Thursday, 19 March 2009
FATHER RAPED ' DAUGHTER ' FOR 9 YEARS AT THE BEHEST OF AN OCCULTIST TO BRING PROSPERITY TO THE FAMILY; HEY INDIA, ARE YOU HEARING THIS.....
MUMBAI: In a shocking case, a man allegedly raped his daughter repeatedly over a span of nine years at the behest of an occultist, who said the act would bring prosperity to the family.
The 21-year-old victim, who had been silent about the incident, mustered courage to approach the police after her businessman-father attempted to rape her 15-year-old younger sister. Besides the father, the Mira Road police in neighbouring Thane district arrested the victim's mother for abetting the crime and also the occultist, Hasmukh Rathod. The 60-year-old businessman K Chavan has been sent to police custody till March 21. The court has also sent Chavan's wife and a 'tantrik' to police custody till March 21st. According to police, the husband and wife were under the influence of the occultist, who told them in July 2000 that the family would prosper if the father were to have a sexual relationship with his elder daughter, who was then 12. The victim told the police that she could not muster the courage to approach anyone about the incident. But when her father attempted to rape her younger sister, she approached her maternal uncle after which a police complaint was filed, Additional Superintendent of Police Sashikant Mahavarkar told In November 2008, Rathod told the businessman to start having a sexual relationship with his younger daughter also. Police arrested the three last evening. The occultist (tantrik) was manhandled by local residents when he was being taken to the police station. The family, originally from Gujarat, resides in an apartment on Mira-Bhayander Road. Both the girls are currently staying with their maternal uncle and grandmother.
EVANGELICALS APPLAUD OBAMA FOR SUDAN ENVOY APPOINTMENT
In a statement, President Obama announced that his campaign adviser and close friend, retired Air Force Gen. J. Scott Gration, will serve as the special envoy to Sudan. Gration had lived in Africa as a child when his parents served as missionaries there.
“I believe President Obama is taking the right action by appointing retired Air Force General Scott Gration as Special Envoy to Sudan,” said Rev. Franklin Graham, president and CEO of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. “This is a critical time in Sudan and it is important for the United States to do as much as possible to help the millions of people whose lives hang in the balance because of the ongoing crises there.
"My prayers go out to both the President and General Gration that God would grant them wisdom as they navigate the complexities of Africa's largest nation."
Graham, who recently returned from a trip to Sudan where he met with President Omar al-Bashir, had repeatedly called on President Obama to appoint an envoy to Sudan after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president earlier this month. The arrest led to the government retaliating by expelling several large relief groups from the country.
Relief groups have expressed serious concern that millions of Sudanese lives are now at risk without the aid provided by these agencies.
Samaritan’s Purse, which operates several relief projects in Darfur and southern Sudan, was not ordered to leave and is still providing aid in Sudan.
The Rev. Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director and CEO of the World Evangelical Alliance, also welcomed President Obama’s new appointment at “a most critical time” for Sudan.
“With the expelling of international aid agencies by the Khartoum regime, millions of lives are at great risk,” wrote Tunnicliffe, who often speaks at Darfur rallies, to The Christian Post via email. “The international community must respond quickly and decisively to this crisis. It is imperative that the new U.S. envoy provide crucial diplomatic leadership at this time.”
The World Evangelical Alliance is a member of the Save Darfur Coalition.
Sudan is currently in a precarious situation with its sitting president, along with other high level government officials, being charged with crimes against humanity in Darfur. The ICC has issued several arrest warrants for Sudanese government officials, but Sudan has refused to turn them over to the court.
Instead, just days after the arrest warrant was issued Sudan announced that some of the largest international aid groups, most of them operating in Darfur, must leave the country. The government accused the foreign aid groups of spying and providing the ICC with false information against President al-Bashir and his government.
Then on Tuesday, al-Bashir made what appears to be an unplanned announcement that all foreign aid groups must leave Sudan within a year. Sudanese government officials later in the day tried to downplay al-Bashir’s statement, saying that not necessarily all foreign aid would have to leave and U.N. agencies would not be affected.
The Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations, expressed hope that Gration’s experience and close relationship with President Obama “will contribute greatly to his effectiveness.”
“Equally important, he must have the mandate and authority to drive U.S. policy on Sudan,” said Jerry Fowler, president of the Save Darfur Coalition, in a statement.
It is estimated that about 1.1 million civilians will be without food aid, 1.5 million without health care, and over a million without potable water after the 13 international aid agencies leave Sudan due to government order.
“General Gration will need to hit the ground running and spearhead an urgent and sustained diplomatic push - involving China and key African and Arab countries - to establish unimpeded humanitarian access, hold President Bashir accountable for meeting Sudan's obligation under international law to protect the lives of Sudanese civilians and move toward lasting peace,” Fowler said. “Presidential engagement and U.S. leadership are more vital than ever."
“I believe President Obama is taking the right action by appointing retired Air Force General Scott Gration as Special Envoy to Sudan,” said Rev. Franklin Graham, president and CEO of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. “This is a critical time in Sudan and it is important for the United States to do as much as possible to help the millions of people whose lives hang in the balance because of the ongoing crises there.
"My prayers go out to both the President and General Gration that God would grant them wisdom as they navigate the complexities of Africa's largest nation."
Graham, who recently returned from a trip to Sudan where he met with President Omar al-Bashir, had repeatedly called on President Obama to appoint an envoy to Sudan after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president earlier this month. The arrest led to the government retaliating by expelling several large relief groups from the country.
Relief groups have expressed serious concern that millions of Sudanese lives are now at risk without the aid provided by these agencies.
Samaritan’s Purse, which operates several relief projects in Darfur and southern Sudan, was not ordered to leave and is still providing aid in Sudan.
The Rev. Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director and CEO of the World Evangelical Alliance, also welcomed President Obama’s new appointment at “a most critical time” for Sudan.
“With the expelling of international aid agencies by the Khartoum regime, millions of lives are at great risk,” wrote Tunnicliffe, who often speaks at Darfur rallies, to The Christian Post via email. “The international community must respond quickly and decisively to this crisis. It is imperative that the new U.S. envoy provide crucial diplomatic leadership at this time.”
The World Evangelical Alliance is a member of the Save Darfur Coalition.
Sudan is currently in a precarious situation with its sitting president, along with other high level government officials, being charged with crimes against humanity in Darfur. The ICC has issued several arrest warrants for Sudanese government officials, but Sudan has refused to turn them over to the court.
Instead, just days after the arrest warrant was issued Sudan announced that some of the largest international aid groups, most of them operating in Darfur, must leave the country. The government accused the foreign aid groups of spying and providing the ICC with false information against President al-Bashir and his government.
Then on Tuesday, al-Bashir made what appears to be an unplanned announcement that all foreign aid groups must leave Sudan within a year. Sudanese government officials later in the day tried to downplay al-Bashir’s statement, saying that not necessarily all foreign aid would have to leave and U.N. agencies would not be affected.
The Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations, expressed hope that Gration’s experience and close relationship with President Obama “will contribute greatly to his effectiveness.”
“Equally important, he must have the mandate and authority to drive U.S. policy on Sudan,” said Jerry Fowler, president of the Save Darfur Coalition, in a statement.
It is estimated that about 1.1 million civilians will be without food aid, 1.5 million without health care, and over a million without potable water after the 13 international aid agencies leave Sudan due to government order.
“General Gration will need to hit the ground running and spearhead an urgent and sustained diplomatic push - involving China and key African and Arab countries - to establish unimpeded humanitarian access, hold President Bashir accountable for meeting Sudan's obligation under international law to protect the lives of Sudanese civilians and move toward lasting peace,” Fowler said. “Presidential engagement and U.S. leadership are more vital than ever."
IRAN ; CHRISTIAN RELEASED AFTER 27 DAYS IN PRISON
On Feb. 25, 27-year old Hossein Karimi was released from prison after placing his home as collateral, according to Farsi Christian Network News (FCNN).
Hossein, a new convert, had been arrested on charges of attending home churches, evangelizing, storing Bibles and converting to the Christian faith, FCNN reported.
Hossein was arrested by Iranian secret police on Jan. 30 and was held for 27 days in an unknown location until his release. He’s now waiting for the courts to give him a scheduled date to appear to present his case.
Prior to this recent incident, Hossein was arrested in November 2008. According to FCNN, he was taken into custody, fingerprinted and photographed. He was then released after four days on bail with a consent that he would no longer participate in any Christian activities.
Praise God for Hossein’s faithfulness to the Lord and his release. The Voice of the Martyrs encourages you to pray for him. Ask God to protect him as the Iranian government will be watching him closely. Pray he will continue to stand for Christ.
' AMERICAN IDOL ' CHRISTIANITY STORY GETS HEATED REACTIONS
We learned two things about "American Idol" fans last week when we ran a story on how this year's show features more Christian-affiliated finalists than ever before: Most of you don't care what religion a singer is as long as they're good, and the rest of you think even pointing out religion on "Idol" is "absolutely outrageous."
Hundreds of comments flooded MTV.com and other sites that re-posted the story, and they ran the gamut from "good job!" to, well, not so good job. (Comments have been edited for grammar, clarity and length.)
"What does their faith have to do with singing?" Selena1 asked on MTV.com. "Christians sing in their churches all the time in America. ... If someone does it every week, sometimes a couple of nights, then imagine the practice they get compared to others who don't. ... So of course you get a lot of singers with Christian backgrounds who are not pros but have no fear to get up and sing in front of groups."
Then there was MTV reader Gchata, who wondered if the implied math of "Christian viewers + Christian contestants = a potential Christian winner" would work for gay contestants or any other group: "Does this really matter? Yeah, a lot of Christians watch 'American Idol.' They also watch '24,' 'Heroes' and, on occasion, MTV. Having Christian people on the show doesn't mean Christians are more inclined to watch because someone with their 'values' or 'morals' might win. I'm a Christian, and I personally don't care if the person who wins is or not. It's a singing competition. Religion is a non-issue."
Over at MJsBigBlog.com, one of the leading "Idol" fan sites, the discussion about the story was fierce, with nearly 150 responses. Commenter Tess said she was "appalled and offended" by the article. Tess had particular scorn for a comment from writer CJ Casciotta, who was quoted in the story as saying he thought some Christian viewers might go with their faith if presented with a top two featuring a pair of equally talented singers in which one was Christian and the other was not.
"If I wasn't a sane, God-loving individual, I would not vote for any of the listed contestants (Danny, Michael, Kris, Scott, Matt and Lil) just out of pure spite," Jess wrote. "I knew the country was going to be divided on this issue, but for the Christian right to pronounce that they support an us-vs.-them philosophy is absolutely outrageous."
Many readers vehemently stated that they thought religion should remain a personal, private matter, not fodder for stories, while others, like Lys, said they don't feel that the singers should have to hide their beliefs "any more than they should hide their hair color. If it's truly a part of who they are and if they want to talk about it, fine."
On a similar note, Terrie felt that the show's "pimping" of performers' religions is not different from their spotlight on the singers' families "or personal challenges or favoring more attractive contestants."
A number of readers were put off by a comment from one of the story's subjects, Christian writer Joanne Brokaw, who suggested that viewers could sense Kris Allen's faith when it was mentioned that he helped other contestants last week.
"Are Christians the only people allowed to help others???" Baxter asked.
The site's founder, MJ Santilli, also sounded off, saying she was offended by "nearly all the quotes" in the article (thank you, I think?) and pointed out that the show has long featured Christian contestants (which the article mentioned).
Speaking to MTV News on Tuesday (March 17), Santilli said she felt the same way many of her readers did about the piece. "I think coming so soon after the presidential election, maybe some people are feeling that 'Idol' themselves might be setting up this kind of divisive ... us-vs.-them mentality," she said of a possible Danny Gokey vs. Adam Lambert showdown. "I think the comments were split between people who can't stand religion and others who were churchgoers who didn't like that idea that, 'I'm a Christian, and just because I am, I won't vote for [a non-Christian].' "
Maybe CFIdolsFan said it best with the comment "I'm a Christian and a worship leader. I've watched 'Idol' since season one, and I vote for whoever I want, whenever I want, however I want. ... Neither Casciotta or Brokaw speak for me, but I am not ashamed to say that I am Christian and am delighted to see Christians on the show."
On JoesPlaceBlog.com commenter Suebrody said, in some ways, all the comments missed the real point of the reality singing competition, a sentiment that was shared by a number of other posters. "I am a non-Christian and would hope the viewers are open-minded enough to vote for the best singer, not the most religious one."
Hundreds of comments flooded MTV.com and other sites that re-posted the story, and they ran the gamut from "good job!" to, well, not so good job. (Comments have been edited for grammar, clarity and length.)
"What does their faith have to do with singing?" Selena1 asked on MTV.com. "Christians sing in their churches all the time in America. ... If someone does it every week, sometimes a couple of nights, then imagine the practice they get compared to others who don't. ... So of course you get a lot of singers with Christian backgrounds who are not pros but have no fear to get up and sing in front of groups."
Then there was MTV reader Gchata, who wondered if the implied math of "Christian viewers + Christian contestants = a potential Christian winner" would work for gay contestants or any other group: "Does this really matter? Yeah, a lot of Christians watch 'American Idol.' They also watch '24,' 'Heroes' and, on occasion, MTV. Having Christian people on the show doesn't mean Christians are more inclined to watch because someone with their 'values' or 'morals' might win. I'm a Christian, and I personally don't care if the person who wins is or not. It's a singing competition. Religion is a non-issue."
Over at MJsBigBlog.com, one of the leading "Idol" fan sites, the discussion about the story was fierce, with nearly 150 responses. Commenter Tess said she was "appalled and offended" by the article. Tess had particular scorn for a comment from writer CJ Casciotta, who was quoted in the story as saying he thought some Christian viewers might go with their faith if presented with a top two featuring a pair of equally talented singers in which one was Christian and the other was not.
"If I wasn't a sane, God-loving individual, I would not vote for any of the listed contestants (Danny, Michael, Kris, Scott, Matt and Lil) just out of pure spite," Jess wrote. "I knew the country was going to be divided on this issue, but for the Christian right to pronounce that they support an us-vs.-them philosophy is absolutely outrageous."
Many readers vehemently stated that they thought religion should remain a personal, private matter, not fodder for stories, while others, like Lys, said they don't feel that the singers should have to hide their beliefs "any more than they should hide their hair color. If it's truly a part of who they are and if they want to talk about it, fine."
On a similar note, Terrie felt that the show's "pimping" of performers' religions is not different from their spotlight on the singers' families "or personal challenges or favoring more attractive contestants."
A number of readers were put off by a comment from one of the story's subjects, Christian writer Joanne Brokaw, who suggested that viewers could sense Kris Allen's faith when it was mentioned that he helped other contestants last week.
"Are Christians the only people allowed to help others???" Baxter asked.
The site's founder, MJ Santilli, also sounded off, saying she was offended by "nearly all the quotes" in the article (thank you, I think?) and pointed out that the show has long featured Christian contestants (which the article mentioned).
Speaking to MTV News on Tuesday (March 17), Santilli said she felt the same way many of her readers did about the piece. "I think coming so soon after the presidential election, maybe some people are feeling that 'Idol' themselves might be setting up this kind of divisive ... us-vs.-them mentality," she said of a possible Danny Gokey vs. Adam Lambert showdown. "I think the comments were split between people who can't stand religion and others who were churchgoers who didn't like that idea that, 'I'm a Christian, and just because I am, I won't vote for [a non-Christian].' "
Maybe CFIdolsFan said it best with the comment "I'm a Christian and a worship leader. I've watched 'Idol' since season one, and I vote for whoever I want, whenever I want, however I want. ... Neither Casciotta or Brokaw speak for me, but I am not ashamed to say that I am Christian and am delighted to see Christians on the show."
On JoesPlaceBlog.com commenter Suebrody said, in some ways, all the comments missed the real point of the reality singing competition, a sentiment that was shared by a number of other posters. "I am a non-Christian and would hope the viewers are open-minded enough to vote for the best singer, not the most religious one."
A NEW PLAN WOULD LIMIT PRISON CHAPPEL BOOKS IN AMERICA ; PRAY AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE
A broad swath of religious organizations and civil liberties groups — often on opposite sides of contentious issues — have joined together to condemn a proposed rule that they say would prohibit some religious texts in federal penitentiary libraries.
The Bureau of Prisons in January proposed that “materials that could incite, promote, or otherwise suggest the commission of violence or criminal activity” may be excluded from chapel libraries. An alliance of groups — Christian, Muslim and Jewish, conservative and liberal — opposed the rule during the open comments period, which ended Tuesday.
The word “could” is at the center of a two-year dispute between the agency and these groups over which religious texts should be banned from prison libraries.
The American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil rights and religious groups argue that the agency is going beyond the provision of the Second Chance Act of 2007, which included a restriction on materials that “seek” to incite violence.
They argue that the act was meant to prohibit only books that intend to suggest violence, and that the agency’s new rule would expand that ban to all books that could possibly lead to violence.
“Those one or two words have incredibly broad significance because of what they do to the scope of what books can be taken away,” said David Shapiro, an A.C.L.U. lawyer. “They could remove texts that are critical to prisoners’ ability to practice their religion.”
Bureau officials did not respond Tuesday to calls or e-mail messages seeking comment.
In its proposal, the agency cited a 2004 report on prison religious services by the Justice Department inspector general that suggested censoring certain materials to prevent the radicalization of inmates.
In 2005, the authorities in Los Angeles uncovered a plot by three Muslim men, at least one of whom was believed to have been radicalized in a California state penitentiary, to carry out attacks on National Guard recruitment centers in the state.
Afterward, bureau officials compiled a list of about 150 books for each of about 20 religious categories in a plan called the Standardized Chapel Library Project.
At the time, critics of the plan said it omitted important religious texts and violated the First Amendment rights of prisoners. The bureau scrapped the list.
Tuesday was the second time in two years that civil liberties and religious groups joined in opposition to officials’ plans to restrict prison library books.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian lawyers who litigate religious rights cases, joined its arch foe, the A.C.L.U., in opposing the new rule. The groups are usually on opposite sides of thorny issues like the role of religious expression in schools and same-sex marriage.
The A.D.F.’s Web site is promoting a publication called “The A.C.L.U. vs. America.” The A.D.F. accuses the group of “attacking religious expression” and “protecting child pornographers and pedophiles.”
On the matter of religious texts in prison libraries, however, Kevin Theriot, a lawyer with the A.D.F., said the group had little disagreement with its rival.
“We’re with the A.C.L.U. on this particular issue because it’s very important for religious freedom that these texts be available,” Mr. Theriot said. “Somebody could take offense with the Bible, which teaches that Jesus is the only way to the Father. That’s an offensive idea to people who are not Christians. They could say that’s inciting trouble.”
Other groups opposing the rule change include Muslim Advocates, the Seventh-day Adventists and various Jewish organizations.
The Bureau of Prisons in January proposed that “materials that could incite, promote, or otherwise suggest the commission of violence or criminal activity” may be excluded from chapel libraries. An alliance of groups — Christian, Muslim and Jewish, conservative and liberal — opposed the rule during the open comments period, which ended Tuesday.
The word “could” is at the center of a two-year dispute between the agency and these groups over which religious texts should be banned from prison libraries.
The American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil rights and religious groups argue that the agency is going beyond the provision of the Second Chance Act of 2007, which included a restriction on materials that “seek” to incite violence.
They argue that the act was meant to prohibit only books that intend to suggest violence, and that the agency’s new rule would expand that ban to all books that could possibly lead to violence.
“Those one or two words have incredibly broad significance because of what they do to the scope of what books can be taken away,” said David Shapiro, an A.C.L.U. lawyer. “They could remove texts that are critical to prisoners’ ability to practice their religion.”
Bureau officials did not respond Tuesday to calls or e-mail messages seeking comment.
In its proposal, the agency cited a 2004 report on prison religious services by the Justice Department inspector general that suggested censoring certain materials to prevent the radicalization of inmates.
In 2005, the authorities in Los Angeles uncovered a plot by three Muslim men, at least one of whom was believed to have been radicalized in a California state penitentiary, to carry out attacks on National Guard recruitment centers in the state.
Afterward, bureau officials compiled a list of about 150 books for each of about 20 religious categories in a plan called the Standardized Chapel Library Project.
At the time, critics of the plan said it omitted important religious texts and violated the First Amendment rights of prisoners. The bureau scrapped the list.
Tuesday was the second time in two years that civil liberties and religious groups joined in opposition to officials’ plans to restrict prison library books.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian lawyers who litigate religious rights cases, joined its arch foe, the A.C.L.U., in opposing the new rule. The groups are usually on opposite sides of thorny issues like the role of religious expression in schools and same-sex marriage.
The A.D.F.’s Web site is promoting a publication called “The A.C.L.U. vs. America.” The A.D.F. accuses the group of “attacking religious expression” and “protecting child pornographers and pedophiles.”
On the matter of religious texts in prison libraries, however, Kevin Theriot, a lawyer with the A.D.F., said the group had little disagreement with its rival.
“We’re with the A.C.L.U. on this particular issue because it’s very important for religious freedom that these texts be available,” Mr. Theriot said. “Somebody could take offense with the Bible, which teaches that Jesus is the only way to the Father. That’s an offensive idea to people who are not Christians. They could say that’s inciting trouble.”
Other groups opposing the rule change include Muslim Advocates, the Seventh-day Adventists and various Jewish organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)