Wednesday, April 18, 2018

US Pastor Imprisoned, Accused of “Terrorism,” in Turkey


US Pastor Imprisoned, Accused of “Terrorism,” in Turkey

By Julio Severo
An American pastor is imprisoned in Turkey since October 2016 on accusations that he aided terror groups or spied against Turkey.
Andrew Craig Brunson
Andrew Craig Brunson, a 50-year-old evangelical pastor from North Carolina, faces up to 35 years in prison on charges of “committing crimes on behalf of terror groups” and “espionage.”
Brunson, who denies any wrongdoing, was arrested in 2016 for alleged links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Kurdish socialist party that has fought for independence from Turkey.
“We have seen no credible evidence that Mr. Brunson is guilty of a crime and are convinced that he is innocent,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement.
Brunson served as pastor of Izmir Resurrection Church, a small Protestant congregation in Izmir, the old Bible city of Smyrna, and has lived in Turkey for 23 years.
President Donald Trump has asked Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for Brunson’s release, but his request has not been answered.
Turkey’s accusation against the evangelical minister is nonsense. Even though terrorists are common in Islam, they are not common in Christianity, especially among evangelicals.
Erdogan should see this obvious difference and immediately release Brunson.
It is a huge affront for Turkey to imprison an evangelical minister of the nation that lead NATO, because the presence of Turkey in NATO was a privilege exclusively — and undeservedly — granted by the United States. Turkey is radically Islamic and its values are contrary, religiously and historically, to the Christians values of Europe and the United States. There is no justification whatsoever for Turkey to be a NATO member and a U.S. ally.
Yet, it is not only Turkey’s attack on an innocent pastor that proves that Turkey does not deserve to be an ally of Christian nations.
Last month, Erdogan said Israel is “a terror state” and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “a terrorist” over Israel’s defensive efforts against Palestinian terrorists. Turkey has funded and armed Hamas against Israel and, with Saudi Arabia, it has funded and armed Islamic terrorist groups, including ISIS, against the Syrian government. This is real terrorism. How can Islamic Turkey hypocritically accuse Israel of terrorism?
One of the largest modern genocides of Christians was committed by Turkey. About 100 years ago in Turkey, an estimated 1.5 million Armenian Christians in 66 towns and 2,500 villages were massacred; 2,350 churches and monasteries were looted, and 1,500 schools and colleges were destroyed. Nevertheless, to appease Turkey’s wrath, Trump has avoided to say that the Armenian Genocide was a genocide. Israel, which every year rightly remembers the Holocaust, has also avoided to recognize the Armenian Genocide, even though evangelical Christians have worked very hard to press nations to recognize the Holocaust. Both America and Israel do not recognize the Armenian Genocide because Turkish Muslims hate to hear about their crimes against Christians.
For these obvious reasons, Turkey poses concerns to Christians, who also look at historical facts regarding Turkey’s violence against Christians and Jews.
Hagia Sophia, the oldest and largest Christian cathedral in the world, was conquered by Muslims in 1453 in Constantinople, the Christian name of the current Islamic city of Istanbul, Turkey. A Christian civilization was destroyed by Islamic invaders who transformed the conquered Christian land — the land of the seven churches of Revelation — in Turkey.
Not only a traditional Christian land was conquered, but the land of Israel too.
From 1517 until 1917, Turkey — which was then the Ottoman Empire — conquered and owned the Promised Land. This is, during four centuries the land of Israel was under Islamic control. So when the Bible talks about Gog and Magog coming from North and conquering Israel, this was Turkey, which is on the North of Israel, and owned Israel for centuries.
In fact, Jewish and Christian scholars pointed to Turkey as Gog and Magog, as shown by evangelical author Joel Richardson:
Hippolytus of Rome (170–235), an early Christian theologian, in his Chronicon, connected Magog with the Galatians in Asia Minor, or modern-day Turkey.
Moses Ben Maimonides (aka Rambam) (1135–1204), the revered Jewish sage, in Hichot Terumot, identified Magog as being on the border of Syria and modern-day Turkey.
Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349), a Hebrew scholar and renowned biblical exegete, believed that Gog was another title of the Antichrist. Lyra also affirmed that the religion of the “Turks,” a term used to refer to Muslims in general, was the religion of the Antichrist.
Martin Luther (1483–1546), understood Gog to be a reference to the Turks, whom God had sent as a scourge to chastise Christians.
Sir Walter Raleigh (1554–1618), in his History of the World, also placed Magog in Asia Minor, or modern-day Turkey.
John Wesley (1703–1755), in his Explanatory Notes on Ezekiel 38 and 39, identified the hordes of Gog and Magog with “the Antichristian forces” who would come from the region of modern day Turkey.
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), one of American history’s most renowned theologians, also viewed modern-day Turkey as the nation from which the coming Gog Magog invasion would come forth.
Why has the United States enlisted Gog and Magog — which treats an evangelical minister and Israel as “terrorists” and which killed 1.5 million Armenian Christians — as a NATO member and its ally? To come from North and conquer Israel again? To come from North and conquer Christians and treat them as “terrorists” again? To kill Christians, as in the Armenian Genocide and in Syria through Islamic terrorist groups?
Turkey has a prophetic profile that not only fits Gog and Magog, but also as a major threat to Christians and Israel in these last days.
With information from the Associated Press, WorldNetDaily, Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, April 16, 2018

Anti-Baby Vegans Preach It’s Morally Wrong for People to Have Babies and Revile Those Who Disagree with Them


Anti-Baby Vegans Preach It’s Morally Wrong for People to Have Babies and Revile Those Who Disagree with Them

By Julio Severo
“Being an apologist for non-veganism/breeding or opposing abortion won’t go down well. This goes against the mission of the group, which is ethical vegan and antinatalist.”
“Non-vegans and parents are not allowed in this group.”
These are just a few of the fundamental rules for joining Facebook forums (such as Childfree Vegans and Anti-Natalist Vegion Legion) held by anti-baby or antinatalist vegan individuals who believe that it’s essentially immoral for any human to have children. One of the main proponents of antinatalism is South African academic David Benatar, whose 2006 book Better to Never Have Been argued that “coming into existence is always a serious harm. People should never, under any circumstance, procreate — a position called ‘anti-natalism.’”
If you do not agree with vegan antinatalism and its ethics, you should probably stay far, far away from the forums discussing it. One Facebook user complained that, when other group members realized she was against abortion, she was absolutely vilified and “received so many death [threats], was told to be raped, and they gave VERY vivid and graphic details of how I should kill myself and how I should be gang raped.”
There is definite hostility directed at people who have children — they’re branded, disparagingly, as “breeders” by antinatalist vegans. On the Childfree Vegans Facebook page, among photos and videos that could be considered offensive are: “Breastfeeding, pregnant bellies, babies and kids in general.”
One antinatalist vegan said,
“I find it exceptionally selfish to bring MORE life into this world. I find the entire notion of procreation narcissistic, egomaniacal, and delusional. What makes people think the world needs ANOTHER you? It’s so self-centered to willingly and carelessly replicate your DNA.”
People just are not born hating babies and large families. Much of this mindset is result of sheer propaganda and indoctrination. For example, in 1974 the U.S. government produced a top-secret document, titled NSSM 200, about how to reduce the birth-rates in other nations for the exclusive benefit of economic interests of the United State. Surely, there were many birth control efforts before, but NSSM 200 was the most important population control campaign ever done, effectively hijacking in the shadows governments and the UN and putting them at the service of population control. NSSM 200 was by far the most comprehensive machine of propaganda, indoctrination and actions against babies ever devised.
Its results are seen today with people not giving importance to marriage, babies and families. When people today want to have just two children, this is NSSM 200 in action. NSSM 200’s goal was to program couples to wish just two children or less.
During thousands of years, the only way for people to survive in their old age was by being supported by their own children.
Yet, for about one hundred years the State has taken over the functions of family, including child education, child care and support in the old age.
Now the State supports old people by taking over the gains of new generations and giving a part to old people.
Today, it is very easy for a couple to avoid children, because they trust that the State will support them through the children of other couples. But as children’s numbers are falling because of birth control and abortion and as the numbers of old people are increasing, the State will sooner or later have to decide how to support or eliminate them.
They who live by the State will die by its sword.
They who live by God’s Sword (His Word) will be supported by their own children. God’s Word said about children:
“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.” (Psalms 127:3 ESV)
“He gives the barren woman a home, making her the joyous mother of children. Praise the LORD!” (Psalms 113:9 ESV)
“Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19:14 ESV)
Left-wingers and other radicals have their own philosophy on children: They do not want to have their own children to educate, but they demand the children of other couples for indoctrination.
They do not want to have their own children to support them in their old age, but they demand the children of other couples to support them in their old age through a state system that breaks down the family.
With information from the DailyMail.
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Hillary Clinton’s machine of war and destruction


Hillary Clinton’s machine of war and destruction

By Julio Severo
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton was, in the U.S. presidential election in 2016, the candidate of Wall Street, which is the backbone of the American financial system. She was also the favorite candidate of the largest U.S. capitalist companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Google, HP, etc. Even more dangerous, though, is that she was the candidate of the U.S. military industrial complex. The idea that she was bad for corporate issues, but good for U.S. national security, has no basis. Her foreign policy experience has been to support wars and more wars, according to the directions of the U.S. national security elites.
Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped trigger two major financial crises (1999-2000 and 2005-8). In the 1990s, they removed government restrictions for businessmen who financed their political campaigns, thus causing financial manipulation, financial fraud and eventually financial crisis. In the process, they won elections and got mighty rich.
However, Hillary’s connections to the U.S. military complex are scarier. Many believe that only Republicans are neocons and that Democrats only seek to stop Republican warmongers. This is not true. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have warlike neocons members. But they also have a minority of cautious realistic members who do not want the U.S. involved in endless wars. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose history of favoring American military adventures explains many of today’s military crises that threaten U.S. security.
Just as Bill Clinton’s presidency paved the way for financial crises that benefited his supportive businessmen, so did it pave the way for endless wars. On October 31, 1998, President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Law which made it official U.S. policy to support “regime change” (a nice term with a nefarious meaning: to overthrow a government) in Iraqi.
Since Clinton, it was already the goal of the U.S. government to remove Saddam Hussein and establish a “democratic” government, as if it were possible to democratize an Islamic nation. Saudi Arabia, which is the largest Islamic ally of the United States, has never been democratic. Even so, the U.S. never bothered to invade it to democratize it.
The case of Saudi Arabia is serious: while in Iraq the Bible was allowed, there were Christian churches and Saddam protected Christians, in Saudi Arabia the Bible is banned, there is no Christian church and Saudis kill Christians.
It seems that the only reason for the invasion of Iraq was that this nation was not allied with the US, but with Russia.
Many people think that President George W. Bush’s attitude of invading Iraq was just his initiative and decision. No. Long before Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, with the excuse that Iraq was behind the 2001 terrorist attack on New York, Bush was already under Bill Clinton’s policy to topple Saddam.
Today, it is obvious that who was behind this attack was Saudi Arabia. Even so, the U.S. never wanted to invade it, either for revenge or to democratize it. Saudi dictators have always enjoyed the close friendship of Republican and Democrat presidents. Today, the greatest friend and ally of the Saudi Islamic dictatorship is Donald Trump.
In 2003, Hillary was a senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which cost trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and essentially created ISIS.
Before the American invasion, Iraq had a Christian community of more than 2 million people. Today, it is less than 400,000 and continues to decline.
Following the Iraq Liberation Act, the Kosovo War took place in 1999, in which Bill Clinton used NATO to bomb Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, an Orthodox Christian country allied with Russia, thus creating Kosovo, a Muslim enclave that now is an important Islamic smuggling ground for arms and human beings in Europe. Hillary confessed to journalist Lucinda Frank that it was she who had urged her husband Bill to make bombings on Serbian Christians.
Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic and disastrous in modern American history. She is a staunch defender of the powerful U.S. military industrial complex, helping to create military disasters in several countries, including Libya and Syria.
Hillary is heavily criticized for the deaths of American diplomats in Benghazi, but her relentless actions to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi through NATO bombings were by far the biggest disaster. Hillary used NATO to overthrow the Libyan government in violation of international law only to meet the wishes of Saudi Arabia. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war and Islamic terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, spread in Libya and then to North Africa, arriving at Syria. Gaddafi’s overthrow also left Libya free for millions of African Muslims to go though and invade Europe. The Libyan disaster provoked war in Mali, supplied arms to the Islamic group Boko Haram, which has raped and killed thousands of Christians in Nigeria, and strengthened ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
Then Hillary took aim at Syria. With CIA support, which provided weapons and training for Islamic rebels, Hillary wanted to oust Syrian President Bashir al-Assad and said that this would be a quick, costless and successful move. In August 2011, Hillary led the U.S. to disaster with her statement that Assad should “get out of the way,” with the backing of secret CIA operations.
Seven years later, no country in the world is more devastated by endless war than Syria, with hundreds of thousands of dead, including Christians. More than 10 million Syrians have been displaced, and refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or undermining Europe’s political stability. Those who do not flee become victims of ISIS or U.S.-backed Islamic rebel groups. In the chaos created by the CIA and Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, using Syrian territory as the base for Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide.
The list of Hillary’s manipulations and provocations of wars goes on. She has always supported the expansion of NATO, including in Ukraine and Georgia, defying all common sense. She violated post-Cold War agreements signed in Europe in 1991, leading to violent defensive reactions from Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. As a senator in 2008, Hilary was a sponsor of the 2008-SR439 Act, which calls for the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.
She wanted to become president of the United States to continue her project of wars and more wars. The biggest individual financier of her presidential campaign was the U.S. leftist billionaire George Soros, the “father” of the Ukrainian revolution.
Republican neocons are not against the wars Bill and Hillary Clinton provoked. They say that if they were in their place, they would do exactly the same wars, but without the disasters that appeared. Really?
The U.S. Founders always opposed U.S. military involvement abroad.
But today, both among Republicans and Democrats, there are warmongers. So in the last U.S. election, prominent Republicans said they preferred to vote for Hillary because they saw her as a legitimate neocon. For them, an anti-war Republican candidate was inconceivable.
Current U.S. President Donald Trump caused surprise, because he did not fulfill his promises contrary to Hillary’s warmongering.
During the election, Trump showed an anti-neocon policy line, contrary to unnecessary American military interventions in other nations. He also opposed the expansion of NATO.
Today, in matters of foreign policy, he imitates neocon politics and wants to strengthen NATO. He’s doing exactly what Hillary would have done.
Hillary and the neocons wanted an alliance of Islamic terrorism against Russia. So, in his election campaign Trump said that who founded ISIS was Obama and the co-founder, in Trump’s own words, was “croocked Hillary Clinton.” ISIS, which was founded by Obama and Hillary with Saudi assistance, is the largest genocide machine for Christians today.
Trump’s campaign speech clearly wanted an alliance with Russia, which is the world’s largest orthodox Christian nation, against global Islamic terrorism, which is sponsored by Saudi Arabia.
However, Trump failed to live up to his speech. He eventually signed with Saudi Arabia the biggest military deal in U.S. history, selling the Saudis at once 110 billion dollars in arms.
In the end, Trump became a great ally of Saudi Arabia, beating Obama and Hillary, who were bought by the Saudis.
Trump’s move to Hillary 2 was possible because whenever Trump tried to get close to Russia for an alliance against Islamic terrorism, criminal leaks weakened his administration, until all Trump’s pro-Russian advisers were overthrown and Trump had to choose anti-Russia advisers to please the neocons.
The only striking difference today between Hillary and Trump is that Trump has a relatively pro-family domestic policy. But in foreign policy, he follows the pattern of previous presidents. So it was with Bush, who also had a relatively pro-family domestic policy. But in foreign policy, he followed the pattern of the previous presidents…
During his campaign, Trump clearly condemned Hillary for her interventions in Syria, including supporting the Islamic rebels. Today, as president, Trump gives the same support to Hillary’s and Obama’s Islamic rebels.
No one did more to provoke the Cold War with Russia than Hillary did, with her close alliance with the Saudi terrorists. Trump, who seemed to be in a better position to destroy the U.S. alliance with the Saudis and form an unprecedented alliance with Russia against Islamic terrorism, eventually became, in foreign policy, a mere Hillary 2 or Bush 2.
Hillary’s machine of war and destruction is the same machine led in the past by Bush and others. And today, unfortunately, led by Trump.
It does not matter, then, whether a right-wing Republican or leftist Democrat becomes U.S. president. It does not matter if it’s Hillary, Bush or Trump. In the end, the winners in foreign policy are the neocons and the U.S. military industrial complex. Another winner is Saudi Arabia, creator of ISIS and the largest sponsor of Islamic terrorism around the world.
Who loses, as ever, are the Christian victims, who suffer in the wake of U.S. military interventions and Saudi Islamic interventions. That is the price of U.S. foreign-affair neocon policy.
I’m glad Hillary did not become U.S. president. But I’m not happy that Trump is imitating her foreign policy in the service of neocon militarism.
With information from Huffington Post and WND (WorldNetDaily).
Portuguese version of this article: A máquina de guerra e destruição de Hillary Clinton
Recommended Reading on Hillary Clinton:
Recommended Reading on Neocons:

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Swamp’s Neocon Crocodiles Want Trump to Continue Obama’s War in Syria


Swamp’s Neocon Crocodiles Want Trump to Continue Obama’s War in Syria

By Julio Severo
On April 3, U.S. President Donald Trump said about the U.S. military presence in Syria, “I want to get out, I want to bring our troops back home, I want to start rebuilding our nation.”
“Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision,” Trump noted. “I said, ‘Well, if you want us to stay maybe you’ll have to pay.’”
Trump’s decision was clear and public: He wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and that he would only keep them there if Saudi Arabia bore all expenses.
Yet, by Sunday he changed his mind. After an alleged gas attack by the Syrian government on Syrian civilians on April 7 (conveniently, just four days after Trump’s decision), Trump decided that it was time to go to war on Syria.
Trump seems to ignore the “conveniences” of the gas attack and the possibility that Saudi Muslims and Islamic rebels orchestrated it.
John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the two leading neocons in the U.S. Congress, rejoiced over a prospective war on Syria.
In 2016, McCain and Graham opposed Trump, who as a candidate campaigned against pushes to embrace a policy of Cold War confrontation with Russia and a U.S. war with Syria.
At last, has Trump embraced the neocon pushes?
There is a pattern of U.S. military interventions in other nations. First, there is an alleged attack by a government on its own people, and the U.S. intervenes to “help” the people and to bring “democracy.” Just four days after Trump said that he wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, allegedly the Syrian government, which has fought hard against ISIS and the Obama-backed Islamic rebels for 7 long years, made a gas attack — just to have Trump to continue Obama’s war in Syria!
The Syrian civil war was provoked by Obama jointly with Saudi Arabia. Both founded and armed ISIS, the largest modern machine of genocide of Christians.
Trump himself said in 2016 that “Obama is the founder of ISIS.”
So how did Trump want in April 3 Saudi Arabia, Obama’s biggest partner in the genocide of Syrian Christians, funding American troops in Syria? To continue in Syria what Obama started? Wherever Syria fought ISIS, it was destroyed. Wherever the U.S. and its Saudi allies fought ISIS in Syria, ISIS was liberated.
Trump’s duty was to immediately withdraw all American troops from Syria, apologize to Syria for Obama’s crimes, and make reparations to Syria for all of Obama’s crimes committed in the name of the U.S. government.
It is shameful that after his anti-Islamic speeches in 2016, Trump keeps treating, just as Obama did, Saudi Arabia as an ally, forgetting that the biggest terrorist attack on the United States was committed by Saudi Muslims.
Obama had no shame to partner with Saudi dictators. Unfortunately, Trump has given continuity to Obama’s lack of shame.
The carnage of Christian Syrians began with Obama to serve the interests of Saudi Muslims. America has for decades been at the service of Saudi Arabia. America needs urgently to protect her own borders, but she is too busy protecting Saudi interests and borders. How shameful, my God!
Bush and Obama were neocons’ puppets. Now it is Trump’s turn.
Trump had promised in 2016 to drain the swamp. Now the swamp’s neocon crocodiles have drained from him all trace of opposition to the neocon ambitions and empire.
So if Obama did little to please neocons in Syria — even though thousands of Christians were slaughtered by Saudi-backed ISIS —, is Trump going to do much more to please neocons, who were disgusted at him in 2016, but who now love him?
Monday (April 9), a prominent U.S. evangelical leader published a Facebook post decrying the gas attack in Syria and asking prayers for the U.S. troops in Syria. I answered him:
“You should point that it is not the first time the U.S. uses an alleged attack to make a military intervention. In fact, Trump abundantly condemned Obama for intervening in Syria. Trump said that Obama created ISIS. Thousands of Christians were slaughtered by ISIS because of Obama’s military meddling in Syria. And U.S. troops, since Obama, are illegally in Syria. They should leave! The chemical attack probably was made by CIA and Obama’s Islamic rebels. You certainly know it! Do not let the honor of knowing Trump making you blind to Obama’s crimes now supported by Trump. Be a prophetic voice that is not afraid of losing opportunities to meet Trump. Speak up! Mother Theresa spoke against abortion in the presence of President Bill Clinton and she had never again an opportunity to meet him. Do not be afraid! Trump needs to be confronted by a courageous testimony! Yes, I am praying. I am praying that God stop U.S. military meddling, under Obama and Trump, that eventually results in Christian carnage. The U.S. government is under neocon control. May Jesus Christ break this demonic stronghold in the U.S. government!”
“If by your invitation we Christians should pray for the alleged well-being of U.S. troops illegally in Syria who are using illegal violence in Syria, a moral question: should we Christians pray for the alleged well-being of illegal immigrants who are involved in illegal violence in the U.S.?”
It is a very hard point, but it is a point. U.S. troops in Syria are not guarding U.S. borders. They are guarding Saudi interests. They are not protecting U.S. patriotism and nationalism. They are protecting and advancing the Saudi version of Islamic terror.
My friend William J. Murray, who has been working very hard to help persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq, has told that the U.S. has 800 military bases around the world. Yet, the U.S. is unable to guard its own borders. This makes no sense. A nation guards its own borders. An empire keeps bases around the world. The U.S. government is not behaving as a nation; it is behaving as an empire that does not care about the U.S. borders, because its only concern is to deploy and use U.S. troops for unending unpatriotic wars in the borders of other nations.
Because Bush was a pro-life Protestant, I supported him even in the Iraq War, because I thought that if all the Left attacked him on every point, I had a responsibility to support him in every point. But after seeing the carnage of Christians in the trail of Bush’s War against Iraq, which was also condemned by Trump, I learnt that even though a U.S. president is a pro-life evangelical, he should not be supported when he submits himself to neocons and their wars.
May U.S. conservative evangelicals do for Trump what they never did for Bush: to confront him over wars that advance the neocons’ agenda and provoke blood shedding of Christians.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Pope Francis: Catholics should treat compassion for Muslim immigrants as equal to pro-life activism


Pope Francis: Catholics should treat compassion for Muslim immigrants as equal to pro-life activism

By Julio Severo
In his third papal exhortation — a 100-page guideline on how Catholics could strive for holiness in the modern world —, Pope Francis said, “Not infrequently, contrary to the promptings of the (Holy) Spirit, the life of the Church can become a museum piece or the possession of a select few.”
“This can occur when some groups of Christians give excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting. Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged,” he wrote.
With the crisis of massive influx of Islamic immigrants in Europe, Francis said, “For a Christian the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Some Catholics consider the situation of migrants to be a secondary issue. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him?”
Are Muslim invaders brothers of Christians? When Christians welcome them, are they welcoming Jesus himself — or Satan?
Nevertheless, Francis recognized that there are Islamic extremists: “If I speak about Islamic violence, I need to speak about Catholic violence. One thing is true: I believe that in almost all religions, there is always a small fundamentalist group. We have them, too.”
“The exhortation was widely seen as a dig at conservative Catholics in the U.S. and elsewhere who staunchly uphold tradition on abortion, homosexuality, and divorce while pushing anti-migrant laws,” said the British paper DailyMail.
In April 2016, he flew to the Greek island of Lesbos on the frontline of the migrant crisis and returned to Rome with three families of Syrian Muslims.
Even though I agree with the pope on his stance against abortion, I cannot agree with him on Islamic immigration, which poses a serious threat to the survival of the European culture and civilization.
Yet, would a right-wing pope treat Islamic immigration in Europe in a correct way? I do not know. Many right-wing Catholics look to U.S. President Donald Trump, who is a Protestant, to have a better stance on this subject. But actually Trump has been as contradictory as the pope is. Trump has enlisted Saudi Arabia, the main sponsor of Islamic terror around the world, to fight terror. In fact, most of the 9/11 authors were Islamic Saudis.
Saudi Arabia has a great control over the mass influx of Islamic immigrants to Europe. But Trump has never pressed the Saudi dictators to stop it. And Trump has never ordered NATO, which is under U.S. control and is responsible for the protection of Europe, to hinder the Islamic invasion to Europe.
If pro-life, conservative Catholics are distressed about the pope’s contradictions, as a pro-life, conservative evangelical I am equally distressed about Trump’s contradictions regarding Saudi Arabia and NATO’s cowardice to hinder Europe from being destroyed by Islam.
NATO, which is Trump’s responsibility, has not been better than the pope to address the Islamic invasion in Europe. In fact, while NATO is directly responsible for this invasion, the pope is not.
Perhaps when Francis said that Muslims are brothers of nominal Christians he meant Bush, Obama and Trump and their traditional friendship with Saudi Muslim dictators.
Above all, the most powerful symbol of welcoming or even submitting to Islam is not the pope. It is the Liberty Statue. So if they tell you that a Catholic is facilitating the Islamic invasion of Europe, tell them: No, it is the largest Protestant nation in the world and its Protestant president.
With information from the DailyMail.
Recommended Reading: