Monday, February 01, 2016

The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates


The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

By Julio Severo
As perfidious as to commit a crime is to excuse, understate or deny it.
On October 2015 Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho said in his Brazilian Twitter, “A entidade chamada Inquisição é uma invenção ficcional de protestantes.” Translation: “The entity called the Inquisition was a fictional invention of Protestants.” His original statement is here.
Other pro-Inquisition statements by him are exposed here.
If everything Olavo says about the Inquisition is correct, then Protestants are liars, because they have been saying about the horrors of the Inquisition for five centuries.
If everything Olavo says about the Inquisition is correct, then Jews are liars, because they have been saying about the horrors of the Inquisition for more than five centuries.
If everything Olavo says about the Inquisition is correct, then Pope John Paul II is a liar, because he compared the Inquisition to communism and Nazism. In fact, he asked forgiveness for the Inquisition’s crimes.
Speaking to cardinals on the Inquisition in 1994, the pope said that confessing institutional sin would be a prominent part of the Jubilee year 2000. “How can we be silent about so many kinds of violence perpetrated in the name of the faith?” he asked, specifically mentioning “religious wars, courts of the Inquisition, and other violations of the rights of the human person.” He compared them to “the crimes of Hitler’s Nazism and Marxist Stalinism.”
In the pope’s place, Olavo and a few radical Catholics promoting a historical revisionist view of the Inquisition would require Protestants, Jews and Pope John Paul II to ask forgiveness for their “fictional inventions” against the Inquisition.
Communism and Islam, which committed and commit major crimes against humankind, thrive on historical revisionism. How can a Brazilian movement that calls itself conservative have this kind of dishonest existence?
The right path for Catholic conservatism in Brazil is to recognize the Inquisition’s horrors and to confess institutional sin, as Pope John Paul II did. Such an admission would prevent pro-family and pro-life Catholic unity with evangelicals and Orthodoxies from breaking down because of an irrational and deranged adherence to an institution that did everything the devil loves (to kill, steal and destroy) and did nothing the Lord Jesus commanded (to love sinners and preach the Gospel).
The wrong and wicked path is to imitate communists and Islamists and advocate historical revisionism. Such revisionism has nothing to do with authentic conservatism. To excuse or understate the Inquisition’s horrors has nothing to do with real Christianity and it represents an attack on Jews and Protestants. It also represents an attack on a Catholic Church that since Pope John Paul II has distanced itself from the Inquisition and sought a platform to defend life and family, not torture, killings and human rights violations.
How can a Brazilian “conservative” movement that calls itself pro-life stand strong against the horrors of the abortion industry and communism when it denies, excuses or understates the Inquisition’s horrors and makes liars of its Jewish and Protestant victims?
What kind of Brazilian “conservative” movement is this, where a man calling himself its head does nothing more than claim “the Inquisition was a fictional invention” and revile evangelical and catholic conservatives disagreeing with his personal views?
Portuguese version of this article: Os horrores da Inquisição e seus modernos defensores
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Mauricio Macri and Gender Ideology in Argentina


Mauricio Macri and Gender Ideology in Argentina

By Julio Severo
Patricia Bullrich, National Security minister in Argentina, has appointed transsexual Mara Pérez Reynoso, leader in a homosexual group, as National Coordinator of Diversity.
Mauricio Macri
Bullrich’s aim, who serves under the administration of President Mauricio Macri, is to address as a national security problem gender and diversity issues.
As soon as Macri won the presidential election last November, U.S. State Secretary John Kerry congratulated Macri, saying that the U.S. continues to be grateful for Argentina’s leadership at the United Nations on the advancement of homosexual issues, and looks forward to greater U.S.-Argentina cooperation to expand those issues.
The Macri administration is unlikely to disappoint the U.S. government’s wishes.
Argentina lacks a Christian mindset to understand that the homosexual problem is profoundly destructive, since the times of Sodom.
Some Brazilian pro-life leaders had celebrated Macri’s victory. They, who fight gender ideology in Brazil, celebrated a man who is promoting this same ideology in Argentina. While they celebrate Macri, all leftist media in Latin America celebrate the first transsexual in a government post in Argentina.
Is Mauricio Macri, the new president of Argentina, conservative? I had not an answer to this question. So immediately after his election, I made contact with several Catholic pro-life leaders in Argentina. One of those contacts was Dr. Jorge Scala, author of the Brazilian book “IPPF: A Multinacional da Morte” (IPPF: The Multinational Company of Death).  
My questions: The Brazilian media have been saying that the new Argentinian president is conservative. Please, could you confirm if he is really a pro-life and pro-family conservative? Has he fought abortion and homosexual “marriage”?
Answer from Dr. Jorge Scala, directly from Argentina:
The adjective “conservative” is very ambiguous. I do not know very well what meaning it could have in the U.S. Yet, I can give clear information about the elected Argentinian president in regard to abortion and homosexual unions. As the mayor of the City of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri promulgated a so called “non-punishable abortion protocol” legalizing abortion on demand to any women only with a signed sworn declaration that the pregnancy had been a product of rape. Evidently, he is not “pro-life.” As to homosexual unions, Mayor Macri personally made the first homosexual civil union in the City of Buenos Aires, despite that in that time there was no legislation authorizing it. Evidently, he supports the gay lobby. Probably, the qualificative “conservative” is a reference to the fact that Mr. Macri is the son of a wealthy businessman and that he will have economic politics favoring capitalism.
Brazilian pro-life leaders should be careful. They were so excited about Macri that they wanted a Macri also in Brazil. They had thought that he was good just because he had defeated a socialist candidate supportive of gender ideology. What they do not understand is that left-wing activists and businessmen are not often necessarily enemies as far as gender ideology is concerned.
Gender ideology promotion is now a priority in the Macri administration.
There is no reason to celebrate this kind of administration.
Portuguese version of this article: Mauricio Macri e a ideologia de gênero na Argentina
Recommended Reading:

Monday, January 18, 2016

Bible Ignorance, Clergy Corruption and the Inquisition in England before the Reformation


Bible Ignorance, Clergy Corruption and the Inquisition in England before the Reformation

Bible Illiteracy as the Cause of Widespread Corruption and Deadly Censorship

By Julio Severo
In plain 21th century and specially in the pro-life and conservative movement, it makes no sense to defend the Inquisition, a highly divisive subject contributing nothing to the pro-family cause. But since 2013 I have seen the Inquisition, which tortured and murdered Jews and Protestants, being passionately excused and even defended by some Catholics. See “Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?” in 2013 and “Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies” in 2015. See also my exchange with the American Catholic writer Theodore Shoebat, who said, “The Inquisition was necessary to protect the people of Spain and Portugal, and Latin America, from pagan tyranny.” (To understand more about the Shoebat case, see his declarations here and my article “A Global Inquisition to Put Homosexuals to Death?”)
After this Inquisition advocacy, I feel a Christian obligation to expose the truth, because only the truth makes people free.
I am reading the book “The History of Religious Liberty,” written by Dr. Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association the world’s biggest homeschool association. This excellent book, which addresses also the Inquisition and torture and death of Christians at the stake, can be purchased, in its print version, from WND (WorldNetDaily), at this link. To purchase the Kindle version, click here.
“The History of Religious Liberty,” recommended by WND, one of the world’s biggest conservative news sites, should be read by everyone who wants to understand the bloody cost of religious freedom in England, which greatly benefitted the U.S.
In one part of this book, I remembered Brazil, which has, on a large scale, the same problem described by Dr. Farris and which happened abundantly in England before the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago. He tells about a powerful cardinal who had almost as much power in England as the king himself.
Dr. Farris says:
“[The ultra-powerful Cardinal Thomas] Wolsey held incredible power and wealth… He was ordained a priest and became a chaplain at the royal court sometime around 1507. Along the way, Wolsey amassed an amazing fortune that rivaled that of the king. Part of this fortune came from the practice of awarding leading clerics multiple offices from which were obtained multiple salaries. While holding royal office, Wolsley simultaneously held church positions at Hereford Cathedral, Limington in Somerset, Redgrave in Suffolk, Lydd in Kent, and Torrington in Devonshire, among others. This does not mean that Wolsley actively preached or shepherded these congregations or dioceses; the typical practice was similar to that of an absentee landlord: collecting lucrative salaries while providing little, if any, direct service. Wolsey was not alone in this practice. For example, Tyndale’s home of Gloucester County contained the diocese of Worcester, which was among the most abused bishoprics in England. Few of its principal pastors had lived there since 1476, and after 1512 ‘the diocese had enjoyed three Italian bishops, who lived at ease in Rome, and never set foot in England at all, yet drawing meanwhile, ample stipends.’”
“On November 18, 1515, Wolsey was consecrated a cardinal at a ceremony in Westminster Abbey and just over a month later, on December 24, was made the lord chancellor of England — the highest rank in the land other than king. It is said that ‘his power with the king was so great that the Venetian Ambassador said he now might be called ‘Ipse rex’ (the king himself).’”
Dr. Farris explains then the cause of this corruption:
“The Bible was essentially unknown in a nation where the Roman Church was so dominant that the pope’s annual revenue from England was comparable to that taken by the king. Even the clergy were largely scripturally illiterate.”
Elsewhere in his book, Farris shows that English Christians attempting to translate the Bible into English were tortured and burned at the stake. Christians trying to preach the Bible to the people also suffered the same fate. The Catholic Church held the people in ignorance by preaching the Bible only in Latin, a language the people did not understand. Farris explains how a Catholic priest was condemned to be burned for preaching the Bible to the people:
“Early in 1529, a priest named Thomas Hitton was arrested for heresy after preaching in Kent. He was interrogated — we can assume without mercy — and confessed to have smuggled an English New Testament into England from the continent. He was condemned by Archbishop Warnham and Bishop Fisher. By standard practice, the ecclesiastical condemnation was enforced by the secular authorities to maintain the pretense that the church itself did not shed blood. On February 23, 1529, Hitton was burned at the stake in Maidstone. Those professing to love and serve God ceremoniously executed another professing Christian in a slow, agonizing, and brutally painful death — all for the express purpose of sending this ‘heretic’ straight into the fires of hell.”
After Wolsey, Thomas More was appointed Lord Chancellor of England in 1529. According to Michael Farris, More rejoiced at seeing a man condemned to be burned for the only “crime” of owning a Tyndale New Testament. According to Farris, the bloodthirsty More said,
“And now the spirit of error and lying hath taken his wretched soul with him straight from the short fire to the fire everlasting.”
In his obsession to hinder the people from having access to the Bible, More persecuted especially those attempting to translate it into English. He was the great persecutor of William Tyndale, whose Bible translation was a foundation for the famous King James Version, used by the English-speaking people since the 1600s.
According to Farris, “More willed them to be ignorant of the written Word of God lest they ever doubt the Catholic Church on any point.”
For More, Tyndale was a “heretic” worthy of being burned, because by translating the New Testament he had “corrupted” some words of the Bible. Among the words, Michael Farris highlights “love.” Farris notes,
“The dispute over the Greek word agape had serious implications for Catholic practices. Translated ‘charity,’ as More desired, the word has clear financial implications. If Tyndale is correct, and the word is rendered ‘love,’ then 1 Corinthians 13 indicates that the highest duty of the Christian is to love others rather than to give gifts of charity to the church.”
Then Farris shows how Tyndale defended himself for not using the word “charity” in the place of love:
“Throughout his writings, he demonstrates how the ceremonies that the Roman Church contends were revealed by God to the church authorities are better understood as money-making opportunities for the clergy. The sale of indulgences is the best known of these practices. People are denied the freedom to know God's Word, Tyndale suggests, because if they could read it for themselves they would stop paying for religious services that are contrary to the teaching of Scripture.”
Apparently, the Catholic clergy kept the people deliberately ignorant in order to exploit them financially. And the Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. No pope, cardinal or bishop is immune to this evil.
It reminds me that greed in the Catholic Church, as explained by Catholic neocon Cliff Kincaid, has been one of the major causes of Islamic immigration into the U.S. According to Kincaid, the Catholic Church gets a multi-million dollar profit with this invasion.
About ignorance and corruption, it is interesting to observe that most current politicians of the ruling Workers’ Party in Brazil had a past involvement with the Catholic Church, especially the base ecclesial communities with their Liberation Theology. In fact, the current opinion is that NCBB (National Conference of Bishops of Brazil) helped found the Workers’ Party (WP), the socialist party ruling today in Brazil.
The ignorance of Brazilian Catholics goes far beyond an exceptionally great adherence to Liberation Theology. It also includes an adherence to historic and religious falsifications. While Michael Farris says that the execution of “heretics” at the stake was a slow, agonizing, and brutally painful death, Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho denies all of this by saying:
“Even in the popular image of the Inquisition fires lies are predominant. Everybody believes that condemned individuals ‘died burned,’ amid horrible suffering. The flames were high, more than 16 feet high, to hinder suffering. The condemned individuals (less than ten a year in two dozen nations) died suffocated in a few minutes, before the flames could touch them.”
In contrast with Carvalho’s romantic version, Farris wrote that on February 9, 1555, Protestant Bishop John Hooper was executed for “heresy.” Farris says,
“The fire had burned his legs and he stood on the remaining stumps praying in anguish. Eventually one of his arms was burned off as well. The hellish torture lasted 45 minutes before Hooper, retaining consciousness the entire time, finally succumbed to the brutally slow flames.”
Farris also says,
“Perotine Gosset, together with her mother and sister, was convicted of heresy in the summer of 1556 in Guernsey, in the Channel Isles. Perotine did not reveal to the authorities that she was pregnant. The heat of the flames caused her to give birth to a living son, who was snatched from the flames by bystanders. The sheriff grabbed the baby and threw him back into the burning mass of wood and human flesh. His apparent reason was that the baby had been in the mother when she was convicted to die, and so the death sentence applied to him as well.”
The execution of “heretics,” through death in the flames, was done at the stake. Farris records in his book many of such executions at the stake. The word “execution” appears about 100 times in Farris’ book.
He says that between 1506 and 1519, the Catholic Church in England burned at the stake 22 followers of John Wycliffe (1328-1384), who made the first Bible translation into English.
Farris tells that in 1529, Thomas More tortured and executed John Tewkesbury at the stake, because he followed the Bible.
According to Farris, More carried out many similar executions. Farris said, “More defended his many executions by describing ‘heretics’ that were ‘justly’ burned at the stake.”
In Carvalho’s view, the liar regarding the horrific executions by the Catholic Church over 500 years is not Carvalho, but rather Americans. Ironically, he no longer lives in the biggest Catholic nation in the world (Brazil). He lives in the biggest Protestant nation in the world, right in the Bible Belt. Even so, he says:
“The myth of the Inquisition has been the most extensive and lasting campaign of slander and defamation in history until today, with multi-million dollar funding, and it seems this campaign will have no end. Those who created it were not Illuminati or communists. It was created by Protestants, who keep promoting it even today, and the irradiant center is U.S. churches. This is a historical fact that all professional historians today know, and it has nothing to do with ‘theological debates.’”
In an October 2015 remark, Mr. Carvalho said that anti-Inquisition Protestants are worse than KGB. With his usual language of affirming that he is supported by “historical facts, abundantly known…” (when in reality he presents no reliable sources and cloaks his weak arguments with a pseudo-intellectualism), he said:
“It is a historical fact, abundantly known today, that the ‘black legend’ of the Inquisition was from the beginning to the end an invention of Protestants, not of Illuminati or communists. And it is a fact that this legend was and is still the vastest, the most malicious, deceptive and persistent campaign of slander and defamation ever recorded in History. It has lasted 500 years, stretching out throughout the Western world and it shows no indication that it is going to stop. Even the KGB never achieved anything of this magnitude. Like it or not, this is the reality.”
Apparently, just by virtue of being an American Protestant Michael Farris would be involved in an alleged “myth” and “campaign of slander” against the Inquisition and its executions. I wonder if Carvalho would also include Rev. Franklin Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, who said about the Inquisition: “Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”
Ignorance of the Bible and the Gospel is the biggest cause of those confusions, including about the indisputable role of the Brazilian Catholic Church promoting a theological Marxism that has been highly successful in Brazil over the last 50 years.
Less Bible means more ideology, more greed and more corruption. If the Catholic Church in Brazil taught its people to devote themselves to God’s Word, there would be little or no space for the Marxist ideology, and the socialist Workers’ Party would never have been founded. Further, the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil would be preaching the Gospel, not socialist ideas.
Therefore, one cannot ascribe all the endemic corruption in Brazil exclusively to adherents of Marxism and the Workers’ Party (WP). As shown by Michael Farris, centuries before Marxism, corruption and greed in the Catholic clergy in England were something any WP adherent would envy. Even WP adherents, however, did not go so far as to burn at the stake the true followers of Jesus.
Nor is it a coincidence that all current scandals of WP corruption are happening in the biggest Catholic nation in the world. In many aspects, these are reminiscent of scandals exposed by Farris. As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 3,000 years ago, there is nothing new under the sun.
As soon as England abolished the domination of a Catholic clergy that greedily controlled it and embraced the Protestant Reformation with its practice of Bible reading, the nation prospered intensely, becoming the British Empire. But the English openness to the Bible was not total. Where it was total, there was greater prosperity, and the United States, where the Bible was the main national book, became a much more important and powerful empire than the British Empire.
Thomas More, the killer who had a torture chamber in the basement of his house to extract confessions from his “heretical” victims, was eventually condemned and executed for political intrigues. The Catholic Church transformed him into a “saint” and “martyr.” He left this world with a trail of tortured and killed Protestants. The focus of his life was the Catholic Church, not obedience to God through the Bible.
William Tyndale, considered by Michael Farris as one of the forerunners of the U.S. religious freedom, was fiercely opposed by More and was condemned to die at the stake as a “heretic.” Tyndale left this world having never tortured and killed one single Catholic or religious dissenter. The focus of his life was Jesus and His Gospel.
This is the very example of Jesus’ apostles, who were known for preaching the Gospel with such great devotion that they were willing to die for it, not to murder in its name.
Ignorance of the Bible inevitably leads to widespread corruption and led to the Inquisition — a total and murderous censorship of the true followers of Jesus Christ.
An access to Bible reading is essential for the liberty of a people from the darkness of atheism and false religion. All of the early U.S. presidents were diligent Bible readers. Some read it in the original Greek and Hebrew. Others were also chairmen of Bible societies, whose mission was to facilitate access to and reading of the Bible and the evangelization of peoples.
The moral and spiritual decadence of England and the U.S. today is because, coincidently, those two nations abandoned, among their political leaderships and populations, the practice of Bible reading and obedience, whose access was afforded  to the English and Americans by Tyndale and others at a bloody price and by martyrdom.
Recommended Reading:

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Brazilian Homosexualist Politician Jean Wyllys Is Criticized for Israel Trip


Brazilian Homosexualist Politician Jean Wyllys Is Criticized for Israel Trip

By Julio Severo
A popular left-wing Brazilian congressman known for his leadership in homosexual political issues is facing a major backlash from the Brazilian and international Left because of his recent trip to Israel. The legislator, Jean Wyllys, has angered the Left after participating in a conference at an Israeli university.
Jean Wyllys at Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Much of the material in this article was drawn from a report in The Intercept, a U.S. liberal publication. The Intercept put Wyllys in its headlines, praising his background of homosexual activism, but criticizing him for a minimal support of Israel.
According to The Intercept, on January 5, Wyllys shocked and infuriated many socialists. He posted a smiling photo of himself to his 871,626 Facebook followers, posing in front of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The attached comment read: “I am very happy and thrilled for the opportunity to visit, for the first time, this city full of history… Tomorrow I will give a lecture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem… about anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia and other forms of hate and prejudice and the relation to contemporary politics.” The photo garnered more than 24,000 likes and 1,700 comments.
The post immediately unleashed a flurry of comments, some in support but many voicing vehement opposition. Numerous critics specifically expressed shock and outrage that a standard-bearer of Brazil’s progressive movement would so completely break with his party’s official position in support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
On Facebook, Wyllys declared that he opposes BDS. “I am against boycotts against any people. I think it is mistaken to confuse the government, the state and the population. Boycott destroys bridges and favors the extremists on both sides,” he wrote, citing the failed U.S. blockade of Cuba as an example.
His comments are befuddling socialists. According to The Intercept, “Brazil has no substantial pro-Israel lobby and support for Palestinian rights is a mainstream position.”
The intercept made a mistake, because the evangelical population in Brazil, formed by more than 46 million Pentecostals and charismatics (according to The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements), is largely supportive of Israel. But these loyal supporters have been befuddled that Israel has officially invited a prominent Brazilian homosexual activist. Why not invite Pentecostal minister Silas Malafaia or other prominent Brazilian evangelical leaders?
Socialists around the world hate Israel. Why does Israel love them?
Conservative evangelicals love Israel. Why does Israel hate their conservative stances against abortion and homosexuality?
The socialist hatred for Israel makes no ideological sense, because Israel is the only nation in the Middle East having legal abortion, gender ideology, homosexual parades, feminism and many other Western evils. Above all, modern Israel was founded by Marxist Jews. The only explanation for this hatred is spiritual: God gave the Jews the land of Israel and everybody know it, because it is in the Bible, the book most read in the world and most hated by the Left.
In addition, there is no logical reason for evangelicals to be so supportive of Israel, which fervently defends the same leftist insanities Jean Wyllys does. But their reason is spiritual. They support Israel even when Israel supports socialists like Wyllys who are stridently opposed to evangelicals and their values. They support Israel because they know that God has a plan for Israel, regardless the fact Israel supports ideologies opposed to evangelicals. It is an insane complexity where Israel, even under a right-wing government, prefers to invite a Wyllys than a Silas Malafaia, who is a prominent evangelical minister in Brazil.
Even so, the Brazilian Left hated Wyllys’ visit to Israel.
Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, a Brazilian diplomat who served on the Brazil’s Truth Commission (which treated communists as heroes and victims, but their opponents as criminals during the era of Brazil’s military rule) and was a U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, harshly criticized the congressman. “Lamentable and deplorable, Congressman Jean Wyllys’ comments about his visit to Israel reveal a crass ignorance of and total misinformation about Israel’s current human rights policies,” he said. That sentiment is reflective of the left-wing backlash triggered by his trip and subsequent remarks.
Wyllys’ controversial visit to Israel and his defense of Israel come at a particularly tense moment in bilateral relations. Brazil’s leftist Worker’s Party (PT) government, led by embattled President Dilma Rousseff, has refused to accept the appointment of Dani Dayan as Israel’s ambassador to Brazil on the grounds that he is a proponent of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank — which biblically belongs to Israel, but international socialists say that Israel has occupied illegally their own land. Under both Rousseff and her predecessor, PT’s Lula da Silva, their party has been vocally supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Wyllys has built intense popularity among Brazilian socialists with uncompromising defenses of liberal issues: introducing bills promoting marijuana legalization, sexual orientation statutes, full legalization of sex work (prostitution), and rolling back the institutional vestiges of Brazil’s former military rule — all anathema to the growing evangelical Right. He is the only openly gay politician on the national stage of overwhelmingly Catholic Brazil.
What caused more outrage among socialists was that Wyllys appeared at a university that, for them, is a symbol of Israeli “occupation.” Much of Hebrew University of Jerusalem is built in East Jerusalem. For socialists, East Jerusalem is a Palestinian land that was illegally expropriated by Israel. A letter signed by 351 international academics has condemned this university.
The conference attended by Wyllys was titled “Brazil and Israel: Social and Cultural Challenges.” It took place January 5 and 6 and was sponsored by Hebrew University, Brown University, the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Israeli Confederation of Brazil, among other institutions.
In an interaction that appears to have since been deleted, when one Facebook follower asked, “Jean, when will you visit the Gaza Strip?” Wyllys’ account (signed by his communications team) responded, “Maybe you don’t know that the Gaza Strip is currently under the control of the terrorist organization Hamas. It is not, therefore, a safe space for an open homosexual… but maybe you can go. Good luck!” In a later comment, he said he “would also like to go to other Middle Eastern countries, but I cannot, because in many of them I could be hanged or imprisoned for being gay.”
Socialists hate Israel because of the biblical view that the land of Israel was given to the Jews by God, but they love all the leftist pro-abortion and pro-homosexualism laws in Israel.
Evangelicals love Israel because of the biblical view that the land of Israel was given to the Jews by God, but they hate all the leftist pro-abortion and pro-homosexualism laws in Israel.
Socialists love Israeli socialism. But they hate the God factor in Israel and its land. For socialists, this factor annuls all socialist ideologies espoused by the Israeli society. I hope that someday the Jews may see the importance of this factor and how conservative evangelicals, not socialists, are the real friends of Israel.
Jean Wyllys can be criticized for many stances, including his defense of drugs, prostitution and homosexual depravity. But he cannot be criticized for supporting Israel, which is the only nation in the Middle East that does not murder homosexuals.
If socialists think otherwise, they should send all Brazilian and U.S. homosexuals to try to live among Palestinians…
With information from The Intercept.
Portuguese version of this article: Jean Wyllys é criticado por viagem a Israel
Recommended Reading:

Monday, January 11, 2016

A Global Inquisition to Put Homosexuals to Death?


A Global Inquisition to Put Homosexuals to Death?

By Julio Severo
According to People for the American Way, in their project Right Wing Watch, Theodore Shoebat posted a video declaring that “sodomite homo Sharia” is being imposed on America by “sodomite bastards” and “faggots” who do nothing but “go around spreading AIDS.”
The Right Wing Watch said, “The only solution, he declared, is the imposition of a global law criminalizing homosexuality that will be enforced by a modern-day Inquisition with the power to put gays to death.” According to this website, Shoebat said, “I believe in Inquisitions, I believe we need to revive the system of the Middle Ages that we had; we had no fag problems.”
“‘It’s homo tyranny and it needs to be destroyed,’ Shoebat continued, ‘Christian world domination needs to be established and homosexuality needs to be deemed as a crime. And the homos need to be told, hey, you gotta stop that and if they don't stop that then, I’m sorry, we have an Inquisition and that Inquisition will enact the death penalty, as Scripture tells us.’”
When Shoebat talks about “Christian world domination,” this does not include Protestants, evangelicals, Pentecostals, charismatics, etc.
Is a “revival” of the Inquisition supported by the Bible? The Church in the New Testament never supported any Inquisition to torture or kill sinners. Her mission was to preach the Gospel of Salvation to them.
The Church outside the New Testament used the Inquisition against sinners and dissenters, whom she called “heretics.” Most of these “heretics” were Protestants who believed in the Bible in a way disapproved by the Catholic Church. Jews loyal to Judaism were also considered “heretic.”
Right Wing Watch, a leftist channel that monitors and smears conservatives, sees no distinction between the Church in the New Testament and the Church outside the New Testament. Actually, it seems that Right Wing Watch intends to use the Shoebat case, which is strictly Catholic, to portray all Christians (Catholics, Protestants and Orthodoxies) as supportive of the Inquisition.
This is not the reality. In fact, Right Wing Watch, which has often attacked me because of my pro-family stance against the gay agenda, should know that I have been criticized in Brazil by allegedly right-wing Catholics who excuse or even advocate the Inquisition.
I do not want a return of the Inquisition. There are better ways to address the problem of homosexualism. George Washington’s conservative America was enough to protect her society from a homosexual ideological mess without exposing Jews and Protestants to the Inquisition’s mortal threat. Washington, who was Protestant, never applied any Catholic Inquisition. Historian Bill Federer said,
As recorded in “The Writings of George Washington” (March 10, 1778, 11:83-84, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), George Washington ordered: “At a General Court Marshall … Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier … and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Liett. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”
Washington, the Father of America, had a soldier expelled for attempting to commit sodomy. In contrast, the Inquisition would have him executed, as Shoebat would prefer.
Yet, if Shoebat has his wish fulfilled, who can hinder the Catholic Inquisition from going after other groups? Jews and Protestants were favorite victims of the original Inquisition.
Shoebat has articles fiercely attacking Islam, and rightly so, because Islam is violent, especially against Christians. He has voiced the idea Catholics should “extirpate the wickedness of Islam.” Presumably, he would approve the Inquisition to extend its force against Islamists. But it is highly doubtful that he would keep the Inquisition limited only to homosexuals and Islamists.
In 2014, Theodore Shoebat wrote an article titled “Islam Is A Form Of Protestantism, That Wants To Destroy The Catholic Church.”
So if Islam is a form of Protestantism, both are equally evil, in his view. If they are evil, why not approve the Inquisition to both of them? If Shoebat can extirpate the wickedness of Islam, why could not he extirpate the “wickedness” of Protestantism? It was attempted, by the original Inquisition centuries ago.
Some Catholics, like Shoebat, wishing a revived Inquisition will not be content to see it moving just against homosexuals. Sooner or later, they will want it to move also against “heretics” who “threaten” the Catholic Church.
A return of the Catholic Inquisition is not what all people, even good Catholics, want. This is the wish of a few extremists like Shoebat.
The Inquisition and other evil acts of the Church outside the New Testament have been used by left-wingers to condemn Christians who live according to the Church in the New Testament.
Franklin Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said about the Inquisition, “Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”
The bottom line is, if you believe in Jesus, you want nothing to do with the Inquisition. If you believe in the Inquisition, you want nothing to do with Jesus.
If People for the American Way were honest, they would let their public know that the Inquisition has been denounced for centuries by Jews, Protestants and most Catholics, who will certainly work to destroy any attempt to revive this macabre machine of torture and death.
Shoebat has criticized Christians who have opposed his pro-Inquisition stances. He has blasted especially Peter LaBarbera, director of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, by calling him a “filthy pig” and a “traitor” because he rejected Shoebat’s pro-Inquisition stance against gays. Name-calling against pro-family leaders is typical behavior from leftists and pro-Inquisition activists.
“Traitor”? To “betray” the Inquisition and its advocates is not to betray the Gospel. In fact, a revived Inquisition would eventually reach LaBarbera, who is a conservative Protestant, and other Christians who love and preach the Gospel to homosexuals and other sinners. If the original Inquisition did not spare Protestants, how would its modern version manage to spare LaBarbera?
In addition, it is no surprise that Shoebat used an abusive language against LaBarbera. A dirty language and demonization precede a wish and intent of destroying its victims. A pro-Inquisition activist eventually reviles pro-family activists and, if given enough political and legal powers, could do much more than just calling names.
Facts Shoebat should know:
A good Catholic does not revile pro-family leaders.
A good Catholic does not call names.
A good Catholic does not defend the Inquisition.
Yet, with his radical views, Shoebat provides ammunition for opportunistic and malicious leftist entities as Right Wing Watch to defame, revile and attack Christians who, like LaBarbera and George Washington, never tortured or killed in the name of a tyrannical government or a counterfeit and violent “christianity.” Actually, according to the original Inquisition, Washington himself was worthy of death, just because he was a Protestant.
The Left feasts on the pro-Inquisition lunacy and uses it to attack pro-family leaders who want nothing to do with the Inquisition. When Shoebat supports the Inquisition and reviles LaBarbera he aids and abets the Left in its attacks against the pro-family movement.
As I see, Shoebat was formerly a Muslim. Later, he became an evangelical and in some point he saw that an evangelical church was not radical enough for him, but it was “heretical” enough. Then apparently he chose a twisted version Catholicism. Yet, why a pro-Inquisition Catholic? Could not he choose to become a good pro-life Catholic, interested in saving innocent babies rather than supporting torture and slaughter of people through a modern Inquisition?
Even though Shoebat considers himself a pro-life Catholic, I would encourage him to read my article: Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?
Portuguese version of this article: Uma Inquisição Mundial para Matar Homossexuais?
Recommended Reading:

Monday, January 04, 2016

Why I Support Cruz over Trump, But Why Trump Would Be Better on Foreign Policy


Why I Support Cruz over Trump, But Why Trump Would Be Better on Foreign Policy

By Julio Severo
I support Ted Cruz over Donald Trump as a Republican presidential candidate, even though Trump seems to be more correct regarding to Islam and its threat. About pro-life issues, Trump is suspicious. Cruz is not suspicious about these issues. I think he will not betray pro-life convictions. Yet, my worry about him is the same worry about Bush Jr. He is suspicious in this issue.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump
I heartedly supported Bush on his pro-life stances. I will do the same thing for Cruz. My worry is foreign policy, especially Christian persecution by Islamic oppression. Bush invaded Iraq allegedly because of 9/11. Before the invasion, there were over 2 million Christians in Iraq. Today, they are less than 400,000 and their numbers are dwindling.
After the U.S. invasion by Bush, Iraq Christians began their exodus to Syria, because U.S. troops did not want to protect this vulnerable minority not to give the impression to Muslims that America was in a Christian crusade in Iraq to protect Christians and attack Muslims. To dispel this image, America under Bush did not protect Iraqi Christians.
And now, under Obama, America is heavily arming “moderate” Syrian Muslim rebels who rape, torture and slaughter Syrian Christians. America under Obama has caused a terrible mess to Syrian Christians and Iraq Christian refugees in Syria.
Cannot America solve her own mess against innocent people?
If America under Bush did not arm Iraqi Christians against Muslim attacks, now America under Obama is not arming Syrian Christians to defend themselves against ISIS and U.S.-armed “moderate” Syrian Muslim rebels.
What will Cruz do? I am sure that in pro-family issues he will not imitate Obama. If he imitates Bush in his pro-life stances, this is very good. But will he also imitate Bush in his disastrous politics benefitting Islam and destroying old Christian communities in the Middle East? In this issue, Bush and Obama are not different.
In this respect (about foreign affairs and Christian persecution), I would not like to see Cruz as a new Bush or Obama. If he intends to continue the mess of Bush and Obama against Christians around the world, he should not be elected.
In this respect, I prefer Trump. He is independent and free to do whatever he wants. He cannot be bribed with millions, because he is a billionaire. He has offended neocons, whom Bush obeyed and whom Obama obeys in their foreign policy disasters against Christians. It seems he will not continue the mess of Bush and Obama against Christians around the world. He has promised good relations with Russia, in contrast with Cruz, who wants neocon relations with Russia. Even so, I am worried about his lack of pro-family credentials.
Trump has advocated a ban on Islamic immigration to the U.S. and he favors Christian immigration. His proposed ban has infuriated Democrats and Republicans, left-wingers and right-wingers. In this point, he has shown that he has more courage than all the other candidates combined do. Cruz has not shown this courage.
America’s founders were fond of evangelical values. Cruz, not Trump, seems to have these qualities. Even so, Trump seems much more open to let the U.S. welcome Christian refugees and discontinue the ridiculous Obama and Bush politics of praising Islam and welcoming its adherents. One Christian is slaughtered every five minutes, and the overwhelming majority of these crimes against Christians are committed by Muslims. Why since Bush and Obama has the U.S. received thousands and thousands of Muslims, not Christians? America needs a president to deliver her from this insanity. Probably in this issue Cruz has much to learn from Trump.
U.S. foreign policy, which has been a disaster to international Christians under the Bush and Obama administrations, has been dominated by neocons. Trump, not Cruz, seems to have a distaste for neocon politics.
If Trump had pro-family credentials, he would be the perfect candidate. But because he has not them, perhaps a Cruz-Trump ticket would be perfect.
If I can give a humble advice to Cruz is:
Be a pro-lifer (and I am sure that you are going to be one). But remember also the Cross (which is Cruz in Spanish). Remember Christians suffering Islamic oppression, rape, torture and slaughter.
Remember what Bush and Obama did not remember.
Remember that the trail of U.S. military invasions and interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria is covered with the blood of Christians that America refused to protect in order to protect U.S. political interests.
Remember that the U.S., which was founded by persecuted Christians, today welcomes many more Muslim invaders than Christian refugees, even though Islam is responsible for about 100,000 Christian martyrs a year.
Be different from Bush and Obama, who armed Muslims who attacked Christians. Could America under your presidency arm Christians to defend themselves against Islamic assaults?
Be different from Bush and Obama, who praised Islam and welcomed Muslim invaders over Christian refugees. Could America under your presidency welcome Christian immigrants over Muslim immigrants? At least, could not America under your presidency welcome Christian refugees from Iraq, Syria, Libya and other Islamic nations where she has caused a big mess against Christians?
Be opposed to neocons, who antagonize Russia, but do not antagonize Islamic dictatorships. Russia has recently been prominent in conservative pro-family efforts in the U.N. system and Russian military involvement in Syria has protected and helped Christians from the mess America created. Cannot America under your presidency be better? Trump has publicly expressed his intent of not antagonizing Russia. Cannot you be better than Trump on this?
Remember to serve the Kingdom of God above the neocon kingdom and its disastrous policies against Christians. In fact, make America a servant of God and His Kingdom. So in this way America will be blessed and a blessing and stop being a curse for Christians persecuted by Muslims around the world.
I doubt that Trump knows how to put the Kingdom of God above a neocon kingdom of foreign policy disaster for international Christians. But Cruz has such knowledge. He will be happy — and international Christians and their God will be equally happy — if he puts this knowledge into action.
Recommended Reading: