RUTHFULLY YOURS

Whenever Christians attempt to repair, renovate, or build a church — all of which contradict Islamic law — the same chain of events follows. Local Muslims riot and rampage, and local (Muslim) officials conclude that the only way to prevent “angry youths” from acts of violence is to ban the church, which is then declared a “threat” to security.

Repeatedly, Christian leaders accuse local officials of inciting Muslim violence against churches. Muslim leaders then point to this violence to deny the church a permit on the grounds that it has attracted violence.

On February 1, Tharwat Bukhit, a Coptic Christian member of Egypt’s parliament, announced “there are approximately 50 churches in Egypt closed for reasons of security.”

When the “Arab Spring” broke out in 2011, Egypt’s Christians compiled a list of 43 churches that had been shut down by local authorities over the years. This list was given to the prime minister of Egypt at the time, Dr. Essam Sharaf, who said that the churches would be opened as soon as possible. Yet since then, according to Bukhit, “Today, the number of closed churches has grown to almost 50.”

Why are Christian churches being “closed for reasons of security”? Whenever Christians attempt to repair, renovate, or build a church — all of which contradict Islamic law[1] — the same chain of events follows. Local Muslims riot and rampage, and local (Muslim) officials conclude that the only way to prevent “angry youths” from acts of violence is to ban the church, which is then declared a “threat” to security.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said tensions between Russia and the West have sent the world into a ‘new Cold War’, while speaking at the Munich Security Conference today.

‘We have slid into a new period of Cold War,’ he said. ‘Almost every day we are accused of making new horrible threats either against NATO as a whole, against Europe or against the US or other countries.’Amid an escalating war of words, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said a lack of trust could return the continent to ‘40 years ago, when a wall was standing in Europe’.

He rejected claims that Russian planes had killed more than 1,000 civilians in Syria, and insisted that Russia was ‘not trying to achieve some secret goals in Syria’ but was ‘trying to protect our national interests’.
He added: ‘Nearly on a daily basis, we are being blamed for the most terrible threat to Nato as a whole, to Europe, to America, to other countries. They make scary movies where Russia starts a nuclear war. I sometimes wonder, are we in 2016 or 1962?’

His comments comes after France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls called on Russia to stop bombing civilians in Syria, saying this was crucial for achieving peace in the country.France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls also warned that the European project could ‘disappear’ if policymakers were not careful

‘France respects Russia and its interests … But we know that to find the path to peace again, the Russian bombing of civilians has to stop,’ Valls said in a speech at a security conference in Munich.

‘The European project can go backwards or even disappear if we don’t take care of it,’ he said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nationalism-wreaks-havoc-in-divided-europe-1455477856

There are many different ways the European Union could fall apart in the coming weeks, but all of them have a common thread: the inability of national politicians to adopt a European perspective when confronted by common European challenges.

This is as true of the crisis surrounding the U.K.’s membership of the EU and the migration crisis, which will dominate a crunch EU leaders’ summit this week, as it is true of the eurozone economic crisis, which have burst back on the agenda following recent moves in financial markets.

Take Britain’s EU membership: When Prime Minister David Cameron first said that he wanted a new deal for the U.K. ahead of a referendum he has pledged to hold by the end of 2017, he insisted that the reforms he was seeking would benefit the whole of Europe.

Yet the draft deal that EU leaders will discuss does nothing of the sort. It consists of a series of carve-outs for the U.K. carefully crafted to stop other countries taking advantage of them. Indeed, EU officials are clear that if other member states try to make use of a controversial “emergency brake” that will allow the U.K. to restrict welfare payments to EU migrants for four years, the deal with the U.K. government would fall apart.

The deal may fall apart anyway: European Council President Donald Tusk has warned that the process is “fragile”. Mr. Cameron can’t even be sure he will achieve even his limited objective of persuading key figures in his party to back his deal, complicating his efforts to win the referendum, which he hopes to hold in June.

Either way, the deal looks likely to make the EU harder rather than easier to manage. The price of trying to keep Britain in the EU has been to put in question core EU principles including nondiscrimination against EU citizens, the free movement of workers and the integrity of the single market rule book. That looks like a recipe to embolden nationalists across the continent, showing that unilateral threats can deliver results. CONTINUE READING AT THE SITE

As Alec Guinness says at the end of The Bridge on the River Kwai: “What have I done?”

When the refugee crisis began last summer, about 1,500 people were coming to Sweden every week seeking asylum. By August, the number had doubled. In September, it doubled again. In October, it hit 10,000 a week, and stayed there even as the weather grew colder. A nation of 9.5 million, Sweden expected to take as many as 190,000 refugees, or 2 percent of the population — double the per capita figure projected by Germany, which has taken the lead in absorbing the vast tide of people fleeing the wars in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere.

That afternoon, in the cafeteria in the back of the Migration Agency building, I met with Karima Abou-Gabal, an agency official responsible for the orderly flow of people into and out of Malmo. I asked where the new refugees would go. “As of now,” she said wearily, “we have no accommodation. We have nothing.” The private placement agencies with whom the migration agency contracts all over the country could not offer so much as a bed. In Malmo itself, the tents were full. So, too, the auditorium and hotels. Sweden had, at that very moment, reached the limits of its absorptive capacity. That evening, Mikael Ribbenvik, a senior migration official, said to me, “Today we had to regretfully inform 40 people that we could [not] find space for them in Sweden.” They could stay, but only if they found space on their own.