terça-feira, 24 de novembro de 2015

Vídeo: A Oração Pai Nosso é Ofensiva no Reino Unido. Foi Banida em Público.

A Igreja Anglicana produziu um pequeno comercial em favor da oração Pai Nosso, o comercial se chama Just Pray, e era para ser passado antes do filme Star Wars. A empresa que controla 80% dos cinemas no Reino Unido aceitou passar o comercial, mas depois disse que não passaria pois o comercial pode ser considerado ofensivo.

Ateus e muçulmanos ficaram satisfeitos, e assim o Reino Unido vai se islamizando e se auto-dstruindo. Como eu costumo dizer, a Europa já vive sob domínio islâmico. Afinal, o comercial não seria permitido também em países islâmicos. Os ateus são bobagem, vivem seu fundamentalismo destrutivo, vazio, virarão pó, como eles mesmos desejam.

No Brasil, nós temos aqueles que querem derrubar o Cristo Redentor. Eles chegam lá, se não defendermos Cristo, nossa religião e nossa cultura.

Vejam o comercial abaixo.

Rezemos o Pai Nosso em inglês pelo Reino Unido:

Our Father, Who art in heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.


segunda-feira, 23 de novembro de 2015

O Que é um Muçulmano Moderado?

Eu sempre me pergunto sobre o que seria um muçulmano moderado, especialmente quando leio sobre a vida de Maomé. Para mim, a melhor definição seria de que um muçulmano moderado não segue Maomé. Um cristão seguindo Cristo sempre seria moderado. Um muçulmano seguindo Maomé seria um terror para o mundo.

A Arábia Saudita é um grande aliado dos países ocidentais, eles estão longe de ser moderados, executam infiéis até com crucificação. A foto acima é de uma execução por lá. Sem falar do dinheiro deles que incentivam terrorismo pelo mundo, por meio de mesquitas e escolas.

Hoje, eu li uma análise muito boa sobre por que o chamados "moderados" muçulmanos, aqueles que procuram "viver pacificamente",  não se levantam contra os muçulmanos radicais e extremistas. É um texto de William Killpatrick, escrito para The Catholic World Report.

Eu diria que se os países ocidentais e o muçulmanos fizessem o que Patrick pede seria o fim do Islã.

Mas, em resumo, Patrick diz que os moderados não se levantam porque:

1) Muçulmanos moderados teriam que renegar a vida de Maomé e muitos versos do Alcorão. Teriam que renegar a própria religião;

2) São os radicais muçulmanos que conseguem a consciência dos muçulmanos, pois eles usam palavras de Alá e a vida de Maomé. (Falei um pouco disso no post abaixo sobre versos do Alcorão).

3) Eles olham o que acontece com aqueles que simplesmente dizem algumas palavras contra o Islã, são atacados tantos por muçulmanos como por ocidentais. Ele coloca os exemplos de Malala Yousafzai, Shahbaz Bhatti e Salman Taeser.

4) Os moderados não são uma maioria silenciosa. A maioria dos muçulmanos no mundo apoia a lei Sharia islâmica, que condena infiéis, mulheres e gays. Os moderados são uma minoria que precisa ser heroica e não moderada.

5) Familiares e vizinhos perseguem e até matam "muçulmanos ocidentalizados". Patrick mencionou os vários casos no próprio EUA e no Reino Unido e lembrou do livro 1984 de George Orwell (bem lembrado).

6)  Os países do Ocidente não apoiam financeiramente associações de muçulmanos moderados, nem países moderados.

7) Os países ocidentais não usam a força contra países islâmicos radicais, pelo contrário, até dão dinheiro para eles.

Aqui vai parte do texto de Patrick:

Who Will Reform Islam?

William Kilpatrick

Those who are relying on the moderate Muslims of the world to correct their errant brethren might profit from a news story out of Pakistan. The All Pakistan Private Schools Federation (APPSF) has launched a book titled I am Not Malala, I am Muslim, I am Pakistani. It’s meant to “counter [the] anti-Islamic propaganda” in Nobel Prize winner Malala Yousufzai’s book, I am Malala. In addition, the teacher’s association is going to court to have Malala’s book banned.

So, the girl whom the Nobel Prize Committee looks upon as the face of moderate Islam is looked upon as something of a heretic by a sizable segment of Pakistani teachers (the association represents 173,000 private schools.)

Or shift your focus to Indonesia—once hailed as a model of moderation, and the place fondly remembered by our president for the sweet sound of the muzzein’s call to prayer. These days, you’re just as likely to hear the shrill sound of the imam’s call to prepare—torches, that is. According to a report in Gatestone Institute, more than 1,000 Christian churches have been shut down, torn down or burned down since 2006. Sometimes the churches are demolished by imam-incited mobs, but just as often they are shut down by local authorities. In many cases when Christians are attacked by mobs, police stand by and watch.


Thinking that moderate Muslims are somehow going to reclaim Islam from extremists is wishful thinking. Moderate Muslims in the sense we understand the word “moderate” are not a huge silent majority who only need to make their voices heard. Rather, they are a silent minority who are silent for good reason. They see what happens to people like Malala and they don’t want to suffer the same fate. There’s a big difference between being personally opposed to shooting schoolgirls in the head and being willing to speak out openly against the ideology that justifies the shooting. The proper term for those willing to speak out under dangerous circumstances is not “moderate”, but “heroic.”


The Civil Rights Movement broke the back of Jim Crow, but it wasn’t led by moderates of the go-along-to get-along school. And it was primarily successful because it was a Christian movement that appealed to the Christian conscience of all Americans. It’s difficult to imagine a similar movement in the Muslim world that would bring about equivalent reforms (say, in the treatment of women) by appealing to the Muslim conscience. The imitation of Muhammad leads in a different direction from the imitation of Christ. The well-formed Muslim conscience is a powerful thing, but it is not the same as a well-formed Christian conscience. Indeed, it is the extremists who have been most successful in appealing to the Muslim conscience. They remind people what Allah expects of them and they can back up their teachings with chapter and verse from the Koran and with examples from the life of the Prophet.

Given their circumstances, it’s unrealistic to expect the majority of Muslims to adopt enlightened attitudes and practices. In essence, it’s asking them to stand up to their own religion. That’s asking a great deal, especially in light of the fact that we show so little willingness to do the same—stand up to their religion, that is.

If you’re a moderately-inclined Muslim living in some Mid-Eastern country and you notice that non-Muslims living in the relative safety of the West are afraid to speak against Muslims behaving badly, what’s the likelihood that you’ll take up the gauntlet? With much less to risk, citizens of the U.S. and Europe are—what’s the word?—deathly afraid to offend Islam. Why should you stick your neck out—especially when the penalty for sticking one’s neck out in your part of the world is to get it cut off?

It’s not simply that Muslims are afraid of what al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar groups might do to them. In Islam, the code of beliefs and behavior is also strictly enforced by your neighbors, your imam, your aunts and uncles, your cousins, your brothers and sisters, your mother and father, and your husband or wife. The first line of enforcers in Islamic societies are not the mujahideen, but the people seated around your dinner table. In the Orwellian societies that Muslims have created for themselves, each extended family is its own Ministry of Truth and Love.

We’re beginning to get a taste of this family “fear pressure” here in the U.S. A report commissioned by the Department of Justice reveals that between 23 and 27 honor killings are committed every year in the U.S., with many more probably going unreported. Young women are the usual victims. They can be killed for becoming “too westernized,” for dating a non-Muslim, for refusing an arranged marriage, or for requesting a divorce. Fathers are the usual culprits, but very often the killings are a family project with mothers, brothers, and cousins joining in. In other Western countries, the problem is much worse. Over the past five years, the UK has recorded 11,000 cases of honor violence
That’s not to say that Muslims who want to break out of the mold don’t face other pressures. If you can get executed by your family for being too Western, you can certainly be killed off by the local version of the Taliban for being un-Islamic.

One reason it’s difficult to find a genuine reform-minded person in the Muslim world is that such people tend to be targeted by the radicals. In 2011, Shahbaz Bhatti, the Pakistani Minister for the Defense of Minorities and a Catholic, was gunned down for opposing the country’s blasphemy laws. Two months earlier, Salman Taseer, the governor of the province of Punjab who also opposed the blasphemy laws, was assassinated by one of his bodyguards. The bodyguard was showered with rose petals when he appeared in court, and some Pakistani religious leaders called for a boycott of Taseer’s funeral. One religious party warned that “No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salman Taseer.”

People who live in the West shouldn’t underestimate how difficult it will be for moderate Muslims to reform Islam. That’s because many Muslims, perhaps a majority, don’t think that Islam needs to be reformed. Numerous polls have shown that the majority of the world’s Muslims would prefer to live under sharia law. Moreover, in majority Muslim lands there is powerful support even for the harshest sharia penalties such as amputation for theft and death for apostasy. Even in the U.S., 51 percent of Muslims agree that they should have the choice of being governed according to sharia. We like to think that there are only a “handful” of radicals in the Muslim world, but it’s likely that the number of truly reform-minded Muslims is also in the “handful” range. They are engaged in an uphill battle.

Ultimately, it’s up to Muslims to reform Islam, but it’s a mistake to think they can do it without help. The forces for moderation in the Muslim world are on the defensive. They need considerable moral and physical support. How can it be provided? In the first place, one has to be able to identify the moderates. That’s something we haven’t been successful at doing. Our administration keeps giving weapons to the people we think are the “moderate” rebels in Syria, and they keep handing the weaponry over to ISIS. We mistake the fanatic “death-to-America” crowd in Iran for moderates, send them hundreds of billions of dollars, and assume that their apocalyptic rantings are mere hyperbole. In Egypt, we helped bring the radical Muslim Brotherhood to power, and over here, Muslim Brotherhood affiliates such as CAIR and ISNA are given veto power over domestic security policy.

There are genuine moderate Muslim organizations in the U.S. (the Clarion Project maintains a list of them), but they are mostly ignored by our government and by the media. If our establishment paid more attention to them and less to the stealth jihadists, moderation might have a better chance of success. The same is true on the international level. There are moderate Muslim leaders who need our support, but aren’t getting it. While we were very supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, we have provided only grudging support to the man who brought Egypt back from the brink of fanaticism—Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. While Western leaders continue to lavish praise on the “religion of peace,” President el-Sisi has had the courage to publicly call for a reform of Islam. In his continuing fight against the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the growing power of ISIS in the Sinai, he deserves all the military, intelligence, and moral support we can provide.

What else can we do to make the Islamic world more moderate? Well, contrary to the peace-studies crowd who have the President’s ear, force sometimes helps. It was force, after all that turned Libya’s Gaddafi from a terrorist into a moderate. And currently, it is a show of force that is winning recruits to ISIS. When the young and restless of the world see the ability of ISIS to gobble up huge chunks of Syria and Iraq, to down a Russian jetliner, and to create panic in Paris, they are impressed and they want to get in on the action.

The only antidote to that is a superior show of force. As Senator Marco Rubio said the other day on TV, we should “subject [ISIS] to high-profile, humiliating defeats.” He added that such defeats should be captured on film and broadcast to the world. Indeed. In fighting an enemy such as ISIS, the propaganda war is almost as important as the shooting war. Battlefield defeats should be leveraged into psychological defeats.

The Islamic world can be made more moderate, but Muslims can’t do it on their own. Their problems, unfortunately, are our problems, and we can’t afford to take a laissez-faire attitude in the face of a fast-spreading cancer. The vast majority of silent Muslims are not waiting for a chance to declare their moderation, they’re waiting to see which way the battle goes. Do they want peace? Sure. But many of them are willing to settle for the peace of Islam—the total submission of all to the will of Allah once final victory is obtained.

sábado, 21 de novembro de 2015

Vídeo: Top 10 Versos do Alcorão para entender Estado Islâmico

O filósofo David Wood, que participa de inúmeros debates com muçulmanos, resolveu fazer um vídeo que descreve os 10 versos (suras ou suratas) do Alcorão que melhor descrevem as ações do Estado Islâmico.

De certa forma, eu fiz isso no meu artigo Trying to Catch Deluge, publicado no Reino Unido. Wood seleciona muito bem os 10 versos, apenas acho que teria encontrado espaço para adicionar o verso 8:39, que diz que os muçulmanos devem fazer jihad até que todos sejam muçulmanos.

Mas vejamos os Top 10 de David Wood, com pequenos comentários meus, em azul.

10) Sura 3:32 - que diz que Alá não ama os infiéis. No Alcorão também está escrito que Alá não ama os pecadores (sura 2:276). Como Wood diz,  Cristo ama a todos os humanos, poderia adicionar que Cristo também procura o amor dos pecadores e daqueles que estão longe dele (infiéis). O Deus cristão ama os inimigos. No Islã, apenas o muçulmanos fiéis são amados por Alá.

9) Sura 48:29 - que diz que aqueles que seguem Maomé são severos (rigorosos, violentos) contra os infiéis e são misericordiosos com os outros muçulmanos. Mais uma vez se ressalta que o islâmico deve odiar os infiéis e ser misericordioso apenas com os outros muçulmanos.

8) Sura 4:24 - não é adultério fazer sexo com mulheres casadas se estas mulheres forem escravas. Aqui basta a própria explicação de Wood. Ele explica que essa sura é relativa às guerras feitas por Maomé, quando eles atacavam os infiéis e recolhiam as mulheres deles. Se as mulheres fossem solteiras o sexo estava liberado, mas os muçulmanos perguntaram a Maomé se podiam fazer sexo com as mulheres que eram casadas. Ele respondeu que sim, pois elas eram escravas.

7) Sura 5:33 - que diz que aqueles que lutam contra Alá, devem ser mortos, ou crucificados ou serem desmembrados. Bom, aqui fica claro a inspiração para as atrocidades do Estado Islâmico.

6) Sura 9:5 - que relata que Alá manda que os muçulmanos matem todos os "idólatras" (infiéis, pagãos), mas se esses idólatras se arrependerem e se tornarem muçulmanos, Alá os perdoará. O Estado Islâmico costuma fazer esse rito para forçar conversão para o Islã de pagãos.

5) Sura 9:29 - que diz que o "Povo do Livro" (judeus e cristãos) só tem duas opções ou convertem ao Islã ou pagam imposto de submissão aos muçulmanos. Esse verso é bem famoso e já foi empregado diversas vezes historicamente no mundo muçulmano, inclusive na Espanha muçulmana. O imposto é conhecido como jiziah. O Estado Islâmico costuma cobrar isso quando não deseja tirar tudo dos cristãos e judeus. Assim, o Povo do Livro é um pouco melhor do que os pagãos (atenção ateus e povo de religiões "da natureza"), o Povo do Livro pode ficar vivo e manter a sua religião se pagarem imposto (não podem construí Igrejas nem fazer proselitismo, no entanto) , os pagãos, ou convertem ou morrem.

4) Sura 9:73 - que diz que mesmo os muçulmanos podem ser mortos se não forem fiéis a Alá, se forem "hipócritas", dizerem que seguem Alá e não seguirem de fato. Atenção, muçulmanos "moderados".

3) Sura 9:111 - que diz que os muçulmanos lutam por Alá, eles matam e são mortos por Alá. Assim, novamente muçulmanos "moderados" não são verdadeiros muçulmanos.

2) Sura 47:35 - que diz que se os muçulmanos são maioria ou são mais fortes (militarmente) não devem procurar paz, devem conquistar os infiéis.

1) Sura 2:106. - que fala da teoria da revogação islâmica. Alá pode se contradizer, ele não é racional no sentido lógico, como é o Deus cristão. E o Alcorão é dividido apenas por tamanho de capítulo, o capítulo mais longo vem primeiro. Em geral, os capítulos mais longos são do período que Maomé viveu em Medina e conseguiu ser chefe político e militar. Os versos menores são do tempo dele anterior em Meca, quando ele era mais pacífico por não ser forte militarmente. Assim, os (poucos) versos pacíficos foram revogados pelos versos de capítulos mais longos. Assim, se muçulmanos usam versos pacíficos, eles provavelmente foram revogados pelo próprio Alá, segundo eles mesmos.

Vejam vídeo de David Wood.

Vocês podem ler as suras em várias versões, clicando aqui. Se não conseguem ler em inglês, procurem por Alcorão no Google, devem encontrar o Alcorão disponível em português e conferir as suras mencionadas.

(Agradeço o vídeo ao site Jihad Watch).

sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2015

O Que a Bíblia Determina para Refugiados Sírios? Bom Samaritano ou Macabeus?

Como os países ocidentais devem agir se seguirem a Bíblia frente aos refugiados sírios, que podem trazer terroristas e uma doutrina (islâmica) de destruição do cristianismo? Devemos agir como a parábola do Bom Samaritano ou como os Macabeus agiram contra Antíoco Epifanes?

A história do Bom Samaritano é conhecida (Lucas 10:30-35), Cristo nos contou essa parábola em que um homem ferido na estrada é desprezado por sacerdotes e levitas (conhecedores da Lei de Deus), mas é acolhido por um samaritano, que ajuda a curar as feridas e coloca o homem coloca em um hotel, pagando as despesas.

Há dois livros de Macabeus na Bíblia Católica,  e os Macabeus foram tema das leituras da Igreja essa semana. Eles foram líderes judeus que lutaram contra o multiculturalismo pagão trazido pelo rei Antíoco Epífanes com apoio dos próprios judeus. Os Macabeus fizeram guerra contra esse rei que tinha destruído e profanado o templo e matado muitos judeus. Eles venceram  a guerra e reestabeleceram a Lei de Deus em Israel.

O teólogo Taylor Marshall usou essas duas passagens da Bíblia, Bom Samaritano e Macabeus, para à luz de São Tomás de Aquino, dizer como os países ocidentais devem se comportar.

É uma análise realmente sensacional. Merece uma tradução, mas eu não tenho tempo agora.

Em resumo, para quem não sabe inglês, Dr. Marshall ressalta que para São Tomás de Aquino as leis, dentre outras coisas, devem obedecer à razão e ser direcionadas ao bem comum. Se elas não fazem isso não são leis. A religião islâmica não aceita Cristo como Deus e não aceita conviver com cristãos, a não ser que eles paguem tributo de submissão aos muçulmanos e deixem de exercer sua religião em público. Os muçulmanos devem se submeter a lei islâmica (Sharia), e isso implica seguir esses preceitos. Se os muçulmanos conseguirem poder político dentro dos países ocidentais irão implementar a Sharia. É obrigação de cristãos lutarem contra falsas leis, como fizeram os Macabeus.

Os cristãos devem ser caridosos com todos, com os doentes, refugiados, etc., mas a maior obrigação deles  é a fazer justiça preservando a lei corretamente estabelecida e defendendo a liberdade de exercer sua religião.

Outra coisa, os cristãos devem ser caridosos, mas Cristo não disse que eles devem dar suas casas e todos seus pertences aos outros, isso seria suicídio por inanição. E na parábola do Bom Samaritano vejam que o Bom Samaritano não leva o homem ferido para sua casa, deixa-o em um hotel. Assim, os países devem ser  caridosos com muçulmanos, fazer doações a eles, mas não trazê-los para casa.

Leiam abaixo a argumentação do Dr. Taylor Marshall, realmente sensacional.

Islamic Refugee Crisis: Good Samaritan or Maccabean Response? Or both

What would Thomas Aquinas Say?

What would Saint Thomas Aquinas say about the Refugee Crisis?
We as Christians are debating among ourselves about whether or not we have a moral duty to receive refugees fleeing Muslim nations.

This article is politically incorrect and says things that might shock you. Please read the entire article until the very last two paragraphs before making a judgment or writing incendiary comments. This might be one of the clearest things you’ve read on the topic, because it draws on virtue ethics of Thomas Aquinas – something generally ignored in our day and age. – Godspeed, Taylor Marshall

Are We Good Samaritans?

As Christians we remember Our Lord’s parable about the Good Samaritan recounting how the outwardly religious clerics (the priest and the levite) passed the injured man in the road, but how the Samaritan proved to “be his neighbor” and care for him. Christ rebukes the outwardly religious hypocrites and commends the good Samaritan.
When it comes to the refugee crises, none of us wants to be the hypocrite who turns his steps to the opposite side of road to avoid caring for an injured victim.

Or Are We Good Maccabeans?

Meanwhile, if you are Catholic, you’ve been listening to the book of Maccabees this week in the daily Mass readings. These biblical lessons approvingly recount how Mattathias along with his Maccabean sons and companions rightfully used physical violence against their political oppressors the Seleucid Greeks who were actively using force to undermine the conscience and convictions of the People of God.

So which are we?

Are we the caring Samaritans or the crusading Maccabeans?

The Catholic political theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas can help us with this question:

Let’s first suspend all emotional appeals, and set down a few logical and calm points of agreement to get us all on the same page:
  • In the Summa theologiae, Thomas Aquinas places politics under the civic virtue of patriotism which is itself a sub-virtue of justice. Our discussion is ultimately not about “politics” but the virtuous duties of justice toward God, our families, our nations, and all of humanity (in that order).
  • For Thomas Aquinas, all political human laws must be: 1) in accord with reason; 2) published or promulgated; 3) by rightful political authority; and for the common good (See STh q. 90, aa. 1-4). If a political law is lacking in any of these four attributes, it is for Thomas, not a law at all.
  • The duty of the political magistrates (the Republic or Kingdom) are by the virtue of justice different than the duty of the civilian person. Citizens are not de facto judges, soldiers, police officers, or legislators (STh q. 90, a. 3).
  • Muslims explicitly affirm that Muhammad is the Last Prophet of God.
  • Muslims explicitly affirm that Our Lord Jesus Christ is certainly not the Son of God.
  • These two Muslim affirmations place all Muslims in implicit or explicit theological contradiction with Christians who profess Jesus Christ as the Son of God and consequently conclude that Muhammad was a false prophet.
  • For Sunni Muslims (the majority of global Muslims), the mandate to erect Sharia law in every human government is a doctrine of faith. Muslims must in accord with their conscience pursue this theological belief that Sharia law must be promulgated in every human society (England, France, Poland, USA, Mexico, etc.)

So how does this apply to Refugees from Islamic nations?

When we move through the logical points above, we begin to discover a few logical conclusions:
  1. Muslims are bound by conscience to erect Sharia law in your nation. This is a bad thing for baptized Christians. At best it means being taxed at a higher rate (the Muslim jizya tax for Christians). At worse it means death.
  2. If you live in a democracy, a 51% political Islamic majority will allow “we the people” to promulgate Sharia law. They are following their conscience and religious beliefs in this matter. They will do this just as they have done in any other community where they captured the majority (Mecca, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc.)
  3. It is a duty of of justice for Christian people to strive to prevent the promulgation of false laws (i.e. those contrary to reason or the common good). Christians are called to be politically active and advocates for the common good and natural law.
  4. While we have the Christian duty to care for the refugee, the sick, the victim, and the injured, we have a greater common duty by justice to preserve the state of law and our religious liberty first and foremost.
We see this principle in our Scriptural readings. When it comes to the Samaritan, he rightfully cares for the victim. However, when it comes to the nation and the threat of terrorism (Seleucid Greeks), false laws, and the danger of our children, military, and civic peace, we (like the Maccabees) are politically obliged to resist, protect, and expel…for the common good.

The Analogy of the Familial Home

I am the head of a household. I earn an income to feed my wife and my children. With my surplus, I care for orphans, widows, the church, pro-life causes, single-mothers, and other apostolates that I feel God has called me to support.
Justice and charity demand that I care for the less fortunate and it is a Catholic belief that our salvation depends on how we treat the hungry, the naked, the homeless, and the sick.
I am not obliged to take the homeless into my house and have them sleep in my daughter’s bedroom at night. I am not obliged by justice or charity to give the homeless a vote over my financial decisions. He does not have the right to choose what’s for dinner. The homeless man does not (by my charity) receive a right to my continued support. The homeless man cannot share a bed with my wife when I am traveling. Nor may he presume a right over my children’s belongings.

Since we live in a democracy (“we the people”), political refugees de facto gain a measure of political authority over our laws, taxes, finances, military, religious holidays, and legislative bodies.
This principle applies to refugees universally. It applies even more so when the refugee in his conscience believes that he is morally obligated to introduce and vote for the enshrinement of Sharia law.
There is also the further problem that 5%-20% of global Muslims are considered to be “radicalized,” which means that they are consciously willing to use terrorist tactics to advance their Muslim worldview against the West. If you knew that 10% of your child’s Halloween candy was poisoned, would you allow your child to consume any of it?

So what would Thomas Aquinas say?

I’m afraid that Thomas would be much harsher than most of us would feel comfortable with.
Thomas prizes the “common good” so highly under the virtue of political justice that he openly promotes arms and capital punishment against those who are publicly “dangerous and infectious.”
The common good is the peace of society so that life and faith can thrive. Babies can be born and have a happy life. Grandparents can grow old together. Anyone who seeks to destroy the common good should be, according to Thomas, destroyed.
Thomas Aquinas also taught that anyone that fomented “danger to the community” or heretical movements is worthy of the death penalty:
“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” STh II-II q. 64, a. 2.
It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community — just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. STh II-II q. 64, a. 3.
Have no doubt that Thomas Aquinas would have stated that Christian nations should receive Christian refugees but refuse Muslim refugees for the sake of national justice and the common good. The Muslim’s official declaration of faith denies natural law (eg, polygamy), religious liberty (eg, Sharia), and the implicitly Muhammad’s teach and example of political violence.

What’s our Catholic Response? The Samaritan Uses the Hotel

We Christians should be generous with humanitarian aid toward Muslims and all people. We should send money and resources to those who have been dispossessed. We should be loving and generous with Muslims. Kindness brings about conversion and understanding. We should also try to topple the Islamic State and eradicate terrorism in our lands and in the Islamic lands.
Remember the Good Samaritan! He did not take the roadside victim home with him. Rather, the Good Samaritan put the victim up in a hotel and paid for him to get better. The Good Samaritan was good and commended by Christ. The Good Samaritan did the right thing: humanitarian aid.
We are not required by Christ to take victims that oppose our faith and our way of life and make them into our political heirs. We are not required to take them into our homes.
But we are obliged to help them. And if terrorists use our charity as a pretense to hurt us, then, as Thomas Aquinas says, they should be swiftly destroyed.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.


quinta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2015

Papa Bento XVI e o Islã. Ele Sabe do que Está Falando.

Em pelo menos três livros o Papa Bento XVI escreveu sobre as diferenças entre as religiões do mundo, sempre lembrando que nem todas são benéficas para a humanidade, nem todas ensinam amor e paz. Como ele disse: "Qualquer que ache que todas as religiões são apenas superstições está errado, mas também qualquer um que ache que todas as religiões são iguais também está errado".

Em uma entrevista em 2012, ele chegou a criticar duramente a declaração Nostra Aetate do Vaticano II porque este documento "fala de religião apenas em termos positivos e desconsidera as formas distorcidas e doentias de religião".

Recentemente, infelizmente, o Papa Francisco não mostrou essa mesma sabedoria  e conhecimento teológico do Papa Bento XVI. O Papa Francisco, após os ataques terroristas de Paris, disse que "violência que usa o nome de Deus é blasfêmia". Mas de que Deus ele estava falando? Qualquer Deus?

Voltando ao Papa Bento XVI, o site Breibart News fez um excelente resumo do que ele disse sobre todas as religiões e especificamente sobre o Islã.

Bento XVI conhecia o Islã, como religião, como cultura, como sistema legal (Sharia) e como sistema político totalitário.

O texto do Breibart News ficou ótimo. Vejamos parte dele, leiam todo no site.

Pope Benedict Was Right in Warning About Radical Islam
by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.16 Nov 2015

Pope Benedict was universally pilloried by the media for his famous 2006 Regensburg address, in which he commented on the historical relationship between Islam and violence. But now even the mainstream media are finding themselves forced to ask whether Benedict was right, and perhaps even prophetic in his statements.

In that talk, Benedict cited the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus regarding the relationship between religion and violence. “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” the quote read.

Pope Benedict XVI, a scholar who wrote extensively about religious freedom as well as the proper relationship between church and state, always insisted on speaking about religions (plural) rather than religion (singular). He based his reflections not only on a solid philosophical footing, but also on impartial observation of what religions actually propose and the sort of societies they create.

In his 2009 encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate, Benedict made the case that not all religions contribute equally to the development of individuals and societies. Some, in fact, may obstruct it. “Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism,” he wrote, “nor does it imply that all religions are equal.”


The Pope noted that certain religions “teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development,” yet other traditions “do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development.”
Even before becoming pope, Joseph Ratzinger wrote on the differences between religions, noting that “anyone who sees in the religions of the world only reprehensible superstition is wrong” but also “anyone who wants only to give a positive evaluation of all religions… is equally wrong.”

In his own critical considerations of religions, Ratzinger wrote with brutal honesty, observing that there are “deviant, esoteric forms of religion on offer” as well as “pathological” forms of religion. He wrote of religions that are “obviously sick” and religions that are “destructive for man.” He asserted, moreover, that with the detachment of religion from reason, “pathological forms of religion are constantly increasing.”


Ratzinger wrote that “The interplay of society, politics, and religion has a completely different structure in Islam” than it does in the West. He went on to say that much of today’s discussion in the West regarding Islam “presupposes that all religions have basically the same structure, that they all fit into a democratic system with its regulations and the possibilities provided by these regulations.”
Yet this is not consistent with the facts, he continued, but rather, it “contradicts the essence of Islam, which simply does not have the separation of the political and the religious sphere that Christianity has had from the beginning.”

This underlying difference in understanding goes well beyond political or social theory regarding the nature of the state. It touches virtually every aspect of human existence.

Ratzinger continued: “Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from ours; it embraces simply everything. There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society.”

The conclusion he reached was remarkably severe. He warned that we must have a clear understanding that Islam “is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a pluralistic society.”

This is a sober message, but one that needs to be heard whether we like it or not.


Sandro Magister, no site Chiesa, certa vez também trouxe passagens de livros do Papa Bento XVI sobre Islã.

Acima a capa de um dos livros em que pode se ler as opiniões do Papa Bento XVI sobre as religiões e abaixo imagens de outros dois.

quarta-feira, 18 de novembro de 2015

Dos 2.184 Refugiados Sírios nos EUA, 2.098 são Muçulmanos e apenas 53 são Cristãos. E a Culpa é da ONU.

O Obama declarou em Paris, após os atentados da última sexta, que não faz distinção de religião para receber refugiados. Mas hoje foi provado que ele mentiu, ele faz sim distinção e é contra cristãos. Ele usa a Organização para Refugiados para ONU para acolher aqueles que fogem da Síria e essa organização sabe a  religião dos refugiados e assim os Estados Unidos também sabem. A tabela acima é do Departamento de Refugiados dos EUA e mostra que religião tem cada refugiado sírio recebido pelo país.

Claramente se vê que a enorme maioria dos recebidos pelos Estados Unidos, 96%, são muçulmanos. Enquanto, apenas 2,4% são cristãos. Isso é uma enorme disparidade, mesmo porque os cristãos da Síria representam 10% da população.

O site da CNS News diz que os cristãos têm medo de ir para campos de refugiados da ONU, porque eles não estão salvos nesses campos, são atacados lá também. Assim, os refugiados que saem desses campos são na imensa maioria muçulmanos. Os cristãos procuram abrigo em igrejas, escolas ou casa de parentes.

Se os cristãos são atacados por muçulmanos em pleno campo de refugiados, como esses muçulmanos farão quando entrarem nos países ocidentais?

Um Anglicano ressalta que os países muçulmanos é que deveriam receber os muçulmanos em campos de refugiados.

Você acha que os governos não sabem como a Organização para Refugiados da ONU seleciona os refugiados?

Vejam reportagem da CNS News.

So Far: Syrian Refugees in U.S. Include 2,098 Muslims, 53 Christians

By Patrick Goodenough | November 17, 2015 | 4:29 AM EST

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama said Monday that calls from some quarters for the U.S. to admit only Christian refugees from Syria were “shameful,” yet the reality is that today’s refugee system discriminates, not against Syrian Muslims, but against Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.

Critics say this is because the federal government relies on the United Nations in the refugee application process – and since Syrian Christians are often afraid to register with the U.N., they and other non-Muslims are left out.

Fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other jihadist groups, Syrian Christians generally avoid U.N. refugee camps because they are targeted there too.

Most refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are referred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Applications are then handled by one of nine State Department-managed resettlement support centers around the world, a process that includes vetting and interviews by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and takes an average of 18-24 months. There are occasions when a process can begin without UNHCR referral, but this usually applies in cases of close relatives of refugees already in the U.S.

Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday.

The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha’i, 6 Zoroastrians, 6 of "other religion," 7 of "no religion," and 3 atheists.

By comparison, Syria’s population breakdown in early 2011, before the civil war’s death toll and refugee exodus roiled the demographics, was 90 percent Muslim (including Sunnis, Shia, Alawites and Druze) and 10 percent Christian, according to the CIA World Factbook.

In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, some Republican presidential candidates and governors are calling on the administration to reconsider a plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees in the current fiscal year.

On Monday, Arkansas Republican Sens. Tom Cotton and John Boozman also called for a temporary moratorium, but as part of a broader new policy on Syrian refugees that also deals with the U.N. referral problem.

“The United States’ reliance on the United Nations for referrals of Syrian refugees should also be re-evaluated,” they said. “That reliance unintentionally discriminates against Syrian Christians and other religious minorities who are reluctant to register as refugees with the United Nations for fear of political and sectarian retribution.”

According to Patrick Sookhdeo, international director of Barnabas Fund, a charity campaigning to help rescue Christians from Syria, Christians fleeting ISIS “seldom go to the main refugee camps in neighboring countries because they are marginalized, abused, and at serious risk of violence in these Muslim-majority shelters.”

Sookhdeo says Western governments “must understand that vulnerable Christians are being overlooked in rescue program that take only those in the camps to safety. Fully aware of the victimization that is likely to await them in refugee camps, Iraqi and Syrian believers are mainly taking shelter in schools, churches, and apartments, or with relatives where possible.”

As a result, some refugee advocates say Western diplomatic missions should work through churches in urban areas in the countries neighboring Syria, to offer refuge for vulnerable Christians.

Prioritize the ‘most victimized’

In September Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, introduced a bill that would give Congress an up-or-down vote on Obama’s plan to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees – and would also require the administration, when considering applicants from Syria and Iraq, to prioritize the resettlement of “persecuted” religious minorities.
Carey also tackled the sensitive Christian versus Muslim issue.

On Sunday, GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that U.S. efforts to help Syrian refugees should focus on Christians, “who have no place in Syria anymore. They're being beheaded, they’re being executed by both sides. And I think we have a responsibility to help.”

Obama, speaking in Turkey, said calls to admit Syrian Christians but not Muslims were “shameful” and “not American.”

Other Western countries are also grappling with the controversial issue.

Last September George Carey, a former leader of the world’s Anglicans, urged the British government to prioritize Christians among the Syrian refugees “because they are a particularly vulnerable group.”

Carey said in an op-ed a government plan to admit thousands more Syrians by way of refugee camps located in the region “inadvertently discriminates against the very Christian communities most victimized by the inhuman butchers of the so-called Islamic State.”

“Christians are not to be found in the U.N. camps, because they have been attacked and targeted by Islamists and driven from them,” he said.

Carey also tackled the sensitive Christian versus Muslim issue.

“Some will not like me saying this, but in recent years, there has been too much Muslim mass immigration to Europe,” he wrote. “This has resulted in ghettos of Muslim communities living parallel lives to mainstream society, following their own customs and even their own laws.”

“Isn’t it high-time instead for the oil-rich Gulf States to open their doors to the many Muslims who are fleeing conflict?” Carey asked. “Surely if they are concerned for fellow Muslims who prefer to live in Muslim-majority countries, then they have a moral responsibility to intervene.”

In Australia, Muslim groups accused the government of bigotry for announcing in September that a plan to admit an additional 12,000 refugees from the conflict will prioritize “those most in need – the women, children and families of persecuted minorities.”

The Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman said it would be discriminatory to reject desperate Syrians, “based on their adherence to Islam.”

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils said then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott must “take the high moral ground and stop bigots in his party from dividing the Australian community” by wanting to screen refugees on religious grounds.

(Agradeço a informação ao site da Pamela Geller)

Impressionante: Os Detalhes do Ataque ao Bataclan

Isso que vai acima é o escudo usado pela polícia francesa para invadir o Bataclan nos atentados de Paris da última sexta. Vejam como ele está cravado de balas. O escudo protegeu os policiais dos tiros dos terroristas e acabou salvando todos os reféns que tinham escapado da matança.

O jornal The Telegraph descreveu a sequência dos fatos no ataque ao Bataclan. O Bataclan foi descrito como "Inferno de Dante" por um policial que invadiu o prédio.

Policiais descrevem a amontoado de corpos de mortos sobre corpos de feridos e também sobre corpos de pessoas que se faziam de mortas. Muito sangue, cheiro de corpos mortos.

Os terroristas atiraram a esmo matando dezenas de pessoas,  prometiam aos sobreviventes que eles iam "sofrer tanto quanto àqueles que estão na Síria" e que eles estavam em guerra e iam matar inocentes. Para o negociador da polícia francesa, os terroristas não mostraram que queriam negociar, apenas diziam que iam decapitar os reféns e jogar os corpos pela janela.

Um problema terrível do terrorismo islâmico é que os terroristas não se importam com a própria vida, eles celebram a morte deles próprios. O negociador lida com gente que quer matar e morrer, só isso. Eles saíram em missão para isso, não esperados que voltem. E não devem ser presos pelos "infiéis".

Um policial heroicamente tinha invadido o prédio antes e conseguido matar um terrorista. Mas apenas posteriormente a polícia resolveu invadir.

Vejam a sequência dos fatos:


Around an hour into an Eagles of Death Metal gig at the Bataclan, Omar Ismail Mostefai, Samy Amimour and a third Isil terrorist burst in through the main entrance and shot security staff in the lobby. Standing on a mezzanine level in front of the bar, they began spraying bullets into the audience standing in front of the stage, killing dozens of people.
In the confusion of the first few moments of the attack, the band managed to flee to the wings while concert-goers tried to escape through fire exits onto the street. Others hid in side-rooms, cupboards, false ceilings or on the roof, while two people, including a pregnant woman, climbed out of upstairs windows and dangled from windowsills to stay out of sight.
“This is war. And it is just the beginning,” one gunman shouted. “We will kill the innocent!”
Two of the terrorists moved up to the first floor balcony, while the third stayed on the ground floor. They slaughtered at random, shooting from windows and doors at people trying to escape.
“It was like Dante’s Inferno,” another officer told Le Monde newspaper.
A pregnant woman hangs from a windowsill outside the Bataclan to escape the gunmen
A pregnant woman hangs from a windowsill outside the Bataclan to escape the gunmen  Photo: Le Monde



The first policeman to arrive on the scene, an officer from the anti-crime branch, bravely made his way into the building where he shot one of the terrorists, who was killed when his suicide vest exploded. Police do not yet know if he detonated it himself or it was set off by the gunshot.
Upstairs, dozens of other concert-goers were either in hiding or in sight of the terrorists, but many of them would have to wait almost two and a half hours longer for their ordeal to end.
“Do you hear their cries, their suffering?” one terrorist asked. “It’s to make you feel the fear that the people in Syria feel every day.”
Bataclan shooting
Bataclan shooting  Photo: YouTube/War Leaks



Elite RAID anti-terrorist police arrived at the theatre to find darkness and silence broken only by the sound of mobile phones ringing unanswered in the pockets of the dead and the survivors pretending to be dead.
“When we went in, it was really dark. There were dozens of bodies lying on top of each other on the ground, the dead, the injured, the survivors who were pretending to be dead,” a policeman identified only as Jean told the TF1 television channel.
“It was like Dante’s Inferno,” another officer told Le Monde. The smell was unbearable, the silence appalling, he said.
Most of the RAID officers were veterans of the assault on the Hyper Cacher Jewish supermarket in January, where Isil adherent Amedy Coulibaly killed four hostages before he was shot dead.
They gradually cleared the ground floor, helping survivors to safety as they did so.
Wounded survivors of the Bataclan massacre are helped to safety
Wounded survivors of the Bataclan massacre are helped to safety  Photo: EPA



Unsure whether the terrorists had fled the building, the officers made their way up two staircases to the balcony, stepping over bodies and bullet casings, while survivors emerged from their hiding places to flee to safety.
“They came out like zombies. They were in a terrible state and could hardly walk,” said Jean.
A medical emergency chain was established at the bottom of the stairs in anticipation of a bloody end to the siege.
Rescuers workers evacuate a man on a stretcher near the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris
Rescuers workers evacuate a man on a stretcher near the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris 
Photo: AFP



Having checked the upper floor, the police came to one last door, behind which they thought the remaining bombers were holed up. A voice came from the other side of the door – a hostage who had been sent as an intermediary.
“He shouted out that the terrorists were there and that if we opened the door they would blow everything up,” said Jean.
Behind the door, the terrorists were inflicting mental torture on their 20 hostages. One of them, Sebastien, who has since emerged as a hero after pulling the pregnant woman hanging from the windowsill to safety, said: “They asked us if we agreed with them. I'll let you imagine the lingering silence of that moment. The most timid nodded their heads and the most daring said 'Yes.'
"They asked us to serve as look outs, to yell at the police to stay back and that if not they would blow up their explosive vests.”
rench fire brigade members aid an injured individual near the Bataclan concert hall following fatal shootings in Paris
French fire brigade members aid an injured individual near the Bataclan concert hall following fatal shootings in Paris  Photo: REUTERS



The terrorists agreed to give the police a mobile phone number and at 11.27pm the first contact was made. A specialist negotiator, who had also spoken to Coulibaly during the Hyper Cacher siege, asked for their demands.
“They didn’t want to free the hostages. They said get out or we will shoot and we will decapitate the hostages,” said Jean. They also said they would throw a body out of a window every five minutes.
Over the next 50 minutes four more calls were exchanged, but the negotiations led nowhere.
Sebastien said at one point the bombers asked him if he had a lighter and then whether he thought money was important. He said no, assuming it would be the answer they wanted.
"They took out a wad of 50-euro bills and I had to burn them," he said. "The other hostages thanked me for not trying to be a hero. The real heros are dead, they died protecting others."
He said something about wanting to put on a shirt because he was cold, and one of the terrorists “told me that I was starting to annoy him", he said.
Outside the Bataclan the morning after the attack
Outside the Bataclan the morning after the attack



With no progress in the negotiations, the Paris police chief ordered his officers to storm the narrow, 30ft corridor where the terrorists and hostages were. After bursting open the door, the police threw in half a dozen stun and smoke grenades, then advanced in pairs behind a thick metal shield on wheels, called a Ramses.
“As soon as the door was open the terrorists opened fire… the shield alone took about 30 bullets from their Kalashnikovs. The hostages were screaming, throwing themselves on the ground, hugging the walls,” said Jean.
“Each time a pair of officers got past a hostage, the rest of the team would pull them out of there."
After all the hostages were evacuated - miraculously, no-one was injured - the police officers reached the end of the corridor and fired on the killers with HKG36 assault rifles.
One attacker went down, and then the other detonated his suicide vest, killing them both.
The assault had lasted three minutes.


terça-feira, 17 de novembro de 2015

Guerra Cultural é Sempre Guerra Religiosa

O filosofo brasileiro Olavo de Carvalho costuma ressaltar como a esquerda passou a dominar a cultura brasileira ainda durante a ditadura militar. O livro acima vai mais longe sobre os Estados Unidos revela um domínio histórico da esquerda mesmo quando ela perde eleição.

Bem interessante. O autor, Stephen Prothero, ressalta uma coisa que eu também defendi em um artigo que publiquei. A guerra cultural é sempre uma guerra teológica. A religião determina a cultura e também a esquerda e a direita.

Em tempos de avanço do Islã é importante saber que o Ocidente deixou um vácuo religioso, ateu, em que o Islã se apóia culturalmente e politicamente. Basta ouvir o Obama falar se esquivando de falar sobre religião.

Parece bem informativo esse livro, vejam descrição do livro abaixo.

In this timely, carefully reasoned social history of the United States, the New York Times bestselling author of Religious Literacy and God Is Not One places today’s heated culture wars within the context of a centuries-long struggle of right versus left and religious versus secular to reveal how, ultimately, liberals always win.

Though they may seem to be dividing the country irreparably, today’s heated cultural and political battles between right and left, Progressives and Tea Party, religious and secular are far from unprecedented. In this engaging and important work, Stephen Prothero reframes the current debate, viewing it as the latest in a number of flashpoints that have shaped our national identity. 

Prothero takes us on a lively tour through time, bringing into focus the election of 1800, which pitted Calvinists and Federalists against Jeffersonians and “infidels;” the Protestants’ campaign against Catholics in the mid-nineteenth century; the anti-Mormon crusade of the Victorian era; the fundamentalist-modernist debates of the 1920s; the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s; and the current crusade against Islam.

As Prothero makes clear, our culture wars have always been religious wars, progressing through the same stages of conservative reaction to liberal victory that eventually benefit all Americans. Drawing on his impressive depth of knowledge and detailed research, he explains how competing religious beliefs have continually molded our political, economic, and sociological discourse and reveals how the conflicts which separate us today, like those that came before, are actually the byproduct of our struggle to come to terms with inclusiveness and ideals of “Americanness.” To explore these battles, he reminds us, is to look into the soul of America—and perhaps find essential answers to the questions that beset us.