Rabbi David Ashear offers encouraging words to those who pray repeatedly and feel that their prayers aren't working. Click here to listen and here to sign up for a daily emuna email.
The International New York Times March 25th print edition included a lengthy article spread over two pages titled Terrorism's recurring phenomenon: Brothers.
The Bakraouis join a list of brothers involved in nearly every major terror attack on western soil since three sets of Saudi siblings were among the 19 hijackers who carried out the September 11th, 2001, attacks in the United States. Before then, the grim roster included 19th century French anarchists, militants in Southeast Asia and the Jewish extremists involved in the assassination Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel in 1995.
Nowhere in the article is there a mention of any religion other than Jewish.
In the same edition there is an editorial about words issued after the Brussels attacks.
Predictably, the two leading Republicans called for severe measures against Muslims.
While the fearmongering and bravado seem to work with part of the electorate, those approaches — including the unconstitutional singling out of a religious group...
But it is okay for the New York Times to single out a religious group? Incidentally, I guess the journalists were so enthralled in finding an instance of Jewish terrorist brothers that they didn't bother checking the grammar of the sentence which should have included the word "of" after assassination.
Another item that caught my eye in the International New York Times print edition was a correction regarding an article published two months prior.
Correction: March 21, 2016
An article on Jan. 13 about a divestment action against Israeli banks by the United Methodist Church pension board referred incorrectly to the Palestinian territories, where, the board said, the banks help finance Israeli settlement construction. While most of the world officially considers the territories to be occupied, and the settlements illegal, there is no consensus that the occupation itself is illegal. The error was brought to the attention of editors only this week.