Argentina legalizes gay marriage.

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentina legalized same-sex marriage Thursday, becoming the first country in Latin America to declare that gays and lesbians have all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexual couples.

After a marathon debate in Argentina's senate, 33 lawmakers voted in favor, 27 against and 3 abstained in a vote that ended after 4 a.m. Since the lower house already approved it and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter, it becomes law as soon as it is published in the official bulletin, which should happen within days.

The law is sure to bring a wave of marriages by gays and lesbians who have found Buenos Aires to be a welcoming place to live. But same-sex couples from other countries shouldn't rush their Argentine wedding plans, since only citizens and residents can wed in the country, and the necessary documents can take months to obtain. While it makes some amendments to the civil code, many other aspects of family law will have to be changed.

The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress and urged parents in churches and schools to work against passage. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio led the campaign, saying "children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother."

Nine gay couples had already married in Argentina after persuading judges that the constitutional mandate of equality supports their marriage rights, although their validity was later challenged by other judges. Congressional passage now removes that doubt.

As the debate stretched on for nearly 16 hours, large crowds held rival vigils through the frigid night outside the Congress building. When the final vote came, cheers and hugs broke out among the bill's supporters, with police keeping them separate from frustrated opponents who prayed and held rosaries.

"Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species," insisted Sen. Juan Perez Alsina, who is usually a loyal supporter of the president but gave a passionate speech against gay marriage inside the Senate chamber.

But Sen. Norma Morandini, another member of the president's party, compared the discrimination closeted gays face to the oppression imposed by Argentina's dictators decades ago.

"What defin

Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Colombia's Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans. Mexico City went further, legalizing gay marriage and launching tourism campaigns to encourage foreigners to come and wed.

Argentina now becomes the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, granting gays and lesbians all the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have. These include many more rights than civil unions, including adopting children and inheriting wealth.

Gay rights advocates said Argentina's historic step adds momentum to similar efforts around the world.

"Today's historic vote shows how far Catholic Argentina has come, from dictatorship to true democratic values, and how far the freedom to marry movement has come, as twelve countries on four continents now embrace marriage equality," said Evan Wolfson, who runs the U.S. Freedom to Marry lobby.

Wolfson urged U.S. lawmakers to stand up "for the Constitution and all families here in the United States. America should lead, not lag, when it comes to treating everyone equally under the law."

Gay activists in neighboring Chile hope Argentina's milestone will improve chances for a gay marriage law currently in committee in their own Congress.

"Argentina's political class has provided a lesson to the rest of Latin America," said Rolando Jimenez in Santiago. "We hope our own countries and political parties will learn that the human rights of sexual minorities are undeniable."

Activists in Paraguay plan to propose a similar law to the senate in October, said Martin Viveros of the group Somosgay. And in Uruguay, gays unsatisfied with the partial rights that come through civil unions are preparing legislation that would replace references to "man and woman" with "spouse" throughout the civil code.

But many Argentines remain firmly opposed to the idea of gay marriage. Teacher Eduardo Morales, for one, said the law was concocted by Buenos Aires residents who are out step with the views of the country.

"They want to convert this city into the gay capital of the world," said Morales, of San Luis province.

Ines Franck, director of the group Familias Argentinas, said the legislation cuts against centuries of tradition.

Opposing the measure "is not discrimination, because the essence of a family is between two people of opposite sexes," he said. "Any variation goes against the law, and against nature."

The president, who helped the law's chances by bringing two senators opposed to gay marriage with her on a state visit to China, spoke out from there against the Catholic Church's campaign and the tone she said some religious groups have taken.

"It's very worrisome to hear words like 'God's war' or 'the devil's project,' things that recall the times of the Inquisition," she said.

That may play well in Argentina's socially liberal capital, where many of the country's gays and lesbians live, but could be costly in the conservative provinces. Some opposition leaders accused Fernandez and her husband Nestor Kirchner, who lobbied hard for passage, of trying to gain votes in next year's presidential elections, when the former president is expected to run again.

The vote came after Sen. Daniel Filmus urged fellow lawmakers to show the world how much Argentina has matured.

"Society has grown up. We aren't the same as we were before," he said.

By MICHAEL WARREN

es us is our humanity, and what runs against humanity is intolerance," she said.

what is Judaism?

Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people. Originating in the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Tanakh, and explored in later texts such as the Talmud, Jews consider Judaism to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God developed with the Children of Israel. According to traditional Rabbinic Judaism, God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. This was historically challenged by the Karaites who maintain that only the Written Torah was revealed. and, in modern times, liberal movements such as Humanistic Judaism may be nontheistic.

Judaism claims a historical continuity spanning more than 3000 years. It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and the oldest to survive into the present day.

Its texts, traditions and values have inspired later Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

Many aspects of Judaism have also directly or indirectly influenced secular Western ethics and civil law. Jews are an ethnoreligious group that includes those born Jewish and converts to Judaism. In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13 million, of whom about 40% reside in Israel and 40% in the United States. The largest Jewish religious movements are Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism. A major source of difference between these groups is their approach to Jewish law. Orthodox and Conservative Judaism maintain that Jewish law should be followed, with Conservative Judaism promoting a more "modern" interpretation of its requirements than Orthodox Judaism. Reform Judaism is generally more liberal than these other two movements, and its typical position is that Jewish law should be viewed as a set of general guidelines rather than as a list of restrictions whose literal observance is required of all Jews. Historically, special courts enforced Jewish law; today, these courts still exist but the practice of Judaism is mostly voluntary. Authority on theological and legal matters is not vested in any one person or organization, but in the sacred texts and the many rabbis and scholars who interpret these texts.

Who is a Buddhist?

So, who is a Buddhist? And who is not?

This is an issue of some import as we have entered an era where Buddhist thought is cited for various purposes within our culture. And so, who may speak for the tradition? And who should be considered winging it while merely appealing to the name without justification?

It is in fact problematic as Buddhism is some five hundred years older than Christianity and during its whole history has never had a leading or normative institution, such as Christianity’s Roman Catholic Church. (Yes, some would assert the Vinaya ordained sangha could be that institution. But, the Buddhism of Japan is a glaring exception. And many emergent Buddhisms also have problematic relationships with the Vinaya ordained sanghas. So, it just isnt that cut or dried...) So, who gets to say whether one is Buddhist or is not? I find no institution that exists has the universal acceptance of the world Buddhist community or undoubtedly more properly, communities...

Many Christians consider it essential one acknowledges one of the traditional creeds such as the Apostles or the Nicene (or both) to be Christian. I know some throw in another called the Athanasian, as well. But there is also a strong minority position that holds the definition of a Christian is one who can say, “Jesus is Lord.” By that definition, at least on alternative Tuesdays, I could say I’m Christian.

Buddhism seems even harder to define. There is no creedal statement commonly held, although in modern times and in the West in particular many have appealed to the Four Noble Truths as a description of Buddhism.

Of course, some people think the Dalai Lama would be such an authority. But that just shows many people don't understand where he fits on the Buddhist stage. Rather than being the Buddhist pope, the Dalai Lama is more akin to being the Patriarch of Russian Orthodoxy - that is the leader of a significant although by world standards not a particularly large branch of the religion. In fact few opinions held by Buddhists somewhere are not going to be challenged by Buddhists somewhere else.

And then for me as a Zen Buddhist any definitions are tricky, as words are tricky. Although I find the summary statement in the Heart Sutra, "form is emptiness, and emptiness form" a very good pointer...

But pointer not creed.

Still, Zen is nestled very much within Buddhism, and for me, at least, as with, I'm confident, the majority, if not all, Zen Buddhists; seeing Zen as Buddhist is important.

In some recent correspondence a friend cited one Tibetan authority who asserted four principles that describe Buddhism, and if one does not believe them, then that person is not a Buddhist.

They are 1) All produced things are impermanent
 2) All contaminated things are suffering
 3) All phenomenon are empty and selfless 
4) Nirvana is peace

I looked at this list and thought I could live with it, although I think the word “contaminated” and “suffering” need a little attention. I would substitute compounded for contaminated, as there is no pure reference point. The point as I understand it is that everything made of parts (and what is not?) will come apart, and that grasping at such things as if they’re permanent or whole or unchangeable brings about a sense of dis-ease, unsatisfactoriness, hurt, sadness, suffering, anguish. Each word pointing to this sense captured in the technical term dukkha.

As to Nirvana is peace. That too needs unpacking in that as a Zen Buddhist this is where we come to that Heart Sutra line I cited above. Here the identity of form and emptiness of samsara and nirvana cannot be ignored, and it is in fact the deep insight into this that is awakening. So, this peace that is nirvana also includes all the hurt of the world.

I thought it interesting that in this list the doctrines of karma and rebirth are not included. But, perhaps assumed? I believe any forthright examination must include these points. And I know this is where my orthodoxy starts getting a bit shaky.

In classical Buddhism karma is all about intention. And those intentions are what directly lead to rebirth, and the normative view has been that “rebirth” refers to post mortem reanimation.

Out of respect for the tradition I try to maintain an agnostic view in this regard. But. I’ve noticed agnosticism tends to lean one way or another. So as regards a subject like theism an agnostic might lean toward theism or atheism while professing not knowing. In regard to theism I lean toward the not very likely. In regards to karma and rebirth taken in those classical ways, I'm agnostic but lean rather heavily against the view.

Rather for me karma describes the connection of an action or thought to its consequences. And within that unity of action or thought and consequence, rebirth describes the shift or immediate result of any given action or thought within, at least, a human being. I am because of what I was and I will be because of who I am - all right here, in each moment...

Then there are the moral codes, the precepts. Some would include how we interpret them to fall within at least orthodox and heterodox, if not whether one is or is not a Buddhist. The original conversation with my friend turned on how Tibetans in general understand the refraining from inappropriate sexual acts. For the most traditional understanding this means no sex that isn't for purposes of procreation. With all the fall out that has for homosexual persons...

I have a very strong reaction to this. I find that view ridiculous and body-hating and a shadow of Buddhism writ large. It is part of a Buddhist perspective that needs to be challenged from within the community, as damaging to the wholeness to which we are genuinely called by our tradition. I believe the only appropriate way of understanding the precepts regarding sexuality turn on respect and care and mutuality. Missing this is missing how we engage with open hands the matter of life and death.

I assert these positions I hold are Buddhist, if liberal Buddhist.

Others, I know, think this means I am not a Buddhist. Or, at best, a marginal Buddhist.

But then many Buddhists think the same about Zen Buddhists in general.

The upshot is probably, while quite important, the question of who and who is not a Buddhist is going to remain ambiguous...

Not unlike life, it seems...

But, also, like life, very important to engage fully...

By: James Ford

Origins of Islam

Part 2

The second part of the testimony means that Prophet Muhammad is the servant and chosen messenger of God. This implies that one obeys and follows the commands of the Prophet. One must believe in what he has said, practice his teachings and avoid what he has forbidden.

One must therefore worship God only according to his teaching alone, for all the teachings of the Prophet were in fact revelations and inspirations conveyed to him by God. One must try to mold their lives and character and emulate the Prophet, as he was a living example for humans to follow. God says: “And indeed you are upon a high standard of moral character.” (Quran 68:4) God also said: “And in deed you have a good and upright example in the Messenger of God, for those who hope in the meeting of God and the Hereafter, and mentions God much.” (Quran 33:21)

He was sent in order to practically implement the Quran, in his saying, deeds, legislation as well as all other facets of life. Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, when asked about the character of the Prophet, replied: “His character was that of the Quran.” (As-Suyooti) To truly adhere to the second part of the Shahada is to follow his example in all walks of life. God says: “Say (O Muhammad to mankind): ‘If you (really) love God, then follow me.’” (Quran 3:31) It also means that Muhammad is the Final Prophet and Messenger of God, and that no (true) Prophet can come after him.

“Muhammad is not the father of any man among you but he is the Messenger of God and the last (end) of the Prophets and God is Ever All-Aware of everything.” (Quran 33:40) All who claim to be prophets or receive revelation after Muhammad are imposters, and to acknowledge them would be tantamount to disbelief. We welcome you to Islam, congratulate you for your decision, and will try to help you in any way we can.

Origins of Islam

Part 1

The word “Muslim” means one who submits to the will of God, regardless of their race, nationality or ethnic background. Becoming a Muslim is a simple and easy process that requires no pre-requisites. One may convert alone in privacy, or he/she may do so in the presence of others. If anyone has a real desire to be a Muslim and has full conviction and strong belief that Islam is the true religion of God, then, all one needs to do is pronounce the “Shahada”, the testimony of faith, without further delay.

The “Shahada” is the first and most important of the five pillars of Islam. With the pronunciation of this testimony, or “Shahada”, with sincere belief and conviction, one enters the fold of Islam. Upon entering the fold of Islam purely for the Pleasure of God, all of one’s previous sins are forgiven, and one starts a new life of piety and righteousness. The Prophet said to a person who had placed the condition upon the Prophet in accepting Islam that God would forgive his sins: “Do you not know that accepting Islam destroys all sins which come before it?” (Saheeh Muslim) When one accepts Islam, they in essence repent from the ways and beliefs of their previous life.

One need not be overburdened by sins committed before their acceptance. The person’s record is clean, and it is as if he was just born from his mother’s womb. One should try as much as possible to keep his records clean and strive to do as many good deeds as possible. The Holy Quran and Hadeeth (prophetic sayings) both stress the importance of following Islam. God states: “...The only religion in the sight of God is Islam...” (Quran 3:19) In another verse of the Holy Quran, God states: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (their selves in the Hellfire).”

(Quran 3:85) In another saying, Muhammad, the Prophet of God, said: “Whoever testifies that there in none worthy of being worshipped but God, Who has no partner, and that Muhammad is His slave and Prophet, and that Jesus is the Slave of God, His Prophet, and His word[1] which He bestowed in Mary and a spirit created from Him; and that Paradise (Heaven) is true, and that the Hellfire is true, God will eventually admit him into Paradise, according to his deeds.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari) The Prophet of God, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, also reported: “Indeed God has forbidden to reside eternally in Hell the person who says: “I testify that none has the right to worship except Allah (God),’ seeking thereby the Face of God.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)

The Declaration of the Testimony (Shahada) To convert to Islam and become a Muslim a person needs to pronounce the below testimony with conviction and understanding its meaning: I testify “La ilah illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.” The translation of which is: “I testify that there is no true god (deity) but God (Allah), and that Muhammad is a Messenger (Prophet) of God.” To hear it click here or click on “Live Help” above for assistance by chat. When someone pronounces the testimony with conviction, then he/she has become a Muslim. It can be done alone, but it is much better to be done with an adviser through the “Live Help” at top, so we may help you in pronouncing it right and to provide you with important resources for new Muslims.

The first part of the testimony consists of the most important truth that God revealed to mankind: that there is nothing divine or worthy of being worshipped except for Almighty God. God states in the Holy Quran: “We did not send the Messenger before you without revealing to him: ‘none has the right to be worshipped except I, therefore worship Me.’” (Quran 21:25) This conveys that all forms of worship, whether it be praying, fasting, invoking, seeking refuge in, and offering an animal as sacrifice, must be directed to God and to God alone. Directing any form of worship to other than God (whether it be an angel, a messenger, Jesus, Muhammad, a saint, an idol, the sun, the moon, a tree) is seen as a contradiction to the fundamental message of Islam, and it is an unforgivable sin unless it is repented from before one dies.

All forms of worship must be directed to God only. Worship means the performance of deeds and sayings that please God, things which He commanded or encouraged to be performed, either by direct textual proof or by analogy. Thus, worship is not restricted to the implementation of the five pillars of Islam, but also includes every aspect of life. Providing food for one’s family, and saying something pleasant to cheer a person up are also considered acts of worship, if such is done with the intention of pleasing God. This means that, to be accepted, all acts of worship must be carried out sincerely for the Sake of God alone.

Origin of Christianity

A: Introduction An ongoing problem for Christians who argue or discuss with Muslims at Speaker's Corner is that of the authority for our beliefs. Many of the best references to support the theology which we hold to and support in our conversations are gleaned from the epistles of Paul. Yet we continually find our arguments rejected outright by Muslims because they consider Paul's letters to be untrustworthy and therefore non-authoritative. Christianity, they go on to say, was founded by Paul and not by Jesus.

Much of what we believe, they continue, was added to later on by Paul and his followers, in direct contradiction to Jesus's teachings. Most of their criticisms on this point, interestingly, do not come from research they have undertaken, but is borrowed from recent polemical writers within the Jewish community, particularly the writings of Dr. Hyam Maccoby, who teaches here in London.

B: Maccoby: Jesus was a Pharisee, Paul was a Sadducee According to Hyam Maccoby, Paul was not a Pharisee, nor even a Jew, but a gentile proselyte to Judaism. Maccoby's source for his material is the discredited Christian writer Epiphanius, an Ebionite who wrote 3 centuries after the fact.

Paul, according to Maccoby, failed in becoming a Pharisee, and so allied himself to the Sadducees and the High Priest, two groups who enjoyed their privileged status under Roman occupation, and so were in conflict with the Pharisees, who wished to be rid of the Roman oppressors. Maccoby believes that it was due to a near nervous breakdown that Paul split from this group and formed a new religion, taking ideas such as baptism, the eucharist, christology, the Holy Spirit, and eschatology and melded them with Jewish sacred history, Gnosticism, and the pagan mystery religions.

Jesus, on the other hand, according to Maccoby, taught beliefs which are quite common to Jewish Pharisaical teaching. He was a figure within Judaism and so would not have accepted his own divinity. This, Maccoby says, is clear from the first three Synoptic gospels, but not John, which was written much later, after the evolution of this theology by the early Christians led by Paul. Maccoby continues by asserting that Jesus never regarded himself as a sacrifice for humanity, a belief which Maccoby contends arose after his death, as it was not part of Jewish theology.

Yet, Maccoby does admit that creating a divine character for Jesus has Jewish roots. Elijah and Enoch were both taken up to heaven, which transcended other human experiences. This well- known Biblical event, he feels, could be the stepping stone to the belief of the divinity of a person who then takes on the divine qualities of God. There is no root in Judaism, however, for the sacrifice of the divine figure. Jews never worshipped the allegorical concept of God's divine wisdom as found in the book of Proverbs. And nowhere, Maccoby maintains, did Jesus ever make a claim of deity, calling himself instead the Messiah, a title which he maintains was political and which was quite common in those days. In fact, Maccoby believes that much of Jesus's teachings were also political in nature, and it was for this reason that he was finally put to death.

Those passages which do point to Jesus' spiritual nature were added later, he says, by Paul and his disciples. Along those same lines, Maccoby states that Jesus did not wish to abrogate Judaism, but was only in conflict with certain Jewish figures, which is normal within Jewish circles. He neither abrogated the Torah nor reformed it, but interpreted it, and in ways not unlike the Pharisees. For instance, curing sick people on the sabbath is not forbidden by the Mishnah nor the Talmud, which are both Pharisaic writings.

Maccoby believes that the ideas attributed to Jesus would have appalled him, had he known about them, therefore they could only have been attributed to him after his death. The gospels were written 40 years and later after the death of Jesus, thus Maccoby contends that there was plenty of time for these theological ideas to evolve within the Christian community.

C: Response to Maccoby In response to the above claims by Hyam Maccoby, we need not go into great detail except to point out from the outset that much of Maccoby's material is derived from the Ebionite tradition, a tradition which was first of all proposed three hundred years later than the subject in question, and secondly, a tradition which acknowledged its hostility to Paul and his beliefs even at that time.

It is inexcusable to rely on material for supposedly truthful information about a person or movement which is not only distant from the source, but also the avowed enemy of that person or movement. Would we go to Serbian generals to ascertain the facts of the Bosnia conflict today? This is what Maccoby has done in his work. To divorce Jesus from the personal claims which he makes in the gospels puts into question his whole ministry and the amazing impact which he had on those who followed him. It also makes the book of Acts look totally worthless, as the church which evolved from the ministry of Jesus was completely dependant on the person and claims of Jesus as saviour.

WHO CREATED GOD?

It is easy to make an argument for God’s existence from a cosmological standpoint. As the years have gone by, a growing amount of scientific data has accumulated which negates atheistic assumptions about how matter and the cosmos came into existence and how it has arrived at its present condition.

As a science teacher and public lecturer on the compatibility of belief in God and science, I have been impressed with an increasing awareness on the part of many scientists and theologians that science and religion are symbiotic disciplines. One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what the origin of God is?

If God created matter/energy and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always been than it is to say that matter has always been? As Carl Sagan has said, “If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, [New York: Random House, Inc., 1980], p. 257).

From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted; but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe.

The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe. However, this does not mean that we automatically accept the hypothesis that God is the Creator.

Why is it not equally invalid to suggest that God has always been? The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible and to common sense.

Do muslims believe in Jesus?

Its difficult to say,. most Christians say Jesus is the son of the living God while the Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet... Because God has no wife so for that reason he can not bear a son... So which of this do we accept? Christianity or Islam? This is a difficult task but in my own point of view i think its a misery that only God can reveal... I only believe that one day the truth of the whole matter will be known by all men... All we need to do is to focus on our believe in our creator!

Religious or Political Crisis?

Lahore shrine toll reaches to 43 LAHORE: Death toll of suicide attacks in Data Darbar has reached to 43 among which 28 martyrs have been identified, Geo News reported on Friday.

Cultural capital Lahore was on high alert Friday after two suicide bombers blew themselves up at Data Darbar packed with devotees, killing more than 40 people and wounding 175.

"The first blast occurred in the basement followed by another one with a deafening sound," said one witness.

On Friday, large numbers of police and other security personnel were patrolling all busy and sensitive areas in Lahore, a city of around 10 million people. Police sources said heads of two suicide bombers have been found.

Security was particularly tight around mosques ahead of weekly Muslim prayers, senior police officer Mohammad Faisal Rana told media.

A senior investigating officer told media that the bomber in the basement set off his vest after he was intercepted by a group of worshippers and that police were combing the scene for forensic clues.

The entire country is in state of shock and mourning on Data Darbar tragedy whereas several religious parties and traders of Lahore announced ‘Youm-e-Sog’ Friday.

Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif has announced compensation of Rs. 0.5 million each for martyrs and Rs.75, 000 for wounded.

Contact

bonnychency@yahoomail.com
bonnychency@gmail.com
+60102075634
kuala lumpur, malaysia.

Media

About