segunda-feira, 16 de janeiro de 2017

Padre Samir vs Robert Spencer sobre "Palestinos".


Eu mencionei as opiniões de ambos no meu livro sobre Guerra Justa.  O egípcio padre Samir Khalil Samir é jesuíta, professor de Islã  e alertou pessoalmente o Papa Francisco que o Islã NÃO é um religião de Paz, ao contrário do que costuma dizer o próprio Papa. No meu livro, eu detalho o que ele pensa sobre o Islã. Roberto Spencer é talvez o autor mais renomado no mundo quando se trata de terrorismo islâmico e ele é católico. Os livros de Spencer são sempre best seller. No meu livro, eu comento a descrição que ele faz do surgimento do Estado Islâmico.

Spencer não se cansa de debater publicamente com qualquer "autoridade" islâmica. E quando vi que no site dele havia um debate com o Padre Samir, pensei comigo mesmo: O que eles vão discutir se eles pensam mais ou menos a mesma coisa sobre Islã?

Na verdade, eles discutiram sobre a relação entre Israel e os "palestinos", que Spencer chama de Árabes argumentando que o termo "palestina" foi criado pela KGB e por Yasser Arafat na década de 60 para enfrentar Israel.

Padre Samir defende os palestinos e o direito internacional para que haja uma solução pacífica entre os palestinos e os judeus. E argumenta contra Israel, dizendo que Israel é um estado terrorista pois costuma invadir a Palestina.

Robert Spencer diz que a solução de dois estados não dará certo pela simples base do que é o Islã e da história do conflito. E que se Israel é um estado terrorista, Jordânia, Arábia Saudita, Síria, Iraque e Líbano também são terroristas pois invadiram Israel na Guerra dos Seis Dias em 1967. Para Spencer, Israel invade territórios palestinos depois de ser atacado por mísseis.

Interessante o debate, seria bom termos um debate ao vivo. É um debate que parte de uma base sólida, o Islã não é uma ideologia da paz.

Spencer começa a descrição do debate afirmando que o Padre Samir escreveu uma carta para ele se declarando um fã de tudo que Spencer escreve sobre o Islã. E Padre Samir começa o debate dizendo que alertou pessoal ao Papa Francisco em reunião pessoal de 30 minutos no dia 6 de junho de 2016 que o Islã não é religião de paz. 

Então, partimos de uma base fundamental para que o debate sobre Israel-Palestina não se perca.

Vejam a descrição do debate no site de Robert Spencer,  Jihad Watch.

An exchange on Israel and the “Palestinians” between Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. and Robert Spencer

Father Samir Khalil Samir, SJ is Professor of Islamology and Middle East Christianity at the Pontifical Oriental Institute. He recently sent me a lengthy letter in which he wrote: “J’apprécie beaucoup ce que vous écrivez sur l’Islam” (I appreciate very much what you write about Islam). He does not, however, appreciate very much what I write about Israel and the “Palestinians,” as he made clear in that letter and has now reiterated in a comment he left at Jihad Watch this morning:
Father Samir Khalil SAMIR, SJ says
January 15, 2017 at 8:12 am
All the insults that I read in some of the comments are shameful and unworthy of this site.
1) Pope Francis is a man who seeks to build PEACE among peoples. What he said about Islam as “a religion of PEACE” was not correct, as I explained to him in my personal meeting with him for 30 minutes on Monday, 6 June 2016. I also gave him my book “Violence and non-violence in the Qur’an and Islam” and 3 other articles from me on the question. Its objective is to restore the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Muslim world, interrupted for nearly 6 years, and it has succeeded: the meeting is scheduled for the month of February in Cairo.
2) His meeting with President Mahmoud Abbas goes in the same direction: it is about building together PEACE. The State of Palestine exists, recognized by the United Nations, just as the State of Israel exists. It is not the USA that decides whether or not a state exists, but the United Nations, notwithstanding certain readers. However, the State of Palestine never invaded the State of Israel, or occupied a single square meter of that State. On the other hand, the State of Israel invades periodically the State of Palestine, occupies a part of it after having driven the Palestinian inhabitants. In my opinion, the invading State (whatever it is) is a terrorist state.
3) Pope Francis — who is neither American, nor Palestinian, nor Israeli — does not judge with feelings, but according to the INTERNATIONAL LAW. If we want to live in PEACE –and this is the primary goal of every reasonable citizen –, INTERNATIONAL decisions must be respected, even if they are questionable. They could be discussed, but as long as they exist they must be applied. I am convinced that PEACE is possible between these two States, and that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis want it. They must be helped to achieve it by scrupulously respecting INTERNATIONAL decisions, even if it means reviewing certain points.
4) Finally, it is a serious mistake to mix religion with this question, as a great many of the citizens of the two States unfortunately do. It is a question of INTERNATIONAL politics, which can only be resolved by INTERNATIONAL Law. It is not a matter of sentiment or sensitivity. The problem is POLITICAL, it is not sentimental or religious.
Father Samir Khalil SAMIR, SJ (Professor of Islamology and Middle East Christianity at the Pontifical Oriental Institute)
To that I responded:
Robert Spencer says
January 15, 2017 at 12:32 pm
Fr. Samir:
Thank you for your comments.
1. He appears not to have heeded your wise counsel in regard to the nature of Islam. What good is a “dialogue” with the Muslim world when it is based on false pretenses?
2. In reality, the Arabs (the “Palestinians” had not yet been invented, as they would be in the 1960s by the KGB and Yasir Arafat) rejected a Palestinian Arab state in 1948, and the surrounding Arab states invaded the State of Israel with the intention of destroying it. By your own statement that “the invading State (whatever it is) is a terrorist state,” Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia are terrorist states for invading Israel at that time. Your claim that “the State of Israel invades periodically the State of Palestine” ignores the fact that these “invasions” are preceded in every case, without exception, by rocket attacks by “Palestinians” against Israel, murders of Israeli civilians that are celebrated by “Palestinians,” etc. The fact is undeniable that if the “Palestinians” laid down their arms, there would be peace, while if the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be a new genocide of the Jews, as is frequently called for on official Palestinian television stations.
3. Your claim that the majority of “Palestinians” want peace is belied by surveys showing that “Palestinians” overwhelmingly favor the imposition of Sharia (which would deny Christians basic rights), as well as suicide bombings: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/1/pew-poll-palestinians-favor-suicide-bombings-shari/
4. As you no doubt know well from your study of Islam, in Islam the religious and the political cannot be so easily separated.
Kindest regards,
Robert Spencer

domingo, 15 de janeiro de 2017

Arcebispo Italiano "A Nossa Estupidez Transformará a Europa Cristã em Europa Islâmica". "A Igreja Deve Parar de Gastar Dinheiro com Imigrantes"


O arcebispo italiano Carlo Liberati disse que em 10 anos a Europa será islâmica por causa da estupidez europeia, do modo de vida ateu e pagão europeu. Ele ainda condenou a Igreja Católica por doar tanto dinheiro a imigrantes islâmicos. E falou sobre como os seminários não funcionam bem na Europa e estão vazios. E que a Itália está deixando o próprio povo pobre enquanto gasta dinheiro com imigrantes.

Ele acha que o povo italiano deveria sair às ruas contra a aceitação de tantos imigrantes que "ao invés de agradecer pela comida que recebem fazem arruaças nas ruas". Isso está criando o que ele chamou de "cultura do pedinte". Disse que o próprio pai foi um imigrante na Austrália, mas trabalhou muito para colocá-lo em um seminário e que agradeceu muito a ajuda que teve quando era imigrante.

O que dizer a não ser bater palmos para as palavras dele? Sensacional. Parabéns, caríssimo arcebispo.

Além disso, pela explicação do que é estupidez pelo arcebispo, vemos que essa estupidez está fortemente dentro do Vaticano.

Agora uma pequena experiência pessoal, antes da reportagem sobre o arcebispo:

No ano passado, eu fui a Santiago de Compostela. Há uma fila imensa para ver o túmulo do apóstolo. Peguei a fila, fiquei extasiado de estar ali. Mas ao fim do percurso você sai por uma porta dá Catedral e dá de frente para um centro de refugiados. Sendo os refugiados quem são não sei se Santiago aprovaria. E eu entristeci.

Não sou contra imigrantes, nenhum cristão deve ser. Devemos recebe-los, mas eles devem respeitar quem os recebe. Arcebispo Liberati fala disso. E todo cristão deve defender sua fé, assim como fizeram os espanhóis ao defender a Espanha contra os mouros (muçulmanos) no século quinze, usando como patrono Santiago, que é conhecido como Santiago Matamouro.

Vejam a reportagem do The Express sobre as palavras do arcebispo abaixo.

‘Everyone will be Muslim because of our stupidity’ Catholic leader blasts ‘WEAK’ church

By BELINDA ROBINSON

Monsignor Carlo Liberati, an Italian Archbishop, gave the warning after observing the growing number of detention centres opening up in Europe, suggesting it was a sure fire way to have the Islamic faith become mainstream.
He said: 
“In 10 years we will all be Muslims because of our stupidity. Italy and Europe live in a pagan and atheist way, they make laws that go against God and they have traditions that are proper of paganism. 
“All of this moral and religious decadence favours Islam.”
He added: “We have a weak Christian faith. The Church nowadays does not work well and seminaries are empty. 
“Parishes are the only thing still standing. We need a true Christian life. All this paves the way to Islam. In addition to this, they have children and we do not. We are in full decline.”
Italy, along with the rest of Europe, has become a hotspot for immigration in the past decade.
Figures show that there were 5,014,437 foreign nationals resident in Italy as of January 1, 2015, an increase of 92,352 on the previous year. 
Italy has also seen a sharp rise in the number of illegal immigrants who dock on its shores after making the dangerous boat ride from North Africa across the Mediterranean sea.
And there has been a growing number of Eastern Europeans and Romanians migrating to the country since the expansion of the European Union.
Liberati claims Italy’s desire to help other nationalities is leaving its own country’s poor people destitute.



He added: “We help without delay those coming from outside and we forget many poor and old Italians who are eating from the trash. We need policies that take care of Italians first: our young people and the unemployed.
I am a protester. If I were not a priest, I’d be out there demonstrating in the squares. What is the point of so many migrants that instead of thanking for the food we give them, they just throw it, spend hours with their cell phones and even organise riots?”
Liberati even accused the Catholic church of donating too much money to the recent migrants.
He said: 
“Giving money to migrants wandering around town is not only wrong, but morally harmful because we encourage their behaviour and they get used to that, not mentioning the fact that we already feed them. 
I think sometimes this creates a beggars’ network. I remember that my father went to work very hard as a migrant in Australia so I could go to the seminar. So he has experienced in his own skin the discomfort of poverty and the noble virtue of gratitude.”



sexta-feira, 13 de janeiro de 2017

Vídeo Para Quando Alguém Usar as Cruzadas para Defender o Islã



No meu livro sobre Guerra Justa eu falo muito sobre Cruzadas, sobre a real história das Cruzadas e de como muitos países europeus tiveram suas fronteiras determinadas pelos cruzados. Em suma, se não fosse pelos cruzados nós brasileiros muito possivelmente não seríamos descendentes de europeus. Além disso, claro, combato a ideia de que as Cruzadas foram resultado de avanço imperialista dos cristãos. As Cruzadas foram na verdade uma ação em defesa do Cristianismo depois de séculos e séculos de agressão aos cristãos.

O vídeo acima ressalta esse ponto de que as Cruzadas ocorreram depois de séculos e séculos de ataques do Islã:

Dizendo, a primeira Cruzada foi feita:

- 460 anos depois da primeira cidade cristã ser atacada pelo Islã;

- 457 anos depois da conquista de Jerusalém pelo Islã;

- 453 anos depois da conquista do Egito (que era cristão) pelo Islã;

- 443 anos depois do ataque do Islã contra a Itália;

- 427 anos depois do primeio cerco islâmico à Constantinopla;

- 380 anos depois da conquista da Espanha pelo Islã;

- 363 anos depois do ataque islâmico à França;

- 249 anos depois que Roma foi saqueada pelo Islã;

Em suma. na verdade, o que aconteceu foi que as Cruzadas demoraram demais para acontecer. Os cristãos, na verdade, demoraram demais para se levantar em defesa dos cristãos.

Entro em mais detalhes no meu livro, mas o vídeo é bem feito, espero que entendam o inglês.



quinta-feira, 12 de janeiro de 2017

Vídeo: Uma Boa Análise da Performance de Obama como Presidente



Bill O'Reilly, que fala no vídeo acima, está a frente do programa mais assistido da TV à Cabo dos Estados Unidos no horário nobre. O que significa que essa análise dele feita na terça-feira passada foi vista por milhões.

No vídeo, ele faz ótima análise da performance de Obama como presidente.

O'Reilly não está entre os críticos mais severos de Obama, mas ele deixa claro que, em suma, Obama:

1) Aumentou a pobreza nos EUA;

2) Piorou a questão racial, negros andam matando policiais pelo país todo e Obama sempre convidou grupos radicais para a Casa Branca;

3) Deixou um país economicamente estagnado, caminhando a passos de tartaruga, como eu li outro dia em relatório do JPMorgan;

4) Criou um sistema de saúde, Obamacare, que penalizou o trabalhador;

5) Espalhou a morte terrorista pelo mundo, começando ao abandonar o Iraque, fortalecendo grupos terroristas até surgir o diabólico Estado Islâmico que ameaça todo o mundo;

6) Piorou relação com a Rússia e não reagiu às ações imperialistas de Putin;

7) Permitiu a militarização da China ao ponto de ameaçar o Japão;

8) Valorizou e enriqueceu o Irã, país que espalha o terror no mundo;

9) Não valorizou a família;

10) Piorou a nível educacional do país;

11) Achou que conter a mudança climática é mais importante que conter o terrorismo global;

12) Encheu o país de regulamentação para supostamente conter a mudança climática, mesmo sem saber os efeitos dela e sabendo que países poluidores como China e Índia não fariam o mesmo e assim as regulamentações não adiantariam nada.

Eu só não concordo com dois pontos:

1) Não acho que a vida de Obama sirva exatamente de exemplo para quem trabalha duramente para subir na vida. Nem a experiência política de Obama antes de ser presidente  era relevante.

2) Dizer que "mudança climática" é real é questionável. Precisa dizer exatamente o que isso significa. O clima está sempre mudando. É só isso? Se for aquecimento global inúmeros cientistas questionam isso.

E faltou dizer que Obama destruiu o próprio partido. E que ele abandonou os cristãos dentro dos Estados Unidos e no mundo. Coisas que eu mostrei em posts abaixo.

Mas de resto é um boa avaliação.

Assistam. O'Reilly coloca o que ele diz na tela, o que facilita para quem não entende bem o inglês. É preciso também conhecer o que significa alguns termos como Obamacare. Espero que entendam, eu não tenho tempo para traduzir do inglês.


quarta-feira, 11 de janeiro de 2017

"Por que a Disney Odeia Tanto o Sexo Masculino?". Filmes Infantis e Star Wars



Allison Hull é mãe de filhos homens, e desde criança gosta dos filmes da Disney. Mas ela ficou bem chateada com os últimos filmes da Disney: "Valente", "Frozen", "Moana", e os últimos dois filmes Star Wars. A Disney comprou a franquia Star Wars e fez os últimos dois filmes: Despertar da Força e Rogue One.

Ela concluiu que os filmes não servem para seus filhos. Os homens retratados nos filmes são uns perdedores, fracos, sujos ou vilões.  E se perguntou "Por que a Disney Odeia tanto o Sexo Masculino". 

Em suma, tenha cuidado com filmes infantis, eles passam uma mensagem, que pode ser boa para seu filho ou não. Eles não são inocentes. 

Debate-se muito isso nos Estados Unidos, desejava-se, por exemplo, que uma das personagens de Frozen fosse lésbica, por exemplo. E a Disney sabe disso e é influenciada por isso.

Por vezes há filmes infantis muito bons que tratam de forma brilhante de temas difíceis. Por exemplo, quando me perguntam sobre um filme sobre Guerra Justa, eu incluo na lista o filme Angry Birds (falei disso no blog) Se pode aprender muito sobre Guerra Justa nesse filme infantil.

Vejam o ótimo texto da Allison Hull, publicado no The Federalist, depois eu volto falando de Star Wars:






Why Does Disney Hate Boys So Much? All Their Male Characters Are Losers

I don’t know the damage this ad campaign will do to boys’ psyches. I’m saddened that Disney can’t offer any characters for boys to look up to.
By 


I was a Disney child, raised on it all. I fell hook, line, and sinker for “The Little Mermaid,” “Lion King,” “Aladdin,” “Beauty and the Beast,” and even “Toy Story.” When Pixar started making movies, I was even more enthralled.
I even watched all the Disney shows. Many people don’t remember their show in the evening called “Avonlea,” but I do. It caused me to read all the Anne of Green Gables series and cultivated my love of reading.
So I’m always so excited when the next Disney movie pops up. While I’m entranced by the beauty of the gowns and music, my husband is a little more cynical about all this Disney stuff. He was also raised on the Disney movies of the ’90s, yet he’s seen a downward trend that I have just picked up on.
Disney has been trying to push that girls, or rather princesses, can do anything they set their mind to. The “Dream Big Princess” ad campaign is huge on their channels right now. They’ve gotten a huge backlash from the Left saying they don’t want girls dreaming of being princesses and longing for a prince to set them free. They don’t need a man to make them happy.
So, Disney now focuses on having girls “Dream Big.” Pretty good, right? But in their scurry to make girls feel empowered and valued, Disney has left out the other sex: boys.

On Disney, Boys Get No Love

I have only boys. We watch the Disney Channel. But they have noticed that there is no commercial for them. There is no encouragement for boys to have big goals. Boys are completely left out of the equation. There isn’t even a picture of a boy in any of their videos or ads.
In a world that is pushing gender inclusivity, this seems like a big oversight. It got me miffed and made me look at everything under a microscope. Who are the male role models in the Disney movies? Why do we have to push men to the side in order to encourage women?
Non-Disney movies participate in the same trend. In “Bad Moms” you have the unappreciated man-child, the sex symbol, and the overbearing husband who never wants his wife out of the house. Feminism has produced a hatred and overgeneralization of men. Where are all the John Wayne figures? Gone are the men who can be funny, sensitive, and yet virile and able to save the day. In their place are whiny babies, bumbling idiots, or mean, hurtful men.

Here, Let’s Run Through the Princess Movies

Let’s look at the princes from the 1990s Disney films. Start with Eric from “Little Mermaid.” He’s strong, funny, charming, a little easy to persuade (as Ursula shows), but caring and loyal. He sacrifices himself for the woman he loves. This is someone I’d want my boys to emulate.
Now, let’s look at the Beast. He’s mean, quick to lose his temper, and yet he’s lived a life that’s showed him true inner beauty. He learns how to love, and defends not just his castle but Belle from villagers set on destroying everything. He figuratively and literally turns from a Beast into an amazing, strong, caring man who yet again gives his life for those he loves. My boys would probably pretend to be the Beast, but they’d see what he chooses to be instead of what he had turned into, and hopefully that gets ingrained in them.
Now check Aladdin. He’s stinky, smelly, has lice, and steals. But it’s okay, because he’s an orphan and lives with a monkey in a hovel. While not the worst male character in this film, the stealing and overall behavior leaves much to be desired. But he tries to better himself and is intensely loyal and selfless to Jasmine, once again intent on giving up his life to save his love.
Those are the princes of the ’90s Disney movies. They’re the only male characters that you’d want your sons to want to be like. They’re the only role models from Disney worth their snuff. The other male characters are the villains or overbearing, clueless fathers who bumble around or break all the girls’ things. Even in this era, male role models leave a lot to be desired.

Compare to the Latest Disney Movies

When “Brave” came out I thought it was an instant classic. The mother-daughter dynamic was really poignant. But this movie had no strong male characters, no one for my sons to look to. There’s the bumbling dad again, who loves much and yet is easily distracted into fighting and other ambitions that usually hold precedence over his family. He doesn’t do much as king except let his wife lead while he follows.
The suitors and their fathers are pretty much equally disgusting. Then there’s the villain who became a bear because he wanted the whole kingdom for himself. The brothers are rambunctious and unruly. So, nothing there for my boys to do except say “Feast your eyes” several times. Thank you, Disney.
“Frozen” was next on my list. It enchanted me with amazing scenes and music. My son wanted to be Elsa for Halloween and watched it many, many times because of her. Yet in this film the men were just background noise. The villain, Hans, is the charming man who wants to marry Anna but only for selfish reasons and then kill her.
The other man in the story is an Aladdin look-alike, Kristoff. He’s smelly, dirty, eats food with his reindeer, and has no other friends. But unlike Aladdin, trolls love him and are his family. They want him to bathe and look nice, yet he still chooses to smell and be dirty. He’s street-smart, but still lets Anna take the lead.
When Kristoff finally realizes he loves Anna, he tries to rescue her but can’t. Opposite to the Beast, he doesn’t sacrifice himself but watches her sacrifice for her sister. In the end, he’s just comedic fodder to two charismatic princesses. While Kristoff is not a bad role model, Anna walks all over him, and I’m not sure that’s something I want for my sons. Strong women, yes, but weak men who in the end don’t do anything? No.
Now for “Moana.” As someone who lived in Hawaii for a short time, I was really interested in what Disney would do with this. The only male characters in the movie are the father and Maui. The father again, is the overbearing, controlling dad who will not let Moana get in the ocean water or go past a certain part. He wants her to stay in the safety of his wings. As an adult now, I can understand his point of view and would do the same with my children. But it’s not at all attractive to a boy, and ultimately Moana proves that her father is wrong and she knows better.
Maui, the demigod, of course is impulsive, crazy, initially mean, and thinks only of himself and how others can praise him. He slowly comes around to trying to sacrifice for humanity, but he doesn’t save the world, Moana does. His actions are just a small help to her and she could probably have done it all without him. His only contribution is to show her how to sail. Then he leaves and sometimes flies over her as she sails with her family. The males take a backseat again to this strong, female character.

Where Have All the Good Men Gone?

Disney writes no decent male characters for my sons to look up to anymore. If we want to look for male characters, we must look at inanimate objects like toys, planes, and cars. Even in the ’90s that was the case, when a lion was the lead male character.
On TV it’s more of the same. “Lion Guard” offers another impulsive boy, but at least he’s the lead character. But there’s no prince to Princess Sofia or Elena. Boys have lower, supporting roles, but no lead. One could argue that Jake from “Jake and the Neverland Pirates” is a strong, male lead character, but he’s a pirate. He steals and plays all day. And Izzy is close to being the lead in that story. It’s also an older show with rarely new episodes created.
My boys are of value, and they need to be told they are special too.
Even the new Star Wars movies offer strong women and very few strong men. Finn is the closest we get, and he still is a coward who doesn’t save people, the girl does. Po could be an option, but he’s missing throughout most of the movie. In “Rogue One” there’s another female lead and I’d bet money that the male characters are not worth even mentioning.
I don’t know the damage this ad campaign will do to boys’ psyches. I’m saddened that Disney can’t offer anyone for boys to look up to in human form. I’m saddened that they desperately look for boy characters and can’t find a decent one among the bunch.
My nine-year-old has expressed his displeasure about this. He wants to pretend with his brothers but they must argue about who to be and my four-year-old usually becomes a girl because there are no characters they would like to be but the villain. Who wants to be the overbearing dad?
I wish Disney would see how they are treating boys. Their stories suggest boys are supposed to take a backseat to girls and let them do whatever they want. Boys’ dreams just aren’t considered as important. They don’t need to be cultivated and encouraged because they just don’t matter as much. Is this the message we want to send to our boys who will soon become men? Sit down, shut up, and listen to the women?
Women and men should be alarmed at this ongoing trend and take a stand. My boys are of value, and they need to be told they are special too. They also need to be told that they can save the day, just like the women. Disney, listen up: I’m watching you. Give my boys something tangible, something for them to emulate that’s real. Don’t push boys to the side to build up the girls. Why can’t we build and strengthen both?

---
Eu sempre acompanhei desde criança os filmes de Star Wars. E também, assim com a Allison, só tenho filhos homens. Tenho a mesma impressão da Allison. Aliás, o último filme da Star Wars é o mais efeminado de toda a série e com roteiro mais fraco, apesar de ter melhorado a parte teológica/filosófica, como diz Marc Barnes.

Star Wars já tem filmes muito ruins como A Ameaça Fantasma (muito infantil e péssimo teologicamente). Mas Rogue One repetiu clichês de cinema, efeminou ainda mais a série, trouxe um robô mais humano e muito sentimentalista (o que fica meio ridículo na minha opinião). Até tem umas passagens boas, para quem estuda "Guerra Justa", como eu, mas o filme é bem fraco.

E realmente não serve para homens. Levei meu filho de 4 anos, que adora Star Wars, e ele detestou, com toda razão.

Acho até que a heroína (Rey) do filme de 2015 é mais convincente, apesar de ter uns braços da finura dos braços do meu filho de quatro anos (deve ser a "força" que a faz conseguir lutar contra o Kylo Ren).

E eu sempre achei meio ridículo o Mestre Yoda lutar, ainda mais quando fica pulando, como nos filmes das partes I, II e III.

Em suma, filmes infantis não são inocentes e como dizia Chesterton: "todo assunto é assunto teológico".


terça-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2017

Sob Obama, EUA entram na Lista de Países que Perseguem Cristãos


A imagem acima é o Mapa da Vergonha, dos países que perseguem os cristãos no mundo, feito pelo International Christian Concern, no relatório de 2016.

O destaque do relatório de 2016 é que pela primeira vez os Estados Unidos, sob administração do Obama, entraram no Mapa da Vergonha.

O texto mostra uma mudança cultural no país que se volta contra os cristãos.

Os países onde há mais perseguição aos cristãos são os de praxe: Iraque, Síria e Coréia do Norte.

Vejam todo o relatório da perseguição aos cristãos, clicando aqui.

Abaixo vai o texto sobre os Estados Unidos que relata alguns casos de perseguição sofridos pelos cristãos nos Estados Unidos:

On June 11, 2016, Omar Mateen, a US-based radical Muslim, attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 and injuring 53 more. In a call to 911, he clearly laid out his motivation. The attack
was driven by his allegiance to ISIS and desire for retribution for attacks on ISIS. Incredibly, after the attack, numerous high profile media outlets blamed the attacks on what they perceive as the anti-LGBTQ atmosphere that Christians have created. 
In short, Christians in the US are facing constant attacks in the media, where they are portrayed as bigoted, racist, sexist, and close- minded. The characterization in the media may be translating into direct attacks as well. The First Liberty Institute, the largest legal organization in the US dedicated exclusively to protecting religious freedom, documents such actions and reports that attacks on religion doubled between 2012 and 2015.
More importantly, Christians and all religious people are being marginalized through the law.
From the case of a Christian football coach suspended for praying at the 50-yard line, to Christian business owners forced to pay a $135,000 fine for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, the number of troubling cases directed towards Christians has exploded.
In 2011, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship lost their official recognition as a student organization in all of their respective chapters across 23 California public colleges. This occurred because the
Christian organization required their respective leaders to uphold a doctrinal statement of Biblical principles, which allegedly conflicted with California State universities’ policies. After four years of embattled negotiations, InterVarsity regained their official recognition in June 2015.
In 2014, Eric Walsh was terminated one week after being hired by the Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH). The basis of termination was alleged undisclosed income from prior employment in California.  However, the Georgia DPH knew that Walsh was a Christian preacher outside of work and went to great lengths to review and investigate the content of his sermons posted on YouTube. Georgia officials have even requested copies of Walsh’s sermons, despite prior statements that the termination had nothing to do with his religious views or affiliations.
Walsh is currently suing the Georgia DPH for wrongful termination and religious discrimination.
The rise of these cases stems partly from a broad cultural shift towards secularism. The Pew Foundation found that those identifying as non-religious in the US rose by seven percent, to 23 percent of the total US adult population within just seven years (2007 to 2014).
Anti-Christian entities have been able to leverage the growing secularization of society and culture to their advantage, utilizing the courts as a preferred venue to gradually marginalize and silence
Christians. Using the cudgel of “equality,” secular forces in and out of the courts have worked to create a body of law built from one bad precedent after another. Claims of intolerance and inequality are used to fundamentally distort the clear intent of the First Amendment.
The Founders carefully and deliberately placed religious freedom as the first liberty because it encompasses several fundamental rights including thought, speech, expression, and assembly. The First Amendment explicitly grants freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The essential aim is to protect the right of citizens to practice religion in the public square.
Decades of accumulated poor judicial decisions and precedents have twisted the First Amendment so that the courts, in defiance of the Founders, are pushing religion out of the public square, and into the small space of private expression. In essence, the courts are deciding that you only have full religious freedom and expression in the church and your home. In the public domain, your religious views and thoughts must be restrained and controlled.
This trend is extremely worrying in the country that has long held the ideal of religious liberty.
While there is no comparison between the life of a Christian in the US with persecuted believers overseas, ICC sees these worrying trends as an alarming indication of a decline in religious liberty in the United States.



segunda-feira, 9 de janeiro de 2017

Crianças do Estado Islâmico


Essa criança da foto acima atirou cinco vezes no homem amarrado e gritou Allahu Akbar (Alá é grande), o grito de guerra do terrorismo Islâmico.

Ela aparenta ter uns 4 anos de idade. Faz parte do último vídeo divulgado pelo Estado Islâmico.

Há mais crianças matando.




Na Bíblia, há descrições de tribos tão malignas que eram vizinhas ao povo de Israel que Deus disse que Israel atacasse elas ao ponto que sobrasse nada, nada mesmo.

Discuto isso no meu livro.

Lembrei dessas passagens dá Bíblia ao ver essas fotos.

Leiam de onde essas fotos saíram, clicando aqui.

Rezemos por essas crianças.


sábado, 7 de janeiro de 2017

Os Números do Terrorismo Islâmico de 2016.


Em 2016, foram contados 2.474 ataques terroristas Islâmicos em 61 países que mataram 21.255 pessoas e feriram 26.716 pessoas.

Desde os ataques de 11 de setembro de 2011 em Nova York foram mais de 30 mil ataques terroristas Islâmicos contados pelo site The Religion of Peace. E esse período só tem 5.585 dias, como relata o Culture Watch

Tá pouco ainda para se entender o que é o Islã?

Vejam a imensa lista de ataques, clicando aqui.