The Netherlands: Protestant church’s declaration of guilt towards the Jews is a historic step

The Dutch Protestant Church is to admit that it helped to ‘sow the seeds’ of anti-Semitism and failed to protect the country’s Jewish population before, during and after the Second World War.

On Sunday, November 8, René de Reuver, the church’s official scribe, will read out a ‘declaration of guilt’ in the Rav Aron Schuster Synagogue in Amsterdam as part of the commemoration of Kristallnacht, the ‘night of broken glass’ in 1938 seen as the moment when the Nazis’ oppression of the Jews tipped over into outright persecution.

Read more at: Protestant church's declaration of guilt towards the Jews is a historic step - DutchNews.nl

Religion: Indonesian president invokes 'Pancasila' to counter rising Islamism

 Indonesia’s President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, a moderate Muslim who enjoys widespread support from the country’s minority religious communities, is resurrecting the country’s founding secular ideology, known as “Pancasila,” as he aims to counter the growing forces of Islamism in the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation.

Pancasila, a term from old Javanese that roughly translates as “five precepts,” is a set of principles including “belief in the the One and Only God” and has historically been thought to demand respect for the country’s formally recognized religions – Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism. Promising a unified Indonesia and social justice for all citizens, it has been considered a key to Indonesia’s relative stability since it gained independence from the Netherlands 73 years ago.

It’s also why, many say, Indonesia has never had an expressly Islamic government.

Read more: Indonesian president invokes 'Pancasila' to counter rising Islamism - Religion News Service

Global Conflict: throughout the ages has been caused by Nationalism, Religion, Revenge, Economic and Territorial gain and will eventually destroy this planet if we don't do something about it

Mankind is digging it's own grave

Wars have been a part of human history for thousands of years, becoming increasingly destructive with industrialization and the subsequent advances in technology.

Typically a war is fought by a country, or group of countries, against an opposing country with the aim of achieving an objective through the use of force.

Wars can also be fought as Proxy Wars, or within a country, however, in the form of a civil war, or in a revolutionary war.

Of course, the causes of a war beginning are often numerous and several reasons for war can be intertwined in a complicated way, rather than there being just one single, clear cause. The ego's of some world leaders can also play an important part.

Many theories have been put forward over the years for why wars happen and some of the greatest minds have offered their ideas.

The main reasons why wars usually start were given as being the result of:  Nationalism, Religion, Revenge, Economic and Territorial gain

This phenomena unfortunately begins already at a very basic local level, were most people in the world still show to have a very nationalistic, tribal, territorial viewpoint, specially when it comes to how they identify themselves.

When a Dutchman visit another country, he or she will usually identify herself or himself as " I am Peter/Anna and I am from Holland".

This goes for just about any nationality visiting another country.

Maybe it would be better, if we all  would adhere to what one wise man once said: "the world is mine and wherever I can live in peace and harmony I will call home.

Yes indeed aren't we all citizens of this planet we call earth, regardless of were we were born or what religion we profess?.

At least if we could all agree on that, it would be far easier to deal with all those other causes of war

EU-Digest 

Violence and religion: 'Violence more common' in Bible than Quran, text analysis reveals in "misleading study"- by Samuel Osborne

An analysis into whether the Quran is more violent than the Bible found killing and destruction occur more frequently in the Christian texts than the Islamic.

Investigating whether the Quran really is more violent than its Judeo-Christian counterparts, software engineer Tom Anderson processed the text of the Holy books to find which contained the most violence.

It took just two minutes for his software to read and analyse the three books.

 In a blog post, Mr Anderson explains: "The project was inspired by the ongoing public debate around whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions."

Using text analytics software he had developed, named Odin Text, he analysed both the New International Version of both the Old and New Testaments as well as an English-language version of the Quran from 1957.

By categorizing words into eight emotions - Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust - the analysis found the Bible scored higher for anger and much lower for trust than the Quran.

Further analysis found the Old Testament was more violent than the New Testament, and more than twice as violent as the Quran.

However, he adds: "First, I want to make very clear that we have not set out to prove or disprove that Islam is more violent than other religions.

"Moreover, we realize that the Old and New Testaments and the Quran are neither the only literature in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, nor do they constitute the sum of these religions’ teachings and protocols.

"I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive. Ours is a 30,000-ft, cursory view of three texts: the Quran and the Old and New  testament.

Note EU-Digest: the original headline of this article in the Independent is misleading and so is the study, specifically when it comes to the focus on violence, 

Case in point: has the bible ever inspired Christians to strap explosives to teenagers and have them walk into crowded market places and detonate themselves, causing their own death, and many other casualties, or inspired Christians to drive trucks or other vehicles into public gatherings and kill as many people as possible shouting "Jesus is great" ? 

On the other hand, one must also admit that in times of war, Christian nations military forces have killed millions of innocent civilians, afterwards calling the people killed by their indiscriminate bombings, "collateral damage".    

Maybe the conclusion is that evil things happen when people start interpreting religious scripture to fit their needsm and not the other way around?

Read more: 'Violence more common' in Bible than Quran, text analysis reveals | The Independent

Peace: Pray for Peace - August 15 - Editorial EU-Digest

OWNERSHIP OF PRAYER IS SPIRITUAL

IF YOU WONDER WHY AUGUST 15 WAS CHOSEN AS A DAY OF PRAYER, DON'T WORRY,. IT HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL IF YOU RELATE IT TO THE  CONCEPT OF PEACE.

PRAYING FOR PEACE IS NOT ONLY ENCOURAGED, YOU CAN ALSO DO  IT ANYWHERE AND ANYTIME YOU GET M0VED TO DO SO.

THE AUGUST 15 DATE WAS CHOSEN SPIRITUALLY TO HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE FOCUSING ON THE ISSUE OF PEACE, SECURITY AND PROSPERITY,, WHICH IS AFFECTING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TODAY..

IT IS ALSO GOOD TO KEEP IN MIND THAT PEACE OFTEN MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO PEOPLE. IT CAN RELATE TO WAR, ILLNESS, DEATH, GOVERNMENT, SECURITY, CORPORATE GREED, FINANCES, JOB SECURITY, RELATIONSHIPS, MARRIAGE,  POVERTY, ILLNESS, FAMILY, PRIVACY, DISCRIMINATION, POLICE BRUTALITY, OPPRESSION, CHILD ABUSE, YOU NAME IT.

OWNERSHIP ON THE CONCEPT OF PRAYER CAN ALSO NOT BE CLAIMED BY ANY SPECIFIC "EARTH BASED RELIGIOUS GROUPING". THE ONLY REQUISITE FOR PRAYER IS THAT SPIRITUALLY YOU ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT  THERE IS A HIGHER BEING THAN YOURSELF WHO LISTENS TO YOU AND WILL ANSWER YOUR PRAYERS WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS.

SINCERE AND SPIRITUALLY FILLED PRAYERS ARE A MORE POWERFUL FORCE THAN ANY FORCE, TO OVERCOME, WHAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER TO BE A THREAT TO YOUR SECURITY AND PEACE.

SO ON AUGUST 15,  LET US JOIN IN SPIRITUAL UNITY AND PRAYER TO DEFEAT THE THREATS TO OUR SECURITY AND PEACE AND "WATCH HOW OUR WALLS OF JERICHO WILL COME TUMBLING DOWN".

EU-Digest

Religion - Christianity: European churches say growing flock of Muslim refugees are converting

"Chris,t who died for us on the Cross so we could live"

A growing number of Muslim refugees in Europe are converting to Christianity, according to several Church reports in Europe, which have conducted mass baptisms in some places.

Reliable data on conversions is not available but anecdotal evidence suggests a pattern of rising church attendance by Muslims who have fled conflict, repression and economic hardship in countries across the Middle East and central Asia.

Complex factors behind the trend include heartfelt faith in a new religion, gratitude to Christian groups offering support during perilous and frightening journeys, and an expectation that conversion may aid asylum applications.

At Trinity church in the Berlin suburb of Steglitz, the congregation has grown from 150 two years ago to almost 700, swollen by Muslim converts, according to Pastor Gottfried Martens. Earlier this year, churches in Berlin and Hamburg reportedly held mass conversions for asylum seekers at municipal swimming pools.

The Austrian Catholic church logged 300 applications for adult baptism in the first three months of 2016, with the Austrian pastoral institute estimating 70% of those converting are refugees.

At Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral in the UK, a weekly Persian service attracts between 100 and 140 people. Nearly all are migrants from Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere in central Asia.

One in four confirmations conducted by the bishop of Bradford, Toby Howarth, over the past year were of converts from Islam. Most were Iranian and most of those were asylum seekers.

Mohammad Eghtedarian, a curate at Liverpool Cathedral and a refugee from Iran who converted to Christianity and was later ordained, said the church was helping people to develop their faith and to apply for refugee status. “These two are intertwined. Most people apply for asylum on the basis of their religion,” he said.

His own journey, from the Iranian city of Shiraz to the UK, took him through half a dozen European countries, by truck, train and on foot. Destitute and terrified, he was offered practical and emotional support from Christians along the way.

Before being granted asylum, Eghtedarian spent four months in Tinsley House detention centre, near Gatwick airport. “Every day was challenging and beautiful. Challenging because I didn’t know if they would deport me; beautiful because I was in the Lord’s hands. I promised the Lord: if you release me, I will serve you.”

Now he devotes himself to helping other refugees. “People are desperate. They spend a lot of money and waste a lot of money. They are vulnerable, abused and sometimes [they have been] raped.” The experience of being a refugee was degrading and dehumanising, he said.

Johannes, another Iranian, left Tehran for Vienna. Born into a Muslim family, the 32-year-old – who was previously called Sadegh – began questioning the roots of Islam at university. “I found that the history of Islam was completely different from what we were taught at school. Maybe, I thought, it was a religion that began with violence?

“A religion that began with violence cannot lead people to freedom and love. Jesus Christ said ‘those who use the sword will die by the sword’. This really changed my mind.”

Johannes began the process of converting to Christianity in Iran. He was ambushed with a group of others leaving a bible class but managed to escape and went into hiding. When the Austrian visa he had already applied for came through, he left the country.

Now waiting for the outcome of his asylum application, he has not told his parents of his conversion: only his sister knows his “secret”.

Authorities say there are about 90,000 Christians in Iran, though some human rights organisations put their number as high as 500,000. While Iranian law does not order the death penalty for converting from Islam to another faith, courts have handed down death sentences based on interpretation of Sharia law and legal opinions issued by religious leaders.

Last year, the Austrian bishops’ conference published new guidelines for priests, warning that some refugees may seek baptism in the hope of improving their chances of obtaining asylum.

“Admitting persons for baptism who are during the official procedure classified as ‘not credible’ leads to a loss in the church’s credibility across the whole of Austria,” the new guidelines say.

Since 2014, applicants interested in converting to Christianity with the Austrian church have to go through a one-year “preparation period” during which they are informally assessed. “There has to be a noticeable interest in the faith that extends beyond merely the wish to obtain a piece of paper,” said Friederike Dostal, who coordinates preparation courses in Vienna’s archdiocese.

“We are not interested in proforma Christians. You have to be able to register some kind of process of change in people.” In 5-10% of cases, she said, applicants broke off their course before they were baptised.

In Liverpool, Eghtedarian acknowledged that the factors leading Muslims to convert were often complex and multilayered. “People are desperate for a better life and sometimes they will lie for it – that’s understandable.”

The church had a difficult road to navigate, he said. “We have a mission to give them the message of Christ – a message of peace, salvation and freedom. The only person who knows what’s in people’s hearts is God. It is not for me to judge.”

At Liverpool Cathedral, there is an established process. People are registered when they first come to church in case evidence of attendance is needed for an asylum application. That may be followed by five sessions of baptism preparation and 12 sessions of confirmation preparation. “This way we get to know them and see how they’re involved in the life of the church,” said Eghtedarian.

If necessary the church will provide a “letter of attendance” for the immigration authorities and support them through the appeals process.

Asked if some people pretended to convert to Christianity in order to help their asylum applications, Eghtedarian said: “Yes, of course. Plenty of people. I do understand there are a lot of mixed motives. There are many people abusing the system – I’m not ashamed of saying that. But is it the person’s fault or the system’s fault? And who are they deceiving? The Home Office, me as a pastor, or God?”

Abuse took many forms, he added. “Don’t people abuse the tax system or the NHS? Look at MPs. And look at people who go to church to get their children into good church schools. Is there any difference, morally? You want to find the best school for your child, we want to find the best life for ourselves.

“We still try our best to serve people. Jesus Christ knew Judas was going to betray him but he still washed his feet. Thank God it is not my job to judge them.”

The Church of England does not collate figures on conversion. “This can be a delicate issue and we want to be sensitive to the backgrounds that people are from,” said Howarth.

“There are many reasons [for conversion] but among them is undoubtedly the mass movement of people and the increasing interconnectedness of the world,” he said. Conversions were happening across different faiths, he added, citing the example of black prisoners converting to Islam. “The world– and people’s identities – are being shaken up.

“When we do confirmations, we work hard to make sure the person is serious. We all have mixed motives. But if someone says ‘I believe this’, who are we to make windows into people’s souls? The only thing I can do is see if people are still there a year later – and often they are.”

Read more: European churches say growing flock of Muslim refugees are converting

Religion - Islam: Grand Mufti urges Muslims to forge unity, shun evil deeds

"Murder is great fitna (mischief) in Islam"

Mufti Azam Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Bin Abdullah delivered Hajj sermons in Masjid-e-Nimra at Mount Arafat, urging Muslims to shun evil, forge unity and staunchly practice teachings of Islam, SAMAA reported.

“Islam is a complete code of life, it’s a perfect and definite religion of Allah, it teaches brotherhood among Muslims and provides spiritual, moral and social training,” said the grand Mufti while addressing millions of Hajj pilgrims.

The chief mufti urged Muslims to keep away from crimes, such as murder and other evil deeds.

“The murder is great fitna (mischief) in Islam. Our religion teaches the abidance of Allah and His Prophet… Islam prohibits obscenity as haram and sin… Oh Muslims! Be God-fearing, keep a control on yourselves,” he said.

“Oh believers! Murder of a single person is the murder of entire humanity, and the one who committed this act unduly shall burn in the hell forever.”

“Tyranny throws one in darkness whereas takwah (fear of Allah Almighty) leads one towards success,” he said while addressing the world’s biggest Muslim gathering.

The Mufti said un-Islamic forces are hatching conspiracies against Islam and Muslim countries. “Blood is being shed… Khawarij (those who seceded from the mainstream Islam) are still among the ranks of Muslims.”

The Mufti said Jihad is also an obligation of Islam which should be carried out as per true and definite teachings of Islam.

“Jihad is better than everything else in the way of Allah, it dispels fitna (evil/malicious acts) and fassad (anarchy/bloodshed), everyone of you should follow the teachings of Islam which is a perfect religion.”

Praying to Allah for betterment and falah (success) of the Muslim ummah, the Saudi religious cleric urged Muslims to observe patience in their lives in testing times, protect each other’s lives and properties and work together for the success and prosperity of Muslim societies.

Concluding his annual sermon, Mufti Abdullah prayed for the Muslims of Syria, where internal strife claims thousands of lives.

Nearly three million Muslims from across the world are in the holy cities of Islam for annual Hajj pilgrimage.

Read more: Grand Mufti urges Muslims to forge unity, shun evil deeds | World’s Islamic news agency online & Muslim news media- ULN

Reflections: Karma or Grace ? - by RM

"IT CAN ONLY BE BY GRACE"

Interesting sermon today at Church about the difference of Karma and Grace.

Here is the gist of it.

First, how can Karma be defined?

Karma is a Buddhist term which comes from Sanskrit and relates to fate and action.

You alone are responsible for your actions.

Karma is the law of cause and effect, an unbreakable law of the cosmos say the Buddists. You deserve everything that happens to you, good or bad. You created your own happiness and your own misery - even if you are a Syrian refugee. One day you will be in the same circumstances that you put someone else in.

Your actions create your future even when you think they are someone's else actions. What you are experiencing right now is what karma wants you to experience. Every feeling, every thought, has been prepared especially for you, even torture, rape, molestation, injustice, so you can learn from your past.

Karma includes a  reincarnation  process of redemption and purification, which is said to be the ultimate goal in becoming a pure, sinless, "God like person".  

So what  is Grace, and how is it different from Karma?:

Grace may be defined as the unmerited or undeserving favor of God to those who are under condemnation..

In other words no human can ever be without any sin or blemish whatever he does or says, and is also not able to change that by him or herself.

Grace shows us that only by the substitution of  Christ on the cross, who died for our sins, that humans can become free of all sin, and achieve eternal life, 

It is impossible for any mortals being to achieve a sinless life by themselves.with devine, super-natural intervention and substitution.

The reality of substitution is at the heart of the atonement. Christ accomplished all of the above benefits for us by dying in our place — that is, by dying instead of us. We deserved to die, and he took our sin upon him and paid the ultimate  penalty himself for us. 

This is what the meaning us of Christ dying for us (Romans 5:8) and giving himself for us (Galatians 2:20). As Isaiah says, “he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities . . . the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him” (Isaiah 53:5-6).

You see the reality of substitution underlying all of the benefits discussed above, as the means by which Christ accomplished them. For example, substitution is the means by which we were ransomed: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). Christ’s death was a ransom for us — that is, instead of us. Likewise, Paul writes that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13).

Substitution is the means by which we were reconciled: “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). It is the means of expiation: “He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21) and “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24). And by dying in our place, taking the penalty for our sins upon himself, Christ’s death is also the means of propitiation.

To close: Two implications. First, this process is a very humbling experience.

Second, “Greater love has no one than this, than he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

Everyone the freedom of choice - but I am happy to have chosen Grace.

Almere-Digest

EU-Digest Special Report: "What Borders Mean to Europe" - by George Friedman

The following special report " What Borders Mean to Europe - by Gearge Friedman" was published by EU-Digest. with the permission of the Global Stratford Intelligence Group .

"Europe today is a continent of borders. The second smallest continent in the world has more than 50 distinct, sovereign nation-states. Many of these are part of the European Union. At the core of the EU project is an effort to reduce the power and significance of these borders without actually abolishing them — in theory, an achievable goal. But history is not kind to theoretical solutions.

Today, Europe faces three converging crises that are ultimately about national borders, what they mean and who controls them. These crises appear distinct: Immigration from the Islamic world, the Greek economic crisis and Ukraine would seem to have little to do with each other. But in fact they all derive, in different ways, from the question of what borders mean.

Europe's borders have been the foundation both of its political morality and of its historical catastrophes.

The European Enlightenment argued against multi-national monarchies and for sovereign nation-states, which were understood to be the territories in which nations existed. Nations came to be defined as groupings of humans who shared a common history, language, values and religion — in short, a common culture into which they were born. These groups had the right of national self-determination, the authority to determine their style of government and the people who governed. Above all, these nations lived in a place, and that place had clear boundaries.

The right of national self-determination has created many distinct nations in Europe. And, as nations do, they sometimes distrust and fear one other, which occasionally leads to wars. They also have memories of betrayals and victimizations that stretch back for centuries before the nations became states. Some viewed the borders as unjust, because they placed their compatriots under foreign rule, or as insufficient to national need.

The right of self-determination led inevitably to borders, and the question of borders inevitably led to disputes among states. Between 1914 and 1945, Europeans waged a series of wars about national boundaries and about who has the right to live where. This led to one of the greatest slaughters of human history.

The memory of that carnage led to the creation of the European Union. Its founding principle was that this kind of massacre should never happen again. But the union lacked the power to abolish the nation-state — it was too fundamental to the Europeans' sense of identity. And if the nation-state survived, so did the idea of place and borders.

f the nation-state could not be abolished, however, then at least the borders could lose their significance. Thus two principles emerged after World War II: The first, predating the European Union, was that the existing borders of Europe could not be changed.

The hope was that by freezing Europe's borders, Europe could abolish war. The second principle, which came with the mature European Union, was that the bloc's internal borders both existed and did not exist. Borders were to define the boundaries of nation-states and preserved the doctrine of national self-determination, but they were not to exist insofar as the movement of goods, of labor and of capital were concerned. This was not absolute — some states were limited in some of these areas — but it was a general principle and goal. This principle is now under attack in three different ways.

The Movement of Muslims in Europe

The chaos in the Middle East has generated a flow of refugees toward Europe. This is adding to the problem that European nations have had with prior Muslim migrations that were encouraged by Europeans. As Europe recovered from World War II, it needed additional labor at low cost. Like other advanced industrial countries have done, a number of European states sought migrants, many from the Islamic world, to fill that need.

At first, the Europeans thought of the migrants as temporary residents. Over time, the Europeans conceded citizenship but created a doctrine of multiculturalism, which appeared to be a gesture of tolerance and was implicitly by mutual consent, given that some Muslims resisted assimilation. But this doctrine essentially served to exclude Muslims from full participation in the host culture even as they gained legal citizenship. But as I have said, the European idea of the nation was challenged by the notion of integrating different cultures into European societies.

Partly because of a failure to fully integrate migrants and partly because of terrorist attacks, a growing portion of European society began perceiving the Muslims already in Europe as threatening. Some countries had already discussed resurrecting internal European borders to prevent the movement not only of Muslims, but also of other Europeans seeking jobs in difficult economic times. The recent wave of refugees has raised the matter to a new level.

The refugee crisis has forced the Europeans to face a core issue. The humanitarian principles of the European Union demand that refugees be given sanctuary. And yet, another wave of refugees into Europe has threatened to exacerbate existing social and cultural imbalances in some countries; some anticipate the arrival of more Muslims with dread. Moreover, once migrants are allowed to enter Europe by any one country, the rest of the nations are incapable of preventing the refugees' movement.

Who controls Europe's external borders? Does Spain decide who enters Spain, or does the European Union decide? Whoever decides, does the idea of the free movement of labor include the principle of the free movement of refugees? If so, then EU countries have lost the ability to determine who may enter their societies and who may be excluded. For Europe, given its definition of the nation, this question is not an odd, legal one. It goes to the very heart of what a nation is, and whether the nation-state, under the principle of the right of national self-determination, is empowered to both make that decision and enforce it.

This question does not merely concern Muslims. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Ostjuden — the Jews coming into Western Europe as they fled czarist edicts — raised the same challenge, even though they sought more vigorously to assimilate. But at that point, the notion of borders was unambiguous even if the specific decision on how to integrate the Jews was unclear. In many countries, the status of minorities from neighboring nations was a nagging question, but there were tools for handling it.

The Muslim issue is unique in Europe only to the extent that the European Union has made it unique. The bloc has tried to preserve borders while sapping them of significance, and now there is an upsurge of opposition not only to Muslim immigration, but also to the European Union's understanding of borders and free movement.

The Greek Crisis

The question of borders is also at the heart of the Greek crisis. We see two issues: one small, the other vast. The small one involves capital controls. The European Union is committed to a single European financial market within which capital flows freely. Greeks, fearing the outcome of the current crisis, have been moving large amounts of money out of Greece into foreign banks.

They remember what happened during the Cyprus crisis, when the government, capitulating to German demands in particular, froze and seized money deposited in Cypriot banks. Under EU rules, the transfer of deposits in one country of the bloc, or even outside the bloc, is generally considered legitimate. However, in the case of Cyprus, the free movement of capital across borders was halted. The same could conceivably happen in Greece.

In any event, which is the prior principle: the free movement of capital or the European Union's overarching authority to control that flow? Are Greek citizens personally liable for their government's debt — not merely through austerity policies, but also through controls imposed by the Greek government under European pressure to inhibit the movement of their money? If the answer is the latter, then borders on capital can be created temporarily.

The larger issue is the movement of goods. A significant dimension of this crisis involves free trade. Germany exports more than 50 percent of its gross domestic product. Its prosperity depends on these exports. I have argued that the inability to control the flow of German goods into Southern Europe drove the region into economic decline.

Germany's ability to control the flow of American goods into the country in the 1950s helped drive its economic recovery. The European Union permits limits on the movement of some products, particularly agricultural ones, through subsidies and quotas. In theory, free trade is beneficial to all. In practice, one country's short-term gain can vastly outweigh others' long-term gains. The ability to control the flow of goods is a tool that might slow growth but decrease pain.

The essential principle of the European Union is that of free trade, in the sense that the border cannot become a checkpoint to determine what goods may or may not enter a country and under what tariff rule. The theory is superb, save for its failure to address the synchronization of benefits. And it means that the right to self-determination no longer includes the right to control borders.

Ukraine and the 'Inviolability' of Borders

Finally, there is the Ukraine issue — which is not really about Ukraine, but about a prior principle of Europe: Borders cannot be allowed to change. The core of this rule is that altering borders leads to instability. This rule governed between 1945 and 1992.

Then, the fall of the Soviet Union transformed the internal borders of Europe dramatically, moving the Russian border eastward and northward. The Soviet collapse also created eight newly free nations that were Soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe and 15 new independent states — including Russia — from the constituent parts of the Soviet Union. It could be argued that the fall of the Soviet Union did not change the rule on borders, but that claim would be far-fetched. Everything changed.

Then came the "velvet divorce" of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and now there are potential divorces in the United Kingdom, Spain and Belgium.

Perhaps most importantly, the rule broke down in Yugoslavia, where a single entity split into numerous independent nations, and, among other consequences, a war over borders ensued. The conflict concluded with the separation of Kosovo from Serbia and its elevation to the status of an independent nation. Russia has used this last border change to justify redrawing the borders of Georgia and as a precedent supporting its current demand for the autonomy and control of eastern Ukraine. Similarly, the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia shifted dramatically as the result of war. (On a related note, Cyprus, divided between a Turkish-run north and a Greek-run south, was allowed into the European Union in 2004 with its deep border dispute still unsettled.)

Since the end of the Cold War, the principle of the inviolability of borders has been violated repeatedly — through the creation of new borders, through the creation of newly freed nation-states, through peaceful divisions and through violent war. The principle of stable borders held for the most part until 1991 before undergoing a series of radical shifts that sometimes settled the issue and sometimes left it unresolved.

The Europeans welcomed most of these border adjustments, and in one case — Kosovo — Europeans themselves engineered the change.

It is in this context that the Ukrainian war must be considered. Europe's contention, supported by America, is that Russia is attempting to change inviolable borders. There are many good arguments to be made against the Russians in Ukraine, which I have laid out in the past. However, the idea that the Russians are doing something unprecedented in trying to redraw Ukraine's borders is difficult to support. Europe's borders have been in flux for some time.

That is indeed a matter of concern; historically, unsettled borders in Europe are precursors to war, as we have seen in Yugoslavia, the Caucasus and now Ukraine. But it is difficult to argue that this particular action by Russia is in itself a dramatically unprecedented event in Europe. The principle of national self-determination depends on a clear understanding of a nation and the unchallenged agreement on its boundaries.

The Europeans themselves have in multiple ways established the precedent that borders are not unchallengeable.

There are two principles competing. The first is the European Union's desire that borders be utterly permeable without the nation-state losing its right to self-determination. It is difficult to see how a lack of control over borders is compatible with national self-determination. The other principle is that existing borders not be challenged. On the one hand, the union wants to diminish the importance of borders. On the other hand, it wants to make them incontestable.

Neither principle is succeeding. Within Europe, more forces are emerging that want to return control over borders to nation-states. In different ways, the Muslim immigrant crisis and the Greek crisis intersect at the question of who controls the borders. Meanwhile, the inviolability of borders has been a dead letter since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The idea of borders being archaic is meaningful only if the nation-state is archaic. There is no evidence that this is true in Europe. On the contrary, all of the pressures we see culturally and economically point to not only the persistence of the idea of nationality, but also to its dramatic increase in Europe. At the same time, there is no evidence that the challenge to borders is abating. In fact, during the past quarter of a century, the number of shifts and changes, freely or under pressure, has only increased. And each challenge of a national border, such as the one occurring in Ukraine, is a challenge to a nation's reality and sense of self.

The European Union has promised peace and prosperity. The prosperity is beyond tattered now. And peace has been intermittently disrupted — not in the European Union, but around it — since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992 to create a common economic and monetary union. All of this is linked to the question of what a border represents and how seriously we take it. A border means that this is my country and not yours.

This idea has been a source of anguish in Europe and elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is a reality embedded in the human condition. Borders matter, and they matter in many different ways. The European crisis, taken as a whole, is rooted in borders. Attempting to abolish them is attractive in theory. But theory faces reality across its own border."

The above report was published by EU-Digest with the permission of the Global Stratford Intelligence Group

Italy: Catholic Church and Equal Rights - Anti-Gay Pope Francis Meets Sweden's Antje Jackelén Female Head Of Lutheran Church

The Vatican made history Monday when Pope Francis welcomed a woman archbishop to an official audience at the Apostolic Palace for the first time, according to Vatican Radio.

Archbishop Antje Jackelén, the first female head of the Lutheran Church of Sweden, tweeted her gratitude for the meeting to the pope, with a photograph of the two religious leaders chatting.

The pontiff has staunchly opposed ordination for women in the Catholic Church. “The Church has spoken and says no... That door is closed," he said in a July 2013 press conference.

The topic on Monday's agenda was not, however, women's role in the church, but rather the need for Christian unity across denominations and for better care for the poor. Francis addressed the archbishop as "esteemed Mrs. Jackelén, esteemed sister" in his call for charity.

“The call to unity as followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ includes an urgent call for a common effort on the charity front," Francis said, according to Vatican Insider. "The testimony of our brothers and sisters especially, pushes us to grow in fraternal communion."

Note EU-Digest:  in the meantime it was reported that the Pope - who in some eyes is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", has personally met with France’s proposed Gay ambassador to the Vatican – to tell him his appointment will be blocked because he is gay.

Read more: Pope Francis Meets With Female Head Of Church Of Sweden, Archbishop Antje Jackelén

Britain -250 jihadists reportedly return to UK - "EU must expel Imams and Preachers discussing politics and inflammatory issues"

Around 250 British jihadists have returned to the UK after training and fighting in Syria, a senior Whitehall security official told the Sunday Times. Security services are monitoring the “extremist tourists”, fearing they might carry out attacks at home.

Ministers have been informed that more than 400 Britons went to Syria to engage in militant activities, and “Well over half of those who traveled out have come back,” the official told the Times.

Senior security officials say the number of “returnees” is now five times the previously reported figure, highlighting the growing threat of so–called ‘extremist tourists’ going to warzones and returning home hardened militants.

"For some, their jihad is done, others will help others travel to Syria, while others will raise funds for fighting," the Whitehall source said.

The security services are said to be closely monitoring the 250 returnees, who include several veteran hardliners who have fought in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Many others have participated in combat or received training in munitions or other skills applicable to terror operations, with some exhibiting a willingness to carry out attacks in the UK, security officials cited in the report said.

“There are a few hundred people going out there. They may be injured or killed, but our biggest worry is when they return they are radicalized, they may be militarized, they may have a network of people that train them to use weapons,” London police chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe told the paper.

Note EU-Digest: more attention needs to be given by the EU Commission, the EU Parliament and member state Governments as to some of the "sermons" preached by Islamic Imams and Preachers - especially those who discuss political issues and matters which are inflammatory and have nothing to do with religion. 

Read more: Op-Edge

The Netherlands: Persecuted Egyptian Coptic Christians will not receive special asylum arrangements says Government

The Dutch cabinet headed by PM Mark Rutte sees no reason in the present situation for special asylum arrangements for Coptic Christians from Egypt. “There is no question of an organized religious cleansing there”, says the Dutch Government

Dozens of churches and other properties, however, of Christians in Egypt have been set on fire in the past week. The small Dutch Christian party ChristenUnie wants the cabinet to make more specific efforts on behalf of the Coptic religious minority, for example by designating them a ‘risk group’ as part of asylum policy. They could then be able to obtain temporary asylum in the Netherlands more easily.

But the cabinet is not in favor of this for now, and is also not prepared to relax its visa policy. Every visa application will be considered on its merits, but the visa procedure is not intended for people who want to stay in the Netherlands for longer than 90 days, Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans says in a letter to parliament.

ChristenUnie political party says it is disappointed. “Coptic Christians appear to be outlawed,” according to MP Joël Voordewind.

Timmermans says in his letter that ''individual Egyptians” have used the unrest to commit violent acts against Christians, but that it cannot be established with any certainty that there is organised viiolence by political movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The attacks against this Christian minority are “unacceptable,” but “there is no question of an organised religious cleansing. 

A parliamentarian from one of the opposition parties noted: "this is  a strange and obviously politically motivated decision by the Government, who in the past have always opened their arms towards repressed people from around the world, regardless of their race, political viewpoints, or religious belief. 

Christians organizations in the Netherlands have been urged to contact their political representatives and national organizations to lobby for the easing of Dutch asylum regulations, in particular for Coptic Christians and Christians throughout the Middle East, who are suffering from incredible dangerous conditions, including, persecution, torture and killings.

Almere-Digest