Federal agencies must protect America's Pacific Island monuments from illegal fishing now

Posted on 22nd February 2012 in The monuments of world

[ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 22-Feb-2012
[

| E-mail

| Share Share

]

Contact: Bill Chandler
bill.chandler@marine-conservation.org
202-546-5346
Marine Conservation Biology Institute

NOAA and Fish and Wildlife Service now 3 years behind schedule on banning commercial fishing

Washington, DC (February 22, 2012) � Today, Marine Conservation Institute filed a formal petition to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, asking them to prohibit commercial fishing in America’s sensitive and pristine Pacific Island marine national monuments, a ban that President George W. Bush declared when he established the monuments over three years ago.

In January 2009, President Bush established three marine monuments in the central Pacific and prohibited commercial fishing in them because they are incredibly rich marine ecosystems that have been damaged by commercial fishing and in the past. Collectively, the monuments cover 193,000 square miles, an area larger than the state of California. These are the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (a collection of isolated coral island possessions), the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument in American Samoa, and the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. The three monuments wrap around a number of National Wildlife Refuges, most of which existed prior to the creation of the monuments.

William Chandler, Vice President for Government Affairs at Marine Conservation Institute, said, “When President Bush designated these magnificent areas for preservation, he specifically directed that commercial fishing be prohibited in them immediately. But now, over three years later, the fishing ban and associated penalties for illegal fishing within the monuments have yet to be put into place. As a result, and despite evidence of illegal fishing in the monuments, the Coast Guard won’t enforce the ban. This is inexplicable. We’re just trying to get the Administration to do what the presidential designation documents say. There is simply no justification for delay.”

Marine Conservation Institute actively supported the designation of the Pacific Remote Islands National Monument, and remains an advocate for conservation of natural resources within all of the Pacific monuments. Illegal fishing within the monuments threatens these relatively pristine marine ecosystems and their populations of corals, rare reef fish, overfished tuna, sea turtles, whales, and seabirds.

Chandler said, “It is hard to believe a clear directive of the president has gone unimplemented for so long. The responsible federal agencies have had three years to establish fishing rules that ban commercial fishing and leave recreational and indigenous intact, but they have not yet delivered. Without such a ban, these unique ecosystems with their sensitive populations could be damaged by fishermen or their vessels. The world’s largest population of giant clams, nesting sea turtles, and areas of tremendous biological diversity are all at risk.”

###

The full text of the Marine Conservation Institute petition to the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce is available at: www.marine-conservation.org

About Marine Conservation Institute
“Saving wild ocean places, for us and future generations”

Marine Conservation Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving our living oceans. We work with scientists, politicians, government officials and other organizations around the world to protect essential ocean places and the wild species in them. We use the latest science to identify important marine ecosystems around the world, and then advocate for their protection, for us and future generations.

Find Marine Conservation Institute online at www.marine-conservation.org, Twitter, Facebook and on the blog Marine Conservation News.

About the Pacific Islands Monuments

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush proclaimed the Pacific Remote Islands (PRIM), Rose Atoll, and Marianas Trench to be Marine National Monuments with Presidential Proclamations 8335, 8336 and 8337 (collectively, “the Proclamations”). This designation of the three Pacific Monuments extended protection to nearly 200,000 square miles of unique natural resources and was the largest act of marine conservation in history. The President’s designation of the Pacific Monuments recognized their ecological, scientific and cultural importance, biological diversity and other unique characteristics, and the need to protect them.

The Proclamations invoke the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which authorizes the President of the United States to designate lands and waters of the United States as National Monuments. Exercising this authority, President Bush established the Pacific Monuments, prohibited commercial fishing, and delegated management authority to the Departments of the Interior and Commerce. Subsequently, FWS and NOAA have affirmed their management authority for the Monuments.

For the PRIM, DOI, through FWS, has responsibility for management of the Monument (including out to 12 nautical miles (“nmi”) from the mean low water lines of Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands, Johnston, Palmyra, and Wake Atolls, and Kingman Reef) and the National Wildlife Refuges contained therein, pursuant to the Proclamation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. � 668dd-668ee) (“National Wildlife Refuge System Act”), and other applicable legal authorities. Commerce, acting through NOAA, has primary management responsibility seaward of 12 to 50 nmi with respect to fishery-related activities pursuant to the Proclamation, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“MSA”), and other applicable legal authorities.

For the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, management responsibility was assigned to the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. NOAA was assigned primary management responsibility for fishery-related activities in the Monument’s marine areas located seaward of the mean low water line of Rose Atoll, pursuant to the MSA and other applicable authority.

For the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, has responsibility for management of the Monument; except that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, has primary responsibility for management with respect to fishery-related activities regulated pursuant to the MSA, the Proclamation, and other applicable legal authorities.

[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [

| E-mail

| Share Share

]

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

[ Back to EurekAlert! ] Public release date: 22-Feb-2012
[

| E-mail

| Share Share

]

Contact: Bill Chandler
bill.chandler@marine-conservation.org
202-546-5346
Marine Conservation Biology Institute

NOAA and Fish and Wildlife Service now 3 years behind schedule on banning commercial fishing

Washington, DC (February 22, 2012) � Today, Marine Conservation Institute filed a formal petition to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, asking them to prohibit commercial fishing in America’s sensitive and pristine Pacific Island marine national monuments, a ban that President George W. Bush declared when he established the monuments over three years ago.

In January 2009, President Bush established three marine monuments in the central Pacific and prohibited commercial fishing in them because they are incredibly rich marine ecosystems that have been damaged by commercial fishing and in the past. Collectively, the monuments cover 193,000 square miles, an area larger than the state of California. These are the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (a collection of isolated coral island possessions), the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument in American Samoa, and the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. The three monuments wrap around a number of National Wildlife Refuges, most of which existed prior to the creation of the monuments.

William Chandler, Vice President for Government Affairs at Marine Conservation Institute, said, “When President Bush designated these magnificent areas for preservation, he specifically directed that commercial fishing be prohibited in them immediately. But now, over three years later, the fishing ban and associated penalties for illegal fishing within the monuments have yet to be put into place. As a result, and despite evidence of illegal fishing in the monuments, the Coast Guard won’t enforce the ban. This is inexplicable. We’re just trying to get the Administration to do what the presidential designation documents say. There is simply no justification for delay.”

Marine Conservation Institute actively supported the designation of the Pacific Remote Islands National Monument, and remains an advocate for conservation of natural resources within all of the Pacific monuments. Illegal fishing within the monuments threatens these relatively pristine marine ecosystems and their populations of corals, rare reef fish, overfished tuna, sea turtles, whales, and seabirds.

Chandler said, “It is hard to believe a clear directive of the president has gone unimplemented for so long. The responsible federal agencies have had three years to establish fishing rules that ban commercial fishing and leave recreational and indigenous intact, but they have not yet delivered. Without such a ban, these unique ecosystems with their sensitive populations could be damaged by fishermen or their vessels. The world’s largest population of giant clams, nesting sea turtles, and areas of tremendous biological diversity are all at risk.”

###

The full text of the Marine Conservation Institute petition to the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce is available at: www.marine-conservation.org

About Marine Conservation Institute
“Saving wild ocean places, for us and future generations”

Marine Conservation Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving our living oceans. We work with scientists, politicians, government officials and other organizations around the world to protect essential ocean places and the wild species in them. We use the latest science to identify important marine ecosystems around the world, and then advocate for their protection, for us and future generations.

Find Marine Conservation Institute online at www.marine-conservation.org, Twitter, Facebook and on the blog Marine Conservation News.

About the Pacific Islands Monuments

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush proclaimed the Pacific Remote Islands (PRIM), Rose Atoll, and Marianas Trench to be Marine National Monuments with Presidential Proclamations 8335, 8336 and 8337 (collectively, “the Proclamations”). This designation of the three Pacific Monuments extended protection to nearly 200,000 square miles of unique natural resources and was the largest act of marine conservation in history. The President’s designation of the Pacific Monuments recognized their ecological, scientific and cultural importance, biological diversity and other unique characteristics, and the need to protect them.

The Proclamations invoke the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which authorizes the President of the United States to designate lands and waters of the United States as National Monuments. Exercising this authority, President Bush established the Pacific Monuments, prohibited commercial fishing, and delegated management authority to the Departments of the Interior and Commerce. Subsequently, FWS and NOAA have affirmed their management authority for the Monuments.

For the PRIM, DOI, through FWS, has responsibility for management of the Monument (including out to 12 nautical miles (“nmi”) from the mean low water lines of Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands, Johnston, Palmyra, and Wake Atolls, and Kingman Reef) and the National Wildlife Refuges contained therein, pursuant to the Proclamation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. � 668dd-668ee) (“National Wildlife Refuge System Act”), and other applicable legal authorities. Commerce, acting through NOAA, has primary management responsibility seaward of 12 to 50 nmi with respect to fishery-related activities pursuant to the Proclamation, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“MSA”), and other applicable legal authorities.

For the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, management responsibility was assigned to the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. NOAA was assigned primary management responsibility for fishery-related activities in the Monument’s marine areas located seaward of the mean low water line of Rose Atoll, pursuant to the MSA and other applicable authority.

For the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, has responsibility for management of the Monument; except that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, has primary responsibility for management with respect to fishery-related activities regulated pursuant to the MSA, the Proclamation, and other applicable legal authorities.

[ Back to EurekAlert! ] [

| E-mail

| Share Share

]

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mughal 'paradise' gets tortuous makeover

Posted on 22nd February 2012 in The monuments of world

Mughal ‘paradise’ gets tortuous makeover
By Raja Murthy

Agar Firdaus bar rue Zamin ast, Hamin asto, Hamin asto, Hamin ast!
If there is a paradise on earth, this is it, this is it, this is it! – 13th century poet Amir Khusrau’s famous couplet describing India, inscribed on the walls of the 17th century Red Fort.

DELHI – The earthly “paradise” that is the Red Fort in Delhi is getting a stuttering makeover even as it continues drawing thousands of visitors as one of Asia’s most popular historical monuments.

The Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) is face-lifting the Red Fort to preserve the site’s tumultuous legacy. The fort not only represents painstaking craftsmanship and creativity, but also a decadent lifestyle that weakened and destroyed one of the most

 

powerful empires in history – the Mughals.

A bit of Mughal-style wealth would come in handy right now, say the restorers. “The Red Fort is far too important a monument to be left neglected,” ASI conservation officer Milind Angaikar told Asia Times Online. “But our biggest challenge is shortage of funds. Being declared a World Heritage monument [in 2007] has not increased the budget.”

No such financial constraints hampered Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan (1592-1666) whose architectural credits include the Taj Majal. He took nearly 10 years to complete building the Red Fort in 1648. There was nothing like it in existence. An English general described it as the greatest palace in the world of that time, if not all time.

Merging Indian, Persian and European art, the fort holds marble and red stone structures of low height set amid wide rectangular lawns, gardens, trees, fountains, music played five times a day, waterways and lights. This palace of palaces was ruled by Mughals, ransacked by Persians and Afghans, colonized by British and retrieved by India.

The largest and most significant of the seven forts or seven old cities of Delhi, the Red Fort, or Lal Qila in Hindi, still carries much significance in modern India. The flag of a free India fluttered here on August 15, 1947. Indian prime ministers have addressed the nation every Independence Day since from the Red Fort ramparts near the Lahore Gate entrance.

The Red Fort gets hours of my time often when I am in Delhi. There is a sense of deja vu, a feeling of wonder at the happiness, sorrows, triumphs, tragedies, intrigues, struggles these skeletons of the past might have seen, the stories the red sandstone walls could tell of the people who lived and died within.

They were a curious breed, those emperors of the Mughal dynasty (1526-1857). The founder, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babar, was descendant of the Mongolian psychopathic mass murderer Ghenghiz Khan from Central Asia. The word “Mughal” comes from “Mongol”.

Shah Jahan, the fifth of the Mughal emperors and builder of the Red Fort, died a prisoner of his son Aurangzeb (1618-1707). Aurangzeb, whose coronation in the Red Fort came after he’d murdered his brothers, became an intolerant extremist, an one-man ancestor of the Taliban who was ignorant to the fact that one respects one’s own religion by respecting others’. His intolerance for non-Muslims destroyed regional alliances his forefathers had built. He was the last of the powerful Mughals who ruled from the Red Fort.

He sowed the seeds for the end of the Mughals, even as the Red Fort was epicenter to one of the largest empires in the world, the second-largest in Asia after the Qing Dynasty domains in China. At its peak, Mughal lands stretched across 4.6 million square kilometers, nearly all of South Asia except for a part of present-day Kerala in south western India.

In the next hundred years, the Red Fort became a temple for the empire’s luxuries and pleasures of the flesh. But attachment to excessive physical comforts can creates mental discomfort, and the following generations of Mughal princes grew up progressively weak and incompetent.

Their final fall came in the Red Fort within 150 years. In 1857, the English colonials captured Bahadur Shah Jafar the second, the 17th and last of Mughals and a figurehead in India’s First War of Independence, which saw him led him out in chains and shipped to exile in Burma (now called Myanmar).

The last known descendant of the Mughals, in the lineage of Babur, Akbar “the Great” and Shah Jahan, was in 2009 discovered living in dire poverty in a Kolkata slum. She was running a small tea stall, and later given a job as a maid servant running errands for the government-owned firm Coal India.

The wealth this maid servant’s Mughal forefathers hoarded in the Red Fort hints at the riches the sub-continent once owned. The loot Persian raider Nadir Shah carried out of Delhi in 1739 needed 1,000 elephants and 800 horses to carry it. His booty included the golden Peacock Throne encrusted with sapphires, emeralds, rubies and the famous Kohinoor diamond now part of the globally stolen property comprising the British queen’s Crown Jewels.

“All this was like a jungle, full of weeds, when I came here,” said gardener Dinanath, watering the lawns in front of the palace where two of the most powerful emperors in the world lived. Dinanath, working here for over 35 years, is part of a team of 105 gardeners trying to recreate a semblance of what was once called Hayat Bakhsh Bagh or “Life-Bestowing Garden”.

The garden had its own “Stream of Paradise” or “Nahri-i – Bisht“, an elaborate waterworks running throughout the royal living quarters. Water lifted from the River Yamuna flowed out of copper and clay pipes in lavishly appointed bathrooms called the “Hamman” to offer a choice of hot, cold and steam baths. In a late February afternoon a few hundred years later, a child delightedly scampered up and down a small wooden board bridging the now bone-dry, dusty “Stream of Paradise”.

“In about two or three months, there will an improved sound and light show with computerized laser beams and projections,” said Pradeep Kumar, manager of the nightly Sound and Light show manager since the mid-1980s. The Red Fort itself was built for light effects. The important edifices, including court halls and the emperor’s living quarters, are laid out to face the setting and rising sun in an east-west line.

The Rang Mahal or “Palace of colors”, for instance, must have been a spectacular sight as the sun rays reflected off small mirrors embedded on ceiling and walls. The late winter sun at about 5.30 pm glowed exactly on the marble pedestal in the Diwan-i-Khaas where the bejeweled golden Peacock Throne once stood, probably turning it into a shimmering glow of rainbow colors.

Even the waterways contributed to the light effects. The water ran through garden tanks with niches for candles or oil lamps – so the flickering light plays on the water and turns it into rippling gold at night.

Yet all the sensory delights of this “paradise” proved a gilded trap that across centuries choked the life out of the Mughals. One of the major reasons the tide turned against them was people revolting against excessive taxation imposed to pay for Mughal luxuries, compared to which European kings of the era could be said to have been living in budget accommodation.

A now poverty-stricken Red Fort depends on revenue from visiting tourists, but at the same time these visitors threaten its existence. “Increasing footfall on the marble floors creates reverberations that are damaging the structures,” says conservation official Angaikar. “Some of the sections that are closed may never be opened again.”

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

We, the Web Kids

Posted on 21st February 2012 in The monuments of world

Piotr Czerski is a Polish writer and commentator. Here, he lays out the kind of political/literary manifesto that seems to pop up from time to time, usually in Europe. The essay, as translated by Marta Szreder, was posted to Pastebin under a Creative Commons license. I repost it here with the first several paragraphs excised, so that we can hasten to the meat of Czerski’s analysis about how the expectations of young people have been conditioned by their experiences of the Internet.

theinternethouse_615.jpg

1. We grew up with the Internet and on the Internet. This is what makes us different; this is what makes the crucial, although surprising from your point of view, difference: we do not ‘surf’ and the internet to us is not a ‘place’ or ‘virtual space’. The Internet to us is not something external to reality but a part of it: an invisible yet constantly present layer intertwined with the physical environment. We do not use the Internet, we live on the Internet and along it. If we were to tell our bildnungsroman to you, the analog, we could say there was a natural Internet aspect to every single experience that has shaped us. We made friends and enemies online, we prepared cribs for tests online, we planned parties and studying sessions online, we fell in love and broke up online. The Web to us is not a technology which we had to learn and which we managed to get a grip of. The Web is a process, happening continuously and continuously transforming before our eyes; with us and through us. Technologies appear and then dissolve in the peripheries, websites are built, they bloom and then pass away, but the Web continues, because we are the Web; we, communicating with one another in a way that comes naturally to us, more intense and more efficient than ever before in the history of mankind.

Brought up on the Web we think differently. The ability to find information is to us something as basic as the ability to find a railway station or a post office in an unknown city is to you. When we want to know something – the first symptoms of chickenpox, the reasons behind the sinking of ‘Estonia’, or whether the water bill is not suspiciously high – we take measures with the certainty of a driver in a SatNav-equipped car. We know that we are going to find the information we need in a lot of places, we know how to get to those places, we know how to assess their credibility. We have learned to accept that instead of one answer we find many different ones, and out of these we can abstract the most likely version, disregarding the ones which do not seem credible. We select, we filter, we remember, and we are ready to swap the learned information for a new, better one, when it comes along.

To us, the Web is a sort of shared external memory. We do not have to remember unnecessary details: dates, sums, formulas, clauses, street names, detailed definitions. It is enough for us to have an abstract, the essence that is needed to process the information and relate it to others. Should we need the details, we can look them up within seconds. Similarly, we do not have to be experts in everything, because we know where to find people who specialise in what we ourselves do not know, and whom we can trust. People who will share their expertise with us not for profit, but because of our shared belief that information exists in motion, that it wants to be free, that we all benefit from the exchange of information. Every day: studying, working, solving everyday issues, pursuing interests. We know how to compete and we like to do it, but our competition, our desire to be different, is built on knowledge, on the ability to interpret and process information, and not on monopolising it.

eiffelphone_615.jpg

2. Participating in cultural life is not something out of ordinary to us: global culture is the fundamental building block of our identity, more important for defining ourselves than traditions, historical narratives, social status, ancestry, or even the language that we use. From the ocean of cultural events we pick the ones that suit us the most; we interact with them, we review them, we save our reviews on websites created for that purpose, which also give us suggestions of other albums, films or games that we might like. Some films, series or videos we watch together with colleagues or with friends from around the world; our appreciation of some is only shared by a small group of people that perhaps we will never meet face to face. This is why we feel that culture is becoming simultaneously global and individual. This is why we need free access to it.

This does not mean that we demand that all products of culture be available to us without charge, although when we create something, we usually just give it back for circulation. We understand that, despite the increasing accessibility of technologies which make the quality of movie or sound files so far reserved for professionals available to everyone, creativity requires effort and investment. We are prepared to pay, but the giant commission that distributors ask for seems to us to be obviously overestimated. Why should we pay for the distribution of information that can be easily and perfectly copied without any loss of the original quality? If we are only getting the information alone, we want the price to be proportional to it. We are willing to pay more, but then we expect to receive some added value: an interesting packaging, a gadget, a higher quality, the option of watching here and now, without waiting for the file to download. We are capable of showing appreciation and we do want to reward the artist (since money stopped being paper notes and became a string of numbers on the screen, paying has become a somewhat symbolic act of exchange that is supposed to benefit both parties), but the sales goals of corporations are of no interest to us whatsoever. It is not our fault that their business has ceased to make sense in its traditional form, and that instead of accepting the challenge and trying to reach us with something more than we can get for free they have decided to defend their obsolete ways.

One more thing: we do not want to pay for our memories. The films that remind us of our childhood, the music that accompanied us ten years ago: in the external memory network these are simply memories. Remembering them, exchanging them, and developing them is to us something as natural as the memory of ‘Casablanca’ is to you. We find online the films that we watched as children and we show them to our children, just as you told us the story about the Little Red Riding Hood or Goldilocks. Can you imagine that someone could accuse you of breaking the law in this way? We cannot, either.

protester_615.jpg

3. We are used to our bills being paid automatically, as long as our account balance allows for it; we know that starting a bank account or changing the mobile network is just the question of filling in a single form online and signing an agreement delivered by a courier; that even a trip to the other side of Europe with a short sightseeing of another city on the way can be organised in two hours. Consequently, being the users of the state, we are increasingly annoyed by its archaic interface. We do not understand why tax act takes several forms to complete, the main of which has more than a hundred questions. We do not understand why we are required to formally confirm moving out of one permanent address to move in to another, as if councils could not communicate with each other without our intervention (not to mention that the necessity to have a permanent address is itself absurd enough.)

There is not a trace in us of that humble acceptance displayed by our parents, who were convinced that administrative issues were of utmost importance and who considered interaction with the state as something to be celebrated. We do not feel that respect, rooted in the distance between the lonely citizen and the majestic heights where the ruling class reside, barely visible through the clouds. Our view of the social structure is different from yours: society is a network, not a hierarchy. We are used to being able to start a dialogue with anyone, be it a professor or a pop star, and we do not need any special qualifications related to social status. The success of the interaction depends solely on whether the content of our message will be regarded as important and worthy of reply. And if, thanks to cooperation, continuous dispute, defending our arguments against critique, we have a feeling that our opinions on many matters are simply better, why would we not expect a serious dialogue with the government?

We do not feel a religious respect for ‘institutions of democracy’ in their current form, we do not believe in their axiomatic role, as do those who see ‘institutions of democracy’ as a monument for and by themselves. We do not need monuments. We need a system that will live up to our expectations, a system that is transparent and proficient. And we have learned that change is possible: that every uncomfortable system can be replaced and is replaced by a new one, one that is more efficient, better suited to our needs, giving more opportunities.

What we value the most is freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of access to information and to culture. We feel that it is thanks to freedom that the Web is what it is, and that it is our duty to protect that freedom. We owe that to next generations, just as much as we owe to protect the environment.

Perhaps we have not yet given it a name, perhaps we are not yet fully aware of it, but I guess what we want is real, genuine democracy. Democracy that, perhaps, is more than is dreamt of in your journalism.

___
“My, dzieci sieci” by Piotr Czerski is licensed under a Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Na tych samych warunkach 3.0 Unported License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Contact the author: piotr[at]czerski.art.pl

More From The Atlantic

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Member of Parliament Rodney Weston Announces Funding for New Cenotaph in Saint John

Posted on 20th February 2012 in The monuments of world

SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK–(Marketwire -02/20/12)- On behalf of the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs, Rodney Weston, Member of Parliament for Saint John, today announced up to $2,750 in funding for a new cenotaph at the Wade-Myles Aviation Park in Millidgeville. The funding, provided through the Community War Memorial Program, will support the construction of the new monument on the site of the former Millidgeville Municipal Airport and Royal Canadian Air Force Station.

“Monuments and cenotaphs serve as permanent symbols of the pride and gratitude Canadians share for our nation’s truest heroes,” said Minister Blaney. “Building new memorials and restoring existing ones can inspire a renewed sense of remembrance within the community. This is why our Government supports the construction and restoration of cenotaphs and monuments in Canadian communities.”

“Our community memorials serve as lasting reminders of the achievements and sacrifices of our Veterans and the men and women who continue to serve our country today,” said Mr. Weston. “This contribution will help ensure that the Millidgeville Community Cenotaph will be a place of remembrance and reflection for future generations.”

The Canadian Aviation Historical Society in Saint John is responsible for the future cenotaph that will be located next to the M. Gerald Teed Memorial School. The new monument will be made of stone and will bear a brass plaque commemorating four local individuals who lost their lives while serving in the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War.

Through the Community War Memorial Program, our Government is fulfilling its commitment to further commemorate the courage and sacrifices of our Veterans and members of our armed forces. Partnerships are established with community groups and local organizations to build new cenotaphs and monuments.

Applications to the Community War Memorial Program can be submitted at any time during the year and are reviewed on a quarterly basis. Interested non-profit groups and other organizations may be eligible for funding to build new memorials or to make major additions to existing ones.

For more information, visit www.veterans.gc.ca.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The leader who provided undaunted leadership – Ven. Dr. Bellanwila Dharmaratana

Posted on 18th February 2012 in The monuments of world

He can stand tall as being a committed world leader bringing peace after defeating the world’s most ruthless terrorists. Reconciliation – his mission while putting all efforts to develop the country, which is rising from the debris of a deadly conflict.


A book on Buddha Charitaya with pictures was presented to President Mahinda Rajapaksa by the head of Singapore Meditation Centre and Sangha Nayaka Ven. Weragoda Saradha Thera. Pic : Chandana Perera

“With the end of three painful decades of conflict, terrorism has firmly been consigned to the past in Sri Lanka. As we heal these wounds, a new era of peace and development has dawned upon our nation. With Sri Lanka continuing on the path of development, we have requested our friends in the international community to be partners in this process”, President Mahinda Rajapaksa during his two-day official visit to Singapore last week appealed to the international community.

Singapore

President Rajapaksa, visited Singapore on an invitation extended by President Dr. Tony Tan Keng Yam said bilateral relationship between the two countries has acquired a new dynamism, particularly in the economic and commercial sectors.” The total bilateral trade between our two countries is expanding and accounts for approximately USD 2 billion. There are over hundred Singaporean companies in Sri Lanka at present with many technical and business collaborations. Strengthened by the basic structures in place for a robust economic partnership, Singapore is in a unique position to harness the many opportunities for investment presented in my country”.

“I thank my gracious host for the warm welcome and hospitality extended to me and my delegation and the meticulous arrangements to make our visit most fruitful. Your Excellency’s appointment to the highest office in September last year demonstrates the confidence placed in you by the polity of Singapore. I am confident that the relations between Sri Lanka and Singapore would flourish during your term of office and the current visit has laid an unshakable foundation to this end. I have been particularly touched by the expressions of goodwill and friendship extended by Your Excellency, the government, and the people of Singapore”.

“Sri Lanka and Singapore share a long tradition of close and cordial relations. Successive generations of our leaders have nurtured this friendship based on mutual respect and shared values. His Excellency Lee Kuan Yew being a visionary leader has on his many visits to my country, amply commented on the diverse possibilities held by Sri Lanka to become a growth model in Asia. Similarly, to Sri Lanka, Singapore has been a hub for economic interaction and development in Asia. Also, Singapore has a special place in the hearts of the Sri Lankan people.

Your country clearly demonstrates the strength of unity in diversity which has become a source of great inspiration to us in Sri Lanka, having watched Singapore’s transformation from a city state to a modern metropolis and its rapid pace of development”.

“Our bilateral relations marked an important milestone in 1979 when Sri Lanka established a resident High Commission in Singapore. Building on these historic foundation ties between our two countries have grown and expanded rapidly over the years. While our cooperation now extends to several spheres from defence, trade and investments to education, health, sports and culture, we also share many common platforms in a number of regional and international fora. Such interactions have paved the way to jointly face emerging challenges and also exploit new opportunities”.

Labour opportunitie

“One other sector that our two countries could benefit enormously is enhancement of labour opportunities. I note with satisfaction that many Sri Lankans are productively contributing to the economies of several ASEAN including Singapore and North East ASEAN countries. A regularized mechanism by which skilled and semi-skilled labour from Sri Lanka is allowed access into the Singapore labour market would enrich both our economies”.

At the meeting with President Rajapaksa, Singapore President Keng Yam, who appreciated the on-going reconciliation program said it was important for Sri Lanka to work towards building a new country setting aside the past.

He assured to continue to support Sri Lanka in its developmental efforts as Sri Lanka has embarked on a process of rehabilitation, reconciliation and growth. “We hope to see an enduring peace in Sri Lanka, one that would facilitate the development and growth of the country and its people,” he said delivering his speech at the state banquet hosted in honour of President Rajapaksa.

“Sri Lanka is no stranger to Singapore. One of the early architects of Singapore, the late S Rajaratnam, was a Sri Lankan who left an indelible mark on Singapore’s history. Among his many achievements, we wrote the Singapore National Pledge, which continues to be recited daily by all our school children, reminding us of the core values of unity and multi-racial harmony that form the very foundation of a peaceful and prosperous Singapore society. Today, Singaporeans of Sri Lankan ancestry have done very well in areas ranging from education to medicine to law. They continue the tradition set by the early pioneers, contributing to the development of Singapore’s economy, culture and society”.

Friendship

“Since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Singapore and Sri Lanka in 1970, the friendship between our two countries has blossomed. People-to-people linkages continue to grow over the years, with Singapore playing host to many visiting Sri Lankan professionals, students and travellers. Singaporeans, whether they are of Sri Lankan heritage or not, are working with Sri Lankans in the rebuilding of their country.

Let me just mention one such effort. Last year some Singaporeans got together to refurbish and enhance the services of the Children’s Section of the Jaffna Public Library.

Supported by organizations such as the Singapore International Foundation, the National Library Board, the Prima Group and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this project demonstrated the underlying bonds of friendship and goodwill between our peoples.

New friendships were also formed as librarians from the Jaffna Library came here for training and impressed our librarians with their enthusiasm and dedication to bring new outreach programmes and skills home. The ties have been forged serve to bridge the miles that separate us across the waters of the Indian Ocean”.

“With the end of the conflict in 2009 and the return of peace, Sri Lanka is perched on a new cusp of development and growth. I understand that 2011 was a record year for visitor arrivals – with tourists flocking once again to your beautiful beaches, historic temples and heritage monuments. Foreign investors are also returning to tap on Sri Lanka’s economic potential. Just last year, Mustafa announced a $ 144 million dollar investment in Sri Lanka.

There are some 300 Sri Lankan companies registered in Singapore. Singapore companies like Prima, Shing Kwan and Pico have also long invested in Sri Lanka, and continue to step up their operations.

On its part, the Sri Lankan government has identified construction and industrial park development, as well as InfoComm Technology development, as priority sectors for investment. These areas coincide with the niche competencies of many Singapore companies.

I am optimistic that there will be more companies that will venture across to participate in the present and future prospects of Sri Lanka.

It is thus fitting that, a Memorandum of Understanding on Investment was signed between the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka (BOI) and the Singapore Business Federation (SBF). I congratulate the BOI and the SBF for taking this important step forward.

It signals their mutual interest and commitment to work together and pave the way for greater economic cooperation between our two countries”.

Rapid development

During his visit he met Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Presidential residence in Singapore had appreciated the rapid development which Sri Lanka has achieved in the wake of the victory over terrorism, having faced a war for three decades.

The Prime Minister also expressed his great satisfaction for the opportunity to assist Sri Lanka’s development process. Premier Loong had expressed his government’s willingness to support Sri Lanka to become a knowledge hub, especially in the field of IT.

President Rajapaksa apprised the Singapore Prime Minister of Sri Lanka’s achievements in infrastructure development taking place in the country, especially in the North and East and the progress made in resettling displaced people.

The Dendrobium Mahinda Shiranthi, a new orchid hybrid, was named after President Rajapaksa and First Lady Shiranthi Rajapaksa in honour of their visit to Singapore.

The new orchid was named and introduced to President Rajapaksa and First Lady by the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore Botanic Gardens, Poon Hong Yuen when the President visited the Singapore Botanic Gardens on February 15.

Among the ministers who had discussions with President Rajapaksa were Singapore Defence Minister Dr. Eng Hen and Youth Service Minister Chan Chung Sing. He also visited the biggest water management project in Singapore, the Marina Barrage.

Founder of the Buddhist Library in Singapore, Saghanayaka and Head of the Buddhist Centre in Singapore Ven. Dr. Bellanwila Dharmaratana Thera said that the only leader who provided undaunted leadership to erase the black marks of three decades long terrorism is President Rajapaksa. He added that because of this undaunted and courageous Leadership one can claim with pride that he or she is a Sri Lankan.

The prelate made this statement in the Anusasana made by him when he met the President in Singapore. Ven. Bellanwila Dharmaratana Thera said, that though the members of the Maha Sangha are engaged in religious propagation work abroad, they fell sorry about the way of living of some persons in spite of the adverse global economic trends. He emphasized that no one should take advantage of unavoidable price hikes of goods including oil prices to get their narrow objectives fulfilled.

The prelate recollected that the Maha Sanga had to engage in the propagation of Dhamma under immense difficulties during the past period of about 40 years when the country suffered for the adverse security condition.

Venerable Dharmaratana Thera further said that President Mahinda Rajapaksa who took over the country in 2005 controlled terrorism and directed the nation to the correct path and everyone should provide him support with confidence.

The prelate added that relations with the priests in Buddhist centres in the North of Sri Lanka should be reinforced.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , ,

UK Representative's Address to the Holy See

Posted on 17th February 2012 in The monuments of world

“What made me feel even more confident as a British Muslim … was that my country … had a strong Christian identity”

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 16, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Here are the notes of the address given Tuesday by the leader of a U.K. delegation visiting the Holy See to mark the 30th anniversary of the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the two states.

The delegation was led by Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi, who represented the prime minister.

The Pope received the delegation in audience on Wednesday.

* * *

INTRODUCTION

Your Eminences. Excellencies. Reverend Fathers. Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is an immense honour for me to stand here today in what is, for more than a billion people, the spiritual capital of the world. And it is a further privilege to lead the largest ever ministerial delegation from the United Kingdom to the Holy See, to celebrate the relationship between our two states, the oldest formal diplomatic relationship in my country’s history and today, one of the strongest. Our diplomatic relationship began here in 1479, only a short distance from where we now stand. For reasons we all know too well, we broke diplomatic relations only to restore them during the First World War.

This year marks 30 years since full diplomatic relations were re-established between us.

We want to build upon our bond, to show it to the rest of the world, and to let it inspire others. Because our relationship enables us to act together in the name of the common good: to promote democracy, to fight for human rights, to encourage fair, responsible trade: to tackle climate change, and to help build stable nations.

We are grateful for the superb work our Ambassador Nigel Baker is doing here, building on the tremendous tenure of his predecessor Francis Campbell. The UK recognises that, as the smallest state in the world, the Holy See has the widest global reach. We also respect each other’s differences.

Because the areas in which we agree are so vast, we can confidently acknowledge those areas where we differ. And I believe the strength of our relationship can give tremendous hope and inspiration to others across the world. This year, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth are celebrating a person who has worked hard to bring our two great states closer: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Her Majesty’s visits here to the Vatican over a 60-year reign, and before when she came as a young Princess Elizabeth, her work to encourage harmony between Catholics and Protestants, her ground breaking visit to the people of Ireland in 2011, and her steadfast commitment to all her people are just some of the reasons her Diamond Jubilee makes this year such a special one for my country. And of course it was on her invitation that the Holy Father graced the United Kingdom with the first papal State Visit in our history.

PAPAL VISIT

The visit of September 2010 was historic, momentous and unforgettable, and I want to thank the Holy Father on behalf of all four nations in our country.

The hand of friendship was warmly received across our isles, reaching out to Catholics and non-Catholics, to those of faith and those of none, from the cheering crowds on the streets of Scotland, to those in silent contemplation during the Mass in Birmingham, and the many millions watching on their television screens or holding special events in school assemblies, community groups and workplaces.

It was a milestone in our relationship, a milestone in UK history – where heart truly spoke unto heart. On a personal level, I heeded the words of the Holy Father during his landmark speech in Westminster Hall. And I had the immense honour of enjoying an audience during a special event to promote interfaith relations.

It was a humbling, moving moment for me, and having made my speech at the Anglican Bishops’ Conference two days earlier on the importance of governments ‘doing God’ marking a clean break with the approach from the past, saying that our Government would be on the side of faith the Holy Father urged me to carry on making the case for faith in society.

MAIN ARGUMENT

So today I want to make one simple argument. That in order to ensure faith has a proper space in the public sphere, in order to encourage social harmony, people need to feel stronger in their religious identities, more confident in their beliefs. In practice this means individuals not diluting their faith, and nations not denying their religious heritage. If you take this thought to its conclusion then the idea you’re left with is this: Europe needs to become more confident in its Christianity.

Let us be honest: too often there is a suspicion of faith in our continent where signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings where states won’t fund faith schools and where faith is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded. It all hinges on a basic misconception: that somehow to create equality and space for minority faiths and cultures we need to erase our majority religious heritage.

But it is my belief that the societies we are, the cultures we’ve created, the values we hold and the things we fight for stem from something we’ve argued over, dissented from, discussed and built up: Centuries of Christianity. It’s what the Holy Father called the “unrenounceable Christian roots of [our] culture and civilisation” which shine through our politics, our public life, our culture, our economics, our language and our architecture. You cannot and should not erase these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes.

Let me get one thing very clear: I am not saying that everything done in the name of faith has been a blessing for our continent. Too much blood has been shed in the name of religion. But trying to erase this history or blind ourselves to the role of religion on our continent is wrong. We need to realise what drives us, what binds us and what inspires us is a history we are in danger of denying. I know, in a globalised world, it is easy to think that to relate to others you must water down your identity. But my point today is that being sure of who you are is the only way in which you will be more accommodating of others.

And there is a second strand to this argument: that true confidence has the power to guarantee openness, because only when you’re content in your own identity, only when you realise that the ‘Other’ does not jeopardise who you are can you truly accept and not merely tolerate the presence of difference. Just as the bully bullies because he or she is insecure, so too the state suppresses, marginalises, dictates and dismisses when it feels its identity is at stake.

In the United Kingdom, we have guarded against such fear by recognising the importance of the Established Church and our Christian heritage – our majority faith, and that is what has created religious freedom and a home for people like me, of minority faiths. Majority faiths and minority faiths – as a Muslim who was born and raised in – and now serves – a Christian country, I have experience of both. So I hope you will permit me to start by telling you a bit about my early life in the north of England in the 1970s and 80s. 

PERSONAL

When I was growing up, as the daughter of Pakistani immigrants, the debate in my country was not about religion but race. As a teenager what shaped me was the obvious injustice of Apartheid. In my student days I campaigned for racial equality, and in the years that followed I launched campaigns to bolster race relations.

But after 9/11 I saw the debate shifting – with difference being defined not by race but by religion. My loyalty to my country was not in question because of my parents’ home country or even the colour of my skin, but because of the religion I was born into. I began to look back at my faith and the choices I made, as well as the lessons I learnt from my parents. I attended a relatively conservative mosque. My father taught me to learn – to seek knowledge of both the history of my country and the foundation of my faith. He said that to truly understand my religion I needed to understand history as much as theology.  

He told me to think about my identity in the following way. He said that a river changes its appearance according to the bed on which it flows; the river will reflect the colour and the texture of the bed. It’s the same with religious and national identity. Like the river, your faith will reflect which nation you are a part of.

So what made me feel even more confident as a British Muslim, what truly enabled me to learn about my faith and to practice it was that my country – the bed over which the river of my faith flowed – had a strong Christian identity. This defined, shaped and gave me confidence in my own faith, which, combined with the confidence of my country’s principles, have since been evident in the decisions I’ve taken as an adult.

One decision which I think demonstrates how strongly I believe this was my choice of school for my daughter: an Anglican convent school. Many might think it is unusual for a Muslim mother to send her daughter to a Christian school, but I knew she would be free to follow her faith there, that she would not be looked down on because she believed. And as I had hoped, she found it strengthened her faith.

It also left her posing a lot of questions about religion. As she once said to me, during one of our frequent debates about religious symbols: “Mother Robina is going to get really upset about everyone being nasty about women who wear the hijab, because she wears one.”

As so often is the case, the youth shed light on situations like this and innocence brings clarity with my 9-year-old daughter bringing into sharp focus the similarities between the veil and the hijab. Summing up exactly why I don’t support the banning of religious symbols because, for me, it’s all about personal choice and the right to express one’s faith – whatever their faith. 

So with my daughter’s school, as with my own upbringing, a strong sense of Christianity didn’t threaten our Muslim identity – it actually reinforced it. It enabled me to make the case for further interfaith debate, discussion and work. It motivated me to stand up and speak out against anti-Muslim hatred, the persecution of Christians and anti-Semitism. And it inspired me to challenge the growing marginalisation of faith in my country and in Europe.

AROUND THE WORLD

As I look around the world today, my resolve is strengthened. Where we see faith inspiring, driving and motivating good works is where certainty of conviction is at its strongest. As the Bible teaches us: “For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.” The Quran teaches us something similar – that:

“those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings.”

We see the proof every day – globally, locally and individually, grom the Catholic Church being instrumental in toppling communism, to its key role in securing peace in Northern Ireland: from the Catholic Schools in the UK, many of which are outperforming other institutions to the domestic response to the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan and the drought in East Africa. And where day by day, faith sustains people through their darkest, most desperate periods there is no denying the link between these positive actions and faith.

Perhaps the best example I have seen of this was on my visit to Pakistan last month, a visit I promised the late Shahbaz Bhatti, the country’s tragically assassinated minorities minister, I would undertake meeting the Christian communities of Karachi. There I met four wonderful sisters at the Convent of Jesus and Mary School, including two Irish nuns. One of them had spent 58 years of her life teaching girls in Pakistan. Sister Berchmans, a native of County Clare – one of the most westerly spots in Europe – had left rural Ireland as a young nun to go and work in Pakistan.

There in Karachi, at the age of 80, and wearing her white habit and veil, she led the morning assembly in prayer in English. And then she led the singing of the Pakistan national anthem in Urdu. It was remarkable to see and to think of the practical and silent, discreet witness that Sister Berchmans and her fellow Nuns have shown to generations of young Pakistani girls, many of them Muslim, and one of who grew up to become a Prime Minister, the first female to govern the modern Islamic world: the late Benazir Bhutto.

Sister Berchmans did not have to dilute her own faith or require others to dilute theirs. Rather she was doing what countless generations have done before her – witnessing and living side by side with other cultures and faiths. With Sister Berchmans rooted in her beliefs, and the Pakistani community she serves unwavering in its… I saw not the diminishment of faith but the ultimate enactment of the common good. 

And I want to share some news with you today. Sister Berchmans, and another person of faith who has laboured in Pakistan for over 35 years – Father Robert McCulloch of Australia, who is with us here today have just been recognised for their lifetime of services to the people and development of Pakistan. And the President of Pakistan has awarded them Pakistan’s highest civilian honour: the Nishan-e-Quaid-i-Azam.

INTERFAITH

I believe the same commitment is needed for dialogue and service between faiths to continue to succeed. Its interlocutors need to demonstrate the strength of faith shown by Sister Berchmans and the strength of appreciation and gratitude shown by the President of Pakistan. Because different faiths must realise that, just because they don’t worship together, doesn’t mean that they can’t work together. 

A great deal of this progress has been made thanks to the efforts of the Catholic Church through its educational outreach or the work of groups like Caritas International and its federation of aid agencies around the world and landmark documents like in Britain Meeting God in Friend and Stranger.

As a UK cabinet minister of the Muslim faith, representing a country with an Anglican Established Church, visiting our friends in the spiritual home of Catholicism you will find no greater champion of understanding between faiths than me.

But I believe that where interfaith dialogue does not work is where faiths are dumbed down in order to find common ground. 

Just as the European language of Esperanto, which attempted to build a new tongue, neautralises our component languages a common language between faiths risks watering down the diversity and intensity of our respective religions. Instead, interfaith dialogue works when we debate our differences, when we wear our beliefs on our sleeves. It’s not about you giving your version of God, and me giving my version of God, and us coming to some watered-down compromise, but about establishing our areas of consensus, and being firm enough in our devotion to work together. 

That’s why, when I visited the Tomb of David in Jerusalem I felt no contradiction saying my nafils, or prayers, in an alternative place of worship.  It’s why when Vatican II, whose 50thanniversary we celebrate this year, set out Nostra Aetate, its acceptance of other faiths it was not a sign of the church’s weakness of belief, but a sign of its strength. And why, when the Holy Father made his historic visit to the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, he was not weakening his own faith but reaffirming it.

DEFEATING BIGOTRY

The point is that in so many ways, being sure of your faith adds a layer of strength to society. Confidence in our own beliefs enables us to defend attacks on others. Faith asks you to stand up for your neighbour. As the fourth Muslim caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib said: “Every man is your brother…either your brother in faith or your brother in humanity.”

This is the spirit which inspired Muslims to protect Jews during the Holocaust, which motivated Christians to support Muslims fleeing persecution in Darfur, and which led Chief Rabbi Sacks to call for action against persecution in Bosnia. 

It’s something I’ve been arguing for a long time. That persecution somewhere is persecution everywhere: that if you oppress my neighbour you are oppressing me: that an attack on a gudwara is an attack on a mosque, a church, a temple, a synagogue. 

Today I’m moving that thought on and saying that standing up for your neighbour of another faith doesn’t make you less of a Christian, less of a Jew or less of a Muslim – it makes you more of one. 

When British Jews stand up to the political factions promoting anti Muslim hatred, when Christians understand the horrors of the Holocaust and tackle anti-Semitism, when Muslims stand shoulder to shoulder with Sikhs to protect their temples it is not a betrayal of their own faith or a threat to it; it is the most powerful demonstration of security in their own faith.

MARGINALISATION OF FAITH

But the confident affirmation of religion which I have spoken of is under threat. It is what the Holy Father called ‘the increasing marginalisation of religion’ during his speech in Westminster Hall. I see it in United Kingdom and I see it in Europe: spirituality, suppressed: divinity, downgraded.

Where, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, faith is looked down on as the hobby of ‘oddities, foreigners and minorities’: where religion is dismissed as an eccentricity because it’s infused with tradition: where we undermine people who attribute good works to their belief and require them to deny it as their motivation. And where faith is overlooked in the public sphere with not even a word about Christianity in the preface of the “European Constitution.”

When I pledged that the new government in the United Kingdom would ‘do God,’ in some quarters there was uproar. More telling were the countless comments I received of quiet support a relief that finally someone had said what they had been thinking. This fact alone shows the extent to which religion has been sidelined by some.

Because in parts of Europe there have been misguided beliefs that in order to accommodate people from other backgrounds, we must somehow become less religious or less Christian. That somehow society must level itself out so that faith becomes something that is marginalised and limited to the private confines of one’s home or even one’s mind. But those calls are not coming from other faith communities. They are coming from two types of people. First, the well-intentioned liberal elite who, conversely, are trying to create equality by marginalising faith in society who think that the route to religious pluralism is by creating a path of faith-neutrality, who downgrade religion to a mere subcategory in public life.

But look at their supposed level playing field. Its terrain is all but impassable to anyone of belief. One of the arguments of the liberal elite is that faith and reason are incompatible. But they don’t realise, as the Holy Father has argued for many years, that faith and reason go hand in hand. As he said to us in Westminster Hall: “…the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief…need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilisation. 

In other words, just as reason should not be excluded from debates about faith, so too spirituality should not be excluded when we look at worldly matters. Second, there are the anti-religionists, the faith deniers. The people who dine out on free-flowing media and sustain a vocabulary of secularist intolerance attempting to remove all trace of religion from culture, history and public discourse. While ignoring the fact that people of faith give more to charity and that the number of people going to a place of worship is globally on the up.

My theory is that we are so afraid – and rightly so – of going backwards in history to the bad days when religion was imposed on people by despotic regimes that we have got to the stage where aggressive secularism is being imposed by stealth. Leaving us with the ironic situation where, to stave off intolerance against minorities we end up being intolerant towards religion itself.

For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity and failing to understand the relationship between religious loyalty and loyalty to the state. That’s why in the 20thCentury, one of the first acts of totalitarian regimes was the targeting of organised religion.

Why? Because, to them, a religious identity struck at the heart of their totalitarian ideology. In a free market of ideas, they knew their ideology was weak. And with the strength of religions, established over many years, followed by many billions their totalitarian regimes would be jeopardised. Our response to militant secularisation today has to be simple: holding firm in our faiths: holding back intolerance.

Reaffirming the religious foundations on which our societies are built and reasserting the fact that, for centuries, Christianity in Europe has been inspiring, motivating, strengthening and improving our societies: in public life – driving people to do great things, like setting up schools, creating public services, leading the way in charitable acts: in politics – inspiring parties on both the left and the right: in economics – providing many of the foundations for our market economy and capitalism: in culture – influencing our monuments, our music, our paintings, and our engravings. 

I’m delighted that the UK Government understands this from supporting faith schools and faith charities at home and abroad to helping religious groups to deliver vital public services and, most powerfully, when our Prime Minister spoke out unequivocally about the lasting impact of the King James Bible on our country.

THE FUTURE

But we must take this confident, open faith and apply it beyond the present. I see a growing problem in some parts of our world today with governments dictating what is a church and what isn’t: where people can build a place of worship and where they cannot: which faith they can belong to and which they cannot: and whether they can display their beliefs in public or not. 

I believe this is a misguided attempt at shoring up majority religions. These governments need to realise that pluralism is not a threat to tradition. Closer to home we see a similar suspicion. For example, from the politicians who say that inviting Turkey to join the European Union is a threat to the roots of Europe and its Christian heritage. Because they worry that the inclusion of a Muslim-majority country would diminish the Christianity of other countries. They are mistaken.

The solution is not to shut the door on people of other faiths, but to strengthen our continent’s identity. Just as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said of her country: “The problem is not that we have too much Islam, it’s that we have too little Christianity and too few discussions about the Christian view of mankind.”

Those discussions will only come about if Europe is more confident in its Christianity. So our continent needs the zeal of a convert not from discovering something new but rediscovering something which has underpinned our civilisations for centuries.

FAITH’S SEAT AT THE TABLE

At the same time, politicians need to give faith a seat at the table in public life. Not the privileged position of a theocracy, but that of an equal informer of our public debate. So we are not afraid to acknowledge when the debate derives from a religious basis and not afraid to take onboard – and take on – the solutions offered up by religion.

Politicians must also not be afraid to speak out when we think people who speak in the name of faith have got it wrong. For example, in the UK today, Bishops in the House of Lords, the chamber in which I sit, are opposing the government’s reforms to welfare where the government is trying to restore the dignity of work by putting responsibility back at the heart of religion.

I welcome the role of the Bishops in scrutinising the legislation. I support their right to bring their view to the table. But I reserve the right to disagree. I am not saying that faith leaders should have a monopoly on morality. Because, of course, as our Prime Minister David Cameron said, there are Christians who don’t live by a moral code and there are atheists and agnostics who do. But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction.

Therefore, I’m arguing that religion needs a role when we look at the problems today. And that even the most committed atheist can find that those who are committed to religion have something to offer and that faith can be good for society, good for communities and good for those who choose to follow a faith.

When religion has a role in public life, it enables us to look at our economy and refer to the Christian principles on which our markets were founded. It means we can take solace from teachings such a Rerum Novarum and Caritas in Veritate, which offer up answers for creating moral markets.

It means we can look at our social problems and be inspired by Catholic Social Teaching, looking at our welfare system and thinking, how does this impact on human dignity? Looking at social breakdown and thinking, are we reinforcing responsibility between citizens? Looking at governance and thinking, are we relying on large organisations to do what smaller units could achieve? All the while thinking and remembering that many of our values – loving our neighbours, acting as the Good Samaritan would, supporting and championing the family unit doing to others as you would be done by – are Biblical, spiritual and religious in their origin.

UNDERSTANDING FAITH

This action at a national and at a political level should have an impact at a social level. Where individuals’ stronger rooting in their own religion will inspire a stronger understanding of faith. And there is no better remedy to the distortion of our respective faiths. As the Holy Father said last year in Assisi: “[Violence] is not the true nature of religion. It is the antithesis of religion and contributes to its destruction.”

Yet it remains a sad fact that in the modern world we see faith hijacked in the name of evil acts, utterly contrary to the teachings of the mainstream religions of the world. Perhaps if states were more rooted in their religious heritages then faiths would be less prone to being distorted and hijacked for political gains.

At the same time it is this distortion which leads to believers being victimised for the actions of their co-religionists. So Christians in Pakistan, Muslims in the USA, and even Jews in Britain, are targeted, victimised and feel the backlash of actions by their co-religionists. It’s unacceptable and it must stop.

CONCLUSION

I started today by talking about the bond between the UK and the Holy See about how we have overcome our differences to form our oldest formal diplomatic relationship. I established that appreciating these differences was a sign of our strength, not weakness. And this strength of identity has shone through in our actions in the name of the common good, in the Holy Father’s State Visit to the UK in 2010, and, I trust, in our visit today. 

Today I am urging individuals and nations to take the same approach when it comes to faith, and saying that in order to create harmony, people need to strengthen their own identity being sure of their nation’s religious foundations, and secure in their own beliefs.

At a time of great change taking place throughout the Muslim world, particularly during the Arab awakening. Many countries, political parties and individuals are redefining their identity. They are looking to their faith as source of inspiration to define the values by which they want to govern. This is a great opportunity for them to show that their countries are a home for all people, to demonstrate that defending your neighbour, whatever their faith, is an obligation and to prove to the world the true, peaceful spirit of religion.

For Europe this means becoming more confident in its Christianity and with that confidence, becoming more open. People need to realise that, in our continent and beyond, Christianity’s teachings and values are as permanent as Westminster Abbey, as indelible as Da Vinci’s Last Supper, and as solid as Christ the Redeemer. And that Christianity is as vital to our future as it is to our past. 

For the wider world this means recognising that defending another faith does not diminish your own, being sure of your foundations and protecting minorities, preventing faith from being undermined and creating a space for faith – any faith – to thrive. Our two states have lots to learn, and much to teach and I have hope – and, yes, faith – that others will continue with us on this path. 

© Innovative Media, Inc.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Flying inside London's Shard, the EU's tallest tower

Posted on 16th February 2012 in The monuments of world

Gazing over London from the top of the Shard, the European Union‘s tallest building, “will feel like flying”, world-renowned architect Renzo Piano told AFP on a tour of the near-completed skyscraper.

“It’s always a surprise when you come on site,” the Italian shouted over a cacophony of hammering on one of the middle floors of the tower, which will eventually loom 310 metres (1,017 feet) over southeast London.

“You spend years drawing and making models, making mock-ups, and then this,” he said, as his eyes took in the unplastered walls and the wires dangling from the ceiling, 12 years after he first started sketching the Shard’s jagged tips.

The enormous glass-clad structure, which will comprise a total of 95 floors, is already winning critical acclaim for 74-year-old Piano.

But the Shard’s futuristic silhouette has angered traditionalists who say it will ruin London’s skyline when the external structure is finished in May, dwarfing landmarks such as St Paul’s Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament.

English Heritage, the national body responsible for protecting historic sites, says the skyscraper has tainted a view of St Paul’s, one of Britain‘s best-loved monuments.

But Piano, renowned for his work on the distinctive Centre Pompidou arts centre in Paris with its mesh of colourful external pipes, dismissed the criticism with an elegant wave of the hand.

“St Paul’s is the icon of London and will remain the icon of London,” he said, even though the Shard’s website describes it as “an icon for London”.

“This building is not arrogant,” he insisted. The skyscraper will be “like a spire”, its glinting walls reflecting its neighbours and the capricious London skies.

“It’s always a bit difficult to accept new buildings,” he added. “But St Paul’s was modern at the time.”

In any case, he pointed out, though the Shard has shot upwards at a speed that has startled Londoners, construction only started after a lengthy public inquiry by Britain‘s then Labour government.

“When you’re making a building like this, that’s so important for the city, you have to be absolutely sure that it’s the right thing to do,” said Piano.

He added wryly: “As an architect, if you make a mistake it stays there for a long time.”

The unfinished Shard is already the European Union’s tallest building, having overtaken Frankfurt’s 300-metre Commerzbank Tower in December as it edges up, but it is still some way behind the world’s tallest tower — the 828-metre Burj Khalifa in Dubai.

But as construction began on the Shard in 2009, just across the River Thames a crisis was gripping one of the world’s top financial hubs.

The architect conceded that seeing through the £450 million ($706 million, 536 million euro) project amid the economic slump “was not easy”.

And as Britain teeters again on the brink of recession, many wonder whether the Shard will stand over a city in long-term decline. Piano, however, hopes the skyscraper will provide a much-needed lift to London’s economy.

“Sometimes buildings have been built in a recession and become a symbol of energy,” he says. “I think this will happen like that.”

The Shard will house Britain’s first Shangri-La hotel as well as luxury flats, restaurants, office space and a viewing observatory on floors 68 to 72 that will give 360-degree panoramas of the British capital.

The idea, said Piano, is to build a “vertical city” within a city, operating “24 hours a day — offices, a hotel, public spaces like restaurants.

“And you’ll have the viewing gallery up there, which will receive one million visitors a year.”

The Shard’s wealthy inhabitants, he admits, will need a strong head for heights. But Piano says those who move in to floors 53 to 65 — Britain’s highest residential properties — will enjoy unparalleled views of the city.

“It will feel like flying. It’s a constant aspiration, the idea of taking off, of breathing fresh air,” he beamed. “I think that will be lovely.”

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Ancient treasures to the rescue of Greece's ruined economy?

Posted on 15th February 2012 in The monuments of world

By Margarita Pournara

Greece’s Culture and Tourism Ministry last month said it would slash the cost of permits for filming and photographic shoots at more than 100 of the country’s ancient monuments, including the world-famous Parthenon in Athens.

Some foreign reports reacted to the news by saying the Greek government was putting the Parthenon under the hammer. Culture Minister Pavlos Geroulanos tweeted that speculation that the sites would be “rented out” was totally unfounded.

Fees for utilizing ancient monuments for commercial purposes were first introduced in 2005, but the government has decided to lower the prices. The announcement has brought some tricky questions, and some taboo subjects, into the spotlight: How can Greece promote its cultural sites in a smart way without disrespecting its historical legacy and, at the same time, make money from it? What should be the role of the Central Archaeological Council (KAS), the highest advisory body on all matters pertaining to the protection of ancient monuments? Can the revenue be used to aid the debt-ridden economy? Who should set the fees? And what should the fees be? Many people, for example, questioned whether 6,000 euros for a commercial shoot on the Acropolis is the right amount.

In “Rush Hour 3,” actor Jackie Chan is seen performing a daredevil stunt on the Eiffel Tower. Harvey Keitel was filmed at Rome’s Colosseum for the needs of a whiskey commercial. Could a similar TV spot be shot at one of Greece’s world-famous monuments, like the Theater of Epidaurus? When French film director Jean-Luc Godard asked the Greek authorities’ permission to shoot at the ancient theater, KAS officials demanded that they first take a look at the script of “Film Socialisme.” Talks came to an impasse after that.

During the 1960s, Greece became popular among foreign film crews thanks to its natural beauty, monuments and low prices. Some steps have been made since then in an effort to lure foreign productions. One of the most significant came in 2007 with the foundation of the Hellenic Film Commission. It was a pilot project aimed at facilitating foreigners who wished to hold photo and video sessions at the country’s museums, monuments and other sites.

In an interview with Kathimerini, former HFC director Markos Holevas said that the film commission has done some good work but needs more funds and staff. “More important, we need a fast-track treatment so that interested parties do not have to wait for months for a response from KAS officials,” he said. His successor, Grigoris Karantinakis, says one of the problems is that the institution is part of the Greek Film Center, therefore any filming request has to go through the various offices of the center.

People from the film and advertising industry say the situation can be quite chaotic for applicants. The criteria for granting a permission are quite fuzzy and often subjected to political influence. The makeup of KAS, they say, can also affect decision-making.

KAS recently gave Vodafone permission to shoot a commercial at the Stoa of Attalos in the Ancient Agora, but went on to turn down a request by BMW to photograph its new models next to the temple of Poseidon at Cape Sounio. In the past, the archaeologists gave the Andreas Papandreou Foundation, a nongovernment entity, the green light to use the same site for a speech by then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and a concert. No fee was requested. In 1998, American fashion designer Calvin Klein was denied permission to use the Herod Atticus Theater. Meanwhile, pundits disagree on things like whether pop singers should be allowed to hold concerts at the site or if spectators should be allowed to visit the theater in high heels. A few years ago maintenance crews found and removed no less than 17 kilos of chewing gum which had accumulated under the marble seats.

More controversial decisions followed. Greek-Canadian actress and scriptwriter Nia Vardalos got permission to use the Parthenon as a backdrop for her 2009 romantic comedy “My Life in Ruins” — a film which admittedly did not cast Greece in the most favorable of light. However KAS said no to a photo shoot at Crete’s Knossos Palace for the participants of “America’s Next Top Model.”

“We had to build ancient [ruins] out of styrofoam,” said Angelo Venetis, managing director of Boo Productions, who was in charge of the project.

“When the French, who have a very strict cultural policy on issues of historical legacy, invite Woody Allen to make a movie in Paris we still fail to tackle the simplest requests, then it’s only natural that the foreigners will turn their backs on us,” said Kyriakos Angelakos, a movie director. “Why should they come here and wait forever for a response from KAS, when they can find immediate service and better prices in countries such as Malta, the Czech Republic or Portugal?”

In European countries that make their sacred sites available to foreign film crews, advertising firms and publishing houses, local government has a positive role to play. Meanwhile, the City of Athens charges 1,800 euros per square meter for a single shoot. “You often pay this money and get a big space without any security,” Angelakos said. The Athens Film Office, which was established by the municipality to address with these problems, is no match for its foreign counterparts.

George Tsokopoulos of production company Avion Films knows firsthand what foreign crews have to put up with in Greece. “We are discouraging foreign clients from using our monuments to make movies or TV spots,” he said, giving the example of a big air carrier that made a commercial featuring a children’s choir at major monuments around the world. The production company asked permission to film at Cape Sounio. After a long delay, KAS officials said the site would be made available for an astronomical 300,000 euros. Following pressure from the production company, and a meeting with the then culture minister, the price tag dropped at 10,000 euros, he said.

Producer Yiannis Koutsomitis points out another issue that needs to be addressed. “Everyone respects the work of archaeologists, but it is unacceptable that KAS has a say on the artistic and aesthetic value of a script,” he said, recalling a frustrated Francis Ford Coppola who had to spit blood to get permission to shoot a scene in front of the Acropolis. That does not mean, he says, that all iconic monuments should be surrendered to commerce. “Greece has many archaeological sites and needs to have a clear list of what can be used, by who, and for what purpose,” he said.

Architecture historian Charalambos Bouras agrees with the idea. “[Such lists] are used around the world and need to be introduced here as well. To date, KAS has held all the responsibility, including pricing. Now things have started to fall into place,” he said.

Senior ministry archaeologist Maria Vlazaki says that on the one hand the state is under pressure to be more flexible with filming rights and, on the other, foreigners say we are “renting out” our monuments. “It’s a delicate issue that affects the image of the country abroad and much more,” she said.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Trouble in paradise: Maldives and Islamic extremism

Posted on 12th February 2012 in The monuments of world

At the Maldives‘ National Museum, smashed Buddhist statues are testament to the rise of Islamic extremism and Taliban-style intolerance in a country famous as a laid-back holiday destination.

On Tuesday, as protesters backed by mutinous police toppled president Mohamed Nasheed, a handful of men stormed the Chinese-built museum and destroyed its display of priceless artefacts from the nation’s pre-Islamic era.

“They have effectively erased all evidence of our Buddhist past,” a senior museum official told AFP at the now shuttered building in the capital Male, asking not to be named out of fear for his own safety.

“We lost all our 12th century statues. They were made of coral stone and limestone. They are very brittle and there is no way we can restore them,” he explained.

“I wept when I heard that the entire display had gone. We are good Muslims and we treated these statues only as part of our heritage. It is not against Islam to display these exhibits,” he said.

Five people have since been arrested after they returned the following day to smash the CCTV cameras, he said.

The authorities have banned photography of the damage, conscious that vandalism of this kind which echoes the 2001 destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban is damaging for the nation’s image.

The gates of the two-storeyed grey building, which opened in 2010, are padlocked and an unarmed guard keeps watch.

The Maldives, a collection of more than 1,100 coral-fringed islands surrounded by turquoise seas, is known as a “paradise” holiday destination that draws hundreds of thousands of travellers and honeymooners each year.

Visitors’ contact with the local population is deliberately kept at bay, however, with most foreigners simply transferring from the main international airport directly to their five-star resorts on outlying islands.

Few have any idea they are visiting a country of 330,000 Muslims with no religious freedom, where women can be flogged for extramarital sex and consuming alcohol is illegal for locals.

Islam is the official religion of the Maldives and open practice of any other religion is forbidden and liable to prosecution.

The religious origins of the Maldivian people are not clearly established, but it is believed that a Buddhist king converted to Islam in the 12th century.

Thereafter, the country practised a mostly liberal form of the religion, but more fundamentalist interpretations have spread with the arrival of money and ultra-conservative Salafist preachers from the Middle East.

In 2007, following a bombing that wounded a dozen foreign tourists, the former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom banned head-to-toe coverings for women as a sign of his intent to battle conservative Islamic thinking.

At the museum, another official said that fundamentalists had threatened to attack the museum on previous occasions unless it withdrew the Buddhist display.

The country’s ultra-conservative Islamic group, the Adhaalath Party, condemned the attack, but said they remained opposed to Nasheed‘s decision to accept three monuments from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

“Our constitution does not allow idols and that is why we objected to the monuments,” General Secretary Mohamed Muizzu said, referring to the gifts to mark a South Asian summit held in November in the Maldives.

The monuments, which included one of pillar featuring Buddhist motifs, and which had been on display in the southernmost island of Addu, have all since been vandalised.

The Adhaalath party supports new president Mohamed Waheed, who Nasheed accuses of taking part in a coup, and is due to join the new government.

Waheed called the museum attack “totally unacceptable” and denied there was religious violence in his country.

Former foreign minister Ahmed Naseem disagreed.

He said extremists were thriving in the Maldives and that they were partly responsible for the toppling of Nasheed and the installation of Waheed. “What we had was a military coup backed by religious extremists,” he said.

“There is a strong influence of Islamic fundamentalists in the country and they will get stronger,” Naseem told AFP. “These groups are funded from abroad. “This threat is not only to us, but the rest of the world as well.”

The moderate Nasheed, who was educated in Sri Lanka and Britain, was consistently accused of being under the control of Jews and Christians by religious opposition parties now linked to the government

There were also demonstrations over proposals from the transport ministry to allow direct flights from Israel.

“We strongly condemn the anti-Semitic words and the other commentary recently,” US assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs Robert Blake said during a visit to Male on Saturday.

“Under President Nasheed, the Maldives tried to improve relations with Israel and showed what a progressive country they were and we really commend them for that.”

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Group wants Supreme Court to save CA war memorial

Posted on 9th February 2012 in The monuments of world

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Supporters of a war memorial cross deemed unconstitutional last year by a federal court rallied at the landmark on Thursday as lawyers asked the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, amid a growing fight nationwide over the use of religious symbols to honor fallen troops.

A nonprofit legal firm, Liberty Institute in Dallas, filed the petition on behalf of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to preserve the 43-foot monument on federal land atop the picturesque San Diego peak overlooking the Pacific Ocean in suburban La Jolla.

The gathering by 75 supporters of the cross also drew about three-dozen people who want it taken down.

The supporters told the opponents that the cross isn’t about religion, but about honoring service members. The memorial’s plaques have names and stories of about 3,000 who served in conflicts from World War I to Iraq.

Retired Marine Lt. Col. Jack Harkins said people come to Mount Soledad from across the country to reflect and remember those who fought for the values of the American people.

“Let future generations enjoy their right to that experience,” he said. “Let this monument stand.”

One of the opponents, Bruce Gleason, said it would be “grand” if the memorial included a 40-foot Star of David as well as Wiccan and atheist symbols.

“This cross is unconstitutional in a multitude of courts and every time that happens they’ve upped the ante,” said Gleason, founder of the Backyard Skeptics of Villa Park, Calif. in neighboring Orange County.

The Supreme Court has signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last month that writes into law the propriety of displaying such markers at war memorials. Supporters are lobbying members of the Senate to approve it.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union that won the lawsuit in the 9th Circuit said the bill ignores the Constitution, which they argued was written to ensure government monuments do not exclude people. They say memorials can honor troops without religious symbolism.

“Congress cannot, by definition, authorize the government to violate the Constitution,” said David Loy, the ACLU’s legal director in San Diego. “It’s unconstitutional for the government to sponsor and maintain this particular cross that is visible for miles. The point of a war memorial or veterans’ memorial is to remember all veterans.”

Last year’s ruling by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals capped two decades of legal challenges over the cross that was used for Easter celebrations in the early 1900s and later became a memorial to Korean War veterans in the 1950s.

A number of other military memorials on public lands across the country have been challenged in recent years by civil liberty activists and atheists who say they violate the separation between church and state. The Supreme Court in 2010 refused to order the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote rocky outcropping in California’s Mojave Desert. That cross was later stolen and supporters are working on getting one restored to the spot.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-San Diego, said he is not relying on the courts. He introduced the bill passed by the House in January that would codify the existing practice of allowing religious symbols at military monuments established or acquired by the federal government.

Hunter said he drafted the bill with the Mount Soledad monument in mind but it goes beyond that.

“This isn’t just about San Diego,” Hunter told The Associated Press. “This is about the rights of members of the military to adorn gravestones and war memorials to honor those who fought in wars with whatever the heck they want to have there, period. If you want to take down a war memorial cross or take any kind of religious symbolism off any war memorial because you say it’s unconstitutional, then you would have to take the crosses off every headstone in national cemeteries from Arlington to Fort Rosecrans.”

Hunter said opponents have been getting out of hand, challenging even personal memorials, like a pair of unsanctioned crosses on a remote rocky hilltop on the Marine Corps base of Camp Pendleton put up by individual Marines to honor fellow fallen troops. The military is looking into the matter.

The crosses are surrounded by thousands of rocks carried up by Marines, some of which are accompanied by handwritten messages. Opponents complained about the crosses, which cannot be seen by the public, after The Los Angeles Times wrote a story about them on Veterans Day 2011.

“It’s getting old, getting burdensome and costly,” Hunter said. “It’s time to put an end to it.”

The Mount Soledad Memorial Association oversees the site. Liberty Institute, the Texas nonprofit, describes itself as being guided by principles that promote Judeo-Christian values, litigating for religious freedoms, freedom of speech, parental and students’ rights, and limited government.

At @blogbash at Microsoft headquarters, which feels sort of like Slate being #occupied
RT @BretBaier: Santorum’s campaign raises more than 2.1 million dollars over the past two days..campaign official. And more than 200k m …
comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Previous