lifesitenews--2020-01-08--CNN ‘disinformation’ reporter goes after conservative satire site for ‘misinformation’

WASHINGTON , D.C. , January 7 , 2019 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A CNN reporter expressed alarm on Twitter that Christian conservative satire site Babylon Bee was peddling “ misinformation ” in a stinging piece that had Democrats flying the American flag at half-mast in honor of a terrorist who had been targeted and killed by the U.S. military .
Reporter Donie O ’ Sullivan , who notes on Twitter that he covers “ disinformation ” for CNN , stated on Twitter that he was concerned that more people were reading Babylon Bee ’ s satire about the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Call for Flags to Be Flown aAt Half-Mast to Grieve Death of Soleimani ” — than reports about the event put out by the N.Y. Times and CNN .
The article appeared after news came that the United States had killed Iranian general Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq that congressional Democrats claim was unwarranted .
In response to Cindy Otis , an author and former CIA official , who worried that Republicans on Facebook were circulating the satirical article as if it were a legitimate news story , O ’ Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perspective , this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week.
” O ’ Sullivan added , “ A lot of people sharing this ‘ satirical ’ story on Facebook do n't know it is satire.
” He appeared to suggest that The Babylon Bee was less than honest about its identity as a satirical website .
“ Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it ’ s ‘ satire ’ seems like a good way to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation , ” O ’ Sullivan wrote .
He also asserted that some social media users apparently believe that The Babylon Bee ’ s satire is real news .
In a response to LifeSiteNews , Babylon Bee founder Adam Ford wrote : “ It ’ s fascinating to me that Mr. O ’ Sullivan ca n't recognize the doublethink required to publicly accuse the Babylon Bee of insidiousness while at the same time being a vocal fan of the Onion.
” Babylon Bee capitalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece titled “ CNN Attacks Babylon Bee : ‘ The Internet Is Only Big Enough for One Fake News Site ’ .
” In his newsletter to subscribers , Ford wrote that “ it never , ever ceases to amaze me how many of these liberals can ’ t see that the only reason they hate the Bee is because we are conservative , popular , and effective .
That ’ s the only reason they hate us .
If we were a progressive satire site , they would cherish us as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford is also the founder of the news site Disrn .
“ I can ’ t believe this thread isn ’ t satire , ” National Review senior writer David Harsanyi quipped on social media .
In an article titled “ Attacks on the Babylon Bee Are Attacks on Free Expression , ” Harsanyi wrote : “ The Babylon Bee ’ s real crime , of course , is that it mocks all the wrong people .
Many of the people it mocks , incidentally , are now part of a concerted effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shame tech companies into inhibiting political speech.
” Labeling liberals ’ criticism as “ cynical partisanship , ” Harsanyi went on to write that liberals believe that conservatives are susceptible to deception .
He wrote : “ I mean , how else could these people possibly believe the dumb things they do — right ?
” On social media , Ford wrote that O ’ Sullivan complained about the wide circulation enjoyed by The Babylon Bee , noting that its articles are “ shared a lot and some people think they 're real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
” After asking whether O ’ Sullivan may have similarly criticized The Onion ( a liberal satirical website ) , Ford found that O ’ Sullivan is a follower .
Ford wrote on Twitter : “ As it turns out , Mr. O'Sullivan HAS tweeted about the Onion .
But it looks like he ’ s quite the fan !
” and pointed out that O ’ Sullivan made several posts on Twitter in praise of The Onion .
In 2019 , The Babylon Bee retained legal counsel following a probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a liberal bias , Snopes bills itself as the “ internet 's go-to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense.
” At issue was a spoof article published by the Babylon Bee about Georgia state representative Erica Thomas ( D ) .
Thomas had made news for claiming that a white man at a grocery checkout lane had supposedly told her to leave the country .
In reality , the man had complained that Thomas was using the express lane despite having too many items to purchase .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have heard him correctly , saying , “ I don ’ t know if he said ‘ go back , ’ or those types of words.
” The Babylon Bee satire article portrayed Thomas broadcasting that Chick-fil-A employees had told her to “ go back to your country ” when what they had said to her was the company ’ s employees ’ well known “ my pleasure ” for serving her .
In addition to mocking Rep. Thomas , the spoof alluded to liberal targeting of Chick-fil-A , which had long been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Snopes did identify The Babylon Bee as a satirical website , it nonetheless rated the article as “ False ” and claimed that the “ line between fact and fiction here is a bit blurry.
” Snopes accused the satirical site of “ an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation ” and editorialized in its sub-headline , “ We ’ re not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as ‘ satire.
’ ” Concerned over a possible drop in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denounced Snopes and its “ fact-check ” in several social media posts , criticizing Snopes for its omission of key details of the real Thomas story and for attributing malicious intent to the satirical outlet , even while it framed spoofs by The Onion much more favorably .

Donie O'Sullivan of CNN tweeted his doubts that the people sharing the satirical article, which made fun of Democrats, know it's satire.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A CNN reporter expressed alarm on Twitter that Christian conservative satire site Babylon Bee was peddling “misinformation” in a stinging piece that had Democrats flying the American flag at half-mast in honor of a terrorist who had been targeted and killed by the U.S. military.
Reporter Donie O’Sullivan, who notes on Twitter that he covers “disinformation” for CNN, stated on Twitter that he was concerned that more people were reading Babylon Bee’s satire about the death of terrorist Qassem Soleimani — titled “Democrats Call for Flags to Be Flown aAt Half-Mast to Grieve Death of Soleimani” — than reports about the event put out by the N.Y. Times and CNN. The article appeared after news came that the United States had killed Iranian general Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq that congressional Democrats claim was unwarranted.
In response to Cindy Otis, an author and former CIA official, who worried that Republicans on Facebook were circulating the satirical article as if it were a legitimate news story, O’Sullivan tweeted: “To put this in perspective, this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week.”
To put this in perspective, this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week. A lot of people sharing this “satirical” story on Facebook don't know it is satire. https://t.co/HnDjuqw2si — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) January 5, 2020
O’Sullivan added, “A lot of people sharing this ‘satirical’ story on Facebook don't know it is satire.” He appeared to suggest that The Babylon Bee was less than honest about its identity as a satirical website.
“Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it’s ‘satire’ seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation,” O’Sullivan wrote. He also asserted that some social media users apparently believe that The Babylon Bee’s satire is real news.
Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it’s “satire” seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation. — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) January 5, 2020
In a response to LifeSiteNews, Babylon Bee founder Adam Ford wrote: “It’s fascinating to me that Mr. O’Sullivan can't recognize the doublethink required to publicly accuse the Babylon Bee of insidiousness while at the same time being a vocal fan of the Onion.”
Babylon Bee capitalized on the situation, putting out a piece titled “CNN Attacks Babylon Bee: ‘The Internet Is Only Big Enough for One Fake News Site’.”
CNN Attacks Babylon Bee: 'The Internet Is Only Big Enough For One Fake News Site' https://t.co/Mq0IAYhwAf — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 7, 2020
In his newsletter to subscribers, Ford wrote that “it never, ever ceases to amaze me how many of these liberals can’t see that the only reason they hate the Bee is because we are conservative, popular, and effective. That’s the only reason they hate us. If we were a progressive satire site, they would cherish us as a national treasure.” A pro-life Christian, Ford is also the founder of the news site Disrn.
“I can’t believe this thread isn’t satire,” National Review senior writer David Harsanyi quipped on social media. In an article titled “Attacks on the Babylon Bee Are Attacks on Free Expression,” Harsanyi wrote: “The Babylon Bee’s real crime, of course, is that it mocks all the wrong people. Many of the people it mocks, incidentally, are now part of a concerted effort to inhibit political speech — or to shame tech companies into inhibiting political speech.”
Labeling liberals’ criticism as “cynical partisanship,” Harsanyi went on to write that liberals believe that conservatives are susceptible to deception. He wrote: “I mean, how else could these people possibly believe the dumb things they do — right?”
On social media, Ford wrote that O’Sullivan complained about the wide circulation enjoyed by The Babylon Bee, noting that its articles are “shared a lot and some people think they're real (which will always happen with satire).” After asking whether O’Sullivan may have similarly criticized The Onion (a liberal satirical website), Ford found that O’Sullivan is a follower. Ford wrote on Twitter: “As it turns out, Mr. O'Sullivan HAS tweeted about the Onion. But it looks like he’s quite the fan!” and pointed out that O’Sullivan made several posts on Twitter in praise of The Onion.
In 2019, The Babylon Bee retained legal counsel following a probe by the investigative website Snopes. Known for a liberal bias, Snopes bills itself as the “internet's go-to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense.”
At issue was a spoof article published by the Babylon Bee about Georgia state representative Erica Thomas (D). Thomas had made news for claiming that a white man at a grocery checkout lane had supposedly told her to leave the country. In reality, the man had complained that Thomas was using the express lane despite having too many items to purchase. Thomas eventually conceded that she may not have heard him correctly, saying, “I don’t know if he said ‘go back,’ or those types of words.”
The Babylon Bee satire article portrayed Thomas broadcasting that Chick-fil-A employees had told her to “go back to your country” when what they had said to her was the company’s employees’ well known “my pleasure” for serving her. In addition to mocking Rep. Thomas, the spoof alluded to liberal targeting of Chick-fil-A, which had long been identified with Christians and family values.
While Snopes did identify The Babylon Bee as a satirical website, it nonetheless rated the article as “False” and claimed that the “line between fact and fiction here is a bit blurry.” Snopes accused the satirical site of “an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation” and editorialized in its sub-headline, “We’re not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as ‘satire.’”
Concerned over a possible drop in revenue, Babylon Bee founder Adam Ford denounced Snopes and its “fact-check” in several social media posts, criticizing Snopes for its omission of key details of the real Thomas story and for attributing malicious intent to the satirical outlet, even while it framed spoofs by The Onion much more favorably.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Mom, nurse fundraising for court fight arguing kids can’t legally consent to ‘sex change’

LONDON , England , January 7 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― A nurse and a mother are taking England ’ s public health system to court to stop sex-change experimentation on kids and they need financial help .
Susan Evans , formerly a psychiatric nurse at the Tavistock & Portman National Health Service ( NHS ) Foundation Trust , and a mother known only as “ Mrs .
A ” are seeking a judicial review into Tavistock ’ s Gender Identity Development Service ( GIDS ) .
As British doctors do not amputate healthy body parts from minors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not children under 18 can legally consent to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones .
Thanks to the help of fundraising site CrowdJustice.com , Evans and Mrs. A have already raised over £32,000 ( $ 42,000 ) to launch their legal case to “ protect children from experimental medical treatment.
” The fundraising drive ends this Thursday .
“ While working [ at the Tavistock Clinic ] I quickly became concerned about the treatment approach , ” Evans wrote on their fundraising page .
“ When I joined the [ GIDS ] team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be assessed in depth and given support and psychological treatment over several years , ” she continued .
“ The alarm bells began ringing for me when a colleague at the weekly team clinical meeting said that they had seen a young person 4 times and they were now recommending them for a referral to the endocrinology department to commence hormone therapy.
” Evans was also concerned about the pressure put on the GIDS staff by distraught patients and families , but especially transgender activists groups like Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ request to fall into line in immediately ‘ affirming ’ the children 's beliefs and also the expectation to write to other professionals using the name and sex the child had chosen rather than the patient who had been referred , ” she added .
She stated that the normal professional practice is to keep an open mind while examining all the difficulties troubled children are having .
Mrs. A is the mother of a 15-year-old girl with autism and other mental health issues .
She allowed her daughter to be placed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of “ specialist expertise ” in adolescent mental health in her area .
However , she is worried that the girl may be harmed by the Tavistock ’ s staff .
“ I have deep concerns that the current clinical approach at GIDS means that my daughter will be subjected to an experimental treatment path that is not adequately regulated , where there are insufficient safeguards , where her autism will not be properly accounted for and where no-one ( let alone my daughter ) understands the risks and therefore can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wrote .
Mrs. A is remaining anonymous to protect her daughter ’ s privacy .
The women are being represented by the Sinclairslaw firm .
The UK ’ s Guardian quoted a solicitor with the firm , Paul Conrathe , as saying that the case would set a new precedent .
“ I don ’ t think there has been any case that has tested a policy or practice in this way , ” Conrathe told the Guardian .
“ There may have been the odd case that has come up but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service for making this service available.
” The Guardian also mentioned a landmark case related to parents ’ rights versus doctors ’ rights to give treatment to children without parental consent : Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority .
The concept of “ Gillick competence , ” used to determine if a child under 16 is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment without parental permission or knowledge is derived from a 1985 decision in this case .
Victoria Gillick , a Catholic mother of ten , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the rights of parents to forbid doctors from giving minors contraception without their knowledge or permission .
Despite the fact that it was ( and is ) illegal for children under 16 to have sexual intercourse in England , even with each other , Gillick lost .
Conrathe said , however , that Gillick competence does not apply in situations where a child ’ s health could be permanently affected .
“ The issue is whether the young person is of sufficient maturity and capacity to understand the consequences of their actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We say it is a leap too far to think that Gillick as a judgment could apply to this type of scenario , where a young person is being offered a treatment with lifelong consequences when they are at a stage of emotional and mental vulnerability , ” he continued .
“ It simply doesn ’ t compute , and therefore whatever medical professionals say is consent is not valid in law.
” To learn more about the effort of Susan Evans and Mrs. A to protect children from experimental gender treatments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HERE .

At stake is the question of whether or not children under 18 can legally consent to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The case could set a new precedent.
LONDON, England, January 7, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― A nurse and a mother are taking England’s public health system to court to stop sex-change experimentation on kids and they need financial help.
Susan Evans, formerly a psychiatric nurse at the Tavistock & Portman National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, and a mother known only as “Mrs. A” are seeking a judicial review into Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS).
As British doctors do not amputate healthy body parts from minors, at stake is the question of whether or not children under 18 can legally consent to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
Thanks to the help of fundraising site CrowdJustice.com, Evans and Mrs. A have already raised over £32,000 ($42,000) to launch their legal case to “protect children from experimental medical treatment.” The fundraising drive ends this Thursday.
“While working [at the Tavistock Clinic] I quickly became concerned about the treatment approach,” Evans wrote on their fundraising page.
“When I joined the [GIDS] team I had expected that the young people would be assessed in depth and given support and psychological treatment over several years,” she continued.
“The alarm bells began ringing for me when a colleague at the weekly team clinical meeting said that they had seen a young person 4 times and they were now recommending them for a referral to the endocrinology department to commence hormone therapy.”
Evans was also concerned about the pressure put on the GIDS staff by distraught patients and families, but especially transgender activists groups like Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence.
“I also clinically disagreed with the request to fall into line in immediately ‘affirming’ the children's beliefs and also the expectation to write to other professionals using the name and sex the child had chosen rather than the patient who had been referred,” she added. She stated that the normal professional practice is to keep an open mind while examining all the difficulties troubled children are having.
Mrs. A is the mother of a 15-year-old girl with autism and other mental health issues. She allowed her daughter to be placed on the Tavistock waiting list because of a lack of “specialist expertise” in adolescent mental health in her area. However, she is worried that the girl may be harmed by the Tavistock’s staff.
“I have deep concerns that the current clinical approach at GIDS means that my daughter will be subjected to an experimental treatment path that is not adequately regulated, where there are insufficient safeguards, where her autism will not be properly accounted for and where no-one (let alone my daughter) understands the risks and therefore cannot ensure informed consent is obtained,” she wrote.
Mrs. A is remaining anonymous to protect her daughter’s privacy.
The women are being represented by the Sinclairslaw firm. The UK’s Guardian quoted a solicitor with the firm, Paul Conrathe, as saying that the case would set a new precedent.
“I don’t think there has been any case that has tested a policy or practice in this way,” Conrathe told the Guardian.
“There may have been the odd case that has come up but not one that has challenged a health service for making this service available.”
The Guardian also mentioned a landmark case related to parents’ rights versus doctors’ rights to give treatment to children without parental consent: Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. The concept of “Gillick competence,” used to determine if a child under 16 is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment without parental permission or knowledge is derived from a 1985 decision in this case.
Victoria Gillick, a Catholic mother of ten, went to court in 1983 to fight for the rights of parents to forbid doctors from giving minors contraception without their knowledge or permission. Despite the fact that it was (and is) illegal for children under 16 to have sexual intercourse in England, even with each other, Gillick lost.
Conrathe said, however, that Gillick competence does not apply in situations where a child’s health could be permanently affected.
“The issue is whether the young person is of sufficient maturity and capacity to understand the consequences of their actions,” he told the Guardian.
“We say it is a leap too far to think that Gillick as a judgment could apply to this type of scenario, where a young person is being offered a treatment with lifelong consequences when they are at a stage of emotional and mental vulnerability,” he continued.
“It simply doesn’t compute, and therefore whatever medical professionals say is consent is not valid in law.”
To learn more about the effort of Susan Evans and Mrs. A to protect children from experimental gender treatments, or to support them, click HERE.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Netflix joins liberal media outlet to produce perverse sex ‘education’ series

January 7 , 2019 ( NewsBusters ) — Have you ever browsed through Netflix , looking for a show that went into detail about the strange sexual fantasies and tendencies of other people ?
Me neither .
But Netflix sure has come a long way from being solely a streaming service to now creating and promoting shows that showcase sexual fetishes , like sleeping with multiple partners , being attracted to partners of either sex , and bondage .
The show , Sex , Explained was created through a collaboration with Netflix and left-wing news site Vox .
Left-wing actress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topics like childbirth , sexual fantasies , and attraction .
The fact that Netflix now automatically plays the trailer of this docuseries when viewers open the platform means families are being exposed to this hedonistic content without selecting anything .
And this is quite impactful , considering that more U.S. households have Netflix than pay TV .
To woke journalists , though , this docuseries serves as a kind of sex education for people .
The Daily Beast reviewed ‘ Sex , Explained , ’ applauding it for being ‘ nonjudgmental : ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carries a reassuring lack of judgment that defines the series .
It ’ s especially effective as the introductory episode works to normalize kinks and convey the vast spectrum of human sexuality .
“ There ’ s a lot of variability in sexual fantasies and they don ’ t tell you anything reliable about you , ” explains psychologist Lisa Diamond … “ If you have fantasies that disturb you or scare you , and you wonder what they mean , they don ’ t mean a lot .
So , don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ironically , though , the left is “ nonjudgmental ” to those who praise LGBTQ+ activism and promote promiscuity , but “ judge ” those who decide to practice abstinence or save themselves until marriage .
Netflix is not the same platform it was five years ago ; it has dangerously become another propaganda machine of the left .

'Sex, Explained' includes 'nonjudgmental' treatment of topics like sleeping with multiple partners, being attracted to partners of either sex, and bondage.
PETITION: 'Dump Netflix' over their attack on unborn babies Sign the petition here.
January 7, 2019 (NewsBusters) — Have you ever browsed through Netflix, looking for a show that went into detail about the strange sexual fantasies and tendencies of other people? Me neither. But Netflix sure has come a long way from being solely a streaming service to now creating and promoting shows that showcase sexual fetishes, like sleeping with multiple partners, being attracted to partners of either sex, and bondage.
The show, Sex, Explained was created through a collaboration with Netflix and left-wing news site Vox. Left-wing actress Janelle Monáe narrates the docuseries, detailing topics like childbirth, sexual fantasies, and attraction.
The fact that Netflix now automatically plays the trailer of this docuseries when viewers open the platform means families are being exposed to this hedonistic content without selecting anything. And this is quite impactful, considering that more U.S. households have Netflix than pay TV.
To woke journalists, though, this docuseries serves as a kind of sex education for people. The Daily Beast reviewed ‘Sex, Explained,’ applauding it for being ‘nonjudgmental:’
Monáe’s warm, even voice carries a reassuring lack of judgment that defines the series. It’s especially effective as the introductory episode works to normalize kinks and convey the vast spectrum of human sexuality. “There’s a lot of variability in sexual fantasies and they don’t tell you anything reliable about you,” explains psychologist Lisa Diamond … “If you have fantasies that disturb you or scare you, and you wonder what they mean, they don’t mean a lot. So, don’t worry so much about them.”
Ironically, though, the left is “nonjudgmental” to those who praise LGBTQ+ activism and promote promiscuity, but “judge” those who decide to practice abstinence or save themselves until marriage. Netflix is not the same platform it was five years ago; it has dangerously become another propaganda machine of the left.
Published with permission from NewsBusters.
PETITION: Dump Netflix over video depicting Jesus as a homosexual Sign the petition here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Feminists torch German pro-lifer’s car, advertise his home address

January 7 , 2019 ( Society for the Protection of Unborn Children ) — Pro-abortion activists have set a German pro-life journalist ’ s car ablaze , after he encouraged readers to attend the German March for Life .
Responding to the attack , Michael Robinson , SPUC Director of Communications said : “ The pro-life movement continues to make progress across Europe .
However , as the pro-life movement advances , so do attacks on pro-life people .
We will not be bullied into silence.
” The German journalist , Gunnar Schupelius , had his car set ablaze and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extremist group Feministische Autonome Zelle , who are unapologetic about their violent tactics .
In an online post , the group rejoiced in the attack saying : “ Every year he heavily promotes the March for Life…We torched his SUV today.
” The group continued to reveal the journalist ’ s home location stating that he “ lives there with his children.
” Mr Robinson said : “ The pro-abortion lobby are attempting to frighten pro-life people into silence .
We will not be intimidated as we continue our entirely peaceful work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life.
” Peaceful pro-life demonstrations across major European cities have had record attendance numbers in recent years .
Berlin ’ s 2019 March for Life attracted over 8000 attendees .
Austria ’ s 2019 March for Life doubled in attendance compared to previous years with nearly 5000 in attendance , whilst the Dutch March for Life hosted 15,000 people .
SPUC reported on the ground-breaking 50,000 people in attendance at the 2019 Slovakian March for Life .
Pro-life advances in the United Kingdom have also been evident .
2019 saw over 5000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whilst recent pro-life demonstrations in Northern Ireland attracted over 20,000 people .
And SPUC ’ s pro-life youth conference is expected to attract a record number of attendees in 2020 In addition , 2020 commenced with a huge victory for UK pro-lifers as the country ’ s oldest abortion clinic based in Birmingham closed ; and the increase in pro-life societies present on University campuses is being widely reported on .
Acts of aggression aimed at pro-life people across the country during the past year have been recorded in Manchester , Cardiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : “ Over the past year , we have seen a rise in hostility against pro-life people by pro-abortion extremists .
These attacks arise from their fear of a pro-life movement which is strong and is unmistakably advancing.
” SPUC has been reporting on the spiralling acts of aggression committed against pro-life people across the UK .
Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children .

The journalist had encouraged people to attend the March for Life in Germany, so the feminist group broadcast his address, declaring that he 'lives there with his children.'
January 7, 2019 (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) — Pro-abortion activists have set a German pro-life journalist’s car ablaze, after he encouraged readers to attend the German March for Life. Responding to the attack, Michael Robinson, SPUC Director of Communications said: “The pro-life movement continues to make progress across Europe. However, as the pro-life movement advances, so do attacks on pro-life people. We will not be bullied into silence.”
The German journalist, Gunnar Schupelius, had his car set ablaze and the location of his home circulated by the extremist group Feministische Autonome Zelle, who are unapologetic about their violent tactics.
In an online post, the group rejoiced in the attack saying: “Every year he heavily promotes the March for Life…We torched his SUV today.” The group continued to reveal the journalist’s home location stating that he “lives there with his children.”
Mr Robinson said: “The pro-abortion lobby are attempting to frighten pro-life people into silence. We will not be intimidated as we continue our entirely peaceful work as we seek to restore a culture of life.”
The Progressing Peaceful Pro-Life Movement
Peaceful pro-life demonstrations across major European cities have had record attendance numbers in recent years. Berlin’s 2019 March for Life attracted over 8000 attendees. Austria’s 2019 March for Life doubled in attendance compared to previous years with nearly 5000 in attendance, whilst the Dutch March for Life hosted 15,000 people. SPUC reported on the ground-breaking 50,000 people in attendance at the 2019 Slovakian March for Life.
Pro-life advances in the United Kingdom have also been evident. 2019 saw over 5000 people attend the London March For Life, whilst recent pro-life demonstrations in Northern Ireland attracted over 20,000 people. And SPUC’s pro-life youth conference is expected to attract a record number of attendees in 2020
In addition, 2020 commenced with a huge victory for UK pro-lifers as the country’s oldest abortion clinic based in Birmingham closed; and the increase in pro-life societies present on University campuses is being widely reported on.
The Escalating Attacks Against Pro-Life People
Acts of aggression aimed at pro-life people across the country during the past year have been recorded in Manchester, Cardiff, Nottingham and London.
Mr Robinson said: “Over the past year, we have seen a rise in hostility against pro-life people by pro-abortion extremists. These attacks arise from their fear of a pro-life movement which is strong and is unmistakably advancing.”
SPUC has been reporting on the spiralling acts of aggression committed against pro-life people across the UK.
Published with permission from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes speech begs the question: Why does anyone care what Hollywood say

Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes speech begs the question: Why does anyone care what Hollywood says?

January 7 , 2019 ( LifeSiteNews ) -- Did you ever stop to wonder who granted moral authority to famous actors and actresses ?
Did you ever ask yourself why their opinions should carry extra weight ?
After all , it ’ s one thing to be a certain person , such as a political leader or an athlete or a cancer survivor and to speak from your experience .
It ’ s another thing to make believe you were that person .
How does making believe qualify you to speak ?
At the moment , Ricky Gervais ’ scathing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Globes on Sunday night is getting all the attention it deserves .
And , according to Ryan Saavedra , “ The reaction to Gervais ’ speech appeared to be overwhelmingly positive among people who do not work in the news , media , or entertainment industries.
” But Gervais ’ frontal assault on Hollywood hypocrisy begs a deeper question .
Why should we even care what Hollywood icons have to say ?
We can admire their giftings .
( Some of them are incredibly gifted . )
We can appreciate their hard work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to present memorable moments in film .
Some of them go to extreme lengths to play a particular part , immersing themselves in the characters they portray , and viewers benefit from their efforts .
Directors and screenwriters and animators and others also use their skills to produce some amazing movies and shows .
And it ’ s fine to appreciate and respect what they do .
At the same time , none of this qualifies them to be moral authorities , and we should pay no more attention to their opinions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next door .
In fact , to some degree , we should pay less attention to their opinions .
That ’ s because some of them are quite immoral personally , not to mention living an elite , ultra-wealthy bubble .
Some have deep personal issues , from emotional struggles to family breakdowns and more .
Why should we say to them , “ Please share your views with me on marriage and relationships and the meaning of life ” ?
Some Hollywood performers are seductresses , baring their bodies for millions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual fantasy .
Should I question my pro-life values because they are pro-abortion ?
Should this matter to me ?
Others glorify violence in the most extreme forms imaginable ( or should I say unimaginable ) ?
People are sliced up or shot up or chopped up .
Eyes are ripped out or poked out or pulled out .
Human beings , created in the image of God , are torn to pieces or blown to pieces or tortured or maimed or slaughtered .
Blood gushes on the screen as heads are torn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our entertainment .
And to keep our interest , the violence has to become more intense , more graphic , more repulsive .
Yet the very actors who play these murderous roles and the producers who fund these bloody pictures now want to lecture us about gun control or foreign policy .
Seriously ?
To repeat : Why on earth should we care ?
Do these icons have the right to express their opinions ?
Of course they do .
Do they have the right to use their fame as a platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt .
But that doesn ’ t mean that we have to listen .
And it certainly doesn ’ t mean that they have some kind of moral high horse on which to stand .
Really , now .
Since when does Hollywood get to preach morality ?
While listening to an audio course on the French Revolution , I found it interesting that , at one point in 18th century France , the moral credibility of professional actors was deeply questioned .
After all , they made their living by pretending to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are acting now ?
Who are they , really ?
As noted by the author of an article posted on the Ordinary Times ( this quote is from the author ’ s interaction with readers in the comments section ) : “ Society has always been hypocritical with performing artists and this leads to continued disrespect for this day .
Actors at various points have been considered no better and often closely linked to prostitutes .
Actors were not able to get proper burial in France until the French Revolution abolished the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But when it comes to actors today , they are often exalted beyond all measure , as if they could really fly through the air or really had supernatural powers or really were equal to everyone they ever portrayed .
The fact is , they are as human as the rest of us and certainly just as flawed .
And while we can appreciate the fine people who are in Hollywood and be thrilled to see a powerful , godly , moral witness that is emerging , let ’ s stay real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on immorality and violence , on mocking God and demeaning people of faith , on sending mixed and even perverted messages .
It ’ s time that Hollywood preach to itself .
Perhaps Ricky Gervais will start a trend ?
And perhaps we could pick up where he left off : Yes , you ’ re a bunch of compromised hypocrites .
But there ’ s good news .
Jesus died for people just like you !

The mostly hypocritical opinions of these talented but immoral authorities don't deserve the attention they receive.
January 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Did you ever stop to wonder who granted moral authority to famous actors and actresses? Did you ever ask yourself why their opinions should carry extra weight? After all, it’s one thing to be a certain person, such as a political leader or an athlete or a cancer survivor and to speak from your experience. It’s another thing to make believe you were that person. How does making believe qualify you to speak?
At the moment, Ricky Gervais’ scathing takedown of woke Hollywood at the Golden Globes on Sunday night is getting all the attention it deserves. And, according to Ryan Saavedra, “The reaction to Gervais’ speech appeared to be overwhelmingly positive among people who do not work in the news, media, or entertainment industries.”
But Gervais’ frontal assault on Hollywood hypocrisy begs a deeper question. Why should we even care what Hollywood icons have to say?
We can admire their giftings. (Some of them are incredibly gifted.)
We can appreciate their hard work and, at times, even sacrificial efforts to present memorable moments in film. Some of them go to extreme lengths to play a particular part, immersing themselves in the characters they portray, and viewers benefit from their efforts.
Directors and screenwriters and animators and others also use their skills to produce some amazing movies and shows. And it’s fine to appreciate and respect what they do.
At the same time, none of this qualifies them to be moral authorities, and we should pay no more attention to their opinions than to the opinions of our neighbor next door.
In fact, to some degree, we should pay less attention to their opinions.
That’s because some of them are quite immoral personally, not to mention living an elite, ultra-wealthy bubble.
Some have deep personal issues, from emotional struggles to family breakdowns and more.
Why should we say to them, “Please share your views with me on marriage and relationships and the meaning of life”?
Some Hollywood performers are seductresses, baring their bodies for millions to see, becoming objects of lust and sexual fantasy. Should I question my pro-life values because they are pro-abortion? Should this matter to me?
Others glorify violence in the most extreme forms imaginable (or should I say unimaginable)?
People are sliced up or shot up or chopped up. Eyes are ripped out or poked out or pulled out. Human beings, created in the image of God, are torn to pieces or blown to pieces or tortured or maimed or slaughtered. Blood gushes on the screen as heads are torn off and limbs are detached – all for our entertainment.
And to keep our interest, the violence has to become more intense, more graphic, more repulsive.
Yet the very actors who play these murderous roles and the producers who fund these bloody pictures now want to lecture us about gun control or foreign policy. Seriously? To repeat: Why on earth should we care?
Do these icons have the right to express their opinions? Of course they do.
Do they have the right to use their fame as a platform to disseminate their message? Without a doubt.
But that doesn’t mean that we have to listen. And it certainly doesn’t mean that they have some kind of moral high horse on which to stand. Really, now. Since when does Hollywood get to preach morality?
While listening to an audio course on the French Revolution, I found it interesting that, at one point in 18th century France, the moral credibility of professional actors was deeply questioned. After all, they made their living by pretending to be who they were not. Maybe they are acting now? Who are they, really?
As noted by the author of an article posted on the Ordinary Times (this quote is from the author’s interaction with readers in the comments section): “Society has always been hypocritical with performing artists and this leads to continued disrespect for this day. Actors at various points have been considered no better and often closely linked to prostitutes. Actors were not able to get proper burial in France until the French Revolution abolished the power of the Church to control burials.”
But when it comes to actors today, they are often exalted beyond all measure, as if they could really fly through the air or really had supernatural powers or really were equal to everyone they ever portrayed.
The fact is, they are as human as the rest of us and certainly just as flawed. And while we can appreciate the fine people who are in Hollywood and be thrilled to see a powerful, godly, moral witness that is emerging, let’s stay real.
Hollywood has made billions of dollars on immorality and violence, on mocking God and demeaning people of faith, on sending mixed and even perverted messages.
It’s time that Hollywood preach to itself.
Perhaps Ricky Gervais will start a trend? And perhaps we could pick up where he left off: Yes, you’re a bunch of compromised hypocrites. But there’s good news. Jesus died for people just like you!
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-08--Donald Trump is the best president Christians have ever had

January 7 , 2019 ( FRC Action ) — `` I may not be perfect , '' President Trump admitted , `` but I get things done . ''
And for many voters , including evangelicals , that 's what matters .
In fact , for the thousands of supporters packed into Miami 's Ministerio Internacional El Rey Jesús last Friday , it was probably the best explanation yet for the strong bond between Christians and this White House .
Unlike the media , who ca n't seem to understand the appeal of this president to his most enthusiastic base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : promises made , promises kept .
And they have three years of examples to prove it .
To the outside world , it 's a mystery .
To conservatives , there 's nothing baffling about it .
Donald Trump won the election by offering a contrast to the Left 's anti-faith , anti-family agenda .
But he 's won respect by acting on it .
And the flocks of faithful pouring into his rallies appreciate that .
`` There are plenty of evangelical Americans who maybe did n't support President Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe he was a true ally , '' one campaign official pointed out .
But those same people , he went on , `` are now taking a second look at him because of his record . ''
It 's that record , the one President Trump touted for the better part of 75 minutes , that the throngs of people jammed into the Florida megachurch stood and cheered .
When he tweeted , in classic Trump fashion , that no president had ever done more for Christians than his administration , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges , international religious freedom to Israel , this White House has earned the support it 's getting .
Christians , the president repeated , `` have never had a greater champion — not even close — than you have in the White House right now .
Look at the record , '' Trump urged .
`` We 've done things that nobody thought was possible .
We 're not only defending our constitutional rights , we 're also defending religion itself , which is under siege . ''
That 's important , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not built by religion-hating socialists .
America was built by churchgoing , God-worshiping , freedom-loving patriots . ''
And those patriots , President Trump insisted , are the ones being attacked .
`` Faith-based schools , charities , hospitals , adoption agencies , pastors were systematically targeted by federal bureaucrats and ordered to stop following their beliefs , '' he pointed out .
That all changed when his teams at HHS , Justice , and Education got involved rolling back the waves of hostility aimed directly at men and women of faith .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the federal government 's war on religion came to an abrupt end , '' he said .
`` My administration will never stop fighting for Americans of faith , '' Trump vowed .
`` We will restore the faith as the true foundation of American life . ''
Maybe that , as Pastor Jentezen Franklin prayed , is what believers appreciate most about this administration .
`` ... America did n't need a preacher in the Oval Office , '' he said , bowing his head .
`` It did not need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it needed a fighter and a champion for freedom .
Lord , that is exactly what we have . ''
And more than that , I thought , as I watched pastors lay their hands on the president , we have a fighter who is n't ashamed of the people he 's fighting for .
After all , when was the last time you saw a president of the United States from either party surrounded by faith leaders in a completely public and unscripted prayer ?
It 's rare , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what 's helped to create a real and honest connection with evangelicals .
While others , even some Republicans , seem embarrassed by what Christians stand for , Trump 's adamance stands out .
`` We will not allow faithful Americans to be bullied by the far Left , '' he insisted to roaring applause .
`` We 're not going to allow it ... '' There are those , he pointed out , `` who say these sacred beliefs are outdated .
But we know they are just the opposite .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immortal .
[ The political Left does n't ] know what they are missing .
Our faith is needed now more than ever . ''
Those are n't exactly views his 2020 opposition shares .
Trump did more than hint at the contrast , reminding the crowd that `` every Democrat candidate running for president is trying to punish religious believers and silence our churches and our pastors .
Our opponents want to shut out God from the public square so they can impose their extreme anti-religious and socialist agenda on America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes , it will be because the country 's faithful got involved .
`` In 2016 , evangelical Christians went out and helped us in numbers never seen before ...
I really believe we have God on our side ... or there would have been no way that we could have won , '' Trump told the crowd .
`` People say , 'How do you win ?
You do n't have the media .
You have so many things against you . '
And we win .
So there has to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration 's record , do n't miss FRC Action 's new 2017–19 overview , available here .

Christians, Trump told a packed megachurch, 'have never had a greater champion — not even close — than you have in the White House right now.'
January 7, 2019 (FRC Action) — “I may not be perfect,” President Trump admitted, “but I get things done.” And for many voters, including evangelicals, that's what matters. In fact, for the thousands of supporters packed into Miami's Ministerio Internacional El Rey Jesús last Friday, it was probably the best explanation yet for the strong bond between Christians and this White House. Unlike the media, who can't seem to understand the appeal of this president to his most enthusiastic base, evangelicals would say it's simple: promises made, promises kept. And they have three years of examples to prove it.
To the outside world, it's a mystery. To conservatives, there's nothing baffling about it. Donald Trump won the election by offering a contrast to the Left's anti-faith, anti-family agenda. But he's won respect by acting on it. And the flocks of faithful pouring into his rallies appreciate that. “There are plenty of evangelical Americans who maybe didn't support President Trump in [2016] because they didn't believe he was a true ally,” one campaign official pointed out. But those same people, he went on, “are now taking a second look at him because of his record.”
It's that record, the one President Trump touted for the better part of 75 minutes, that the throngs of people jammed into the Florida megachurch stood and cheered. When he tweeted, in classic Trump fashion, that no president had ever done more for Christians than his administration, it was true. From the unborn to judges, international religious freedom to Israel, this White House has earned the support it's getting.
Christians, the president repeated, “have never had a greater champion — not even close — than you have in the White House right now. Look at the record,” Trump urged. “We've done things that nobody thought was possible. We're not only defending our constitutional rights, we're also defending religion itself, which is under siege.” That's important, he argued, because “America was not built by religion-hating socialists. America was built by churchgoing, God-worshiping, freedom-loving patriots.”
And those patriots, President Trump insisted, are the ones being attacked. “Faith-based schools, charities, hospitals, adoption agencies, pastors were systematically targeted by federal bureaucrats and ordered to stop following their beliefs,” he pointed out. That all changed when his teams at HHS, Justice, and Education got involved rolling back the waves of hostility aimed directly at men and women of faith. “The day I was sworn in, the federal government's war on religion came to an abrupt end,” he said. “My administration will never stop fighting for Americans of faith,” Trump vowed. “We will restore the faith as the true foundation of American life.”
Maybe that, as Pastor Jentezen Franklin prayed, is what believers appreciate most about this administration. “…America didn't need a preacher in the Oval Office,” he said, bowing his head. “It did not need a professional politician in the Oval Office. But it needed a fighter and a champion for freedom. Lord, that is exactly what we have.” And more than that, I thought, as I watched pastors lay their hands on the president, we have a fighter who isn't ashamed of the people he's fighting for. After all, when was the last time you saw a president of the United States from either party surrounded by faith leaders in a completely public and unscripted prayer? It's rare, I assure you.
That comfort level is what's helped to create a real and honest connection with evangelicals. While others, even some Republicans, seem embarrassed by what Christians stand for, Trump's adamance stands out.
“We will not allow faithful Americans to be bullied by the far Left,” he insisted to roaring applause. “We're not going to allow it…” There are those, he pointed out, “who say these sacred beliefs are outdated. But we know they are just the opposite. Our traditions and our values are timeless and immortal. [The political Left doesn't] know what they are missing. Our faith is needed now more than ever.”
Those aren't exactly views his 2020 opposition shares. Trump did more than hint at the contrast, reminding the crowd that “every Democrat candidate running for president is trying to punish religious believers and silence our churches and our pastors. Our opponents want to shut out God from the public square so they can impose their extreme anti-religious and socialist agenda on America.” If conservatives stop them, he believes, it will be because the country's faithful got involved.
“In 2016, evangelical Christians went out and helped us in numbers never seen before… I really believe we have God on our side… or there would have been no way that we could have won,” Trump told the crowd. “People say, 'How do you win? You don't have the media. You have so many things against you.' And we win. So there has to be something.”
For more on the Trump administration's record, don't miss FRC Action's new 2017–19 overview, available here.
Published with permission from FRC Action.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-07--Time for Pope Francis and the Vatican to wake up about Islam

January 7 , 2019 ( The Catholic Thing ) — In comments last year , Marcello Pera , a prominent Italian intellectual and non-believer , criticized Pope Francis for “ openly going against tradition , doctrine , and introducing inexplicable innovations , behaviors and gestures.
” A philosopher of science , former president of the Italian Senate , and close friend of Pope Benedict XVI , Pera asserted that Francis had turned Catholicism into “ a Church so outgoing that it can no longer be found anywhere.
” In an earlier 2017 interview with Il Mattino , Pera was even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question about “ indiscriminate ” welcoming of migrants to Europe , he replied : “ Frankly , I do not get this pope , whatever he says is beyond any rational understanding .
It ’ s evident to all that an indiscriminate welcoming is not possible : there is a critical point that can ’ t be reached.
” He continued : “ If the pope ... insists in a massive and total welcoming , I ask myself : why does he say it ?
... Why does he lack a minimum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requested of anyone ?
The answer I can give myself is only one : The Pope does it because he hates the West , he aspires to destroy it .
... As he aspires to destroy the Christian tradition.
” Two years ago , most Catholics would have found that hard to swallow .
But now , the idea that Pope Francis hates the West is beginning to seem plausible .
It would explain much of what he says and does — his criticism of capitalism and colonialism , Amazonian initiative and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migration into Europe .
Does he also aspire to destroy the Christian tradition ?
Well , he rarely misses an opportunity to criticize traditional Catholics .
At the same time , he seems intent on introducing exotic and decidedly non-traditional practices into the life of the Church .
The key word , of course , is “ aspires.
” Does Francis consciously desire to “ destroy ” the West and traditional Christianity ( aka Christianity ) ?
Or is he simply a well-intentioned do-gooder who doesn ’ t understand the consequences of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question , but it ’ s unnecessary to know the answer in order to raise a related question : Whatever the intention , do his policies and programs actually tend toward the destruction of the West and of Christianity ?
I would say , “ Yes , they do.
” And I would argue , as Professor Pera does , that they “ lack a minimum of realism.
” Future historians may well look back upon our era as the Age of Unreality .
And many in the Church have embraced this unreality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gospel .
Some Church leaders have been flirting with the idea of same-sex marriage , and some seem willing to believe that females can transition to males and males to females .
Others , including the pope himself , seem to believe in the fantasy idea that the lot of the poor can be improved by getting rid of fossil-fuels — which may be the reason that they have also revived the fantasy of the Noble Savage .
Because , minus the benefits of electric power , much of the world will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In which case , we may all find ourselves praying to Pachamama and the rain gods for a good harvest .
The most dangerous fantasy , however , is the one that Church leaders have created about Islam .
We are told that it ’ s a religion of peace , that it shares much common ground with Christianity , that Muslims venerate Jesus just as Catholics do , that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam , and that the slaughter of Christians by Muslims can be attributed to a tiny minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the same time , we are taught that “ Islamophobia ” — an irrational fear of Islam — is a far greater danger than Islamic aggression .
Pera ’ s point is that these supposedly “ irrational ” fears are actually quite reasonable .
He is mainly concerned with the fantasy that Europe can successfully absorb millions of Muslim migrants who don ’ t want to assimilate .
But as one can see , there is a whole basketful of other fantasies that Catholic leaders believe about Islam .
Where does the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the influence of Louis Massignon ( 1883–1962 ) , a French Catholic scholar of Islam whose work had a profound effect on Catholic thinking .
Yet Massignon ’ s main interest was in the Sufi mystical tradition within Islam , which is only a sliver of the whole .
In short , Massignon and his followers seem to have confused Islam with a relatively small sect of Islam — one that is unrepresentative of mainstream beliefs and practices .
Indeed , many Muslims look upon the Sufis as heretics .
Massignon ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago , yet many Catholics still take his idiosyncratic view of Islam to be the “ true ” and “ authentic ” Islam .
Ever since the publication of Nostra Aetate in 1965 , this woefully inadequate view of Islam has been handed down to successive generations of Catholics , and it ’ s well past time to challenge it .
Over against the fantasies , there stands an abundance of facts about Islam that are not friendly to the current Catholic narrative .
Catholics need to acquaint themselves with these facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complacency .
Let ’ s start with one rather large and longstanding fact : All of North Africa , Turkey , and the Middle East were once Catholic .
In fact , for many centuries they were the great centers of Catholic culture .
Now , however , these regions are over 90 percent Muslim .
Fast forward a millennium and it looks like the same thing is happening again .
Lebanon was 62 percent Christian in 1970 , but by 2010 the Christian population was only 36 percent .
In Iraq , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 90 percent just since 2003 .
Meanwhile , Christians are being slaughtered in the name of Islam all over the world — in Nigeria , Syria , Kenya , Burkina Faso , the Philippines , Sri Lanka , and elsewhere .
It ’ s not a pretty picture , but it ’ s a much more accurate one than that painted by the Church ’ s current cadre of whitewashers , and one that those of us possessing even “ a minimum of realism ” need to take very seriously .
Published @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Whatever the intention, do Pope Francis's policies and programs actually tend toward the destruction of the West and of Christianity?
January 7, 2019 (The Catholic Thing) — In comments last year, Marcello Pera, a prominent Italian intellectual and non-believer, criticized Pope Francis for “openly going against tradition, doctrine, and introducing inexplicable innovations, behaviors and gestures.”
A philosopher of science, former president of the Italian Senate, and close friend of Pope Benedict XVI, Pera asserted that Francis had turned Catholicism into “a Church so outgoing that it can no longer be found anywhere.”
In an earlier 2017 interview with Il Mattino, Pera was even more outspoken. In answer to a question about “indiscriminate” welcoming of migrants to Europe, he replied: “Frankly, I do not get this pope, whatever he says is beyond any rational understanding. It’s evident to all that an indiscriminate welcoming is not possible: there is a critical point that can’t be reached.”
He continued: “If the pope … insists in a massive and total welcoming, I ask myself: why does he say it? … Why does he lack a minimum of realism, that very little that is requested of anyone? The answer I can give myself is only one: The Pope does it because he hates the West, he aspires to destroy it. … As he aspires to destroy the Christian tradition.”
Two years ago, most Catholics would have found that hard to swallow. But now, the idea that Pope Francis hates the West is beginning to seem plausible. It would explain much of what he says and does — his criticism of capitalism and colonialism, Amazonian initiative and, above all, encouragement of mass Muslim migration into Europe.
Does he also aspire to destroy the Christian tradition? Well, he rarely misses an opportunity to criticize traditional Catholics. At the same time, he seems intent on introducing exotic and decidedly non-traditional practices into the life of the Church.
The key word, of course, is “aspires.” Does Francis consciously desire to “destroy” the West and traditional Christianity (aka Christianity)? Or is he simply a well-intentioned do-gooder who doesn’t understand the consequences of his experiments?
That’s a serious question, but it’s unnecessary to know the answer in order to raise a related question: Whatever the intention, do his policies and programs actually tend toward the destruction of the West and of Christianity?
I would say, “Yes, they do.” And I would argue, as Professor Pera does, that they “lack a minimum of realism.” Future historians may well look back upon our era as the Age of Unreality. And many in the Church have embraced this unreality as though it were a newly revealed Gospel.
Some Church leaders have been flirting with the idea of same-sex marriage, and some seem willing to believe that females can transition to males and males to females. Others, including the pope himself, seem to believe in the fantasy idea that the lot of the poor can be improved by getting rid of fossil-fuels — which may be the reason that they have also revived the fantasy of the Noble Savage. Because, minus the benefits of electric power, much of the world will be quickly reduced to a primitive level. In which case, we may all find ourselves praying to Pachamama and the rain gods for a good harvest.
The most dangerous fantasy, however, is the one that Church leaders have created about Islam. We are told that it’s a religion of peace, that it shares much common ground with Christianity, that Muslims venerate Jesus just as Catholics do, that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that the slaughter of Christians by Muslims can be attributed to a tiny minority who “misunderstand” their religion.
At the same time, we are taught that “Islamophobia” — an irrational fear of Islam — is a far greater danger than Islamic aggression.
Pera’s point is that these supposedly “irrational” fears are actually quite reasonable. He is mainly concerned with the fantasy that Europe can successfully absorb millions of Muslim migrants who don’t want to assimilate. But as one can see, there is a whole basketful of other fantasies that Catholic leaders believe about Islam.
Where does the fantasy come from? Some attribute it to the influence of Louis Massignon (1883–1962), a French Catholic scholar of Islam whose work had a profound effect on Catholic thinking. Yet Massignon’s main interest was in the Sufi mystical tradition within Islam, which is only a sliver of the whole. In short, Massignon and his followers seem to have confused Islam with a relatively small sect of Islam — one that is unrepresentative of mainstream beliefs and practices. Indeed, many Muslims look upon the Sufis as heretics.
Massignon’s magnum opus was published almost 100 years ago, yet many Catholics still take his idiosyncratic view of Islam to be the “true” and “authentic” Islam. Ever since the publication of Nostra Aetate in 1965, this woefully inadequate view of Islam has been handed down to successive generations of Catholics, and it’s well past time to challenge it.
Over against the fantasies, there stands an abundance of facts about Islam that are not friendly to the current Catholic narrative. Catholics need to acquaint themselves with these facts lest they be lured into a deadly complacency.
Let’s start with one rather large and longstanding fact: All of North Africa, Turkey, and the Middle East were once Catholic. In fact, for many centuries they were the great centers of Catholic culture. Now, however, these regions are over 90 percent Muslim.
Fast forward a millennium and it looks like the same thing is happening again. Lebanon was 62 percent Christian in 1970, but by 2010 the Christian population was only 36 percent. In Iraq, the Christian population has declined by more than 90 percent just since 2003. Meanwhile, Christians are being slaughtered in the name of Islam all over the world — in Nigeria, Syria, Kenya, Burkina Faso, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere.
It’s not a pretty picture, but it’s a much more accurate one than that painted by the Church’s current cadre of whitewashers, and one that those of us possessing even “a minimum of realism” need to take very seriously.
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-07--Secularism and Islam are cooperating to attack the Church

January 7 , 2019 ( Turning Point Project ) — Jesus assured us that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church .
But we 're not told how much damage will be done to the Church in the meantime .
So much damage has been done in recent years that , from a purely worldly perspective , it sometimes looks as if Christianity is on the path to extinction .
Polls in the U.S. and in Europe reveal that fewer people identify as Christians with each passing year , while a growing number — the `` nones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion .
That trend seems likely to continue .
One reason is that advances in technology , medicine , and science have created the illusion that our needs can be met on a purely secular level .
The gospel of wealth and health and positive thinking that was popular with many Protestant Christians in the first half of the twentieth century has been revived — only this time without the Gospel .
You can easily find it on the internet : `` 8 Life lessons everyone should learn before 2020 '' , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxiety by up to 65 % '' , and `` 5 ways to reduce your risk of developing dementia according to new research '' .
And this is only a very small sampling of the myriad ways you can improve your life and boost your self-esteem without recourse to religion .
Thus , the Internet with its many answers to life 's problems , can , for some , become a substitute for religion .
And for most of the rest of us , it serves to distract our attention away from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
But the decline of Christianity is caused not just by the many distractions of modern life , but also by direct attacks against it .
And these seem to be escalating .
The three main assaults against Christianity come from secularism , Islam , and , ironically , from within Christianity itself .
Most Christians who pay attention are aware of the first threat .
Committed secularists maintain that Christians are free to believe whatever they want just as long as they do n't bring their beliefs into the public realm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman , but if you 're a baker , a florist , or a wedding photographer , you must lay your beliefs aside for the sake of `` community standards '' — that is , for the standards of the ideological left .
It 's becoming apparent , however , that secularists wo n't be satisfied merely with policing the public sphere .
It 's not unreasonable to conclude the day is approaching when the reading of an epistle at Mass will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be forced to perform same-sex `` weddings '' , and it will be compulsory for Catholic schools to teach the joy of LGBT sex .
Even if militant secularists could be stopped from breaking down the doors of Catholic churches and schools , they have already managed to undermine Christianity in significant ways .
One of the most effective ways is to consign Christian teachings to the realm of the unfashionable , or worse .
How is this accomplished ?
It 's simple enough .
When the fashionable people who control advertising , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the public schools say that trans and gay are A-OK , any individual or institution who says otherwise is , almost by definition , unfashionable .
And that 's all that those who aspire to `` woke '' status need to know about Christianity .
The second major attack on Christianity comes from Islam .
In places where Muslims are a distinct minority , the attack often comes in the form of demands for equal treatment which soon become demands for special rights .
In Europe , Muslims present themselves as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism and discrimination who deserve special treatment to compensate for their sufferings .
In liberal , secular Europe this ploy is quite effective .
Thus , the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that criticism of Islam is a crime .
And in England , police arrest Christian street preachers for fear that the Christian message will offend Muslims .
In parts of Asia , Africa , and the Middle East , Christians come in for much harsher treatment .
They face daily persecution and even genocide .
But relatively few Christians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent of the Islamic assault on Christianity , either in Europe or in the developing world .
Why ?
Because the same fashionable people who think it 's fine to bring drag queens into your public library act like Victorian-era prudes when it comes to Islam .
Persecution of Christians at the hands of Muslims ?
You should be ashamed of yourself for even broaching such a delicate topic .
Polite people do n't talk about such things .
Indeed , the fashionable people who feel that they have a perfect right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , also believe that they have a God-given ( excuse the language ) mandate to teach them that Islam is a religion of peace and justice — unlike that other religion that supposedly introduced slavery , sexism , and homophobia to the world .
The frequency and intensity of Muslim attacks on Christians is magnified by the media 's silence .
Reporters and journalists who raise an outcry whenever other groups are persecuted , are stricken with laryngitis when Christians are the target .
When elephants are hunted in Africa , reporters jump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Christians who are in danger , all they can muster is a shrug of the shoulder .
The tacit and sometimes not-so-tacit alliance between secularists and Islamists means that Christians are up against a combination of formidable foes .
What makes the situation worse is that the Church is also under attack from powerful people within its own ranks .
These Churchmen seem intent on transforming the Church from a God-centered institution to a man-centered organization .
Their goal is not to seek the Kingdom of Heaven , but to create a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — possibly in partnership with the United Nations .
However , in the process of making the Church more acceptable to the world , they have weakened the Church in the eyes of the world .
When the Church claimed to be the One True Church , she commanded more respect ( though sometimes grudgingly ) from the world .
Now that leading Churchmen make no claim to exclusivity , the Church commands much less respect .
Of course , this loss of respect is compounded by the recent revelations of corruption in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everything in between .
It may well be that this corruption is the direct result of exchanging the goal of sanctification for more humanistic goals .
In any event , it seems fair to say that the Church in recent years has lost both respect and credibility , and has even become something of a laughing stock — an old boys club where the old boys act like frat boys .
The world , however , seems willing to overlook these `` foibles '' because the `` new Church '' has proven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church have proven useful to the Muslim world as well .
That 's because various churchmen have become apologists for , and enablers of , Islam .
Many Church leaders long ago joined the chorus of world leaders who — with hardly a shred of evidence — claimed that Islam is a religion of peace — a tranquil faith that has nothing to do with terror .
Not only were church leaders willing to whitewash Islamic history and doctrine , they were , in large part , willing to overlook the Muslim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When Benedict XVI had the temerity to decry the bombing of Christian churches in Egypt , the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar broke off the university 's dialogue with the Vatican , and only agreed to reopen it if Pope Francis promised not to cross the `` red line '' — namely , criticism of Islam .
Francis gladly agreed , presumably on the assumption that terrorists are misunderstanders of `` true '' Islam .
As he stated in Evangelii Gaudium : `` Authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' It appears that Francis and his circle not only think that Catholicism can be turned into a sort of humanistic religion , they apparently think the same of Islam .
The `` Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together '' which was signed jointly by Francis and the Grand Imam is full of humanistic nostrums , and it seems to assume that the coming one-world religion is only a step away .
Of course , if Francis 's assessment of Islam as a nascent humanistic religion is correct , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more peaceful world .
But if he is wrong — if , as President Erdogan of Turkey has said , `` Islam is Islam , and that 's that '' — then the newly humanized Church has put itself in a very bad position vis-à-vis both Islam and secularism .
In times past , the Catholic Church was a rallying point against both the aggressiveness of Islam and the excesses of secularism .
In its present weakened state , however , it is hard to imagine it as a rallying point for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schemes .
Like Francis , secularists long for a one-world government , but it takes a special kind of naiveté to believe that the one they envision will be hospitable to Catholics and other Christians .
Like Francis , Muslims , too , yearn for a one-world religion , but the one world religion they have in mind is Islam — not a syncretic blend of spiritualities .
The watered-down religion of human fraternity which some Catholics hope to bring about will be no match for either militant secularism or militant Islam .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a simultaneous assault from both forces .
From a worldly perspective , the odds for the survival of Christianity do not look good .
On the other hand , we have Christ 's promise that the Church will emerge victorious .
And that changes the odds considerably .
This article originally appeared in the January 5 , 2020 edition of Catholic World Report .
It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project .

The watered-down religion of human fraternity which some Catholics hope to bring about will be no match for either militant secularism or militant Islam.
January 7, 2019 (Turning Point Project) — Jesus assured us that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. But we're not told how much damage will be done to the Church in the meantime. So much damage has been done in recent years that, from a purely worldly perspective, it sometimes looks as if Christianity is on the path to extinction.
Polls in the U.S. and in Europe reveal that fewer people identify as Christians with each passing year, while a growing number — the “nones” — don't identify with any religion. That trend seems likely to continue.
One reason is that advances in technology, medicine, and science have created the illusion that our needs can be met on a purely secular level. The gospel of wealth and health and positive thinking that was popular with many Protestant Christians in the first half of the twentieth century has been revived — only this time without the Gospel. You can easily find it on the internet: “8 Life lessons everyone should learn before 2020”, “Neuroscience says listening to this song reduces anxiety by up to 65%”, and “5 ways to reduce your risk of developing dementia according to new research”. And this is only a very small sampling of the myriad ways you can improve your life and boost your self-esteem without recourse to religion.
Thus, the Internet with its many answers to life's problems, can, for some, become a substitute for religion. And for most of the rest of us, it serves to distract our attention away from the deeper questions about the purpose of our life.
But the decline of Christianity is caused not just by the many distractions of modern life, but also by direct attacks against it. And these seem to be escalating. The three main assaults against Christianity come from secularism, Islam, and, ironically, from within Christianity itself.
Most Christians who pay attention are aware of the first threat. Committed secularists maintain that Christians are free to believe whatever they want just as long as they don't bring their beliefs into the public realm. Thus, you are free to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but if you're a baker, a florist, or a wedding photographer, you must lay your beliefs aside for the sake of “community standards” — that is, for the standards of the ideological left.
It's becoming apparent, however, that secularists won't be satisfied merely with policing the public sphere. It's not unreasonable to conclude the day is approaching when the reading of an epistle at Mass will be a hate crime, priests will be forced to perform same-sex “weddings”, and it will be compulsory for Catholic schools to teach the joy of LGBT sex.
Even if militant secularists could be stopped from breaking down the doors of Catholic churches and schools, they have already managed to undermine Christianity in significant ways. One of the most effective ways is to consign Christian teachings to the realm of the unfashionable, or worse. How is this accomplished? It's simple enough. When the fashionable people who control advertising, the entertainment industry, the NFL, and the public schools say that trans and gay are A-OK, any individual or institution who says otherwise is, almost by definition, unfashionable. And that's all that those who aspire to “woke” status need to know about Christianity.
The second major attack on Christianity comes from Islam. In places where Muslims are a distinct minority, the attack often comes in the form of demands for equal treatment which soon become demands for special rights. In Europe, Muslims present themselves as the “new Jews” — victims of racism and discrimination who deserve special treatment to compensate for their sufferings. In liberal, secular Europe this ploy is quite effective. Thus, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that criticism of Islam is a crime. And in England, police arrest Christian street preachers for fear that the Christian message will offend Muslims.
In parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, Christians come in for much harsher treatment. They face daily persecution and even genocide. But relatively few Christians in the West are aware of the extent of the Islamic assault on Christianity, either in Europe or in the developing world.
Why? Because the same fashionable people who think it's fine to bring drag queens into your public library act like Victorian-era prudes when it comes to Islam. Persecution of Christians at the hands of Muslims? You should be ashamed of yourself for even broaching such a delicate topic. Polite people don't talk about such things. Indeed, the fashionable people who feel that they have a perfect right to teach your children that gay is okay, also believe that they have a God-given (excuse the language) mandate to teach them that Islam is a religion of peace and justice — unlike that other religion that supposedly introduced slavery, sexism, and homophobia to the world.
The frequency and intensity of Muslim attacks on Christians is magnified by the media's silence. Reporters and journalists who raise an outcry whenever other groups are persecuted, are stricken with laryngitis when Christians are the target. When elephants are hunted in Africa, reporters jump to their defense, but when it's Christians who are in danger, all they can muster is a shrug of the shoulder.
The tacit and sometimes not-so-tacit alliance between secularists and Islamists means that Christians are up against a combination of formidable foes. What makes the situation worse is that the Church is also under attack from powerful people within its own ranks.
These Churchmen seem intent on transforming the Church from a God-centered institution to a man-centered organization. Their goal is not to seek the Kingdom of Heaven, but to create a humanitarian and egalitarian community here on earth — possibly in partnership with the United Nations.
However, in the process of making the Church more acceptable to the world, they have weakened the Church in the eyes of the world. When the Church claimed to be the One True Church, she commanded more respect (though sometimes grudgingly) from the world. Now that leading Churchmen make no claim to exclusivity, the Church commands much less respect.
Of course, this loss of respect is compounded by the recent revelations of corruption in the Church — sexual and financial corruption and everything in between. It may well be that this corruption is the direct result of exchanging the goal of sanctification for more humanistic goals. In any event, it seems fair to say that the Church in recent years has lost both respect and credibility, and has even become something of a laughing stock — an old boys club where the old boys act like frat boys. The world, however, seems willing to overlook these “foibles” because the “new Church” has proven useful to progressive causes.
Some in the Church have proven useful to the Muslim world as well. That's because various churchmen have become apologists for, and enablers of, Islam. Many Church leaders long ago joined the chorus of world leaders who — with hardly a shred of evidence — claimed that Islam is a religion of peace — a tranquil faith that has nothing to do with terror.
Not only were church leaders willing to whitewash Islamic history and doctrine, they were, in large part, willing to overlook the Muslim slaughter of Christians in the developing world.
When Benedict XVI had the temerity to decry the bombing of Christian churches in Egypt, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar broke off the university's dialogue with the Vatican, and only agreed to reopen it if Pope Francis promised not to cross the “red line” — namely, criticism of Islam.
Francis gladly agreed, presumably on the assumption that terrorists are misunderstanders of “true” Islam. As he stated in Evangelii Gaudium: “Authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”
It appears that Francis and his circle not only think that Catholicism can be turned into a sort of humanistic religion, they apparently think the same of Islam. The “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” which was signed jointly by Francis and the Grand Imam is full of humanistic nostrums, and it seems to assume that the coming one-world religion is only a step away.
Of course, if Francis's assessment of Islam as a nascent humanistic religion is correct, then there is reason to hope for a more peaceful world. But if he is wrong — if, as President Erdogan of Turkey has said, “Islam is Islam, and that's that” — then the newly humanized Church has put itself in a very bad position vis-à-vis both Islam and secularism.
In times past, the Catholic Church was a rallying point against both the aggressiveness of Islam and the excesses of secularism. In its present weakened state, however, it is hard to imagine it as a rallying point for anything other than LGBT initiatives and socialist schemes. Like Francis, secularists long for a one-world government, but it takes a special kind of naiveté to believe that the one they envision will be hospitable to Catholics and other Christians. Like Francis, Muslims, too, yearn for a one-world religion, but the one world religion they have in mind is Islam — not a syncretic blend of spiritualities.
The watered-down religion of human fraternity which some Catholics hope to bring about will be no match for either militant secularism or militant Islam. And it will certainly be no match for a simultaneous assault from both forces.
From a worldly perspective, the odds for the survival of Christianity do not look good. On the other hand, we have Christ's promise that the Church will emerge victorious. And that changes the odds considerably.
This article originally appeared in the January 5, 2020 edition of Catholic World Report. It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project.
Share