When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 15

 

This is the next installment of my series to be published the first Monday of each month.

There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and convert them. In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible. 

Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.

In each month's post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of:  

• The sect's history
• Their theology
• Tips on how to share the True Faith with them

Baha'i

The Baha'i sect is a relatively new religion having been founded only 176 years ago. Most people have never heard of them. Personally, I only became aware of them ten years ago when they opened a Mashriqu'l-Adhkar or Temple not far from where I live. The sect originated in Persia (modern day Iran) and was perceived as an offshoot of Islam. This assessment is manifestly false. Baha'ism should be considered an independent false religion; just as Buddhism grew out of the context of  Hinduism but is distinguished from the former. The name Baha'i  comes from the Persian word meaning a "follower of Baha Allah" (from Arabic for splendor of God). The Baha’i Faith is known by its claims for religious acceptance. Baha’is with pride declare, “We accept all the manifestations of God.” 

The Baha’i Faith stands at the pinnacle, perhaps, in claims for religious harmony and acceptance. Yet, as this post will demonstrate, these claims are without foundation, since each religion it claims to accept is not permitted to speak for itself but is re-interpreted to con­form to the teachings of the Baha’i faith. In essence, other religions are reinvented to teach the Baha’i philosophy. No amount of intellectual gymnastics can change this basic fact: The Baha’i Faith is not as tolerant as it would have us believe. Fundamentally, it recognizes what all religions have accepted: only absolute truths have value. It is thus underhanded in claiming one thing (the acceptance of the basic teachings of all religions) while teaching another (religious exclusivism). This post will show the internal contradiction and false beliefs of a sect which, like the Vatican II sect, wants a One World Religion. 

(My sources on Baha'i are taken primarily from: William McLwee Miller, The Baha’i Faith: Its History and Teachings , (1974), Dr. Francis Beckwith, Baha'i (1985), and the sect's official website, https://www.bahai.org/. ---Introibo). 

Origin

The history of the Baha’is begins in 1844. This was the year that Mizra Ali Muhammad, otherwise known as “the Bab,” proclaimed to the world that he was the greatest Manifesta­tion of God to date and the fulfillment of prophecies in all world Scriptures. Baha’is believe that of the nine or more historic manifestations of God (for example, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus—the exact number has changed historically), the Bab was the greatest revealer of truth up to his time. For this reason the Bahai symbol of the nine-pointed star reflects the importance of the number for the Faith. The number nine is the highest single digit number which therefore symbolizes completeness and the fulfillment of the expectations of all prior religions. The star is often portrayed on Bahai temples, which are nine-sided. (The Baha'i star is depicted at the top of this post). 

The Bab also told of another Manifestation, even greater, who would follow him. The Baha’is interpret this as being his follower Mirza Husayn Ali, otherwise known as Baha’u’llah (1817-1892, author of the Al-Kitab-Al-Aqdas ["The Most Holy Book"], and the Kitab-l-Iqan ["The Book of Certitude"]) who came after the Bab. Baha’u’llah (i.e., “the Glory of God”) is as close as one can come to a Baha’i equivalent of Jesus Christ. Baha’is today view the Bab as his forerunner and give Baha’u’llah preeminence. Hence, the teachings and writings of the Bab are of less import, as they are superseded by those of Baha’u’llah, who brought greater revelation to light.

Known by Baha'i adherents as "The Divine Educator," here is what the Baha'is claim about Baha’u’llah:

Throughout history, the great religions have provided the primary driving force behind the civilizing of human character, eliciting self-discipline, devotion and heroism from their followers. Many of religion’s moral principles have been translated into structures and patterns of conduct which have served to elevate human relationships and advance humanity’s collective life.

Every time a Manifestation of God appears, a fuller measure of inspiration for the next stage in the awakening and progress of humanity is released into the world. A human being—ordinary in every outward respect—is called to be a mouthpiece for God. One may call to mind Moses standing before the Burning Bush, the Buddha receiving enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus in the form of a dove, or the archangel Gabriel appearing to Muhammad.

In the middle of the 19th century, God summoned Baha’u’llah—meaning the “Glory of God”—to deliver a new Revelation to humanity. For four decades thousands of verses, letters and books flowed from His pen. In His Writings, He outlined a framework for the development of a global civilization which takes into account both the spiritual and material dimensions of human life.

I have never aspired after worldly leadership. My sole purpose hath been to hand down unto men that which I was bidden to deliver by God…

— Baha’u’llah (See https://www.bahai.org/bahaullah/; Emphasis mine). 

Notice the absolute and abhorrent egalitarianism; Jesus Christ is equal to Moses, Buddha, and Mohammed. What did all of these writings of Baha’u’llah teach? The Baha'i doctrines will be examined next.

Doctrines

 1. One World Government and Religion

The fundamental principles of Baha’i revolve around an emphasis on world unity. Thus Baha’is emphasize belief in the oneness of God, the oneness of religion (in a sense, a world religion evolving “into” oneness through progressive revelation) and the oneness of mankind. They also stress the harmony of science and religion and universal compulsory education (which would incorporate Baha'i teachings). They advocate for:

•  complete equal­ity of the sexes
• a universal language to be learned by all
• Baha'i as the source of unity
• international peace maintained by a One-World Government
• elimination of all forms of prejudice (read: sodomite/transgender perversion)
• the abolition of extremes of wealth and poverty 

 Baha’is insist that they are a progressive, uniting factor among all religions, and that they are not a new religion. Nevertheless, their writings prove that The Baha’i Faith is a new religion, one in active competition with all others and hence not a uniting factor. This rejection of other faiths is maintained even while Baha’i offers the other faiths the hand of unity and friendship. When this is seen for what it is, this spiritual pre­tense is distasteful to the neutral observer or committed member of another faith. Baha’is only tell a member of another religion exactly what he or she may wish to hear: “Baha’i does not deny your beliefs, it teaches that you can be a devout Christian and also a Baha’i.” Thus new prospects are promised, “The Baha’i Faith invites us to broaden our religious horizons, not to become an apostate.”(See Baha'i magazine World Order, Fall, 1977, p. 11).

Unfortunately, this is precisely what happens. After one commits oneself to The Baha’i Faith, one learns that “true religion” is found only in the teachings of Baha’u’llah; it is one’s own religion that has been seriously corrupted. According to Baha'i all religions teach the same truth, despite variation due to local customs, cultures and the depth of religious evolution of man at that point. The world’s religions will eventually accept the truth and unite under Baha’i teachings into one grand ecumenical brotherhood. 

2. Manifestations of God

Baha'i's founder, the Bab, was considered a heretic by Moslems as he declared himself a greater manifestation of truth than Mohammed. For this, he was executed. According to the Baha'i myth, 750 soldiers fired upon him and he was unscathed. After he finished writing his last words of a text, he "permitted" the execution to take place. Bab's successor, Baha’u’llah attempted to distinguish between the proph­ets’ station (rank) and mission. As to their station, the prophets are all equal in an absolute sense. As to the prophets’ mission, however, “the words and utterances … appear to diverge and differ… [still] all their utterances are, in reality, but the expressions of one Truth.”(See Shoghi Effendi, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah  (1976), pgs. 66-67). Therefore, Buddha and Mohammad are one, despite Buddha’s practical atheism and Mohammad’s zealous theism.

Dr. Beckwith writes, "The problem with this concept of revelation is that it is self-defeating. The statement, “revelation is relative,” which is allegedly a revelation spoken by Baha’u’llah, must be either relative or absolute. If the statement is relative, it is not absolutely binding, and it is possible that absolute revelation does exist. If the statement, “revelation is relative,” is absolute, then the statement, “revelation is relative,” cannot be true. Thus, the Baha’i doctrine of relative revelation is self-defeating and untrue." (See Beckwith, cited above, pgs.20-21). 

Bahai's will tell potential converts they are not anti-Christian and may be both Christian and Baha'i because, like Christianity, they believe Jesus is the Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. What they conveniently omit to tell them is that Baha’u’llah is the promised Messiah of the Bible and other holy scriptures, and that Baha’u’llah’s teachings supersede all others. Baha’u’llah was none other than Jesus Christ returned, and it is to him, not Jesus, that Christians and others must look. Why then are Christians still looking for Jesus’ return? Because Christ’s erring disciples falsely interpreted Jesus’ teachings. This explains why such teachings do not seem to conform to Baha’u’llah’s revelations. (This will not be made explicit until the conversion is complete, and the person has decided to sever ties with their former religion). 

Other tenets:

God: God is unknowable except through conflicting manifestations. God cannot incarnate Himself.

Jesus Christ: One of many manifestations of the divine; Jesus Christ returned as Baha’u’llah.

Divine Revelation: Written revelation is incomplete and continuing; religious truth is ultimately relative. In their true essence and teaching all religions are true or reflect facets of the truth.

Heaven and Hell: Neither place exists. When you die, your soul will enter a "spiritual realm" wherein your spiritual development determines whether one is closer or farther from God. You develop spiritually according to (a) how closely you believed the teachings of Baha'i and (b) how ethical or "nice" you were in life. 

The Baha'i have a governing body called The Universal House of Justice. There are no clergy properly so-called. They have simple prayer services with readings from  Baha’u’llah. If there is no temple nearby, they gather in houses for this purpose. 

Proselytizing Tips for Baha'is

• Point out that their sect is internally inconsistent.  "God" cannot be both Trinity and non-trinitarian. If God cannot Incarnate Himself, Christ lied. How can they accept a liar as a "manifestation" of God?

• Show how Baha'i undermines itself. Baha’is believe that Christians have rejected God. They decry the fact that the prophets, especially Baha’u’llah, have not been accepted by Christians. If this is true, Baha'i also teach that one who denies any of the manifestation of God, has denied all. Baha’is deny Christ is God Incarnate, which is to deny His message and Mission. Therefore, they deny Baha’u’llah

• The simple fact is that the Baha’i approach to religion is opposed in reason. The only way to accept all "manifestations of God" is to claim that the Law of Non-Contradiction in logic, which states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense (e.g., Christ is God Incarnate and Christ is not God Incarnate), is to be abandoned. To abandon the Law of Non-Contradiction is to abandon being rational

The Vatican II Sect: DON'T Proselytize

The Vatican II sect put out a leaflet (part of a "Getting to Know Other Faiths" series) on Baha'i. Here's the introduction section to said leaflet:

In the Vatican II 'Declaration on the relationship of the Church with Non-Christians' [ Nostra Aetate] we find that the Church speaks with warmth and openness and greets People of Faith as partners in a single great enterprise. These religions contain much that is good and holy and provide ways of salvation for millions of people all over the world. Throughout the documents of Vatican II we find encouragement to respect, accept and meet as friends, those who profess faiths different from our own. The Baha’í Faith will be introduced here in this spirit. (See https://bahai-faith.manvell.org.uk/fragrant/catholic.html; Emphasis mine).  It doesn't matter what you believe because all faiths are pathways to salvation--sounds almost like Baha'i, doesn't it? 

The leaflet has a couple of "Questions for Discussion," one of which states, "In what areas would cooperation with people of [the] Baha'i Faith be most fruitful and possible?" Notice: cooperation; not a word about converting them to save their souls. This is the sad and repulsive sect of Jorge Bergoglio.

Conclusion

The Baha'i sect attracts people because of its emphasis on "universal peace and harmony" as well as its giving a great significance to ethics and truthfulness. They want a One World Religion that allows all to become Baha'i without giving up their own "faith community." This has been shown to be a lie by those same Baha'is who purport to value truthfulness. The Baha'i sect wants to absorb all faiths into accepting their doctrines which are irrational; that allow mutually exclusive ideas to be held. They want a One World Government with compulsory education in Baha'i. The Vatican II sect holds a similar belief that all religions are more or less good and they [truthfully] do not want anyone, including Baha'is, to convert. The times are evil.

We must do all we can to convert as many people as we can to the One True Church of Jesus Christ. She alone is the Mystical Body of Christ, and Jesus alone could rightfully say, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one cometh to the Father, but by Me." (St. John 14:6). 

The Faith Trumps Biden

 My posts on politics are infrequent. I focus on matters pertaining to the One True Church. I'm publishing this post eight days before the U.S. presidential election because the Faith (and true morality) are directly implicated. Democratic nominee Joseph Biden claims to be a "good Catholic." Truth be told, he is an apostate who went along with the Vatican II sect. He endorses abortion on demand, sodomite "marriage" and "rights," and his policies are that of Socialism. Yet, the Vatican II sect allows him to receive their "communion" (thank God it's invalid) and their clergy are telling people to "vote their consciences," as if a vote for Biden is morally permissible. 

People will counter by saying that Trump is non-Catholic, an adulterer, a womanizer, and a greedy man who only helps the rich. While fully admitting Trump is far from ideal (and is no King St. Louis IX), a vote for Biden is immoral. This post will explain why. 

Biden: Operating on Socialist Principles

(The principles of the Church set forth in this section--and applied to the instant case--are taken from theologian Cahill, The Framework of a Christian State, [1932], pgs. 181-189---Introibo). 

The platform of the Democratic Party, and enthusiastically embraced by Biden, is Socialism in principle. Here are the evil problems with Socialism (and see how they play out in Biden's campaign). Also take note of how false pope Jorge Bergoglio supports the same platform via his religious teachings.

1. Materialism. The fundamental and irreconcilable opposition between Socialism and the Church is the materialistic philosophy upon which Socialism rests. The authority and very existence of a personal God are denied or ignored. The immortality of the soul, free will, and human responsibility disappear from the public square. Thus, the very foundation of the moral law collapses. The primary--indeed solitary--purpose of life is earthly happiness. 

Biden: Sees religion as something altogether "private;" it has no bearing on public life. Indeed, the "happiness" that comes from being free of unwanted children via abortion is a "legal right." In 1987, he torpedoed Robert Bork's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court based on Judge Bork's outspoken opposition to abortion. Yet, he calls himself a "devout Catholic (sic)." Under his "Biden Care, " health plan, abortion, contraception, and euthanasia via health care rationing will ensure the "greatest happiness" for the most people. An evil utilitarian ethic devoid of God's Moral Law. 

Bergoglio: The real problems of the world are protecting the environment, youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly. (Spreading the true Faith and saving your soul didn't make the list). Those who fight abortion are fixated on "simple-minded rules." There is no condemnation of Biden from Bergoglio (or his clergy) due to Biden's support of slaughtering children; and this in spite of the fact that Wojtyla's 1983 Code of Canon Law still lists procuring an abortion as an act worthy of excommunication. 

2. False Interpretation of Human Equality. While it is true that all are created by God, that does not make all people equals. Inequality in social rank, opportunity, and material well-being are the necessary results of each person's varying abilities and character, coupled with their right to acquire property and to utilize their various natural gifts each in his own way. The classes must obey legitimate authority. Poverty will never be overcome. Our Lord said, "The poor you will always have with you..." (St. Matthew 26:11).  Government can never overcome poverty from the psychological point of view, even if such material gain could be achieved. For example, even if everyone had enough food, there would be those with better kinds of food. Even if everyone had housing, not everyone can have beachfront property. 

Biden: Wants "progressive taxation" to redistribute wealth.  Progressive tax is discriminatory by its very nature because it purposefully taxes some people, and some dollars, at a different rate than others. It is a disincentive to work hard because the more money a person will make, the more the government will take, so that others can benefit from those who worked harder to make more. "Free" education, healthcare, etc., is not "free"--society pays, and everyone loses out in the long run. In 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used “to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.”

Biden supports the Communist thugs of "Black Lives Matter." They incite class warfare and civil unrest. As Pope Leo XIII taught, "Hallowed, therefore, in the minds of Christians is the very idea of public authority, in which they recognize some likeness and symbol as it were of the Divine Majesty, even when it is exercised by one unworthy. A just and due reverence to the laws abides in them, not from force and threats, but from a consciousness of duty; "for God hath not given us the spirit of fear. "(See Sapientiae Christianae, para. #9). 

Bergoglio: The apostate said, "Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy. It is a moral obligation.” (See http://www.archivioradiovaticana.va/storico/2015/07/10/pope_francis_speech_at_world_meeting_of_popular_movements/en-1157291). Compare with Brooklyn-born Jew Bernie Sanders, an admitted Socialist, who stated, "A nation will not survive morally or economically when so few have so much and so many have so little." (See https://twitter.com/sensanders/status/426740006905200640).

  He believes in the equality of all religions--an absolute equality where all can attain Heaven including atheists, because "There is no Catholic God," and "Proselytism is solemn nonsense."

3. Elimination of Private Property. Pope Leo XIII wrote, "Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property." (See Rerum Novarum para. #15; Emphasis mine). 

Biden: According to the Hoover Institution, "...Biden used his perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee as a bully pulpit to attack conservative nominees, most notably Robert Bork in 1987.  Four years later, when Thomas appeared before the judiciary committee, Biden asked him if he accepted any of the principles in Takings, which argued for extensive protections for private property. Thomas responded that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution—“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”—did protect private property." (See https://www.hoover.org/research/joe-bidens-constitutionalism). Biden attacked the pro-property right stance of Clarence Thomas. 

Bergoglio: In his recent "encyclical" Fratelli Tutti, Bergoglio directly contradicts Church teaching on private property in a footnote to para. #119, wherein he states, "...the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property.” Yet, Pope Leo calls the right to private property "inviolable" in Rerum Novarum cited above. A clear contradiction, and proof that Bergoglio made a material false statement (i.e., he lied). 

4. Destruction of the Family. Socialism sees marriage as a mere construct of the State, capable of being dissolved at will.  "They [Socialists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust." (See Pope Leo XIII, Quod Apostolici Muneris, para. #1). 

Biden: Supports sodomite "marriages," thus redefining the family. He wants sodomites to be able to adopt children from federally funded adoption agencies, and to protect "transgender women of color" (it takes a minute to understand that phrase, I know) from violence. (See  https://joebiden.com/lgbtq/#).

Bergoglio: Came out in support of civil unions for sodomites. His support of civil unions dates back to his days as "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, when he proposed civil unions as an alternative to sodomite "marriage," a position he has reiterated as recently as 2017. He encouraged two Italian sodomites to "raise their children in the parish church." (See https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462). Let's not forget his famous "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" If he was Vicar of Christ (which he is most certainly not), he should judge and condemn them unless they seek God to abandon their evil lifestyle. 

Answering Objections to Voting for Trump

1. Trump is dividing the people with his policies. His policies reflect Christian values, such as being pro-life, anti-sodomite, and anti-Socialism. Our Lord said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (St. Matthew 10:34). It's not that Christ instigated animosity, but rather that unconverted people resented God's truth by nature. That's why so many hate Trump's policies.

2. Trump is a womanizer, adulterer, makes fun of people, sends out obnoxious tweets, etc. The argument against Trump's character (he has not the temperament, morals, or charisma to represent the nation) is the most frequently cited. We must prioritize policy over character. President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), was pretty clean. He had no real personal scandals. He was faithful to his wife, kind, and a soft-spoken Southern gentleman. His policies were anti-Christian and he was a disaster for America. Policy does not flow out of character. A good man who is weak, easily influenced, or distracted may not be an effective leader. A bad man may adopt the right policies for the purely pragmatic reason that they appeal to a large voting block whose support he needs. It doesn’t matter why he adopts the policies he does; what matters is that he adopts the right policies. Trump does that. Character without right policy is just as empty as faith without works.

 Remember, Christ preached obedience even to wicked lawgivers, like the scribes and Pharisees, by saying, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (St. Matthew 23:2-3). Only in one case is a Catholic exempt from obedience to the State: when the law is clearly unjust and contrary to the Will of God. It then does not bind in conscience. As Pope Leo XIII beautifully summarized: The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. (See Diuturnum, para. #15). 

Conclusion

On November 3, 2020, the people of the United States have a choice to make. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Socialism, and with it, the murder of innocent unborn children, the destruction of the family by promoting sexual perverts, and the beginning of the end for private property. Joe Biden is the secular version of his wicked religious leader, Jorge Bergoglio. In a way, it could be analogized as the Antichrist and the False Prophet--with Satan as their infamous leader. You must not "follow your conscience" as the man-made Vatican II sect tells the world; you must follow your conscience correctly informed by the Magisterium. A vote for Biden would be a vote against the dictates of the Divine-positive Law and Natural Law. Sodomy and murder are two of the Four Sins That Scream to Heaven for Vengeance. 

A vote for Trump is a vote for godly policies. A vote for Biden is a vote for Socialistic evil, and you will be held accountable to God. Remember well the words of Pope Pius XI, "[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."(See Quadragesimo Anno, para. #111). 

A Jealous God

 

Jeffrey Dahmer (d. 1994, aka "The Milwaukee Monster") was one of the most infamous serial killers in the United States. In 1991 he was convicted for the brutal torture and murder of sixteen people. In most cases, he had cannibalized his victims, and in some cases performed necrophilia. Dahmer was a sodomite and had also been convicted of child molestation. On November 28, 1994, he was bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate (it is believed the guards knew the inmate's intentions and allowed the killing to take place, so as to rid the world of such a monster).  The day after Dahmer was killed, the TV show Dateline NBC broadcast an interview they had conducted with him earlier that same year. The transcript of that interview is quite an eye-opener.

Dahmer had been a convinced atheist. He admitted that his disbelief in God led him to commit those horrid crimes:

If you don't...think there is a God to be accountable to, then...what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it in acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from slime. When we...died, you know, that was it, there was nothing. (Quote from the transcript of an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer on Dateline NBC, broadcast 11/29/1994).  After his trial, Dahmer found he could not explain his feelings of guilt; of right and wrong, against his atheistic worldview. He started reading the Bible. He became a "born again" Protestant. In that final interview, Dahmer stated, "I've since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to him (sic)." (Ibid---Dahmer claimed he was "prepared to die" and didn't deserve to live after what he had done).  

A notorious serial killer was brought to the conclusion that God exists, because that is the only way we can have objective moral values. By "objective moral value," I mean, e.g., even if Stalin and the Communists had conquered the world and brainwashed every single person (without exception) into agreeing that mass murder of political opponents (and other "undesirables") was moral--it would still be wrong.  Therefore, if something is considered morally good, and its opposite morally evil, it can only be such objectively if there is an external and eternal standard by which actions can be judged. This standard can only be found in the attributes of God.

One of the so-called "New Atheists," Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, agrees that on the atheistic point of view, morality is a subjective human construct. He wrote:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we would expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. (See Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American, [November 1995], pg. 85). Ironically, Dawkins accuses the Christian God of being---immoral! In his 2006 book, The God Delusion, Dawkins opines on page 31 that:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Wait a second. How can Dawkins pronounce such an objective denunciation against God on what, in the final analysis, is just his opinion? Isn't this the same man who tells people there is "[no] justice...no good, no evil..."?  

This post will focus on the accusation of both atheists and non-Christians that the God of Christianity is immoral, and therefore Christianity cannot be true. In particular, I will examine the charge that God is jealous, angry, and violent. 

Are Jealousy and Anger Always Sinful?

1. Jealousy

The Bible and the Church clearly teach that God is jealous. In Exodus 20:5, we read, "You shall not bow down to them [other gods] or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God." However, it is also taught that jealousy is sinful. Galatians 5:18-21 tells us, "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God." (Emphasis mine). Isn't this a stinging indictment of God?

First, some necessary and proper distinctions are in order:

Envy is what you feel towards someone when he has something that you want.

Jealousy is what you feel when you have something you really like and don’t want to share.

Avarice (sometimes called covetousness) is what you feel about the thing you want that that other person has in his possession. This sinful feeling is the result of having the wrong attitude toward material things and being greedy. 

If jealousy is rooted in self-centeredness, it is evil. However, if it springs forth from concern for another's well-being, it is good. That's why St. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 11:2, "I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to Him." (Emphasis mine). So there is a good (or "godly") type of jealousy. St. Paul was concerned for the well-being of the Corinthians. His jealousy was not from hurt and self-centered pride. A woman who is not jealous when another woman openly flirts with her husband can't be very committed to the relationship. Her jealousy should be understood as a guarding of their relationship.

Good jealousy is diligent to protect what we possess. God loves us and wants us to be eternally happy with Him. Therefore, when people sin and turn away from God, they are hurting themselves, and God wants to protect them from the sin that separates them from Him. He wants the worship due to Him which will prevent humans from being destroyed by the worship of the idols of money, sex, drugs, etc.

2. Anger

Like jealousy, anger can be both sinful and just. Anger that is an inordinate desire for revenge is sinful. Anger that is a righteous indignation over sin and creates an orderly desire for punishment is lawful and called just anger.   (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 58). Hence, Our Lord displayed just anger when he threw the money-changers out of the Temple (See St. Mark Chapter 11).  Nothing outside of God can make Him ( i.e., cause Him to be) angry. That is, He cannot be provoked to anger (by something else), but He has anger at sin – and always has and always will because it is contrary to His holy Nature. Since His very Nature is absolutely good, God is (and always was and always will be) angry at sin. 

One of the big objections to God's anger at sin is that it leads to violence and massive deaths. Most frequently cited is the slaughter of the Canaanites recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy. Israel was commanded by God to completely exterminate the Canaanite inhabitants of the land including men, women, and children. This has wrongly been deemed a primitive and barbaric act of murder perpetrated on innocent lives. Deuteronomy 20:16-18 states:

But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God. (Emphasis mine). 

The commonly asked question is, “How could a good God command the Israelites to slaughter every man, woman, child, and even animal in the cities of the Canaanite nations? Isn't this the same God that listed ‘Thou shalt not kill’ in the 10 Commandments?”  Here is the context:

• The Fifth Commandment prohibits murder which is the unjust taking of human life by other humans

• Not prohibited are capital punishment, killing in self-defense, and just war ("societal self-defense")

• God, the Author of Life, can take life from this Earth. God gave us life and it is His right to take it back. That is why, for example, doctors who want to choose who gets proper medical treatment when supplies are low are accused of "playing God." 

• God ordered the extermination of the Canaanites because of their wickedness.  Archeology gives some hints about what the Canaanites did. On one High Place, archeologists found several stone pillars and great numbers of jars containing remains of newborn babies. When a new house was built, a child would be sacrificed and its body built into the wall to bring good luck to the rest of the family. Firstborn children were often sacrificed to Molech, a giant hollow bronze image in which a fire was built. Parents placed their children in its red hot hands and the babies would roll down into the fire. The sacrifice was invalid if a parent displayed grief. Mothers were supposed to dance and sing. The Israelites later copied this practice in a valley near Jerusalem called Gehenna. Hundreds of jars containing infant bones have been found there. (See, e.g., W.F. Albright Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths [1968]). 

• Canaanite practices included incest, child abuse, homosexuality, and bestiality--all condoned and promoted by their pagan and demonic-inspired religion

• God took the lives of the Canaanites to prevent their wicked ways from corrupting His Chosen people, from whom would come the God-Man Jesus Christ

• God gave them hundreds of years to repent. "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:8-9).  God said repeatedly that he would drive out the inhabitants of the land before Israel. Those who wished to leave had time and opportunity to do so and change their ways. 

• By taking the lives of the babies, God prevented them from growing up to be evil like their parents and going to Hell. Dying before the age of reason, they would be spared in Limbo. Interestingly, those who deplore this act of mercy as "infanticide" usually see nothing wrong with abortion

Therefore, (a) God has the right to take life as He is the One Who gave Life; (b) the Canaanites were totally depraved and would not repent; (c) God was justified in removing them from Earth and sparing the souls of their children. In His Just Anger against this iniquitous culture of the Canaanites, who stood firm in their sins and jeopardized the salvation of the Jews, God protected His people from whom would be born the Savior of all humanity. 

Conclusion

God is indeed jealous; in the righteous sense of wanting to protect the members of His One True Church and to seek the salvation of all--even though through no fault of God, many will be lost by their own free will. God is justly angry at sin, and punishes the wicked both here and in the hereafter. It should be obvious that those who disparage God as the source of objective morality, and claim Him to be immoral, are culpably ignorant. 

Let us also be jealous and justly angry in the Great Apostasy. Let us be jealous in preserving the One True Faith, true moral teaching, and our Mass and sacraments against the Vatican II sect that wants them destroyed. Let us be justly angry against the sect for sending millions of souls to Hell with their wicked and un-Catholic doctrines, led by their demonic leader Mr. Bergoglio, who dares to say, "There is no Catholic God." 

Indigenous Peoples Day

 Today is Indigenous Peoples Day, a holiday in many places, including the United States. It used to be called Columbus Day after the "genocidal maniac," Christopher Columbus. Although still officially called Columbus Day, many cities and places have replaced it with Indigenous Peoples Day ("IPD"). The reason should be clear. According to one source:

In 2020, the Movement for Black Lives has inspired people to protest and reject racist symbols and institutions. This has led to several positive changes for Native people, including the renaming of the Washington NFL team, exposure of medical racism in Indian Country, and removal of racist monuments. However, Columbus Day remains a widely celebrated holiday in the U.S. that glorifies a false narrative of America’s founding and erases the genocide of Native peoples. (See https://illuminatives.org/indigenouspeoplesday2020/). 

The idea for IPD began in 1977 and gained traction leading up to the 500 year anniversary of Columbus' voyage in 1492. According to another source:

The date of Columbus' arrival in the new world on October 12th 1492 was adopted by many countries across the Americas and the Caribbean as a public holiday. In recent decades, the awareness that colonization by Spain and other European nations spelled disaster for the indigenous peoples had led to almost all of these holidays being replaced by a 'Day of the Races', which focuses on celebrating the heritage and contribution to the Americas of those who were here before Columbus. That this approach has been taken up in the USA is not surprising, particularly in states which have a substantial indigenous community. South Dakota made its change in 1990. To date, the only other states to have switched from Columbus Day are Maine and New Mexico who both adopted Indigenous People's Day in 2019. (https://www.officeholidays.com/holidays/usa/us-indigenous-peoples-day). 

Here, in a nutshell, is the Socialist/Communist/Masonic revision of history:

The indigenous peoples of North and South America were all "noble savages," who lived in peace with each other and nature. They were very civil and moral. Their way of life was superior to most. Then came the "White European Devils" led by the nefarious villain, Christopher Columbus. These depraved men introduced disease, alcohol, drugs, and made them slaves. They destroyed the land and their way of life. Columbus wanted to wipe out the indigenous peoples and was nearly successful. They imposed Christianity upon them to make them subservient, and were really only interested in wealth and fame for themselves. Columbus and Christianity destroyed the best of the Earth's cultures. 

This is the sheer nonsense being sold to the general public and to students in public schools/Vatican II sect schools. This post will show: (a) the myth of the "noble savage," (b) the true character of Christopher Columbus, and (c) the benefit of Christianity and Catholic culture. 

Just Savages--Not Noble

(My sources for this section include The Last Days of the Incas [2008], by Kim MacQuarrie, The Jesuit Relations [2019] by Allan Greer, and Cannibals and Kings [1991] by Marvin Harris. ---Introibo)

Pre-Columbian North America was not like the animated movie Pocahontas. According to “Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865,” by Tony Seybert, “Most Native American tribal groups practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America.” (See https://mmslibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/slavery-and-native-americans-in-british-north-america-and-the-united-states.pdf). 

“Enslaved warriors sometimes endured mutilation or torture that could end in death as part of a grief ritual for relatives slain in battle. Some Indians cut off one foot of their captives to keep them from running away.”  Things changed when the Europeans arrived, however: “Indians found that British settlers… eagerly purchased or captured Indians to use as forced labor. More and more, Indians began selling war captives to whites.” (Ibid). Yes, the so-called noble savages sold their own into slavery.

According to Kim MacQuarrie, ritual human sacrifice was widespread in the Americas. The Incas, for example, practiced ritual human sacrifice to appease their gods, either executing captive warriors or “their own specially raised, perfectly formed children..." At the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs performed a mass human sacrifice of an estimated 80,000 enslaved captives in four days. Here, in New York State, when the Iroquois tribe captured  warriors of another tribe, they had their fingers cut off, were forced to set each other on fire, had their skinned stripped off and (according to Greer) in one case, “the torture continued throughout the night, building to a fervor, finally ending at sunrise by cutting the scalp open, forcing sand into the wound, and dragging the mutilated body around the camp. When they had finished, the Iroquois carved up and ate parts of his body.” The very word "cannibal" comes from Canibales, the Spanish name for the Caribs, a West Indies tribe that practiced eating other humans for food as well as for superstitious reasons connected to their pagan belief system. 

The North American Martyrs (six Jesuit priests and two laymen canonized in 1930) were brutally murdered by Iroquois and Mohawk Indians. According to numerous sources, the name “Mohawk” comes from the Algonquin for “flesh eaters.” Anthropologist Marvin Harris writes that the Aztecs viewed their prisoners as “marching meat.” 

In sum: The idea that indigenous peoples were "noble savages" is only true if you believe that slavery, torture, and cannibalism are "noble undertakings." 

Christopher Columbus: Man of Faith

(Sources: The Untold Story of Christopher Columbus: The Last Crusader [1992], by George Grant; The Critics of Columbus: The Character Assassination of a Great Explorer [2015]by Richard DiGiacomo ). 

 Although a man with flaws, Columbus is not some "genocidal monster." Christopher Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa in 1451.  According to Grant, "He [Columbus] observed the fasts of the church most faithfully, confessed and made communion often, read the Divine Office like a churchman, hated blasphemy and profane swearing, and was most devoted to Our Lady and to the seraphic father St. Francis; seemed very grateful to God for benefits received from the Divine Hand, wherefore, as in the proverb, he hourly admitted that God had conferred upon him great mercies, as upon David." (pg. 82). 

His son, Ferdinand, wrote of his father, "In matters of religion he was so strict that for fasting and saying all the canonical offices he might have been taken for a member of a religious order. And when he had to write anything, he would not try the pen without first writing these words, ‘Jesus cum Maria sit nobis in via.”(i.e., "May Jesus and Mary be with us on our way"). Columbus was a Third Order Franciscan, and he named his ship Santa Maria in honor of the Mother of God. On his historic first voyage, Columbus recited the Divine Office daily aboard his ship. Each night, he and his crew sang the Ave Maria in  honor of the Blessed Virgin. On September 15, 1492 (the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows) Columbus noted that while he was looking for the correct course for his ships to follow, he was guided by a “marvelous branch of fire that fell from the sky.”

Columbus needed gold to help the Spanish who funded his voyage. Queen Isabella wanted to help with a Crusade against the Moslem hoards. In a letter to Pope Alexander VI, Columbus wrote,

“The enterprise must be undertaken in order to spend any profits therein for the redemption of the Sepulcher and the Temple Mount unto Holy Church.” Historian Grant concludes, “Clearly, the motivations of Columbus were shaped by the eons long conflict between Christendom and Islam. The evidence is inescapable. He sailed, not to discover a new world, but to find a way to recover the old one." Truly, spreading the Catholic faith and acquiring riches so as to finance the retaking of Jerusalem from the Mohammedans were the raison d'etre of Columbus’ voyages.

The invectives against Columbus were largely from Protestants and received their biggest boost from one Aaron Goodrich, who wrote a book in the 19th century entitled, A History of the Character and Achievements of the So-Called Christopher Columbus. He attacked Columbus as a greedy slave trader, claiming that he participated in the African slave trade, but offers no evidence to prove this assertion. He claimed that Columbus intended to bring slavery to the New World from the very beginning, although all the accounts by Columbus and others disprove it. He dismissed Columbus’ claims of only taking cannibals and rebels as slaves by saying that no one in the Caribbean was a cannibal. (This claim has been roundly refuted by both historians and sociologists). 

According to DiGiacomo, by the 1980s some even portrayed Columbus as a bumbling fool and a poor navigator who accidentally discovered America. Others emphasized his avarice and said he was obsessed with gold. Still others portrayed him as a half-crazed religious fanatic. Writers even speculated as to the nature of his degenerative illness or began to speak of his mental health decline. During the observation of the Quincentennial of the Discovery of America in 1992, Columbus' name was once again dragged through the mud. He was reviled as a genocidal maniac by radical protestors at universities, such as students at UC Berkeley who waved bloody swords and called Columbus a murderer. Some Native Americans circulated posters calling him a pirate; and others that declared, “Columbus Didn’t Discover Me."

Books were published denouncing him as the "Father of American slavery." Columbus statues were removed from public squares. Columbus Day celebrations were cancelled or scaled down across the country and schools began to drop the holiday from their calendars. Some people have even called for a celebration of Indigenous American Day in its stead. Many communities are continuing to take down statues of Columbus. Some even want his name removed from all of the many places in America that were named for him. This is in stark contrast to the events of only a hundred years before, when Columbus was widely celebrated and held up as an American hero. (See Ch. 10)

Columbus kept no slaves of his own. Columbus even adopted an Indian orphan as his son. He did, however, take some slaves for Spain because he felt that he needed the money to pay debts, since the colonies were not producing enough gold. He was under intense pressure from the Spanish monarchs to show a profit, so this is probably the reason. (See Ch. 11). He died on May 20, 1506, his last words being like unto those of Our Lord, "In manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum." ("Into Thy Hands O Lord, I commend my spirit."). His cause for canonization was introduced in the Vatican, but was halted under Pope Pius IX when it was discovered he had fathered an illegitimate child. 

The Benefits of the Faith

Columbus is not (and will never be) a saint. Despite his failings, he was a Catholic who held the Faith. To be certain, there were bad things that took place during his voyages, and he cannot be completely absolved of all blame. He strove to be a good man by picking himself up, confessing his sins, and trying (with the help of God's grace) to amend his life.  The man who expressed this best was no less than His Holiness Pope Leo XIII. In 1892, the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery, he promulgated the encyclical Quarto Abeunte Saeculo. Here is what Pope Leo wrote about Christopher Columbus:

Now that four centuries have sped since a Ligurian first, under God's guidance, touched shores unknown beyond the Atlantic, the whole world is eager to celebrate the memory of the event, and glorify its author. Nor could a worthier reason be found where through zeal should be kindled. For the exploit is in itself the highest and grandest which any age has ever seen accomplished by man; and he who achieved it, for the greatness of his mind and heart, can be compared to but few in the history of humanity. 

By his toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness, been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to gentleness and humanity; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life. Europe, indeed, overpowered at the time by the novelty and strangeness of the discovery, presently came to recognize what was due to Columbus, when, through the numerous colonies shipped to America, through the constant intercourse and interchange of business and the ocean-trade, an incredible addition was made to our knowledge of nature, and to the commonwealth; whilst at the same time the prestige of the European name was marvelously increased...

But there is, besides, another reason, a unique one, why We consider that this immortal achievement should be recalled by Us with memorial words. For Columbus is ours; since if a little consideration be given to the particular reason of his design in exploring the mare tenebrosum, and also the manner in which he endeavoured to execute the design, it is indubitable that the Catholic faith was the strongest motive for the inception and prosecution of the design; so that for this reason also the whole human race owes not a little to the Church...

For we have the record of not a few brave and experienced men, both before and after Christopher Columbus, who with stubbornness and zeal explored unknown lands and seas yet more unknown. And the memory of these, man, mindful of benefits, rightly holds, and will hold in honor; because they advanced the ends of knowledge and humanity, and increased the common prosperity of the race, not by light labour, but by supreme exertion, often accompanied by great dangers. But there is, nevertheless, between these and him of whom we speak, a generous difference. He was distinguished by this unique note, that in his work of traversing and re-traversing immense tracts of ocean, he looked for a something greater and higher than did these others. We say not that he was unmoved by perfectly honorable aspirations after knowledge, and deserving well of human society; nor did he despise glory, which is a most engrossing ideal to great souls; nor did he altogether scorn a hope of advantages to himself; but to him far before all these human considerations was the consideration of his ancient faith, which questionless dowered him with strength of mind and will, and often strengthened and consoled him in the midst of the greatest difficulties. This view and aim is known to have possessed his mind above all; namely, to open a way for the Gospel over new lands and seas.(Emphasis mine). 

Think of these benefits brought by Columbus:

1. The One True Faith (imagine if the Mohammedans had arrived first!).

2. Education

3. Putting an end to cannibalism and torture

4. Despite disease, there also came advances in medicine which helped far beyond diseases that came

5. The Rule of Law 

6. Abolishment of polygamy and, with marriage, came stable families

7. Scientific advancement in farming and all areas of life

Conclusion

Christopher Columbus is reviled by those who hate Christian culture. The real false narrative comes from BLM and other leftist/Communists who want to perpetuate myths about "noble savages" and "genocidal Christians." Indigenous Peoples Day is nothing more than a reversion to paganism and a repudiation of all things good that come to us from Christ the Lord. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in his encyclical: In order, therefore, that the commemoration of Columbus may be worthily observed, religion must give her assistance to the secular ceremonies. And as at the time of the first news of the discovery public thanksgiving was offered by the command of the Sovereign Pontiff to Almighty God, so now we have resolved to act in like manner in celebrating the anniversary of this auspicious event.

On this October 12, 2020, I wish all my readers a Happy Columbus Day!

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 14

This is the next installment of my series to be published the first Monday of each month.
There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and convert them. In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible. 
Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.
In each month's post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of:  

• The sect's history
• Their theology
• Tips on how to share the True Faith with them

Islam

One of the most wicked and dangerous of all false religions is Islam. Founded by the madman Mohammed in the seventh century, Moslems or "Muslims" as they like to be called, are warlike and and hate Christ. Their sheer numbers make them a force with which to be reckoned. According to the Berkley Center:

Islam is the world’s second largest religion after Christianity, with approximately 1.5 billion adherents—nearly a quarter of the global population. Islam dominates the religious landscape of the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of Asia. Though the Arab world is often regarded as the historical heartland of Islam, Arabs comprise only about 20 percent of the world’s Muslim population, while about 30 percent come from the Indian subcontinent and the rest live in Asia outside the Middle East and the West. The country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia, home to about 13 percent of all Muslims worldwide. Islam is the largest religion in Africa, with a particularly strong presence in the North and West. Sizeable Muslim minorities exist in many countries, including Russia and China. Islam is the second largest religion in much of Europe, and Muslim communities exist in North and South America as well. (See https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/demographics-of-islam).

In the United States, Islam has grown at an incredible pace. According to the Pew Research Center:

Since our first estimate of the size of the Muslim American population, the number of U.S. Muslims has been growing rapidly, albeit from a relatively low base. When we first conducted a study of Muslim Americans in 2007, we estimated that there were 2.35 million Muslims of all ages (including 1.5 million adults) in the U.S. By 2011, the number of Muslims had grown to 2.75 million (including 1.8 million adults). Since then, the Muslim population has continued to grow at a rate of roughly 100,000 per year, driven both by higher fertility rates among Muslim Americans as well as the continued migration of Muslims to the U.S. (See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/). 

I wish to credit my somewhat sanitized exposition on Islam, as condensed from Introduction to Islam: Beliefs and Practices in Historical Perspective, [2015], by Carole Hillenbrand. Hillenbrand is an eminent authority on Islam. She is currently Professor Emerita in Islamic History at the University of Edinburgh and Professor of Islamic History at the University of St Andrews. I will then bring to light the face of Islam few discuss for fear of being labeled "Islamophobic" by the PC-left wing crowd. 

History

Islam, which means "submission to God" was founded by Mohammed (sometimes spelled Muhammed). His followers came to be identified as Moslems or Muslims, i.e.,  “those who submit to God." Moslems consider the term Mohammedans and its variants offensive because it implies to them that they worship Mohammad instead of the moon-god "Allah."

Mohammad, a descendant of Ishmael, was born in the year 570 to a minor clan of the Quraish tribe in Mecca.

Orphaned at an early age, he was raised by an uncle, Abu Talib. As a child, he took care of herds. Later, he subsisted as a camel driver.

Eventually Khadija, a wealthy widow, employed him. They fell in love and were married. As a wealthy merchant, Mohammed had contact with adherents of monotheistic religions on the trade routes and time to pursue religion. At the time, Mecca was a place where polytheism and animism thrived. Each tribe had its own deity and made annual pilgrimages to Mecca to pay homage. There were reportedly three hundred sixty (360) deities that were worshipped. The first shrine that greeted pilgrims entering Mecca was a statue of Allah’s (a false moon-god) three sensuous-appearing daughters (al-Lat, al-Manat, and al-Uzza). The Ka’ba that housed a black stone allegedly given to Abraham by Gabriel was dedicated to the god Habal. Mohammed would make the moon-god the "god of Islam."

In 610 AD, at the age of 40 and while meditating in a cave on Mt. Hira, Mohammad fell into a trance. Trembling and sweating, he heard the angel Gabriel say to him, “Recite!” This was the beginning of a series of “recitations” given to him over a period of years which became the Moslem "holy book" or Koran (also spelled Qur'an). 

Mohammad’s career as a "prophet" in Mecca then began. His message to the Meccans was this: There is only one God to whose will people must submit, and there will be a day of judgment when all people will be judged in terms of whether or not they have obeyed God. Some ac­cepted what he said and became Moslems; others (the majority) rejected his message. Rejection of Mohammad and his message by the leaders of the Quraish led him to look for some other place where this new religion could be established. The people of Yathrib (now Medina) had expressed interest and openness to Muhammad and his followers, so they left Mecca in 622 AD and settled there. Moslems use the date of the migration, the hijrah, as the start of the Moslem era. ["AH" after a date  = After the hijrah].

In early January 630 AD [8 AH] Mohammad led an army of 10,000 to Mecca and con­quered his enemies. The Ka’ba was cleansed of idols, and shrines to pagan gods were destroyed. Mohammad retained Mecca as the center for pilgrimage, and certain holy places, such as the Ka’ba and the well Zamzam. He died in 632 AD (10 AH) at the age of 62. 

Beliefs

There are the "Four Great Beliefs" (or "truths"):

1. “There is no God but Allah” [La-ilaha-ill-allah].

• God is One (the Trinity is explicitly denied)
• God is unique and no other shall be worshipped. Mohammed is Allah's prophet.

2.  “God is the greatest” [Allah-o-akbar]

• Allah must triumph over all false religions

3. “In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful” [Bis-millah-al-rahman-o­rahim]

• There is nothing more merciful and gracious than Allah

4. “If God wills” [Insha-allah]

• Everything is predestined by Allah

The Koran is the highest authority in Islam. It is the earthly version of a heavenly book and the um-al-kitab (mother of all books). The Koran is divided into surahs (chapters) and ayats (verses), and maintains its authoritative character only in Arabic. 

To be saved, one must belong to Islam, and their good deeds must outweigh their bad deeds. Heaven consists of carnal pleasures, such as deflowering virgins for Moslem men. Hell is eternal torture for non-Moslems and bad Moslems. 

The Five Pillars of Islam (What every Moslem must do)

• To recite the Shahadah [to bear witness] with conviction–“There is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet” [La-ilah-ill-allah-wa-Muhammad-rasul-allah]

• To pray [salat]. A Moslem must perform the ritual prayers while facing in the direction of Mecca five times a day: at sunrise, at noon, in the midafternoon, at sunset, and before retiring. At noon on Friday, Moslems are expected to gather at the mosque (place of prayer)

• To fast [saum]. This is done during the ninth lunar month, Ramadhan, to commemorate when Mohammad received the Koran. Moslems must fast from daybreak to sun­down. It is expected that this time will cause them to reflect, teach them self-discipline, and underscore their dependence on Allah.

• To give alms [zakat]. One-fortieth of one’s income is prescribed.

• To make the pilgrimage [hajj]. If possible, a Moslem should visit Mecca at least once in his or her lifetime. The last month of the Islamic calendar, called al-hajj, has been desig­nated as the official period of pilgrimage.

Mohammed's beliefs were really an amalgamation of the beliefs of pagans, Jews, and Catholics. Hence, the prohibition on eating pigs as "unclean" (Jewish belief), Mohammed taken to Heaven by a Pegasus (winged horse in paganism), and belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary (Catholic).

Our Lord Jesus Christ vs. The Demonic Mohammed

Now that the basics of Islam have been set forth, the stark differences of Christ Who founded His One True Church shall be compared to the false "religion of peace" and its equally false prophet Mohammed. There is an excellent circular I read compiled by Mr. Stanley Robertson. Although not a Traditionalist, Mr. Robertson has done an excellent job of exposing Islam as a false and wicked sect. Below, I set forth some of his pertinent points. The author's citations are retained as he wrote them.

Mohammed:

• Said Allah hates those who don't accept Islam. (Qur'an 30:4, 3:32, 22:38)

• Permitted stealing from unbelievers. (Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764)

• Permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)

• Murdered those who insulted him. (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)

• "If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him" (Qur'an 2:194)

• Jihad [War] in the way of Allah elevates one's position in Paradise by a hundred fold. (Muslim 4645)

• Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves. (Bukhari 5:268, Qur'an 33:50)

• Slept with a 9-year-old child. (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)

• Ordered the murder of women. (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)

• "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Qur'an 9:123)

• Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women. (Abu Dawood 2150, Qur'an 4:24)

• Demanded captured slaves and a fifth of all other loot taken in war. (Qur'an 8:41)

• Was never tortured, but tortured others. (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764)

• "And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39)

• Blessed the brutal murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440)

• What are the Greatest Commandments? "Belief in Allah and Jihad [War] in His cause" (Muslim 1:149)

• Died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute

• Advocated crucifying others. (Qur'an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)

• According to his followers: Had others give their lives for him. (Sahih Muslim 4413)

Jesus Christ:

• "For God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." (St. John 3:16)

• "Thou shalt not steal." (St. Matthew 19:18)

• "Thou shalt not bear false witness." (St. Matthew 19:18)

• Preached forgiveness. (St. Matthew 18:21-22, 5:38)

• "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (St. Matthew 5:39)

• "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God" (St. Matthew 5:9)

• Was celibate

• Never hurt a child

• Never harmed a woman

• "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (St. Matthew 5:5)

• Never encouraged rape. Never enslaved women. Honored women and held all to the highest standards of purity. "But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." (St. Matthew 5:28)

• "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve." (St. Matthew 20:28)

• Suffered torture, but never tortured anyone

• "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (St. Matthew 5:44)

• Healed a blind man (St. Mark 8:28)

• What are the Greatest Commandments? "Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself." (St. Matthew 22:34-40)

• Demanded nothing for himself. Died without possessions

• Was Himself crucified for love of humanity and to save others from eternal Hell

• According to his followers: Gave His life for others. (St. John 18:11) 

Now ask yourself, "Which of the two lived a good life?"  "Which of the two founded a 'religion of peace'?"

Proselytizing Moslems

 Be careful as to where you are and to whom you speak. Many Moslems become violent if you say anything against their wicked religion. If it is a harmless convert or someone raised to be an adherent of Islam and they ask you to come to their mosque, here are some tips for proselytizing them.

 Prepare yourself to respond to objections to the Christian faith (e.g. denial of Jesus crucifixion, charges that the Bible has been changed, Christians worship three Gods, etc.) and to Moslem apologies for Mohammad from the Bible (Mohammad is the prophet like unto Moses foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, the Paraclete foretold by Jesus in St. John 14-16, etc.).

For example, the Islamic objection to the crucifixion of Jesus runs thus; Moslems believe that God would not dishonor his chosen prophet Jesus by allowing him to be crucified. Point out that Jesus predicted His own death on several occasions during His life (St. Matthew 12:39-40; 16:4, 21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19; 26:2; St. Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; St. Luke 9:22, 44; St. John 2:19; 10:11, 17-18; 12:32-33). Christ is not merely a prophet, but God Incarnate as proven by the Scriptures. He died to save humanity.

Moslems claim Mohammad [and not Jesus] as the fulfillment of the prophet "like Moses" foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18. Moslems claim that the phrase in verse 18 “from their brothers” is a reference to Israel’s brother Ishmael, and that Mohammad is a descendent of Ishmael. However, verse 15 clarifies what is meant by this phrase. “From among you” would indicate that this prophet would be an Israelite.

Moslems claim that the phrase “like me” must refer to Mohammad because he was like Moses in many ways. However, many people have been "like Moses" in many ways: birth, marriage, proclaiming God’s words, ruling people, death, etc. It is not the common aspects but the unique aspects of Moses that separate the candidates. Moses saw the Lord “face to face” ( Exodus 33:11) instead of receiving revelation through dreams and angels. Moses did great miracles (Deuteronomy 34:10-12). In these things Mohammad is not like Moses at all, but Jesus fulfills the criteria perfectly. 

Point out the evil life and character of Mohammed as contrasted with Christ. If speaking to a Moslem woman, ask if she agrees that Allah is a misogynist. She will deny it. Then point out the following:

 Islam gets its teachings from the perverse and wicked man, Mohammed. His teachings are contained in the Koran, believed to be revelations given to him by the god "Allah." Next to the Koran, most Moslems accept the teachings of the Hadith, a book which purports to be a record of the words, actions, and the silent approval, of their "prophet," Mohammad. The Tabari is a collection of Koran verses and Hadith quotes, and is illustrative of how "Allah" allows women to be abused, to the point of likening them to animals and sex objects. 

"Allah permits you to shut them [women] in separate rooms and beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Koran." (Tabari IX:113; Emphasis mine)

One of the worst practices in Islam is female genital mutilation (known as "FMG"). Young girls have their clitoris removed (most times without anesthesia) to eliminate their sexual drive ensuring they will not be attracted to boys and become "prime property" on the "marriage market" as a virgin. 

Men are allowed to be wife beaters. The Koran 4:34, "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], beat them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." (Emphasis mine). 

Here is a brief run down of the status of women in the Koran and Hadith. Women:

• Can be shut in separate rooms
• Should be beaten if disobedient
• Are to be treated like domestic animals
• Have deficient minds
• Make up the majority of damned souls in Hell

The Koran is an evil book written under demonic inspiration. Strong words? I own a copy. Here's what it teaches:

"O ye who believe!  Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."  (Sura IX 123) Islam spread by means of violence. Catholicism spread by being persecuted and loving Her enemies along the way.

"They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.'  But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel!  Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'  Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode.  There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help."  (Sura V 75) Islam says Christians go to Hell, and Christ is not Divine; He allegedly told others to worship the false moon "god" Allah. There is nothing in the historical record to substantiate (a) Christ did not claim to be Divine and (b) He commanded worship of a false "god."

"O ye who believe!  Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors:  They are but friends and protectors to each other.  And he amongst you that turns to them (For friendship) is of them.  Verily Allah guided not a people unjust."  (Sura V 54) Mohammedans are told not to have Christians or Jews as friends.

If they protest "that is not the correct interpretation of the Koran," you can respond:

1. It is practiced the way just described in Islamic counties.

2. The Koran cannot be interpreted peacefully:

 "So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (Establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: No change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not."  (Sura XXX 30)  Traditionalists who commit violent acts do so in spite of  Church teaching to the contrary. Moslems who commit violent acts do so because of their false religion. Its history is one of violence, and this can be objectively proven. 

Conclusion

Islam is a sect from Hell. The false Vatican II sect teaches in Nostra Aetate, para. #3: "The Church (sic) regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God." (Emphasis mine)

"Pope" "Saint" John Paul II kissed the Koran and prayed, "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam." Maybe he should be given the title "John Paul the Great Mohammedan."

"Pope" Benedict XVI  called for Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Moslem immigrants and "to dialogue" with them on religious issues. Ratzinger told participants that the Catholic (sic) Church is "increasingly aware" that "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world."

"Pope" Francis prayed towards Mecca and said, "Islam is a religion of peace, one which is compatible with respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence."

The True Church does NOT regard Mohammedans as "worshiping the same God." Traditionalist Catholicism and Islam have competing theologies which are mutually exclusive. "Allah" is the name of a false moon "god" exalted by the false prophet Mohammed.  The psalmist tells us that  "All the Gods of the Gentiles are Devils" (Psalm 96:5) and hence to whom do they render their worship? The Scriptures tell us clearly "They provoked Him by strange gods, and stirred Him up to anger, with their abominations.  They sacrificed to devils and not to God: to gods whom they knew not: that were newly come up, whom their fathers worshiped not. "  (Deuteronomy 32:16- 17)

They "sacrificed to devils and not to God" - regardless of whether or not they might have believed they were rendering homage to the True God, the reality is quite the contrary! It is an erroneous proposition to qualify a prayer addressed to the devil as authentic prayer. Islam is a false religion. It does not come from God, and those who follow it lose their soul. Gone are the days when St Francis of Assisi met Sultan Al Malik Al Kamil. The Saint told him, "If you wish to convert to Christ, and your people with you, I will most gladly remain among you out of love for Him. If you are hesitant about abandoning the law of Mohammed for the faith of Christ, order an immense fire to be lit; I will enter into it with your priests and you will see which is the surer and holier of the two creeds, and which one you must follow."  There was no "esteem" for the false religion shown, and peace was by conversion.

Gone are the days of King St. Louis IX and Pope St. Pius V who fought to keep the infidels out of Catholic Europe. Vatican II welcomed them in with "open arms," and rejected Catholicism as the State religion.

Gone are the days when artificial contraception, abortion, and euthanasia were banned and large families flourished. "Christian" Europe is shrinking while the Moslem hordes breed us out of existence. We must convert as many as possible and pray for a miracle. In the not too distant future, don't be surprised to see the Grand Imam of the Islamic Republic of Italy issuing fatwas ("laws") from the erstwhile St. Peter's Basilica. God save us. 

Supremely Wicked

As the regular readers of this blog know, I focus on a multiplicity of issues and how they should be viewed through the lens of the Traditional, Unchanging, Catholic Faith which has been "driven underground," so to speak, by the Great Apostasy at Vatican II. Hence, each week's topic is not always about Bergoglio the Apostate. As the "tagline" of this blog states, it's about "The World as Seen from a Traditionalist Catholic Perspective." I decided that my original topic for this post would be put off when the news was released on September 18, 2020 that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court had died from complications due to cancer at age 87. Immediately, there was an outpouring of praise and adulation of this woman (known by her initials as "RBG") who joined the High Court in 1993 when nominated by former President Bill Clinton. She was subsequently confirmed by the Senate to replace Associate Justice Byron White. (Ironically, Justice White wrote the dissenting, pro-life opinion in Roe v. Wade and Clinton made sure an avid pro-abortionist would replace him).

I was aghast at how many people were treating her as a "heroine" and "champion of women," and seen as above criticism. Even President Trump (not politically correct to be sure) spoke of her in glowing terms; most likely because the president realized he couldn't survive the backlash if he dared to speak the truth about this horrid jurist. There is an old aphorism, De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, which translates roughly as "Of the dead, [say] nothing but good" because it is wrong to attack someone's character when they cannot defend themselves. While this might apply to the average person, public figures are another matter. I will not allow another day go by without the truth about her record being known. Ginsburg being pro-baby killing and pro-sodomite is only the beginning of her promotion of evil.
Ginsburg was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for years. She served on the Board of Directors. According to the ACLU's own website:

Ginsburg deliberately chose the ACLU as the vehicle for her legal work, rather than an organization with a narrower women's rights agenda, in large part because she believed that the ACLU would enhance the credibility of the women's rights cause. Ginsburg has also said that she chose the ACLU because of the integral interconnection between civil liberties and civil rights, including women's rights. 'I wanted to be a part of a general human rights agenda . . . [promoting] the equality of all people and the ability to be free,' she said. (See https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-driving-force-change-aclu-womens-rights-project; Emphasis mine). Bader Ginsburg knew all about the ACLU and proudly promoted their agenda. This agenda, as this post will show, has nothing to do with "human rights" or "women's rights." It attempts to destroy society and banish God from human thought. Most don't realize just how depraved that agenda really is and the untold harm it does to souls. WARNING! Some descriptions in this post are graphic in nature. Reader discretion is advised.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Short Bio

As most people of been besieged in the media with her "remarkable achievements," I offer here a concise biography, free from hyperbolic claims. Ginsburg was born Joan Ruth  Bader on March 15, 1933, in Brooklyn, New York. The second daughter of Nathan and Celia Bader, she grew up in a low-income, working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn.Ginsburg earned her bachelor's degree in government from Cornell University in 1954, finishing first in her class. She married law student Martin D. Ginsburg that same year. The early years of their marriage were challenging, as their first child, Jane, was born shortly after Martin was drafted into the military in 1954. He served for two years and, after his discharge, the couple returned to Harvard, where Ginsburg also enrolled. She became the first female member of the Harvard Law Review.

 Martin recovered from a diagnosis of testicular cancer, graduated from law school, and accepted a position at a New York law firm. To join her husband in New York City, Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she was elected to the school's law review. She graduated first in her class in 1959. During the 1970s, she also served as the director of the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union [and was on the Board of Directors]. In 1980 President Carter appointed Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She served there until she was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 by President Clinton. In 2016 Ginsburg released My Own Words, a memoir filled with her writings that date as far back as her junior high school years. The book became a New York Times Best Seller. In January 2018 Ginsburg appeared at the Sundance Film Festival to accompany the premiere of the documentary RBG. (This information excerpted from https://www.biography.com/law-figure/ruth-bader-ginsburg).

The Communist Connection Of The ACLU and Director Ginsburg

The ACLU was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin, an agnostic, and a Socialist who became a convinced Communist. He said, "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." (See Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union: A Portrait, [1976], pg. 192). Baldwin was born to a wealthy family that was Unitarian. He got the idea of forming the ACLU to transform America via using the Courts and legal system. He counted among his closest friends the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the diabolical founder of Planned Parenthood. (Ibid)

 Baldwin told those who helped him found his organization that the ACLU was to disguise itself as a pro-American organization; Communism and Socialism were not to be mentioned. Instead, they were to talk about the Constitution and how their goal was to keep America free by enforcing the Constitutional rights of all citizens. They would enlist young and idealistic lawyers from law school, eventually winning them over to their subversive ideals and eventually getting them placed in high positions as judges. The ACLU began its relentless attack against traditional values in four areas:

• Children
• Marriage
• Human Life
• Religion

The Assault Against Children

 Jefferey Curley was a normal ten year old boy, living in Massachusetts, who liked baseball and riding his bike. Unfortunately, both parents needed to work, and he was a "latchkey kid," spending his time afterschool without supervision.  The year was 1997, and two sodomites, Salvatore Sicari (age 21) and Charlie Jaynes (age 22) had befriended the boy; they lived near him and would make conversation as well as taking him out to eat multiple times. On October 1st, Jeffrey's life would be brutally ended. The two perverts took Jeffery for a ride, ostensibly to go eat. Prior to that, the men had gone to the public library and accessed the website for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which promotes pedophilia and abolishing age-of-consent laws.  During the ride, Jayne offered to buy Jeffrey a new bike since his old one was stolen. He asked the boy to have sex with him in the back seat of the car as "payment" for the new bike. Jeffrey refused and tried to fight off Jaynes, but Jaynes got angry, pinned the boy down, and held a gasoline-soaked rag over his mouth and nose until the fumes killed him. 

Jaynes and Sicari then drove to a local store and purchased lime, concrete and a 50 gallon container, and headed out to an apartment Jaynes had been renting. There they had sex with Jeffrey’s corpse (necrophilia), then proceeded to place his body in the 50 gallon container and fill it with concrete. Early the next morning they dumped his body in a nearby river called “The Great Works River." Jeffery's body was eventually found, and both Jaynes and Sicari were found guilty. Sicari was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Jaynes was found guilty of second degree murder and will be eligible for parole in 2021, however in 2006 a former prisoner stated he heard Jaynes yell “I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again. I would pull him out of the grave and do it [kill and rape the boy] again and again.” The prisoner told sources “It was in his gut, it was how he really felt.” The crime was so heinous, the Massachusetts legislature came within one vote of restoring the death penalty.
(See e.g., http://lanternproject.org.uk/library/general/articles-and-information-about-sexual-abuse-and-its-impact/curley-kidnapping-still-packs-a-punch/).

In 2000, Jeffery's parents initiated a wrongful death lawsuit Curley v. NAMBLA, against NAMBLA for inciting the murder of their son. The ACLU came to the defense of NAMBLA.
According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group. The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

...According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse. ''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe. (See https://www.wnd.com/2000/12/4648/; Emphasis mine).

The ACLU won on a technical ground. Much has been made about the inaccurate claim that Ginsburg wanted the age of consent dropped to twelve years old, but no one can deny that she sat on the Board of Directors of the organization which protected child molestation advocates. Moreover, in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (where the 12-year-old remark was made in reference to gender-neutral language), she has gone on record asserting that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are "arguably" unconstitutional. (Page 195).

The Assault Against Marriage

In 2004, in New Paltz, New York, then-Mayor Jason West "married" twenty-five "same sex couples" which was against New York State Law at the time. He was charged on multiple misdemeanor charges for performing marriages without a license. The left-wing judge dismissed the indictment because "the state failed to show it has a legitimate interest in banning same-sex weddings." (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32522-2004Jun10.html?nav%3Dheadlines).

The AP newswire of 2/26/04 reported that the Executive Director of the NY Chapter of the ACLU (which defended West) stated, "Bravo, bravo for the mayor. Equal rights for gay couples (sic) are long overdue. They are entitled to equal treatment under the law, including the right to marry and the family protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples." Are "equal rights" what sodomites (and their Communist ACLU allies) really want? That question was answered in 2011 when Andrew "Put the COVID patients in the nursing homes" Cuomo, a member of the Vatican II sect, made legalizing sodomite "marriage" a priority. 

One of my friends from law school was elected as a Republican member of the State Legislature; he was a member of the Democratic-controlled, 150 member State Assembly. When the same-sex "marriage" bill came up for a vote, he obtained the floor to speak. What he did next to expose the homosexual agenda was nothing short of brilliant. He proposed that to settle the matter, he would sit down with counsel for the Democrats and draw up a bill for a "New York State Domestic Partnership Bill" which would ensure homosexual "couples" get every single right as that of heterosexual couples. The only difference would be that heterosexual unions would be called "marriage" in respect to the long held societal and religious beliefs in New York, and the homosexual unions would be called "NYS Domestic Partnership"--only the nomenclature would be different.  The chamber went crazy with pro-sodomite legislators calling him a "fascist" a "homophobe" and the guards had to be called in to restore order. This is proof they don't want "rights," they want to destroy the institution of marriage. 

Why do Ginsburg and her ACLU comrades want to destroy the institution of marriage? The legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples affirms the belief that real marriage is the most valuable sexual relationship in society. If homosexual partners are called "married," it makes their relationship equal to heterosexuals and makes deviant, perverted behavior seem normal. It is a slap in the face to both the Natural Law and the Divine-Positive Law. Ginsburg thus (as far back as 1977) was contemplating as unconstitutional laws prohibiting polygamy and, in effect, "group marriage." The civil law is a great teacher, and it will teach that deviant sex is normal. This will encourage adolescents to experiment with such behavior, thereby increasing the number of homosexuals and bisexuals (there is already evidence of that happening). Moreover, your children will be indoctrinated in school, and you will get "diversity and tolerance" training at work. "Tolerance and respect" is a one-way street; you must tolerate and respect deviants, but they need not respect and tolerate your values and religious beliefs. 

If you think that the tragedy of Jeffery Curley is an isolated instance of murder caused by homosexual deviance, it is not. Homosexuality was rightly considered a mental disorder by the APA until they caved to political pressure in the 1970s, and until the 5-4 decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, homosexual sodomy could be criminalized (and it was in several states). Ginsburg was in the five member majority. 

Here are the statistics you should know:

The top six American male serial killers were all homosexual:

• Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky
• John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard
• Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways
• Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois
• A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he had sex with their corpses--necrophilia--as in the case of  the murderers of poor little Jeffery Curley).

The pathology of eating one’s sexual victims also characterized Milwaukee’s Jeffrey Dahmer in 1992. He not only killed 17 young men and boys, but cooked and ate their body parts. The association between serial murder and homosexuality isn’t recent. Two gays compete for the spot of “world’s worst murderer.” During the Nazi reign of terror, Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene strangled, crushed, and gnawed boys and young men to death while he raped them. Though his grand total is uncertain, he often murdered as many as 100 a day. Gilles de Rais (Bluebeard) brutally destroyed the lives of 800 boys. Each lad was lured to his home, bathed and fed. Just as the poor boy thought "this is my lucky day," he was raped, then killed by being ripped or cut apart and either burned or eaten.

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals (See Cameron, Dr. Paul,  [1983] "Is homosexuality disproportionately associated with murder?" Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Assn Chicago).

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice Elena Kagan were in the five member majority in the decision declaring "sodomite marriage" a "Constitutional right" (See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644). Yet, neither had the right to hear the case ethically, because they were bound to recuse themselves. Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code titled “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” states that “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Kagan performed a September 21, 2014, same-sex “marriage” ceremony for her former law clerk and his partner in Maryland. Likewise, Ginsburg performed a same-sex “marriage” ceremony at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C., in August 2013. They refused to recuse themselves and neither was impeached. Can you imagine if Associate Justice Clarence Thomas joined the March for Life and continued to hear cases involving abortion?

The Assault Against Human Life

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 decision, that the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, made law by Congress in 2003, was constitutional. (See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124) Partial birth abortion is the act by which an unborn baby (usually seven to nine months old) is taken out of the mother's womb, and with just a couple of inches of his/her head inside the mother, has the head opened with a surgical instrument and his/her brains extracted; the decapitated body is thrown out as "medical waste." 

Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion as to why this barbaric means of murder should be allowed. Her opinion states, "Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." Ok, so decapitating a child fully capable of living outside the mother's womb isn't murder, it's about the woman "determining her life's course" and being an "equal citizen." At least half of those babies murdered are female. What about their rights? Ginsburg also doesn't care about how abortion is unfair to men based on her own secular legal principles. Example: a man gets a women pregnant and he tells her to kill the child by abortion. She says no, and keeps the baby. He must pay for the child he didn't want to have for the next 21 years. If in the same scenario, the man wants to keep the child and take care of him/her and pay for him/her, the woman can say no and kill the child by abortion. How is this fair to men in Ginsburg's world?

In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg had this to say, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade; legalizing abortion in 1973] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. " (See https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=print; Emphasis mine). Exactly what populations do we "[not] want too many of"? Blacks? Hispanics? Non-Jews in general? 

The Assault Against Religion

I'll let Ginsburg's record of rulings on religion while on the Supreme Court speak for themselves:

• In 2019, the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Court allowed the Bladensburg’s Peace Cross memorial for WWII veterans to remain on public property by a 7-2 decision. Ginsburg wrote the dissent. She contended, inter alia, that the Cross offended non-religious observers and  its symbolism violated the conscience of those who did not share the meaning of “the Latin cross … the foremost symbol of the Christian faith" and it was funded by taxpayers. While Ginsburg would allow enemies of Christianity to stop the Cross maintenance by tax dollars, and, in the name of conscience, to refuse even to associate in any way with the theological meaning of the cross, she will not extend the same right to believers not to be coerced to act against their beliefs.

• In 2014, Ginsburg dissented in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. whereby the Court ruled in favor of a corporation,  Hobby Lobby, when they objected on religious grounds to paying for drugs popularly (and erroneously) called contraceptives. Those "contraceptives" also acted as abortifacients (i.e., they kill unborn babies) and were mandated by Obamacide. In her dissent, Ginsburg noted how dubious it would be for a firm to claim their corporate conscience had been violated. Yet this same woman had no problems with corporations refusing to do business in states that did not support same sex marriage prior to 2015. Can you say hypocrite?

• In 2018, the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al upheld the right of a Protestant who designs wedding cakes to refuse service to a homosexual couple based on his religious beliefs. The ACLU supported the sodomites in Court. Did Ginsburg respect the right of the baker's conscience? On the contrary, she dissented because the Christian must conform to "laws of general applicability."  She treats your right to be free from religion as practically inviolate; she regards your right to act on your religion to be circumscribed by “laws of general applicability”

Conclusion

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a Communist sympathizer and "fellow traveler" who supported everything ungodly. God is to be banished from the public square. Sexual perverts are to be extolled and marriage destroyed. Babies are to be murderer at any point during pregnancy, and for any reason, in the name of "women's rights." This person is a "great American" and a "champion for human rights"? She aided and abetted the ACLU in its plan to destroy America and belief in God. Have the Vatican II sect "bishops" condemned her life of evil actions? You already know the answer. Not a word from the Argentinian apostate, Francis. 

Writing an article for the Jesuit rag America magazine ("What I will teach my children about Ruth Bader Ginsburg") Erika Bachiochi opines, "Justice Ginsburg lived a heroic life (!) in many ways, and I am grateful for her exemplary tenacity, equanimity and concern for others—not to mention her trailblazing work at the Supreme Court in the 1970s." I am reminded of the Biblical verse Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." Ruth Bader Ginsburg was "RBG"--Repugnant Blasphemous Garbage.