So that brings me to three ways of viewing other faiths.

I want to share some statistics about the major religions of the world. There of course are probably thousands of small groups—even new religious groups being formed all the time (some are off their rocker of course). But these numbers will give you some perspective.

There are about 6 billion people in the world’s population, give or take a few billion!

Of those, 2 billion are Christian or about 1/3 of the world’s population.

· There are 1.3 billion Muslims or Islamic faith groups., about 1/5 of the world’s population.

· 900 million Hindus, about 1/7 of the population.

· 360 million Buddhists, or 1/20 of the world population.

· 14 million Jewish adherents , a very small fraction of the world’s population.

Yet because of Abraham’s faith the Jewish and the Islamic groups exist—so that’s why it’s important to study those groups.

In America, the statistics are very different.

· 77% of the population claim to be Christian

· 15% claim no religious affiliation in America—the 2nd largest group

· 1.3% are of the Jewish faith

· .5% — that’s one-half of one percent are Muslim

· .5% are Buddhists

· .5% are Hindus

Interestingly, It’s the Hindu, Buddhists, and Muslim faiths that are going faster than any other group in our country, though they are very small fraction of our population.

This is an interesting statistic that I think we need to pay attention to: Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years — about 0.9 percentage points per year. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.

How do we look at the 2/3’s of the world’s population who are not Christians?

Christians tend to fall into three different groups in terms of how they view the other religious groups.

First, there is the pluralist group. This particular view is also held by more non-religious and nominally religious group in addition to some Christians in our culture. The pluralist view is this: Every religion is an equally valid path to make your way to the ultimate reality that is God.

I had heard of an English professor in a small Baptist school in Southwest Virginia, who believed that and talked about her pluralistic views often in class. And this was not from some young liberal professor. This was an educated, learned woman who was in her 70’s who chose to keep teaching rather than retire.

In this pluralistic view, what’s true for you may not be true for me. Christianity is true for me because I’m an American, I was reared in a Christian home—this is my truth, but your truth may be different and they’re both equally valid paths to the same end.

Now I struggle in this area because I want to respect other people’s views and beliefs. But I think you have to be careful here because you don’t show respect to other people’s beliefs if you say, “well we are just saying the same thing.”

A Muslim believer would not feel respected by a Buddhist person who says—well we are saying the same thing. Because Muslims believe in one God while Buddhists do not necessarily believe in one god. So you don’t show respect to another person by saying, “Well, we’re saying the same thing.”

To say that all paths to God are equally valid causes problems for me. Think of how many cult groups have started in America alone where they go out and prey upon people’s emotions in times of weakness. They need someone to really structure their lives. In the end that person has such control over person’s lives that he leads them to commit mass suicide. Can you say that religious expression is equally valid with any other religious expression? Just because someone can find some followers and can claim some religious truth doesn’t mean what they have is true. To me not all religious claims are equally valid.

So the pluralist view can cause some problems.

The second view is the opposite – the Particularist/Exclusivist view. The particularist says, “Hey nobody’s got it right except us.” The exclusivist says “We are the only ones who really have the truth. We are the only ones who are going to make it to heaven.” Exclusivists regard their own faith tradition as the only completely true religion. Other religions might have elements of truth in them — beliefs arrived at either by accident, or by observing nature, or by following their conscience. But they are largely false, and are often viewed as rivals to the one true religion.

We have Christians who are exclusivists. They would see 90% of the rest of the Christian population as condemned too, because they’re not real Christians yet. The Scripture verse that often quoted to try to support this view is Acts 4:12—Peter is speaking to the Sanhedrin:

There is salvation in no one else! There is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them.”

But what Peter is really saying here to the Sanhedrin is don’t expect another Messiah, he is the Messiah. That’s the point he is trying to make in the context of that Bible story. He is not talking about other religions of the world and whether God is at work in those other religions or all they all condemned to hell. He is simply saying Jesus is the messiah, he’s the one who has already come.

The college had just started allowing dancing on campus. The Pastor I heard about dancing on campus and informed me that everyone at that college was going to hell because dancing was now allowed on campus. I thought hello—dancing is not the basis for getting into heaven. But that’s the tendency we all can fall into—if someone sees something differently we might decide they are on the “outside” and are doomed to hell.

This exclusivist view for me puts God in a box; we paint a tiny view of God which I think is inconsistent with the majority of the Biblical view of God. Ghandi once said, “I would have almost become a Christian if it were not for the Christians I have known.”

It might be amazing anyone becomes a Christian sometimes with some types of people who are running around out there claiming to be Christ followers, including me sometimes. So does God work in other faith groups? That leads me to the third possible view:

Inclusivists. The inclusivists view looks at all people of this earth and sees them all as a part of God’s creation. God loves all people. This was an important teaching of John Wesley.

In the Bible story of Jonah, God called Jonah to a nasty group of people, the Assyrians, so he could call them to repentance. And they repented. Here’s how the story goes—listen to Jonah’s response to these events and how God responds to Jonah:

Jonah 4:
This change of plans upset Jonah, and he became very angry. 2So he complained to the LORD about it: “Didn’t I say before I left home that you would do this, LORD? That is why I ran away to Tarshish! I knew that you were a gracious and compassionate God, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love. I knew how easily you could cancel your plans for destroying these people. 3Just kill me now, LORD! I’d rather be dead than alive because nothing I predicted is going to happen.” 4The LORD replied, “Is it right for you to be angry about this?”. . . 11But Nineveh has more than 120,000 people living in spiritual darkness, not to mention all the animals. Shouldn’t I feel sorry for such a great city?”

There’s the story of Sarah and Abraham in the Bible. Hagar is Sarah’s mistress. Hagar has a child by Abraham. His name is Ishmael. Abraham and Sarah send Ishmael away. They are off in the wilderness weeping. God appears to Hagar and says, “Don’t cry. I see your sorrows. And I’m going to make of your son Ishmael a great nation as well.” So the Arabs and Muslims claim Ishmael as their father of faith, not Isaac the son of Abraham and Sarah.

So we have this picture of God in the Old Testament who is perhaps at work in other ways than what we might expect or could even understand. This picture is brought forward in the NT in Paul preaching in Athens. Paul notices there people are worshiping a multitude of gods. Paul begins to preach to them and does not do it in a condemning way. He even starts out by complimenting them.

Acts 17:22
“It is plain to see that you Athenians take your religion seriously. 23When I arrived here the other day, I was fascinated with all the shrines I came across. And then I found one inscribed, TO THE GOD NOBODY KNOWS. I’m here to introduce you to this God so you can worship intelligently, know who you’re dealing with.
24″The God who made the world and everything in it, this Master of sky and land, doesn’t live in custom-made shrines 25or need the human race to run errands for him, as if he couldn’t take care of himself. He makes the creatures; the creatures don’t make him. 26Starting from scratch, he made the entire human race and made the earth hospitable, with plenty of time and space for living 27so we could seek after God, and not just grope around in the dark but actually find him. He doesn’t play hide-and-seek with us. He’s not remote; he’s near. 28We live and move in him, can’t get away from him! One of your poets said it well: ’We’re the God-created.’ 29Well, if we are the God-created, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to think we could hire a sculptor to chisel a god out of stone for us, does it?
30″God overlooks it as long as you don’t know any better—but that time is past. The unknown is now known, and he’s calling for a radical life-change. 31He has set a day when the entire human race will be judged and everything set right. And he has already appointed the judge, confirming him before everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Over and over the Bible indicates that God works even through people who don’t know him to carry his purposes and plans. So the inclusivist view says “Yes Jesus is the savior; he is the one definitive God. We judge all other claims to truth in the light of Jesus Christ and his teachings–but God can and does work in the lives of other people.”

Again John Wesley taught this in his idea about God’s prevenient grace whom I will talk about in a few weeks. God is at work and drawing those to him who are truly seeking after him.

That brings me to the Bible passage today and the story of the Wiseman.

On Epiphany Sunday. Epiphany means manifestation or appearing. On the Christian calendar this the time of the year that we recall the story of the Wisemen who came to worship Jesus and bring him gifts. That happens sometime after Christmas. The shepherds were long gone before the Wisemen ever show up. In fact by this time Jesus’ family had moved into a house according to the Bible story. Some scholars believe it might have been as long as 2 years after the birth of Jesus before the Wisemen arrived.

I believe this story shows how God is at work among people of other faiths.

So who were the magi? Magi: This is a Greek term that refers to those people who were priests in Persia of Zoroastrian faith. Zoaristism did believe in one God but it differed in from Judaism in many other ways.

These Wisemen might have been emissaries of the king and were astrologers who looked to the sky to try to tell what the future was going to be. The Old Testament frowns upon that way of discerning truth. Yet this is what these guys are practicing their faith.

God first invites shepherds who were Jews to worship Jesus. Jesus goes to the temple at 8 days old to be circumcised. 2 elderly Jews at the temple who have been waiting for the arrival of the Messiah see him as the Messiah. But 12 days on the church calendar after he is born who does God call to be the next group of people to pay homage to Jesus –but people from another religion from a faraway place.

In Matthew’ gospel the message is –Jesus even calls those who are not Jews to come and follow him. And how did God speak to those Zoroastrian priests? He spoke to them in the language that they were use to seeking God in? They were use to seeking God in the stars. God doesn’t do that anywhere else. Because that’s the only language they know to search for God—God causes a cosmic event to happen.

It could have been a comet or the lining up of Jupiter and Saturn. Who knows what it was. God spoke in their language and caused the stars to line up so that they would follow and hear that there was a word from God. God used their religious language to reach them—see there’s that prodigal hugging God I keep harping about.

Why would God call these particular magi? God could have called anybody to come to Bethlehem to see Jesus. He called them because even though they didn’t understand all the truth, they were honestly seeking after God. They were willing with the star in the sky and take several weeks journey and take their possessions and give them to the Christ. God honored their heart by inviting them to come because their hearts were seeking after God.

When they came they saw the star stopping at the house. What did they do? They filled with joy. People who are seeking after God even if they don’t have all the truth are going to experience great joy. Those who find the truth in Jesus then are filled with joy and they worship him. Then what do they do? They leave gifts for the Christ.

A powerful story if you think about it. It teaches something about the heart of God—that God is at work sometimes in people of other faiths long before they know about Christ. Just like God was at work in your life long before you become a committed Christ follower. God wants us to use the language, the music, the culture of today’s people so they can understand. God wants us to do whatever it takes to tell people the good news because he is longing for everyone to come and know his son Jesus Christ.

God longs for all people to know that he once walked among them in human flesh and showed us the fullest picture of who God is.

For you to understand the love that God has for the nations of the world, the people of other religions. It is a call for us as Christians to understand God’s yearning that they might come and know Christ. It is also an invitation for you and me who claim to be Christ followers to let Christ’s light shine through us in such a way that those of other religions might actually hear, listen, understand, and long to know more about the Savior you worship.

That’s my goal in this series of messages—by the time I am finished I will have helped all of you and myself to be better equipped to let his light shine through you and me.

I want to make this statement at the outset of this series, so that you do not misunderstand me—although it may be difficult to always to speak with the type of clarity that I wish for:

I am absolutely persuaded that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. I have devoted myself to leading people to know Jesus. But when it comes to how God looks at those who

World Religion Day, What is the One World Religion Going to Be?

earnestly seek him, but who do not know to call upon Jesus Christ, I believe that the overwhelming witness of the life of Jesus is that God is merciful, and that he longs that none should be lost.

I often say in funeral sermons that I believe the last word in anyone’s life is the grace of God. I do not believe it is up to me to judge anyone’s eternal destiny. Only God will ultimately do that—the God I perceive to be above all a God of mercy, love, and grace.

In the weeks ahead I hope to learn more and teach you what I learn about how God has been at work in people of other faiths, what we can learn from them, and how we can share with them what God has done for us. I hope you’ll join me next week as I talk about Hinduism as we continue to seek more clearly our faith in relation to the other religions of the world.

PRAYER:

I am going to say a prayer that may express what you may want to say today—or speak to God in your heart in your own way today.

O God, I give you thanks for your love for us. I thank you that you are a bigger God than I first supposed. I am grateful that your love is so deep and wide that you reach all to all peoples. Thank you for being patient with me when I’m confused and don’t understand. Yet your longing was that I might know you fully and completely. Thank you for coming among us in Jesus Christ. Help me as a Christ follower to listen, understand and learn from others and at the same time to be capable of bearing your light to the world. In Jesus’ name. Amen. (Continued on next Sermon)

Related articles

• Questions Thinking People Ask
• What Do Jews Believe?

A Typical Border Crossing in East Africa

Introduction

How transparent are the EAC countries’ trade policies and practices? What is the quality of public and intergovernmental debate on their trade policies and practices? And what are the effects of their trade policies on the multilateral trading system? These questions lay at the heart of the second Trade Policy Review (TPR) for EAC Partner States, which was held on 21st and 23rd November 2012 at the WTO Headquarters in Geneva. The previous Trade Policy Review of the EAC was in 2006.

In a nutshell, the WTO TPR is an exercise, mandated in the WTO agreements, in which member countries’ trade and related policies are examined and evaluated at regular intervals. Significant developments that may have an impact on the global trading system are also monitored. The basis for the review is simple. Just as individuals and companies in the EAC that are involved in trade must know as much as possible about the terms of trade in the multilateral system, it is equally important to deepen WTO members’ understanding of the EAC regional, as well as national components, of the respective countries’ trade regimes.

Trade Policy Reviews in Perspective

In a nutshell, surveillance of national trade policies is a fundamentally important activity running throughout the work of the WTO. This exercise is mandated in the WTO agreement, establishing the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization). In the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM), member countries’ trade and related policies are examined and evaluated at regular intervals. Significant developments that may have an impact on the global trading system are also monitored. All WTO members are subject to review, with the frequency of review depending on the country’s share of world trade. For instance, the European Union, the United States, Japan and China are examined approximately once every two years. The next 16 countries (in terms of their share of world trade) are reviewed every four years. The remaining countries are reviewed every six years, with the possibility of a longer interim period for the least-developed countries.

These “peer reviews” take place in the Trade Policy Review Body which is actually the WTO General Council — comprising the WTO’s full membership — operating under special rules and procedures. The reviews are therefore essentially peer-group assessments, although the WTO Secretariat does much legwork.  They tend to be very comprehensive, measuring all aspects of a country’s economic performance, including the macro-economic performance, the macro-economic outlook, sector-specific performance, the services sector, public expenditure management, the investment regime, the trade policy regime, and respective regional and bilateral trade agreements. In addition, WTO members are also given an opportunity to provide advance written questions, to which detailed written responses are expected.

Key Findings

Space does not allow for detailed examination of the trade policy review exercise, and thus consideration is given to only some of the key findings concerning free movement of goods.  First, the WTO commended the EAC members’ progress in increasing regional trade flows through the implementation of the Customs Union and the Common Market; and the negotiations towards the establishment of a Monetary Union. This is notwithstanding key challenges encountered, such as poor infrastructure, such as roads and rail, the high cost of energy coupled with complex administrative procedures.

Second, the trade review exercise highlighted the fact that non-tariff barriers (NTBs) remain major impediments to trade and business development in the EAC. NTBs affecting intra-EAC trade include non-harmonized technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, customs procedures and documentation, rules of origin, and police road blocks. While National monitoring committees (NMCs) have been established in all EAC member states to monitor progress on the elimination of NTBs, in practice, there has been very little progress in tackling NTBs

Third, the review questioned EAC countries’ rationale for maintaining bilateral trade agreements with each other and overlapping membership in RTAs, and for negotiating bilateral trade agreements individually with third countries. It noted that this would delay the harmonization process and complicate the formulation of coherent trade policy. For instance, all EAC countries are members of the African Union (AU). Kenya and Uganda are members of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD); Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda are members of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA); and Tanzania belongs to SADC. Kenya and Tanzania also participate in the Indian Ocean Rim‑Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC). Burundi and Rwanda similarly participate in the Economic Community of Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL).  EAC countries also benefit from non-reciprocal preferential treatment from many trading partners under the Generalized System of Preferences. However the review also observed that the recent launch of negotiations under the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Forum appears to be geared at rationalizing the integration process in the region.

Way forward

The trade review process has much to offer the EAC countries in their efforts to further integrate into the multilateral trading system. The onus therefore now falls upon them to act on the areas highlighted as potentially trade restrictive.

One good way to start would be to develop a comprehensive scorecard—or trade index—which identifies countries’ agreed commitment to eliminate barriers to trade, and then measures progress over time, or against set targets. This approach would ultimately entail a shift from identifying and discussing barriers to implementing regulatory reforms and reducing trade restrictive measures, in favor of prescribing penalties through a legally binding mechanism with sanctions for non-compliance. No one would underestimate the technical, legal and political difficulties involved, but at developing such a measuring tool would represent a meaningful step forward.

Matthew 2:1-2
Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking, 2″Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We have seen his star as it arose, and we have come to worship him.”

10-11
When they saw the star, they were filled with joy! 11They entered the house where the child and his mother, Mary, were, and they fell down before him and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Today I begin what I think could be one of the most important preaching series that I have ever done—Christianity and the religions of the world.

This series could be the most important that I have ever done, especially in light of the times we live in – wars on multiple continents and a time during which our nation has been at war and now occupies Iraq along with other places. There is conflict within our own nation about displaying of religious documents such as the Ten Commandments in a court of law. When you examine everyone of those places you discover that underneath all the conflict is conflict about ideas, truth claims, and religion.

In Israel and in the Middle East the conflict is between Palestinian Muslims and Jews.

In the past, at the brink of nuclear war, India and Pakistan, that was a reflection of conflict between Hindus and Muslims.

In our own war on terrorism and the conflict we’ve had with Iraq and others, it’s a conflict between a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation. And while we in the USA don’t see it necessarily as a religious conflict, I am pretty certain that on the other side it is seen as a religious conflict. We live in a world where conflict over ideas is most pronounced. That’s part of what’s behind the continued guerilla attacks and terrorism in that nation.

You and I also live in a world where you and I will come in contact with people of other faiths—more than any other time in our past. It is now likely that you have or will have neighbors right where we live, now who are Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Jews.

Your children may have or will have teachers at school of one of these religions. Your children will go to school with other children from one of these other religions and your children will probably learn about these world religions. You will have co-workers or sometime you may have a boss who is of another faith.

No doubt about what we see emerging is different than the world in which most of you have grown up and lived most of your lives. Many of you grew up in towns where there was not even a single Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim. Some of you may not know the difference between a Muslim or a Hindu. What do the different groups believe?

I think it is imperative that we as Christians come to understand the world in which we live and those who are seeking after God and who offer alternative truth claims. I think we need to understand their claims to the truth, that we might build bridges with them, that we might understand and learn from them what they have learned about God. As we converse with people of other faiths, it is above all an opportunity for us to share our own faith and how we perceive God and sharing with others what we have come to know In Jesus Christ.

How can you share what you know about the truth in Jesus Christ when you don’t understand where that other person is coming from? But if you have the opportunity to understand what another person of a different faith is perceiving about God and the world and if you listen with sensitivity, it opens the door for you to share the light of Christ.

So this is an important series of sermons that I will be doing in the weeks ahead. It is important but it is also threatening. I know this is uncomfortable for some of you—at least two persons have been honest enough to share that with me. I understand the discomfort and challenge of entering into this area.

It is threatening because when you start to talk about other religions it raises a host of questions. It taps into our own insecurities about our faith. Many of us are Christians because we have grown up in America. You were reared in a Christian home. That’s the case with me—I grew up not knowing anything else. Would you have been a Christian if you had grown up in India or Iraq?

Other questions arise. Can my faith withstand the earnest questions of people of other claims of truth or religions? That can be threatening.

I want you to know however that as your pastor I am concerned about you and I want us to grow together in our faith. I want to handle these topics in a way that it helps you to grow in way that when we finish this series that you will be a stronger Christian, a more informed Christian and better capable of lighting the light of Christ shine through your life.

In addition, The House of the Nazarene has stood as a Christian church for awhile. I want to help you understand our place as a Christian church in all of the religions.

In addition, to help you grow during this series each week I am providing you with study questions and Bible readings and suggestions for prayer. I hope you will use these resources I have provided for you. I hope to start off with a great learning experience!

In fact, I decide this week that in case you have anxiety or questions about any of this from week to week I will make myself available to you by E-mail, if you prefer to contact me during the week, Leave me an E-mail address to get in touch with you. I want to help you with any questions or struggles this series may raise for you.

So those are my objectives in this preaching series on Christianity and the religions of the world. exploring other religions there are certain questions thinking people will typically ponder. I’ll address a couple of them today and address other questions as I get into the specific religions.

The first question you might have is—Why are there so many religions?

There are some who view all the religions of the world and conclude that proves that there is no God. If there was one God, God would surely make himself know to all people who are really seeking him. Because there are so many ways at looking at religion is proof that there is no God at all.

Why are there so many religions? How are Christians to understand to non_Christian religions and can we understand how God might be working among them? How does God look at the other religions might be the most important question? Is God at work in any way in our friends of other faiths?

So why are there so may religions. Some look at all those groups and say that is positive proof there is no God. But as I think about every culture from the earliest times has had religious yearning, religious needs and religious experiences. These are common among all people. All humankind has had these same kinds of needs.

When a loved one dies in the tribal regions of Africa, there is a longing among those people for there to be an eternity.

Let’s say you’re in India and you see an amazing thing in the heavens or on the earth, there is this yearning to cry out in praise.

In Pakistan, you get quiet and spend time in prayer, you experience something that’s bigger than yourself.

There are people in Israel who like you have experienced an insight they knew came from an experience beyond themselves—a keen sense of inspiration.

People of all tribes, nations, and races have experienced the divine in their lives.

When we talk about the ultimate reality that’s beyond this world, we’ll call that ultimate reality God. All people have reached for that. To me that is positive proof that there is a God, there’s something people are yearning for. Human beings don’t yearn for something that doesn’t exist, I think for the most part. We yearn for something that is possible that is real, that we might not have yet attained and yet we have a hunger for it.

“When people hunger there is such a thing as food”, CS Lewis once said. When human beings across all civilizations have yearned for God, it is because there is a God who can satisfy for the yearning that they have all shared in common.

At the same time, it is true that when two human beings experience the same thing they will talk about it in different ways. I saw the movie Bringing Down the House with Steve Martin a few months ago. I thought it was hilarious and funny. I then saw Ebert and Roper on TV review the movie and they really pooh-poohed it and had different reactions to the movie. I thought, “Did we see the same movie?”

As humans, we can experience the same thing but have different thoughts and analyze the same experience differently. If that’s true of movies how much more is that true of our experience of God the creator of the universe. Our three pounds of gray matter in our brains is not sufficient to give expression to the amazing reality of God.

So it doesn’t surprise me that people in different places have experienced that reality in different ways or have tried to give expression to it in a variety of forms.

Thus, religion is the human response to our spiritual needs, spiritual questions, spiritual experiences and spiritual yearnings. Since religion is a human response to spiritual yearnings I can expect that human beings will describes and respond differently to those experiences. But they are reaching toward a reality beyond themselves.

So why doesn’t God just give us the answers, why doesn’t God from the beginning say—this what I’m like and lay out for us? The same reason you don’t do that with your children. God looks at the human race and understands that we are changing and growing. We are understanding more today then we did yesterday. God is patient with us and allows us to learn, I believe. That’s part of what makes us human. We are constantly seeking to understand more.

Imagine what the world would be like if you had all the answers pre-programmed into your brain before you were born. What would you do with the rest of your life? Part of the human quest is to understand and to know.

Now it is tempting to give our children all the answers. You experience that when your children come to you with their homework and you’d like to do all for them—unless of course it’s math. They’ve changed math so much. And if you’re like me you’ve forgotten all the complex things like algebra and geometry you couldn’t help any way.

But if you have an area where you excel like English or History or something, so you help your child by giving him or her all the answers? Of course not! The best way to help is to ask questions to help children come to their own conclusions. Or give them a dictionary and tell them to look it up for themselves. Or do we still have dictionaries? I guess you go tell them to look it up on the Internet.

Then what they learn sticks with them more—they come to their own insights and understandings. Something about finding their own answers helps them to develop their thinking and problem solving abilities.

In fact, it’s important sometimes that a person fails. That can be a great learning experience. Someone told me this story, “One time in a psychology class that I taught at the local community college, a student came to me toward the end of the semester who had rarely attended class. He had failed the mid term exam and missed the deadline for a research paper. He wanted to know if I’d give him a passing grade because he really needed to pass this class.

Now what was the best thing for me to do? Pass him because he was a really nice guy? Because I’m a nice guy? Or let him experience failure? He may not have passed the class but I think he learned more through his failure of the class than if I would have just passed him on just because I wanted to show that I was a nice guy.” It’s in the failing, in the searching, and yearning that we grow and develop.

I believe that this is how God has chosen to look at humankind. Not only in the religious areas but in the sciences and all areas. God watches us do stupid things. At one time humans thought the whole universe revolved around the earth. God must have chuckled at that and said, “It’s OK for you to be confused about that for awhile. I’m not going to worry about it. Eventually they’ll figure it out.”

One of my mentors use to say, “God does not coerce us into relationships—he gives us space to screw up. So we should do the same with others.”

I think God takes the same approach when it comes to all the different religious faiths. So God wasn’t upset up before the time of Abraham that people couldn’t fathom that their sensing of the ultimate reality could be comprised of one God. God might have said, “They don’t understand yet but someday they will.” There was a world of a variety of gods up until Abraham.

Now Abraham comes along. God began to give hints to people. And those hints theologians have referred to as “special revelation.” At such points God steps in to give us some clues, some answers. Even then God doesn’t give the whole picture—just a nudge in the right direction.

So God calls Abram 4000 years ago and says, “You got it all wrong. Let me get it straight for you. There is only one God –the creator of all things. There is a variety of names you might call me but there is only one God. I want you to share this—I want you to be a light to the nations. “ Abraham will only touch a small part of the world’s population. So his descendents were to be a light to the nations as well.

Some years later God gives another hint through a guy named Moses. Moses is called to Mt. Sinai. God says, “Hey Moses let me tell you what I expect as far as what is right and wrong. Here’s some clues—here’s the 10 commandments.”

Did God tell Moses everything there is to know about God? No—but the commandments help to set the human race in the right direction. This is what the people could handle at that time. Then God says, “Don’t forget that Abraham’s descendants, the Israelites are to be alight to the nations.”

Then years go by and the prophets come along with more hints from God. Finally, God says, “OK. I want you to have the clearest hint possible.”

So God rather than giving another book or prophet—God’s word became flesh and lived among us. (Jn 1:14). Christian belief is that God desired to communicate with us as clearly as possible his truth, God embodied that by becoming flesh and walked among us as a human being, speaking the language of humanity. Thus, we might understand who God is, what God is like, understand his love and grace, our need for mercy and understand that there is hope even in the face of death.

World Religions

Christians believe that Jesus is the greatest revelation of God. God gives hints along the way. Yet even then Jesus came to only a tiny piece of land that was occupied by the Roman empire. So the world did not yet know or understand what God had done in Jesus.

So Jesus sends his disciples and out and says, “You go tell other people.” On Epiphany Sunday you are reminded that you are to go and tell other people. Yet the vast majority of the population still doesn’t understand or know who God is through Jesus Christ. But they are seeking after yearning after, trying to give expression to their spiritual yearnings.

This article I read in Time magazine demonstrates that – The Lost Gospels: Early texts that never made it into the Bible are suddenly popular. People are still seeking and trying to understand their spiritual side. (Continued on next Sermon)

Related articles

• What Do Jews Believe?
• Questions Thinking People Ask (Part 2)

I was asked by a good friend and an avid reader what is Judaism? So by the time these Sermons are done whoever reads them should be able to answer any question that comes up! Praise God! for revealing these truths to me so I can share them with you! Now this is only a short example after all, Judaism is a lifelong study!

• Judaism does not have a formal mandatory beliefs
• The most accepted summary of Jewish beliefs is Rambam’s 13 principles of faith
• Even these basic principles have been debated
• Judaism focuses on the relationships between the Creator, mankind, and the land of Israel

Level: Basic

This is a far more difficult question than you might expect. Judaism has no dogma, no formal set of beliefs that one must hold to be a Jew. In Judaism, actions are far more important than beliefs, although there is certainly a place for belief within Judaism.

13 Principles of Faith

The closest that anyone has ever come to creating a widely-accepted list of Jewish beliefs is Rambam’s thirteen principles of faith. These principles, which Rambam thought were the minimum requirements of Jewish belief, are:

G-d exists
G-d is one and unique
G-d is incorporeal
G-d is eternal
Prayer is to be directed to G-d alone and to no other
The words of the prophets are true
Moses’ prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets
The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses
There will be no other Torah
G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men
G-d will reward the good and punish the wicked
The Messiah will come
The dead will be resurrected
As you can see, these are very basic and general principles. Yet as basic as these principles are, the necessity of believing each one of these has been disputed at one time or another, and the liberal movements of Judaism dispute many of these principles.

Unlike many other religions, Judaism does not focus much on abstract cosmological concepts. Although Jews have certainly considered the nature of G-d, man, the universe, life and the afterlife at great length (see Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism), there is no mandated, official, definitive belief on these subjects, outside of the very general concepts discussed above. There is substantial room for personal opinion on all of these matters, because as I said before, Judaism is more concerned about actions than beliefs.

Judaism focuses on relationships: the relationship between G-d and mankind, between G-d and the Jewish people, between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, and between human

Praying Jews

beings. Our scriptures tell the story of the development of these relationships, from the time of creation, through the creation of the relationship between G-d and Abraham, to the creation of the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, and forward. The scriptures also specify the mutual obligations created by these relationships, although various movements of Judaism disagree about the nature of these obligations. Some say they are absolute, unchanging laws from G-d (Orthodox); some say they are laws from G-d that change and evolve over time (Conservative); some say that they are guidelines that you can choose whether or not to follow (Reform, Reconstructionist). For more on these distinctions, see Movements of Judaism.

So, what are these actions that Judaism is so concerned about? According to Orthodox Judaism, these actions include 613 commandments given by G-d in the Torah as well as laws instituted by the rabbis and long-standing customs. These actions are discussed in depth on the page regarding Halakhah: Jewish Law and the pages following it.

So the first question to ask a “Rabbi” is He/She a Reformist, Reconstructionist, Conservative or an Orthodox  Jew.

This Sermon is a work in progress! more will be added later, Lord Willing! (Continued on next Sermon)

Agriculture is one of the key sectors in the SADC region due to the sector having the highest potential for growth in terms of export. SADC realises, however, that the sector can only grow significantly if producers are able to access markets for agricultural products. To facilitate market access and promote intra Africa trade it is critical that border trade policies, including SPS measures be harmonised in line with international standards and guidelines in the interest of improving the movement of goods and services in the region. (Read in more red tape)

The SADC Protocol on Trade to which SA has acceded, serves to promote regional cooperation and integration amongst member states for trade in goods and services within the region, including agricultural products.

Article 16 of the Protocol encourages member states to base their Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures on international standards, guidelines and recommendations so as to harmonise SPS measures for plant health, animal health and food safety.

To give effect to the provisions of Article 16 of the Protocol, an SPS annex to the SADC Protocol on Trade was drafted and consequently adopted by the SADC Committee of Ministers of Trade (CMT), in July 2008.  Annex VIII to the SADC Protocol on Trade concerning SPS measures represents an enabling regional strategy to promote cooperation in SADC with regards to issues of food safety, plant health and animal health.

In addition, most SADC member states are also signatory members to the World Trade Organisation‘s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (WTO-SPS) which places obligations on member states to ensure that the SPS measures they implement are least restrictive to trade, while being scientifically justifiable for the protection of human, animal or plant life and health.

The ratification and implementation of the SPS Annex will therefore facilitate improved mechanisms and institutional arrangements in conformity with obligations under the WTO-SPS agreement so as to minimise SPS related issues that impact the trade of agricultural and services trade within the region. Source: SA Government

Want to understand more on the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures – Click here!

“It is important for our hearts to be right”…”Our hearts need to be given to God in entirety”…All that we do should be for his honor and glory–and we rejoice in being called to proclaim his praises…1 Peter 2:9…

…”God has done marvelous things for us! The love he has shown us in Jesus-Christ is beyond our ability to understand..Ephesians 3:19..The joy he gives us in salvation is beyond our ability to express..1 Peter 1:8.. The peace he gives is also beyond our comprehension…Philippians 4:7…Words simply fail to describe adequately the experience of salvation we have in Jesus-Christ”…

“How shall we respond to these magnificent blessings? With worship–with praise and thanksgiving, giving glory and honor to God. This is our privilege and our joy. Our relationship with God is characterized by love, joy, peace, praise and worship…

…”Church services are called worship services. Song leaders are called worship leaders. The goal, of course, is that we become more conscious that we are gathering to worship our Creator and Saviour, and that we express that worship in the words we sing and in the emotions that songs can convey. In a way, the “culture” of our churches is changing…

“Can a new worship format bring anyone closer to God?……Simply changing terminology and behavior cannot force anyone to change their hearts. However, it can facilitate a change of heart. New worship songs have helped many church members come to greater awareness of why we gather each week: to worship, to praise God, to rejoice before the Lord…

…”Salvation is a wonderful gift–better than winning a million dollars in a sweepstakes. Should we treat it as a ho-hum, matter-of-fact experience? I think not. The knowledge of salvation should make us excited, expressive, enthusiastic, anxious to praise our Father and Savior. For many people, this is done with lively songs…

“The way people sing praise to God has varied from culture to culture and century to century. Eighth-century chants were effective worship expressions in the eighth century. Today, they are not. Eighteenth-century hymns were worshipful in the 18th century. Some still are; others are not…

…”Each type of song began as contemporary music. As time went on, it became traditional and some other style became contemporary. Today, different styles are becoming contemporary, and 18th-century hymns do not invoke worshipful thoughts in large segments of the population…

“Scripture gives us precedent for change. Scripture tells us about very expressive worship styles…

“I will be glad and rejoice in you; I will sing praise to your name, O Most High” …Psalm 9:2…
“Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous; sing, all you who are upright in heart!”…Psalm 32:11…
“Shout with joy to God, all the earth!”…Psalm 66:1…
“May the righteous be glad and rejoice before God; may they be happy and joyful. “Sing to God”, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the clouds–his name is the Lord–and rejoice before him”…Psalm 68:3-4…
“Shout for joy, O heavens; rejoice, O earth; burst into song, O mountains!”…Isaiah 49:13…
“My lips will shout for joy when I sing praise to you–I, whom you have redeemed” …Psalm 71:23…
“Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation”…Psalm 95:1…
“Sing, O Daughter of Zion; shout aloud, O Israel! Be glad and rejoice with all your heart, O Daughter of Jerusalem!”…Zephaniah 3:14…
“Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise”…James 5:13…

…”Have you ever shouted for joy–in the presence of other believers–at the blessings God has given you? Have you ever exulted in God? Has your heart leaped for joy? Have you clapped hands in worship? There are scriptural precedents for these.God want our worship services to allow people to express praise and joy in the Lord…

“I also want to note that there is scriptural precedent for women having roles in worship. Miriam sang praises before the Israelites…Exodus 15:20-21…and led the women in worship in both singing and dancing. Deborah sang praises and spoke the word of the Lord…Judges 4:4-6,

Have you ever shouted for joy at the blessings God has given you?

14; 5:1-31…Huldah gave authoritative words to high-ranking men…2 Kings 22:14-20…

…”On Pentecost, both men and women prophesied…Acts 2:17…Philip’s daughters prophesied..Acts 21:8-9.. and in doing so, they spoke infallible messages from God. In Corinth, women were prophesying and praying out loud in the assembly…1 Corinthians 11:4-16…Paul told them how to dress…verses 4-5…but he did not tell them to stop praying and prophesying in the meetings…

…”Jesus-Christ is Lord of all. To him be all honor, glory and praise!!!…This Season at your services…Sing to our Lord and Saviour Jesus-Christ with all your heart”…

Related articles

• Jews and Gentiles Together… our study of Romans 15 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)

At any rate, the new agreement, when finalized, will allow GMO’s without current impediments into the EU. Here is an article about it:

Marakesh Anlaşması ile WTO’ya geçiliyor. Burda amaçlar daha farklı. Mesele gelişmekte olan ülkenin liberalleşmesi adına finansal piyasalarına teknik destek sağlamak gibi.

Eğer bir ülke bölgesel ticaret birliğine de girmişse diğer ülkelere uyguladığından daha düşük gümrük vergisini bölgesel anlaşma üyelerine uygulayabilir.

Bölgesel ticaret ikiye ayrılır:

1)Serbest ticaret anlaşması(Free trade aggrement): MERCOSUR, NAFTA… Kendi içinde bütün tarifeleri kaldır, dışarı için WTO kurallarına uy.

2)Gümrük birliği: Birlik içindeki diğer ülkelere sıfır tarife. Anlaşma dışındaki bütün ülkelere birlik içindeki devletlerden aynı tarife. (Ülke bu konuda egemenlik hakkından vazgeçiyor)

Gümrük vergisi=<WTO vergisi oldukça sorun yok.

Meksika—->free tare, Tr—–>gümrük birliği için. İki ülke arasında bir çatışma durumu halinde TR eğer AB’yi ikna ederse TR’nin dediği olur ki, çünkü 500 milyonu ilgilendiren bir kara haline gelmiştir bu. Ama Meksika’nın bu konuda ABD ve Kanada‘dan bu şekilde bir şey isteme durumu yok.

Vaka: Obama‘nın ilk geldiği zamanlar ABD, AB’den çelik ithalatına kota koymuştu. AB ne kadar kaldırmasını istese de ABD kaldırmadı bir türlü. Daha sonra AB, ABD’yi WTOda mahkemeye verse de, bu işleri daha da uzattı. Sonra AB’nin hamlesi ise şu şekilde olmuştu: Çekimserlerin olduğu eyaletlerden AB’ye ihraç edilen mallara kota uygulamak.

Monsanto Panics as Oregon GM Wheat Scandal Spreads Worldwide

“In the last chapter of Romans, Paul greets a large number of people and gives a few closing exhortations. These greetings reveal a lot about the early church…

…”Paul writes, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in
Cenchrea.” Paul’s emissary”…
In Romans 16:1…Paul writes, I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchrea. Although some older translations say that Phoebe is a “servant,” this is unlikely because all believers are servants, and Romans 16:2…indicates that she was a person of some importance. The phrase “of the church” also suggests an official role…

“Unfortunately, we do not know what deacons did in the church in Cenchrea near Corinth. A comparison of Paul’s letters shows that the “organizational chart” could vary quite a bit from one church to another; the description of deacons in 1 Tim. 3.. may not tell us much about what a deacon did in Corinth or Cenchrea…

…”Phoebe is apparently the person who carried Paul’s letter to Rome. As the letter-carrier, she probably also read the letter out loud, answered questions about it and the author, and conveyed some verbal news and greetings…

“Paul then asks the Roman church to serve her needs: I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of God’s people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me…Romans16:2…

…”The word “benefactor” is just one of many suggested English translations of the Greek word prostasis. Literally, it means a person placed in front. In the Greek Old Testament, it was used for officials; in ordinary Greek it was used for patrons and wealthy people who assisted others. Phoebe had helped Paul, and although she probably would not need financial help, Paul asks the Roman Christians to help her in other ways…

…”Notable women and men”…
“Paul then greets a number of people in Rome, some of them Jewish, most of them Gentiles, often with names commonly used for slaves and freedmen. For a city he has never been to, he knows a surprising number of people who have moved to Rome. He probably begins with his closest friends……

“Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ-Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them…..Romans 16:3-4… Acts 18 tells us that Priscilla and Aquila were originally from Rome. Paul met them in Corinth and worked in their tentmaking business. They became part of Paul’s ministry team, went to Ephesus with him, and were instrumental in teaching Apollos about Christianity…

…”Paul does not call ordinary Christians “co-workers” this term indicates a person who works “in Christ-Jesus”, that is, full-time work in the gospel. He used the term for himself, Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Philemon, Mark, Luke, and a few others. Priscilla and Aquila had played an important role in the evangelization of the Gentiles; now they were back in Rome, leading a house church, as Paul notes: Greet also the church that meets at their house…Romans 16:5…

“Paul then greets my “dear friend” Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia…Romans16:5…We do not know anything else about Epenetus. Nor do we know anything about Mary, who worked very hard for you…Romans 16:6…We do not know what kind of work she did, or how Paul learned about it…..

…”He then sends his greetings to another couple: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was…Romans 16:7…Junia is a woman’s name, but in some translations she is given a man’s name: Junias, suggested as a possible short form of the name Junianus. But no one has ever found this form used, and Junia is used hundreds of times for a woman, so Junia is probably correct…

“Andronicus and Junia were a Jewish couple who believed in Christ before Paul did and that was very early; perhaps they were part of the Pentecost crowd. They were in prison with Paul, probably because they were preaching the gospel along with him. In what way were they “outstanding among the apostles”? It is possible that Paul meant that the apostles thought highly of them, but Paul does not refer to the opinion of the apostles anywhere else in his writings. It is more likely that Paul is commending them for their own work……

…”However”…since Andronicus and Junia have not left any further trace in church history, they probably were not apostles in the same sense that Paul and the Twelve were. Since the word apostle can also refer to an official messenger…2 Cor. 8:23…it is possible that Andronicus and Junia served in that way”…

“Greet Ampliatus, my dear friend in the Lord. Greet Urbanus, our “co-worker” in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys. Greet Apelles, whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test..apparently in some severe trial.. Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus…Romans 16:8-10…

…”Paul does not greet Aristobulus, but only those in his household which would include slaves and servants as well as family members. This Arisobulus may have been the grandson of Herod and friend of Claudius Caesar; such a person would have had a very large household, many of them Jewish. “Paul knew” that his household formed the core of another house church…

“Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew. Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord. Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord …Romans 16:11-12…The phrase “in the Lord” suggests that these women were involved in “evangelistic” work of some sort. Narcissus may refer to another wealthy friend of Claudius who would have had a large “household,” some of whom had become “believers”…

…”Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. Greet Rufus possibly the son of Simon of Cyrene…Mark 15:21…chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other brothers and sisters with them. Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the believers with them”…Romans 16:12-15…Here, Paul may be referring to two other house churches, and people he does not necessarily know, but he knows enough about the churches in Rome to know the names of the most prominent members”…

“The early church” apparently had an effective although probably informal system of communication. As people moved from city to city, churches stayed in touch and were aware of the doctrines taught in other churches. That helped maintain the “unity of the faith”…

…”Greet one another with a “holy kiss”, most of the times I do that too… as Paul concludes. All the churches of Christ in Paul’s region, that is send “greetings”… Romans16:16…Greet one another as dear friends, he says and Christians kissed one another for centuries, and still do in some cultures…with a big bear hug!

“But the purpose of Paul’s command would be thwarted if we insisted on taking him literally in American culture today. Instead of being a sign of welcome,………”a congregational kiss would not be welcomed by most today”. Paul’s instructions in this case are limited by culture, by his culture and ours. There is no requirement for us today to greet one another with a kiss…

…”Plea for peace”…
“Paul then turns to one last, presumably important, exhortation: I urge you, my brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them…Romans 16:17…Paul had experience with divisive people who taught rules that the gospel did not have. The solution is simple:…”Don’t listen to them”. If they say, You have to keep our rules to be saved, then they are contrary to the gospel of Jesus-Christ and You should get out of that kind of church!!!…Beware of them!!!…

…”For such people are “not serving our Lord Jesus-Christ”…but their own appetites it could be an appetite for money, fame, or just a sense of personal importance. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people…Romans 16:18… “They make a good argument, but they are dead wrong!!! They are not yet causing a problem in Rome, but Paul knows that it won’t be long before they try to influence the Roman churches. And since the Roman churches already have different practices about meat and days, for example, they are vulnerable to divisive teachings…

“Everyone has heard about your obedience, that is, you are already obeying enough rules, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be “wise” about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. That is why Paul urges them to be alert. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet…Romans 16:19-20…God is a God of peace, not division, and when we focus on the good, on grace, the adversary will be powerless…Gen. 3:15…

…”May the grace of our Lord Jesus-Christ be with you…Romans 1:7…“Gaius, whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings.”…Paul’s companions send greetings…

“Paul closes, as many ancient letter-writers did, with greetings from the people with him: Timothy, my co-worker, sends his greetings to you, as do Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, my fellow Jews…Romans 16:21…Why did Paul mention that these men were Jewish? Perhaps he was trying to remind the Jewish readers that many Jews supported Paul in his mission to the Gentiles, and they supported his message of grace. Luke may refer to the same men in Acts 13:1; 17:5; 20:4…

…”I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord…Romans 16:22… Since it was difficult to write on papyrus, most letters were written by professional secretaries. Here, the secretary sends his own greetings, noting that he is also a believer…

…”Gaius”, whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings…Romans 16:23…Paul is staying at the home of Gaius, and the church meets at his house…1 Cor. 1:14…Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings. Here Paul makes special mention of a government official, the Roman Christians might be encouraged to know that an “official has accepted the gospel”. They are likely to know Quartus, too, but we do not…

…”Paul closes with a benediction”…
“Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim

Greetings Friends!

about Jesus-Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the Eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus-Christ! Amen!…Romans 16:25-27…

…”And that my dear brothers and sisters in Christ-Jesus”, concludes our Biblical Studies on the book of Romans. We will be going to first and second Corinthians next! Until then may our Great Eternal God always bless You in your walk of Life…and Thank-You for your faithful dedications and staying with the commitment of exploring and studying the words of our Mighty God from the Scriptures…Book by book until we do it all…and then…explore it again for lost treasures, Amen!!!

Related articles

• Jews and Gentiles Together… our study of Romans 15 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• All Israel Will Be Saved, Romans 11 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Dealing With Disagreements, Romans 14 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Attitudes That Please God, Romans 12 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Today we will be starting our Biblical Studies on the book of Romans, Not Ashamed of the Gospel (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Book of Romans (altruistico.wordpress.com)

“In Romans 15, Paul completes his discussion of how Christians who are strong in the faith should help those whose faith is weak. He reminds his readers that God is calling the Gentiles to salvation, and that they are the focus of Paul’s ministry. Paul shares his plan to visit Jerusalem with an offering from the Gentiles to give to the Jewish believers…

…”The strong should help the weak”…
“In chapter 14, Paul explained that Christians who were strong in the faith believed that everything was clean and could be eaten. Those who were weak in faith were cautious about their diet and observed certain days as special. This difference of opinion was a serious problem for the Roman churches, so Paul took a considerable portion of his letter to address it. The cautious Christians should not condemn the more permissive ones, and those who feel free should not cause the weak to sin by pressuring them to do things that their conscience did not yet allow”…

“We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves…Romans 15:1…The people who are confident of their salvation in Christ need to be tolerant of the doctrinal mistakes that others have. Their faith is already weak; we should not challenge them more than they can bear. “Paul taught that “all foods are now clean” but he sometimes restrained his freedom…1 Cor. 8:13; 9:20…

…” Paul then gives the general principle: Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up..Romans 15:2…He uses Jesus-Christ as the model we should follow: For even Christ did not please himself… Paul supports his point by quoting Psalm 69:9, a messianic psalm: “As it is written: ‘The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me’..Romans 15:3..Christ was willing to accept persecution so the strong should be willing to accept a little inconvenience…

“Some people might wonder why Paul is using the Old Testament. He has already used it dozens of times, but now he explains: For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope…Romans 15:4…Paul isolates two lessons we can draw from the Old Testament: endurance and encouragement…”We need to endure difficulties, and God is faithful to us”…

…”Gentiles praising God”…
“Paul includes a brief prayer: May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus-Christ…Romans 15:5-6…That is, may God give you the attitude of service that leads to “worship together”…

…”Paul concludes: Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God…Romans 15:7…Just as Jesus gave up his privileges to serve us, we should be willing to give up some of ours, so people will praise God…… “Reconciliation with God should lead us toward reconciliation with other people”…

“For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth…Romans 15:8…Paul mentions this because of the situation in Rome: He is asking the strong primarily Gentiles to restrain their freedom when with the weak primarily Jews. He now begins to defend his ministry to the Gentiles…

…”Why did Christ serve the Jews? Paul explains: So that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy..Romans15:8-9..It is only through Christ that people may be forgiven and thereby receive the patriarchal blessings. But Christ’s purpose extends beyond the physical descendants of Abraham, he also wants Gentiles to bring glory to God”

“Paul now presents a series of Old Testament prophecies about Gentiles joining the Jews in worshipping God. He begins with Psalm 18:49: Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name. Then he moves to the Gentile response to the good news: Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people…Rom. 15:10… Deut. 32:43…

…”Then the Gentiles join in the praise: Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples..Rom.15:11; Ps. 117:1…Paul concludes with a quote from Isaiah 11:10, showing that this praise comes through the nations accepting the Messiah, the descendant of David and Jesse: The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope…Rom.15:12…

“Then Paul gives another short prayer, a benediction good for believers everywhere: May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy-Spirit…Romans 15:13…Through faith in Jesus-Christ, we have tremendous hope…

…”Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles”…
“With tact, Paul explains why he wrote to the Roman church: I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another. Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles…Romans 15:14-16…Since Christ appointed Paul to serve the Gentiles, he felt that he could remind them that basic Christian principles would help them deal with the doctrinal differences they had”…

…”He gave me the priestly duty of “proclaiming the gospel of God”, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy-Spirit …Romans 15:16…Paul uses special terms here to call his mission a work of worship. He is zealous in this mission…Therefore I glory in Christ-Jesus in my service to God. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done…Romans 15:17-18…”Paul is giving the credit to God, not himself”…

“The results of Paul’s ministry can be seen in the fact that Gentiles are obeying God. This does not mean circumcision, food laws or Sabbaths the Gentiles are considered obedient without keeping such laws…

…”How has Christ achieved this result through Paul?….By the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God…Romans 15:19…Although Acts describes several miracles done through Paul, Paul rarely mentions them. His readers needed to follow him not by doing miracles, but in humility and enduring difficulties…

“So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum..modern day Albania,I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ…Romans 15:19…Paul did not preach in every city, but everywhere he preached, he proclaimed all the gospel. He preached in a few cities, and after he left, his converts could then take the gospel to surrounding towns…..

…”It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation …Romans 15:20…At some point in his life Paul decided that his mission was to go to new areas. He saw his work as a fulfillment of Isa. 52:15: As it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you..Romans15:21-22..This verse does not apply to every missionary, but it described what Paul was doing…

“Although Paul had wanted to visit Rome earlier, there was a greater need for the gospel in Asia Minor and Greece. Now, Paul sets his sights farther west, Spain and that will give him an opportunity to visit Rome. But he had a more important mission to take care of first…

…”Paul’s travel plans”…
“Greek letters often mentioned the writer’s travel plans, and this letter does as well. Paul begins with an almost humorous exaggeration: But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while…Romans 15:23-24…

…”Paul would “never live long enough” to take the gospel to all the empire, so he wanted to make a decisive leap westward. He not only invited himself to Rome, he also invited them to support his mission, perhaps even provide some assistants…

“But other plans were more immediate, the churches in Greece were sending an offering to the believers in Judea. Paul had urged them to do it, for he felt it was very important to send this token of unity from the Gentiles to the Jews. Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings…Romans 15:25-27…

…”The Greek Christians had a debt to pay. But what could the Roman Christians do? It was too late for them to join in the offering being sent to Jerusalem. Paul is hinting that the Gentile Christians in Rome should help the Jewish Christians in Rome. Paul wants peace between Jews and Gentiles, whether it is in Rome or in Jerusalem…

“So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ..Romans 15:28-29… Paul viewed this offering as a symbol of the spiritual fruit produced by the gospel among the Gentiles…

…”The message he wanted to send to the Jerusalem church was this: “See how many Gentiles are now praising God because of the mission you began. They are thankful that your Messiah is also their Messiah, and as the Scriptures predicted..Isa. 60:5; 66:20…they are sending gifts to Jerusalem as a firstfruits offering to sanctify the rest of the harvest among the Gentiles.”

“Paul was confident that after he had delivered this offering, that Christ would bless his mission

Until then…may our Lord and Saviour Jesus-Christ bless You all! And keep up your faithful dedications in studying the words of our God from the scriptures!!!

to Rome and Spain. He asks them to help him in his difficult mission by praying for him: I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus-Christ and by the love of the Holy-Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. Pray that I may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea and that the contribution I take to Jerusalem may be favorably received by the believers there…Romans 15:30-31…

…”As Acts 21 confirms, the most dangerous part of the trip was not the voyage, but the disobedient Jews..an ironic contrast to the obedient Gentiles.. Paul did not assume that the believers would be glad to see him, either, he wanted prayer that they might accept the offering he was bringing. Some did not want to accept the fact that Gentiles were now in the family of faith…

“And after the offering, Paul wanted them to pray so that I may come to you with joy, by God’s will, and in your company be refreshed. The God of peace be with you all. Amen…Romans 15:32-33…Paul concludes with a benediction of peace what the Roman churches needed most. He says “amen,” but he is not yet done. In our next and last chapter, Lord Willing we will discuss the greetings and exhortations of chapter 16…

…”Until then…may our Lord and Saviour Jesus-Christ bless You all! And keep up your faithful dedications in studying the words of our God from the scriptures!!!

Related articles

• All Israel Will Be Saved, Romans 11 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Israel’s Opportunity for Salvation, Our Study of Romans 10 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Romans Chapter Two, Everyone Needs the Gospel, A Study of Romans 2 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Dealing With Disagreements, Romans 14 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Romans, From Guilt to Grace, A Study of Romans 3 (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Today we will be starting our Biblical Studies on the book of Romans, Not Ashamed of the Gospel (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Romans Chapter 4, with The Example of Abraham (whatshotn.wordpress.com)
• Romans 9, part two, God’s freedom to give mercy (whatshotn.wordpress.com)

May 28,2013

This submission is made in my personal capacity.

The central point of this submission is that the TTIP negotiation should exclude intellectual property issues. It should exclude IP issues because the US trade policy lacks IP proposals that have the kind of broad-based support necessary to be adopted in a trade negotiation of this kind – i.e. one that is ultimately multilateral, requiring consent by a wide range of diverse countries. This is the prime lesson that should be drawn from the failure of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and the Free Trade Area of the Americas before it, as well as from the current deadlock in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation. It is the prime lesson of the mounting evidence that our bilateral commitments do not contain sufficient flexibility to accommodate current proposals to amend our own intellectual property laws. US trade policy on intellectual property needs to be rethought. In the mean time, there should be a moratorium on any new efforts to negotiate IP commitments in trade forums that are not fully open, transparent and accommodating of the full range of inputs necessary to produce good policy.

I. Learning From the Failure of ACTA

It would be remiss to go into a TTIP negotiation without an adequate response to the failure of ACTA. ACTA was meant to be the first step toward the multilateralization of an international IP agenda hatched at the bilateral level. An IP chapter in the TTIP would promote the same goals. And thus any such effort must learn from the ACTA mistake.

After ACTA was declared concluded, the internet went dark over similar ideas in the United States. People in Europe took to the streets. And they remained there until governments responded. Protests followed in Paris, Stockholm, and, on February 11, by over 300,000 people throughout all of Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets.

These were not protests merely reacting to an abstract idea. They were fed by close monitoring of the ACTA negotiation. Academics, including myself, analyzed leaked texts and informed the greater public about real risks from specific provisions as well as from the greater agenda. Chat rooms and bulletin boards analyzed text. Expert-led NGOs informed mass based movements and distributed information in the blogosphere.

The protests were not just by street activists. There was a public resignation by the EU Parliament’s rapporteur on ACTA, who criticized the public process as a “masquerade.” And also to the resignation of the Slovenia Ambassador to Japan who signed ACTA – who left office apologizing to her country and her children.

Legislatures considered and rejected ACTA all over Europe. By the end of February 2011, the EU states to suspend ACTA ratification included Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, the Netherlands, Latvia, Romania, Cyprus, Estonia and Austria.

The EU commission suspended its ratification activities by referring ACTA to the EU Court of Justice to determine the extent to which the agreement encroaches on fundamental rights to access to information.

Human rights experts challenged ACTA in reports by the UN special rapporteur for Freedom of Expression as well as analysis by prominent academics.

The EU parliament ultimately rejected ACTA with over 420 no votes and just a handful of yes’s. This was a total rejection. And it was not done merely to kowtow to a street movement. It was done because the ACTA negotiators did not listen to a series of resolutions calling for ACTA to be negotiated in public, to ameliorate access to medicines concerns, to remove regulations of the internet, to create an ultimate legal structure more protective of human rights and democracy.

And so, moving into a new trade agreement with the EU, if IP is going to be on the table, then you owe the American and EU public a very important explanation – what did you learn? What are you going to do differently? Why should the internet and access to medicines advocates trust trade negotiations to reach just and appropriate outcomes on the setting of domestic intellectual property policy?

II. The present TPP Negotiation Suggests US Trade Policy has Learned Nothing

Unfortunately, the other multilateral IP agreement being conducted right now shows no evidence of any new learning have taken place since ACTA.

The TPP leaked text of US positions is much worse than ACTA on every contested issue.

• ACTA attempted to remove ISP liability and notice and take down issues – TPP includes them.
• ACTA removed in transit seizures of confusingly similar trade mark and alleged patent violating goods – TPP includes them.
• ACTA carved out parallel importation from its scope – the US proposal includes bans on parallel importation even though the USTRs position on interpretation of US law was rejected by the Supreme Court in Kirtsaeng.

And the process is worse as well. ACTA released four public versions of text in the last 12 months of its negotiation – TPP is declared to be less than 6 months away from its completion and not a single word of it has been publicly shared.

III.  The Present Template Needs to Change to Accommodate US policy Change

I have been part of an academic group that has for many years criticized the US intellectual property template as being insufficiently flexible to accommodate changes in US policy to make such policy better promote the public interest in a variety of ways. We are already at the point where we can identify a number of key issues in which major parts of the policy making establishment is moving away from the FTA template model – thus requiring renegotiation of our international commitments to change our own policies. To name the most important of these:

• The U.S. Registrar of Copyrights has testified to Congress that U.S. copyright should change should make minimum terms 50 years rather than 70, with an extra 20 year period subject to a formality. (See Librarian of Congress testimony before the Judiciary Committee, as well as her longer piece “The Next Great Copyright Act”) This policy would meet Berne and WIPO 1996 commitments, but would violate existing FTAs.
• H.R. 107, 108th Cong (2003) proposed a fair use exception to DMCA TPM protection, which has been referred to favorably by the Librarian of Congress for consideration in U.S. Copyright reform. The White House and Senator Wyden (likely future Finance Chairman) has endorsed a permanent exception for phone network switching. The Librarian of Congress has proposed broadly reconsidering the permanent exceptions in US DMCA (Sec. 1201). WIPO Internet treaties are permissive in this regard.
• Modification of FTA commitments on the first sale doctrine is needed to accommodate the Supreme Court ruling in Kirtsaeng. (See my statement on the ruling)
• The United States has obtained obligations in some FTA’s, such as the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, to prohibit adoption of statutory licensing for the retransmission over the internet of broadcast television signals. The U.S. Copyright Act currently contains such licenses for other media (i.e. cable and satellite television). Congress has held hearings on the potential desirability of similar licenses for internet service providers. Alteration of existing FTA standards is necessary to afford Congress the opportunity to address this policy matter as one of first impression.

There are also a number of important issues where the US template does not reflect policy as described by US officials. These weresummarized in a letter from myself and two other of my colleagues who study copyright to USTR Kirk in September 2012. That letter highlighted a number of areas where the FTA template does not un-ambiguously embrace and protect current US policy on limitations and exceptions to copyright – including in areas of:

• temporary copies,
• application of the international “three step test”
• application of investor state dispute clauses to fair use and to the scope and definition of copyright laws
• definition of ISP safe harbors
• and the prioritization balancing over “confining” provisions of limitations and exceptions in international law.

US trade policy needs to address these issues before it embarks on another collision course with copyright user groups in the U.S. and EU. The lesson is not that making these changes will make the US text acceptable. The lesson is that there is a problem with going to this degree of specificity in FTAs – a problem not just for other countries but for the US itself. Especially in a closed door process like this, you are bound to get some details wrong. Details that matter. Details that close off policy choices you should not close off.

We are negotiating supra national structures. These agreements operate like constitutions. And you do not see constitutions – or multilateral agreements – with the level of specificity you see in bilaterals.

The U.S.-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, which originally proposed TTIP, noted in its June 2012 interim report that

Both sides agree that it would not be feasible in negotiations to seek to reconcile across the board differences in the IPR obligations that each typically includes in its comprehensive trade agreements.  

That statement was later dropped after lobbying by rightholders. But it was right.  This trade agreement is important for trade.  Using it as a vehicle to continue pushing a controversial and stalled IP harmonization agenda will its outcome in jeopardy.

IV. Proposals for a Better Process and Substance

There are, of course, ways that US trade policy could change to begin a committed effort to respond to the problems you now face in this area. Here are some modest proposals:

• On process – a minimum standard should be to abide by the openness norms of the EU Parliament’s March 2010 resolution, calling for ACTA text to be shared with the public on an ongoing basis. A more inclusive process can be witnessed in the ongoing negotiation of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired being negotiated by WIPO — where NGOs can sit in on plenary negotiations and even listen to closed door meetings over a internal audio system.
• On substance, future IP agreements need to shift its focus to enabling instead of restraining internet freedoms. There ideas out there for this. Just this year, for example, Public Knowledge announced an Internet Blueprint bill (see a blog on this topic). You can find a compendium of ideas written by over 200 international experts from 35 countries in the Washington Declaration on IP and the Public Interest. These and other sources can guide you toward substantive responses to the very valid objections that current US trade policy on IP does not represent the interests of users and innovators.

KUALA LUMPUR, May 28 (Bernama) — The government is willing to receive views and proposals from various parties relating to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) before it is finalised at year-end.

Minister of International Trade and Industry Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed said the implementation of the TPP will ensure that the economic interest of the country is protected, more so, for the small medium enterprises sector as well as bumiputra entrepreneurs.

He told reporters this when asked about the TPP developments after a meeting with representatives of chambers of commerce here today.

“The process is ongoing and the government is prepared to cooperate with various parties and take general views, and views from the media are also welcomed to implement this agreement, and this kind of cooperation will be increased,” he said.

He said Malaysia’s involvement in international trade agreements such as the TPP should be made to ensure that the country’s products are able to rival competitively in foreign markets.

“If Malaysia does not get involved in such agreement, the implication is that the local products will be subjected to high import tax compared with other countries, hence this will make it difficult for our companies to penetrate the foreign markets,” Mustapa said.

Malaysia is one of 11 countries involved in a series of discussions on the agreement, and this agreement will form the biggest free trade network in the world if it is implemented successfully.

Mustapa also explained on the current political scenario which was expected to give a temporary impact on the country’s economic development.

“In every country, there is definitely an opposition party and for sure there are gatherings organised by them, however the silent majority will determine the country’s progress,” he said.

29th May,2013

A proposed oceanic free-trade zone involving the United States and other countries with a Pacific coast has stirred debate over what it means that China isn’t part of the negotiations.

The 17th round of talks toward establishing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, concluded on Friday in Peru. Because the discussions have been secret, it’s unclear where the planned agreement now stands.

One bit of news that did emerge from chief negotiators in the Peruvian capital, Lima, is that adding Japan as the 12th TPP member won’t delay plans to finalize a pact later this year. Japan, whose April request to join the talks was granted, is expected to begin participating as a negotiator at the next round of TPP talks, in Malaysia from July 15 to 24.

Some observers believe that a trade pact that involves the world’s biggest and third-biggest economies – the US and Japan – but not China, at No 2, is a deliberate snub.

“No one will say it out loud, but the unstated aim of the TPP is to create a ‘high level’ trade agreement that excludes the world’s second-biggest economy,” Financial Times columnist David Pilling wrote last week. “That’s a big club to be barred to Chinese entry,” he added, noting that with Japan in the mix the TPP would account for almost 40 percent of annual global GDP and a third of world trade.

Pilling believes one motive behind the TPP is to turn back the clock to trade policies that existed before China’s 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization. “The view that China is a freeloader and a cheat rather ignores the fact that today’s advanced economies – including Britain, the US and Japan – all pursued rampantly mercantilist policies during their take-off phases. But there you have it,” he wrote.

The second motive, as the columnist sees it, is to create a trading bloc “so powerful and attractive that China will feel obliged to mend its errant ways in order to join”. He also considers the TPP “at least partly a political project”, an “anyone-but-China club” that Japan in particular welcomes.

Trade officials from the US, Japan and other TPP countries have said that while an invitation to China to join the bloc hasn’t been ruled out, Beijing would have to first enact numerous economic reforms.

Chinese officials have mostly criticized the TPP as an effort to contain their country economically. As those talks continue, China and 15 other nations are negotiating a free-trade pact under the auspices of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It’s also in three-way trade talks with Japan and the Republic of Korea.

However, China’s view of the TPP has begun to expand, according to Zhang Jianping, a senior researcher at the Institute for International Economic Research under the policy-planning National Development and Research Commission. Zhang recently told China Daily that those who consider the US-led pact a move to contain China are “narrow-minded” and that China shouldn’t fear the TPP. Ultimately, China and the US will work out terms of their trade relationship bilaterally, he said.

Pilling’s stance drew a rebuke from Mireya Solis, an associate professor at Washington’s American University and a researcher on the Japanese economy at the Brookings Institution. She wrote on the think tank’s website that the TPP is by no means an anti-China club.

China, like any other economy in the region, “has the right to request entry into the TPP”, she said. “Whether the Chinese leadership will judge TPP membership to be in their country’s national interest and whether TPP members can be persuaded that China is prepared to abide by the negotiated disciplines is a separate matter.

“It is hard to understand why TPP countries would pursue the counterproductive and unfeasible goal of marginalizing China,” Solis wrote in her blog post, noting the country’s economic might and central role in global supply chains. “A trade agreement that by fiat sought to defy these fundamental economic realities would be foolhardy indeed.” She called the TPP an “expansive” project that aims to create a broad regional platform for economic integration, “not to draw lines encircling China”.

Solis questioned the notion of the TPP as anti-China given Japan’s concurrent talks, with China, toward both the trilateral pact with South Korea and the ASEAN-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

“Ascribing an anti-China objective to the TPP is not helpful” for three main reasons, she wrote: It gives “political cover to protectionist interests”; sends “a chilling message to prospective members, who may fear that in joining TPP they will be seen as enlisted in the anti-China camp”; and discourages China from “finding points of convergence with the TPP agenda if this is seen as capitulating to an American strategy of containment”.

Robert Zoellick, a former US trade representative who in 2012 completed a five-year term as World Bank president, also sees no anti-China imperative behind the talks.

“There are worries that the TPP is being seen as containment of China. But I say that’s illogical because China is so integrated into East Asia,” he told China Daily in Shanghai over the weekend.

Tyree Scott, 1940-2003

Many of Seattle’s activist icons have been strongly identified with a particular event or era. Anna Louise Strong is most often mentioned in the same breath as the 1919 Seattle General Strike; Edwin T. Pratt with the 1960s Open Housing movement. By contrast, Tyree Scott–although he, too, first made a name for himself in the 1960s–is best identified with an activist career spanning decades.

Scott was best known as a civil rights and labor leader who opened the door to women and minority workers in the construction industry, both locally and nationally. Born in Hearne, Texas, on the date in focus here, Scott moved to Seattle in 1966 to help his father, an electrician in Seattle, build his construction business. At the time, the trade unions that controlled jobs in Seattle’s construction industry were off limits to blacks.

In 1969, as Seattle was undergoing a building boom flush with federally-funded projects, Scott became the leader of the Central Contractors Association, a group of black contractors who sought equal opportunity in federal building projects. That summer, Scott led the CCA in shutting down every major federal construction site in Seattle to protest discrimination against black contractors and construction workers.

One protest shut down the construction of Red Square on the University of Washington campus, while another temporarily halted work on the construction of an airport runway at Sea-Tac Airport. Other such actions led or co-led by Scott included shutdowns at Harborview Medical Center, Medgar Evers Pool, and the King County Administration Building. These actions led to the first federal imposition of affirmative action upon local labor unions.

In the following decade, Scott would go on to lead other local labor struggles, crucially helping to found the Northwest Labor and Employment Law Office (LELO), which forged international ties among workers in the struggle to gain better job conditions for low-income workers through class-action lawsuits.

During the 1980s, Scott took his activism abroad and helped form organizations to assist laborers in developing companies. In 1997, he led a LELO-sponsored Seattle conference which drew delegates from a dozen countries to discuss leadership of labor and civil rights activism throughout the world. Two years later, in early 1999, Scott was among the activists who laid the early organizational groundwork for the WTO protests.

Scott died in Seattle on June 19, 2003, after a long battle with prostate cancer. His legacy lives on in LELO, which continues to do effective work on social justice and worker rights issues. In addition, the Tyree Scott Freedom School, a nine-day summer educational program sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, teaches young people aged 15 to 21 about social justice issues and the history of community organizing in Seattle.

–Jeff Stevens. Sources: Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project (www.civilrights.washington.edu); HistoryLink.org; Quintard Taylor, “The Forging of a Black Community: Seattle’s Central District from 1870 through the Civil Rights Era” (University of Washington Press, 1994).

The Washington Post

New rules for U.S. meatpackers will require labeling that tells consumers where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered. Sounds simple. But the regulations, posted Friday by the Department of Agriculture, are the latest move in a trade dispute that has pitted U.S. consumer groups, which favor the labels, against free-trade advocates, who say the regulations are biased against cattle and pork from Canada and Mexico.

Nor are the regulations likely to be the last word in the international controversy, which seems destined to wind up — again — before the World Trade Organization, which has previously ruled that U.S. labeling regulations discriminated against Canadian and Mexican livestock. The dispute over meat labeling is one of a handful in recent years in which U.S. efforts to regulate food and other products have been rejected by the WTO. The WTO has ruled against U.S. “dolphin-safe” tuna labels and weighed in as well against a ban on clove-flavored cigarettes.

Read more…

May 27,2013

On 20 May, global civil society networks LDC Watch and the Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) wrote an open letter of protest to the Ambassador of Panama, Alfredo Suescum who is the current Chair of the Council on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The ongoing informal negotiations between the least developed countries (LDCs) and the developed countries, on the extension period of TRIPS waiver granted to LDCs which expires by the end of June, is marred by unjust and unethical treatment by the United States, European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, in particular, including the Council Chair.

The LDC Group’s request of unconditional extension of the transition period (i.e. to defer implementation of TRIPS obligations) until they graduate from the LDC status has obtained extensive support from the developing world but these supporters have not been invited to participate in the current ongoing consultations. Instead, the consultations have been limited to developed countries (that are opposed to the LDCs’ request) and to the LDC Group. The Council Chair, Ambassador Suescum is therefore depriving LDCs of their allies, while attempting to overwhelm the negotiating capacity of the poorest members of the WTO by placing them in an unfair position where they have to face the united might of the developed countries. Clearly the consultations have been designed so that the outcome will fail the LDCs.

The bone of contention in the current negotiations is the impractical short extension period (5-7.5 years) and the unjustifiable no-roll-back clause that would force LDCs to maintain current levels of IP protections. LDC Watch International Co-ordinator Dr. Arjun Karki said “Historically, technological development in rich countries has come about by copying and adapting advanced technologies invented elsewhere so it is totally unprincipled that now they are imposing IP compliance on the LDCs who are the most poorest and vulnerable segment of the international community”. The 49 UN-defined LDCs spanning across Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, are categorised on the basis of low income, weak human assets and economically vulnerability.

Legally Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement mandates all WTO members to approve the LDC Group’s request, once it has been submitted which was done in November 2012 by Haiti as the then Chair. Like all WTO agreements, the TRIPS Agreement is built on a foundation of “special and differential treatment” for developing countries and, especially, for LDCs, in recognition of their inherent vulnerability and impediments. The intent and spirit of Article 66.1 is for LDCs to have maximum flexibility and policy space including the option of undoing existing IP protections should such protection be adverse to its needs. “The United States, Canada, Australia, the EU, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Japan – along with Ambassador Suescum – should be tremendously shamed by their actions in the TRIPS Council, which seek to deprive LDCs of their right to development. OWINFS and LDC Watch are shining a bright light on their devious, dark room machinations, and it’s ugly in there! Fortunately there is still time to agree to the LDC extension TRIPS waiver, as it was requested,” said Deborah James of OWINFS.

May 24,2013

Over the past week or so, least-developed country (LDC) members of the World Trade Organization have held their own in a closed room with the world’s biggest economies as they worked out details of a request by the LDCs to extend the deadline by which they must enforce WTO intellectual property rules.

At issue is the built-in transition time for LDCs under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Currently, the transition is due to expire on 1 July 2013 (and 2016 for pharmaceutical products).

LDCs had previously extended the period in 2005, and most consider themselves to still not be ready. Therefore, they requested another extension, only this time they proposed that it be in place until a member is no longer classified as an LDC.

The issue was the subject of intensive consultations with the chair of the WTO Council on TRIPS, Panama Amb. Alfredo Suescum, over the past two weeks in a small room upstairs, which happens to be near the WTO IP Division. Consultations are expected to continue in the lead-up to the next meeting of the Council on TRIPs, on 11-12 June. Any decisions taken in the smaller consultations are subject to full consensus of the membership.

The going has been rough for the LDCs as their developing country colleagues were not allowed to participate, according to sources, and developed countries were not looking favourably upon details of the request. At one point in the week, an LDC negotiator leaving the room after hours of talks, said with weary pride that they had not given in yet.

TRIPS Art. 66.1 makes clear that LDCs will get an extension. It states: “In view of the special needs and requirements of least-developed country Members, their economic, financial and administrative constraints, and their need for flexibility to create a viable technological base, such Members shall not be required to apply the provisions of this Agreement, other than Articles 3, 4 and 5, for a period of 10 years from the date of application as defined under paragraph 1 of Article 65. The Council for TRIPS shall, upon duly motivated request by a least-developed country Member, accord extensions of this period.”

“Given the language of Article 66.1, we had thought it would be an easy decision based on the duly motivated request from LDCs. However, what we thought to be an easy process has not been so easy,” a representative of Nepal, speaking on behalf of LDCs, said in prepared remarks for a 22 May informal TRIPS Council meeting, open to any member.

It has been generally accepted for months that an extension would be agreed by all; it only remained to resolve details such as for how long. Developed countries have suggested 5 years, according to sources.

LDCs want it to apply for as long as a country remains an LDC, and they want it not to restrict them from making changes to previously adopted measures should they see fit. But developed countries, such as those of the European Union, feel that an expiration deadline would be more of an incentive for them to keep working toward TRIPS enforcement, and that there should not be any “rollback” permitted of existing measures, as was the case in the 2005 extension.

In its remarks to the 22 May meeting, Nepal said that the situation of LDCs has not changed significantly since the 2005 extension, particularly in meeting Art. 66.1. It said the requested extension is “reasonable, predictable and practical,” and that maximum flexibility is needed during the transition period. It also said a short-term timeframe would not help, as previous short-term deadlines have “clearly been insufficient to develop suitable conditions to benefit from IP systems.”

Nepal on behalf of the LDCs criticised the rollback proposal, saying that “even in 2005 almost all LDCs delegations who intervened expressed displeasure about the no roll back.” It added, “Negotiators of the TRIPS Agreement never intended for such a clause to be applicable to LDCs,” and if had it would have been mentioned expressly. It also said a rollback is “antithetical” to the spirit of Art. 66.1 as it would “narrow the policy space of LDCs.”

However, LDCs have suggested a compromise on rollback to include a clarification that “such a provision will not undermine the flexibility LDCs have been provided under TRIPS.” But this has been met with resistance, the delegate said.

At the 22 May informal TRIPS Council meeting, a squadron of larger developing countries showed up to give support to the LDCs.

According to one source, Nepal for the LDC group, Morocco on behalf of the African Group, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, India, Cuba and South Africa spoke in favour of the LDCs’ proposal.

India in prepared remarks at the 22 May consultation supported the LDC request, repeated its view from the March TRIPS Council meeting that “any artificial deadline would not help in creating a sound and viable technological base and that the decision to extend the transition period should not be circumscribed by any conditionalities like a ‘no roll back clause’ or TRIPS implementation.”

Developed countries, meanwhile, chose not to speak at the 22 May meeting, according to sources, except Norway, which suggested members show flexibility, the source said.

LDCs are given significant flexibility under TRIPS. South Africa, meanwhile, suggested that Australia’s tobacco plain packaging rule represents a roll-back, which led Australia to say no, it doesn’t, as they contend in the active WTO dispute case that the measure is in full compliant with TRIPS, the source said.

In a third area of discussion, it must be decided whether provisions for enhanced technical cooperation will be put in place again this time. This is a way of helping LDCs implement TRIPS, but it may not be continued this time.

In sum, Nepal on behalf of LDCs said, “Let us not send a message that it can be so difficult for WTO members to make a decision in favour of the most marginalized group of countries – a decision based on the precise language of Article 66.1.”

Groundswell of NGO Support

A large number of nongovernmental groups from around the world rose in support of the LDCs in recent weeks.

A sharply worded letter was sent by two NGO groups on 20 May directly to TRIPS Council Chair Suescum, expressing “outrage” at the “manner in which informal consultations are being conducted on the issue.”

“We find the current process to be unfair and prejudicial to the interests of the LDCs, the poorest and most vulnerable segment of the international community.” They called it “outrageous” that developing countries were prevented from participating in the consultations.

“Clearly the consultations have been designed so that the outcome will fail the LDCs,” the letter said. They also called it “unconscionable” that the chair was enabling the imposition of conditions on LDCs. The letter was signed by the “Our World Is Not For Sale” network and LDC Watch.

A February letter was signed by nearly 400 NGOs from every corner of the world, stating that Art. 66.1 “obliges the TRIPS Council to approve without conditions the duly motivated request submitted by the LDCs.”

“LDCs face ongoing resource and human constraints, widening technological gaps, and weak innovative capacities,” the letter said. “Overcoming these problems takes contextually specific strategies, policy flexibility, greater financial resources, but it also takes time – decades not years.”

“Failure by the TRIPS Council to grant LDCs an extension would be disastrous for LDC Members and their citizens,” particularly because they would be required to enforce all aspects of TRIPS immediately, especially painful before they have managed to grow their own local inventors, authors and creators to “leverage a domestic intellectual property system to their advantage.”

They went further to say that LDCs have been “misguided” into complying with the TRIPS agreement rather than taking steps in their best interest, which might include using flexibilities to TRIPS.