010-09-22 08:26

“新加坡人的中文水平，在英国人听来，跟中国人的水平差不多，在中国人听来，跟没文化基本没区別。”上个月的《星洲日报》有报导说中国的部落客称讚这句话为经典，过后新加坡国大教授表示那是因为新加坡人讲华语的口音和中国人的口音不同，和文化水平没有关係。

笔者却认为，这未必纯粹是口音问题。同样的，马来西亚的中文水平也有退步的趋势。

这里有个例子，大家常常会发

现国营中文电台每小时的华语新闻都会出现因为翻译而產生的文法错误。

观看中文资讯节目和娱乐节目时，也常常发现主持人无法运用丰富的词汇来表达。比如在美食节目，有些主持人从头到尾只用“好吃”，“真好吃”，“太好吃了”来介绍食物。

反观对语言和文字的驾驭能力比较好的台湾主持人，他们在製作的节目里，不但能够传神的表达自己的味觉，如：沁人心肺、甜而不腻、肉质带涩、带来饱足感；也能详细贴切的形容食物，如：表皮略焦里面却非常鲜嫩、既滑润又清甜、辛辣醒神。

词汇的应用往往能够把一个人的內涵表现出来。词汇不够丰富，有时候是因为那个人本来就未达到某种水平，比如小朋友只会说：“我不跟某某人好了”，成年人则有能力详细敘述：“我和某某人冷战”、或者“暂时分开一段时间冷静一下”，这两词汇都具不同意义。

如果语文能力弱，无法准確表达思想，那就更谈不上去注意造句的工整和文章的美感了。到底要如何改善这个现象，还请大家多多动脑筋。

星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：慧霖‧2010.09.22

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/16394

沟通语言力求简单

2010-11-12 08:30

大马电视广播员，包括中文资讯与娱乐节目的主持人，在所主持的美食节目中，无法运用丰富的词汇来表达，从头到尾，就只会讲“好吃”，“真好吃”，“太好吃了”。

台湾的主持人，在类似的节目里，对语言与文字的驾驭能力，显然在我们之上，他们能够很传神的表达对食物的味觉。他们不用“好吃”，“真好吃”，“太好吃了”，他们传神的用上“沁人心肺”，“甜而不腻”，“肉质带涩”

，“带来饱足感”。

――以上是月前星洲日报曾刊在《沟通平台》一栏的一篇文章，〈大马人的中文水平低落〉的部份內容。

读罢心中十分不痛快！作者说“马来西亚人的中文水平在退步”。缘由是国內有些主持人，对美味可 口的佳餚，从头到尾，只会“好吃”，“真好吃”，“太好吃了”来表达对食物的讚赏。简单又明快的“好吃”，“真好吃”，“太好吃了”，一听就可意会，就知 道这食物味道的確好！这与中文水平扯不上关係。“沁人心肺”的“沁”字，解意为“水从细孔渐渐渗入”。有关节目中若没有附加字幕，对如此艰涩的词语，你能 马上意会吗？

对一位美若天仙的女人，你会脱口而出：“漂亮”，“很漂亮”，“太漂亮了”，女人一听，立即笑容灿烂。

你如果要这样说：“小姐生来羞花闭月、沉鱼落雁”，对方一定思索半晌，不知道你是在讚赏她的美貌。

著名歌手费玉清主持的“清音乐”节目，他对受邀来宾的表演，通常的讚赏也只是：太好了！棒极了！真好听！从不用“听出耳油”，或甚么“绕樑三日”，“出谷黄鶯”之类。

在日常与人沟通的语言，应力求简单、清晰，让对方一听就懂。

写文章，辞藻的运用，当然要丰富、准確、传神。但如果一味讲究辞藻，堆砌文字，就是咬文嚼字了。咬文嚼字不意味中文水平高，简单清晰更不意味中文水平低！

星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：水灵秀‧2010.11.12

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/17023

美国不安全，怪罪基督教？

（欧阳文风的文章在后面）

欧阳文风的“美国不安全，怪谁？”，把美国受到恐怖袭击威胁不安全，怪罪两种人身上，共和党人和基督教会。怪罪共和党人，他没有讲出理由，但怪罪基督教会却搬出他经常屡批不爽的理由，令人啼笑皆非！

欧阳把所谓的“美国的基督教原教旨主义 / 宗教右派”形容为“和恐怖分子的思维其实差不多”，这番话乃无的放矢。他说“对方（恐怖分子）迷信可兰经，字面解经，号召圣战，喊打喊杀，美国宗教右派则迷信圣经，字面解经，以为只有基督教，或属于基督教原教旨主义的基督徒才有真理，其他宗教不是无知，就是异端邪说，通通下地狱这种霸权心态，怎么不令人讨厌？”

看来欧阳比美国五角大楼的情报更准确，因为我从未听过美国政府怪罪基督徒是引起恐怖袭击的祸首。我读过不少关于恐怖袭击分析文章，欧阳的可算是“最特殊的”，因为在没证据下乱套罪名。欧阳为什么要基督教给美国的不安全买账呢？

欧阳所谓的基督教原教旨主义是指谁？只要教会持守真理，不纵容罪恶，都一概归纳此范畴？大多数基督徒乃履行基督徒的职责，他们只晓得做一个好基督徒，不晓得是否就是那“原教旨主义”信徒。当教会维护真理，他们并没有错，毕竟每个宗教都这样做。只遗憾欧阳言过其实，他持守自己一套的“真理”是正统教会不认同的，导致他经常借一小撮的极端分子闹事课题就控诉整个基督教会。

大多数基督教会并不极端，他们相信圣经，而不是欧阳所谓的“迷信圣经”。“迷信”是“相信你所不明白的东西”，而基督徒是相信他们所明白的圣经。这些正统教会与其他宗教信徒和谐相处，也没有如欧阳控诉般的“其他宗教通通下地狱”的心肠。

发生911事件几天后举行的国家追思礼拜里，天主教和基督教的领袖代表都发表痛斥恐怖分子的残暴行为，并要求国人饶恕他们，同时祷告世人和睦相处。所以正统教会是爱人如己的，我们怎么会有恐怖分子的思维？

不久前佛罗里达州的特里琼斯牧师号召基督徒在9月11日，即911的九周年焚烧可兰经。不但大多数美国教会抨击该牧师，世界各地的教会也一样抨击施压。这证明这个激进的牧师，不代表全世界整个正统的基督徒。至于美国政府采取对付恐怖分子的策略，乃与教会无关。

我们的世界越来越变得动荡，因为各宗教里头有激进的信徒。美国不安全，肯定被一些激进基督徒连累。不过欧阳这般一竹竿打死整船人的误导，对解决美国的安全并没有帮助，反而惹气。不是不可以讲基督教的弱点，但必须言符其实。基督教的强点比弱点更多，为何不从正面来评论，对社会缔造更多和谐？

----------------------------

欧阳文风‧美国不安全，怪谁？

2010-11-12 19:14

上 两星期我去美国德州开会，在机上看电视听新闻，得知两架经由他国飞往美国的飞机上发现可疑包裹，结果4个小时的飞行，机上乘客议论纷纷。下机后追踪新闻， 奥巴马召开紧急新闻发佈会，表示包裹事件是基地组织在也门的分支，企图再次对美国发动恐怖侵袭，美国所有快递公司亦马上停止从也门往美国的货物运输服务； 当天很多美国人与居住在美国的外国人，特別是飞机乘客如我者，心惊胆战。

不仅如此，当天晚上美国两架军机被令紧急起飞，“保护”一架从阿联酋起飞的客机在纽约降落，因为机上又发现可疑包裹，人心惶惶，不过后来发现不过一场虚惊。

9年前的911恐怖袭击之后，很多纽约客已经习惯恐怖预警，世界各地乘坐飞机旅游的人也已习惯机场“非常麻烦”的安全检查。但这次一连串的惊嚇，还是令人流冷汗。

恐怖份子是不可能甘心或从此罢手的，特別是由宗教情操所操纵的“圣战”，更是不可能说停就停，或因为你凶就投降。对於宗教恐怖份子，绝对迷信，不可理喻，他们连死都不怕，有甚么可能阻嚇他们，美国再凶，恐怕只能激发他们更恶的斗志。

恐怖袭击其实是对美国在国外霸权的反扑，911之后，很多美国人都在问：为甚么他们那么討厌我们？

这问题算是问对了，但认真思考，有心反躬自省的美国人恐怕不多，特別是共和党人和受基督教原教 旨主义操纵的宗教右派。后者和恐怖份子的思维其实差不多，对方迷信可兰经，字面解经，號召圣战，喊打喊杀，美国的宗教右派则迷信圣经，字面解经，以为只有 基督教，或属於基督教原教旨主义的基督徒才有真理，其它宗教不是无知，就是异端邪说，通通下地狱，这种霸权心態，怎么可能不令人討厌？美国这些宗教右派不 明白，他们討厌別人的理由，和別人討厌他们的理由，恐怕一模一样，其实大同小异。

21世纪恐怕是宗教衝突尖锐化的世纪。宗教衝突比其它许多类型的衝突更可怕，在於人一旦迷信宗 教，可以完全不可理喻，各自把自己的宗教经典搬出来，纯粹只是诉诸一己经典，完全不能接受理性批判与检验，以为唯有自己有真理，再把异议者一律视为异端邪 说，如何可能文明对话？没有对话，不愿交流，你要和他讲理，他一句顶你“理性不是绝对的”，还有甚么可以谈？

美国中期选举结束，共和党和保守派崛起，令不少美国人担忧。美国越来越不安全，其实美国有不可推諉的责任。

星洲日报／言路‧作者：欧阳文风‧自由撰稿人‧2010.11.12

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/17030

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi should resign for questioning the loyalty and patriotism of non-Malays

This article is submitted by a Retired Senior Armed Forces Malaysian who also happens to be a NON-MALAY

I'm a third generation Malaysian who had served the Malaysian Armed Forces for 38 devoted years. The article in STAR Page N14 recently which carried derogatory remarks by the Malaysian Defence Minister about non-Malays not only jolted me out of my slumber but also infuriated me. The Defence Minister, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi announced that one of the possible reasons for the low intake of non-Malays in the Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) is that their "patriotism spirit is not high enough"!

Ironically, if my memory serves right, in 1998 this same Zahid Hamidi spoke out against then Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, calling for an end to cronyism and nepotism in the Malaysian government. Zahid, then seen as an ally of deposed Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, was subsequently arrested and held in prison under the Internal Security Act. His oxymoronic statement implies that millions of Malaysians, including Malays, who chose not to join the Armed Forces are also not patriotic.

It must be acknowledged that the UMNO-led Government is promising a lot of reforms and taken initiatives that appear to be commendable but whilst the 'Gods are willing, the priests are not'. The implementation on the ground, as always, has been an issue to which they conveniently close an eye or even both. The BTN inculcation is another monster that the UMNO Government, under the 'able' leadership of our not-so-pendatang PM Dr Mahathir, has created. The evil of BTN must be systemically reversed or we are all doomed and extremists like Zahid Hamidi, who are politically ambitious, who will not hesitate to play the race card again in order to rise within the ranks of UMNO, must be condemned by all right thinking members of the Malaysian society.

Like in most Government Departments, non-Malays are not appointed in certain sections of Departmental Work where it entails transparency. Thus is the case of the MAF Recruiting Division and several other fields purely at the discretion of those placed in power, and this power is abused with the tacit approval of those walking the Corridors of Power.

The MAF Recruiting Division over the years has been hoodwinking the public by manipulating the application figures. There are ample cases where applications by well qualified non-Malay candidates have either ended up in waste paper baskets or rejected with fictitious excuses.

On the other hand, the lesser ones are either called up and rejected as not qualified or a token sum is absorbed in order to just satisfy the political masters and project the multi-racial composition of the MAF. These poor fall guys end up being miserable with no future in their career. They simply mark time and quit service later into oblivion.

What career prospects await the non-Malay today in the Government's service? All the senior positions held by non-Malays are quickly and promptly replaced by Malays when these non-Malays retire. Non-Malays who are competent, able and well qualified are by-passed and these promotions are then given to Malays who are less qualified, less competent but have the 'kulit-ifications'.

When compared to the Malays, there is absolutely no career planning for non-Malays and thus stifling their promotion prospects which is further acerbated by the self imposed quota system. This pathetic situation obviously doesn't augur well for potential candidates to join the MAF. The non-Malays are made to feel that they are there merely as gap-fillers despite their earnest portrayal of professionalism, loyalty and patriotism.

Unfortunately, many of our politicians like Zahid Hamidi, are either too inexperienced or simply too naive to understand the frustration and agony of highly devoted non-Malays who had served and are still serving our beloved nation. You should wake up and spend time amongst service personnel to see the mutual respect and camaraderie that exists regardless of race, creed and colour! You and your Cabinet counterparts, in consultation with the Service Chiefs, should devote your time to address the root cause for this long overdue predicament of the Non-Malays.

By the way, this was never the case in the 60s and 70s. Another product of BTN and Dr Mahathir's style of helping the handicapped Malays to stay on top despite the odds and the non-Malays are again made scapegoats.

Source: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/35922-ahmad-zahid-hamidi-should-resign-for-questioning-the-loyalty-and-patriotism-of-non-malays

阿末扎希，你错了！

国防部长阿末扎希在国会表示，去年加入大马防卫队的非马来人，尤其是华人和印度人比例偏低。华人只有区区26人，占总数的0.29%。他列出几项偏低的可能原因，其中一项是“可能爱国精神未够高”。

作为一个华人，我对阿末扎希的这番“爱国论”高见感到失望。在大马的建设历史里，无论马来人，华人和印度人等，大家都付出汗马功劳。独立了53年，许多华印裔乃是土生土长的，我们是以身为马来西亚人而自豪，怎么会不爱国呢？

为何还有人继续发表种族言论呢？这番一而再，再而三地伤害非马来人的言论必须要连根拔起，大马才能兴旺。阿末扎希作为一个高层领袖也没敏感意识，质疑非马来人的忠心，他没树立榜样，怎么不叫下层的人士日后不发表同样的言论呢？

国防部反而应该检讨一些可能拦阻非马来人加入防卫队的政策，包括擢升军人的条件。阿末扎希应该向国会提供更多资料，包括非马来人军人最高可擢升至什么军衔。即使是擢升，顶多是上将，而且到了快退休年龄才获得。请问，非马来人能够擢升为总司令吗？

老实说，国防部对保护国家的安全是非常重要的部门。基于大马从来没有打过仗，军队的素质乃未知数。但我们不可安逸，国家必须确保防卫队是精锐的。那么，防卫队就必须摒弃维护种族的原则作为擢升的标准，而是以才取人。这样的公平政策下，非马来人怎样会不参军呢？

后记：阿末扎希澄清，他没有质疑非马来人的忠诚，而是“不够忠诚”。请阿末扎希不要玩弄字眼，“不够忠诚”也就是和“不忠诚”一样的。

--------------------------------
以下来源：http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/147684

华印裔从军率偏低仅有1.2%
国防部长直指欠缺爱国精神

2010年11月9日 下午 1点18分

昨天政府甫宣布对付发表种族论的国家干训局副总监，今天国防部长阿末扎希（Ahmad Zahid Hamidi，右图）言论却又再挑起争端。他向国会指出，华印裔从军比率偏低可能是基于这两个族群“不爱国”。

阿末扎希是今天在国会问答环节时，回应国阵登嘉楼士兆区国会议员莫哈末基汀（Mohd Jidin Shafee）的提问时，作出上述的回应。

莫哈末基汀询问，陆军在过去两年的的新兵数目，以及他们的族群比率。他也询问特定族群在大马武装部队比率偏低的原因。

华印裔新兵2年仅108人

也是巫统副主席的阿末扎希指出，在过去两年，共有9054名军官和其他阶位的军人加入大马武装部队，相对的，在2006到2008年，共有1万4749名军官和其他阶位的军人投入服务。

他说明，在2008到2009年之间，新兵有8151人，或90%是马来人；就华裔而言，则有26人，或0.29%是华人；印裔有82人，或0.91%；而其他族裔，包括沙巴和砂拉越土著则有795人，或占8.8%。

换言之，在2008到2009年两年内，华印裔新兵仅108人，比率只有区区1.2%。

“国防部发现非马来人，尤其华裔和印裔的参与仍不能达到标准。”

相关社群不鼓励子弟当兵

除了缺乏“爱国精神”外，阿末扎希指出，其他导致华印裔低度参与的因素可能还包括“害怕严格的军事纪律；相对于私人界工作，其薪金低；或家人不鼓励。

他也补充说，相关种族社群不鼓励，或者出现对大马武装部队的中伤，也可能是原因之一。

阿末扎希强调，政府从来没有给大马武装部队设置入伍固打，加入军队者是根据其资格、兴趣，而且必须是自愿的。

古拉要阿末扎希收回言论

不满阿末扎希的说法，民主行动党籍以怡保西区国会议员古拉（M Kulasegaran）援引议会常规第36(10)(c)条文提出抗议。他要求阿末扎希针对“华印裔不爱国” 的言论道歉。

由于阿末扎希不理会留守通知，而选择离开会议厅，古拉因此批评前者为“懦夫”。

不过，议长班迪卡并没有要求阿末扎希收回其言论，相反地，斥责古拉利用不适合国会的“懦夫”一词

Gay "pastors" - An End-time Sign

"The war with Christian Homosexuality is ongoing. A Malaysian gay "pastor", Ouyang Wen Feng, has already run a Homosexual Church in KL for about 3 years now. Sin Chew Chinese Daily has given him a platform to launch continuous onslaughts on Churches. Me and some Christians has been tussling with him by voicing out our views. But most of the time our articles were rejected! Gay 'pastors', an end-time sign, shows that the Lord is separating the sheep from the goats." - Pastor Allen Tan
----------------------------------

Is it OK to be Gay and Christian?

Wednesday, 03 November 2010 10:42 AM EDT J. Lee Grady

Charismatic pastor Jim Swilley’s announcement that he is gay opened the door wider for a subtle delusion. Don’t believe it.

Many people were shell-shocked last week when Atlanta pastor Jim Swilley stood in front of his congregation, Church in the Now in Conyers, Ga., and announced that he is gay. The 52-year-old minister was abruptly removed from his position in the International Communion of Charismatic Churches—a network in which he served as an overseer. Some of Swilley’s members left his church, others stayed, and countless others are now scratching their heads.

We Americans are lost in a moral fog. Two major Protestant denominations (the Episcopal Church USA and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) have voted to ordain gay clergy. Meanwhile, gayness is celebrated in our media, and anyone who refuses to bow to this idol is painted as intolerant and homophobic.

“The sins we avoid addressing from the pulpit are the sins that will thrive unchallenged in our culture. We must develop some backbone and speak the truth in love.”

Christians who still believe homosexuality is incompatible with biblical faith feel painted into a corner. If we defend Christian morality, and even if we speak with compassion to those who may struggle with same-sex attraction, we are accused of hate speech or branded as judgmental. So we tiptoe through the minefield of political correctness—and keep our mouths shut.

Sorry, but timidity on this issue is not acceptable. The sins we avoid addressing from the pulpit are the sins that will thrive unchallenged in our culture. We must develop some backbone and speak the truth in love. Here are four truths that should factor into any discussion on this topic:

1. Everyone is born with issues. King David wrote: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5, NASB). David acknowledged that he had an inborn sin nature. This is true for all of us!

Many “gay Christian” advocates insist that some people are born homosexuals and therefore they have no hope of altering their orientation. But this is a lame argument since we all are born with a propensity toward certain sins. This is the human condition: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Just because you are born with an inclination toward adultery, alcoholism, shoplifting or pride doesn’t mean you have to stay that way.

2. Christ offers forgiveness and sexual healing. The more strident voices in the gay community hate when Christians speak about homosexuals being healed or reformed. They insist that if you are gay, you must stay that way. They choose to ignore the fact that thousands of people have left homosexuality after coming to faith in Christ.

My friend Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, came out of the gay lifestyle many years ago and now has a great marriage with his wife, Leslie, plus two beautiful children. The ministry he leads has helped countless people—including many Christian “strugglers”—find emotional freedom. Some of them experienced same-sex feelings from childhood; others developed these feelings because they were sexually molested or because of dysfunction in their families.

Whatever the cause of sexual brokenness, the gospel has always provided the solution. It was true for people in the Corinthian church, to whom Paul wrote: “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, emphasis added).

3. Discipleship requires self-denial. In his announcement to his church last week, Jim Swilley said he decided to come out as gay because he was tired of pretending. I’ve talked with others who told me they felt they were being “dishonest” by ignoring their gay feelings. They said they felt free when they accepted “who they really are” and got involved in gay relationships.

For a Christian, that’s a cop out. The essence of our walk with Christ involves denial. Jesus said: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Matt. 16:24). Jesus was not asking us to pretend we don’t have problems—He calls us to bring all of those problems into His light through repentance. But the Holy Spirit gives us the power to deny sinful desires. That quality of self-control is a fruit of the Spirit (see Gal. 6:22-23).

4. Homosexuality is not a protected category of sin. Many “gay Christian” advocates insist that if you are gay, then it’s fine to go out and have all the sex you want. They ignore biblical commandments against homosexuality (usually by saying that Old Testament law doesn’t apply today); meanwhile they advocate gay marriage even though most gay men are rarely monogamous. The message is clear: If you have same-sex desires, just go ahead and indulge because that’s how you were created.

This is what the Bible calls licentiousness—which means “lacking legal or moral restraints, especially sexual restraints; disregarding rules.” Actually, the Bible lumps homosexuality in with every other form of sexual sin—and says God will punish those who engage in it. After Paul warns about every form of immorality, he says: “So, he who rejects [these rules] is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you” (1 Thess. 4:8).

Regardless of how loudly the world trumpets its hedonistic agenda—and no matter how many backslidden preachers dance to the tune—God has the final say on this matter.

Read more: http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/fire-in-my-bones/29512-is-it-ok-to-be-gay-and-christian#readmore#ixzz14HJPZc1w