USA & Israel Attack Iran, Khamenei Dead

Escalation in the Middle East: US and Israel Launch Joint Attack on Iran, Supreme Leader Khamenei Killed

In a dramatic and unprecedented turn of events, the United States and Israel have carried out a major military operation against Iran, resulting in the death of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

This assault, described by US President Donald Trump as a step toward regime change, has plunged the region into further turmoil and raised fears of a broader conflict.

 The Attack Unfolds

The operation began on February 28, 2026, with coordinated airstrikes targeting key sites in Iran, including Khamenei's compound in Tehran. Iranian state media confirmed Khamenei's death early the following day, announcing 40 days of national mourning and several public holidays in his honor. Sources indicate that the strikes may have killed around 40 high-ranking Iranian officials, including potentially the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. President Trump took to Truth Social to declare the success of the mission, stating that "heavy and pinpoint bombing" would continue "uninterrupted throughout the week or as long as necessary" to achieve peace in the Middle East.

Israel, a key partner in the operation, confirmed targeting several top officials, while Iranian reports suggest Khamenei's daughter, grandson, and son-in-law may also have been among the casualties. In retaliation, Iran launched missiles and drones toward Israel and US military bases in the region, with the Iranian army vowing "the most devastating offensive operation." Explosions were reported in Tehran, and satellite imagery shows extensive damage to targeted sites.

 Background and Tensions Leading to the Strike

This attack comes amid longstanding tensions between Iran, the US, and Israel. Khamenei, who had led Iran since 1989 as its supreme leader, was a hardline cleric known for his opposition to the West and support for proxy groups across the Middle East. The decision to strike followed weeks of lobbying by Israel and Saudi Arabia, urging the US to take decisive action against what they described as Iran's threats to regional security.

The US has framed the operation as necessary to prevent Iran from endangering American interests, with Trump emphasizing the need to "overturn Tehran's government." Iran's constitution outlines a process for selecting a successor under Article 111, but the sudden vacuum in leadership could lead to internal power struggles and heightened instability.

 International Reactions and Potential Ramifications

The international community has reacted with alarm. Iran's allies have condemned the strikes, while Western nations have expressed concerns over escalation. The risk of a wider war looms large, with potential impacts on global oil prices, refugee flows, and alliances in the region. Analysts warn that this could draw in other powers, further destabilizing the Middle East.

Crowds gathered in Tehran's Enghelab Square to mourn Khamenei and celebrate, reflecting the deep divisions and grief within Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli officials briefed on the operation have hailed it as a strategic success, though the full extent of casualties and damage remains unclear.

 A Call for Reflection

As the dust settles on this seismic event, the world watches anxiously. The death of Khamenei marks the end of an era for Iran and potentially the beginning of a new chapter fraught with uncertainty. While military actions may address immediate threats, lasting peace requires dialogue, diplomacy, and mutual respect among nations.

 A Prayer for Peace

Heavenly Father, in this time of conflict and sorrow, we pray for peace in the Middle East and across the world. Comfort those who mourn, heal the wounded, and guide the leaders of nations toward wisdom and reconciliation. May Your light dispel the darkness of war, and may all people come to know the harmony that comes from justice and compassion. Amen.

 Sources

- CNN: Live updates on Iran's Supreme Leader killed in US-Israeli strikes 

- NBC News: Live updates on Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is dead 

- AP News: Iran's supreme leader killed in major attack by US and Israel 

- BBC: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead, state media says 

- NPR: Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been killed 

- CBS News: Live Updates: U.S.-Israel strikes killed 40 Iranian leaders, including Khamenei 

- Reuters: Live: Iran confirms supreme leader Khamenei is dead after US, Israeli attacks 

- Washington Post: Live updates: Iran's supreme leader killed in U.S.-Israeli attack 

- Al Jazeera: US, Israel attack Iran live: Tehran confirms Khamenei's killing 

- X Post from @dt_next: Confirmation of Khamenei's death and damage [post:3]

Do Muslims, Jews and Christians Worship the Same God?

The Theological and Philosophical Debate on Whether Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God

The question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is one of the most enduring and contentious issues in interreligious dialogue, theology, and philosophy of religion. This debate engages profound questions about the nature of God, the relationship between human language and divine reality, and the extent to which theological differences preclude a shared referent for worship. Rooted in the shared Abrahamic heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the discussion is further complicated by external critiques, such as those from atheists who point to the multiplicity of deities across cultures—often citing “3000 gods” or more—and question which, if any, is real. This essay argues that, despite significant theological divergences, Muslims and Christians worship the same God, understood as the singular ontological reality who is the Creator and sustainer of all existence. This position is supported by Catholic Church teachings, the writings of Church Fathers, insights from Orthodox Christian patriarchs, and contemporary theological scholarship, while also addressing the atheist critique and the broader monotheistic commitment to one God across religious traditions. I. Introduction: Framing the Debate The question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is not merely a matter of semantics but a profound inquiry into the nature of divinity, human understanding, and interfaith relations. Both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic faiths, tracing their origins to the Abrahamic tradition, which affirms belief in one God who is the Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, and merciful. However, differences in theological constructs—most notably the Christian doctrine of the Trinity versus the Islamic emphasis on Tawhid (absolute oneness)—raise questions about whether these faiths refer to the same divine being. The debate has significant implications for interreligious dialogue, ecumenism, and the philosophical understanding of divine ontology. This essay proceeds in several stages. First, it examines the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, particularly from the Second Vatican Council and the *Catechism of the Catholic Church*, which provide a foundation for understanding the shared worship of one God. Second, it explores the perspectives of Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine and St. John of Damascus, whose writings offer historical and theological insights. Third, it incorporates the views of Orthodox Christian patriarchs, such as Patriarch Bartholomew I, to highlight the Eastern Christian perspective. Fourth, it engages with contemporary theologians, including Miroslav Volf and David Burrell, to bridge historical and modern discourse. Fifth, it addresses the atheist critique, which often points to the multiplicity of gods across cultures, arguing that this perspective misunderstands the monotheistic claim of a singular divine reality. Finally, it synthesizes these perspectives to argue that, despite theological differences, the shared ontological commitment to one God unites Muslims, Christians, and other monotheists in their worship of the same divine being. II. Catholic Church Teaching: A Foundation for Dialogue The Catholic Church, as one of the largest Christian denominations, has provided significant guidance on the relationship between Christianity and Islam, particularly through the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). The declaration *Nostra Aetate* (1965), a landmark text on interreligious relations, explicitly addresses the question of Muslim and Christian worship. It states: > The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. 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. (*Nostra Aetate*, §3) This passage is significant for several reasons. First, it affirms that Muslims “adore the one God,” explicitly aligning their worship with the God of Christianity. Second, it highlights shared attributes—God as living, subsistent, merciful, and all-powerful—emphasizing a common understanding of divine nature. Third, it roots this shared worship in the Abrahamic tradition, noting Islam’s connection to Abraham, a figure central to both faiths. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (1994) further reinforces this position, stating: > The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. (*CCC*, §841) This statement not only reaffirms the shared worship of one God but also situates Muslims within the divine plan of salvation, a significant theological gesture toward inclusivity. The *Catechism* acknowledges differences—such as the Islamic rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ—but maintains that these do not negate the common referent of worship. These teachings reflect a deliberate move by the Catholic Church to foster dialogue and mutual respect with Islam. They suggest that theological differences, while significant, do not preclude a shared commitment to the one God who is the Creator and ultimate reality. This position has been influential in shaping modern Catholic approaches to interfaith dialogue and provides a foundation for arguing that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. III. Insights from Church Fathers: Historical Perspectives The writings of the Church Fathers offer valuable historical and theological insights into the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. While Islam emerged in the 7th century, after many of the Church Fathers had written, their reflections on the nature of God and the relationship between Christian and non-Christian worship provide a framework for addressing this issue. St. Augustine of Hippo St. Augustine (354–430 CE), one of the most influential theologians in Western Christianity, emphasized the unity of God’s essence and the universality of true worship. In *City of God*, Augustine argues that all genuine worship, when directed toward the Creator rather than created things, ultimately points to the one true God (Augustine, *City of God*, 10.1). He acknowledges that human articulations of God may be incomplete or errant, particularly in non-Christian traditions, but maintains that the intention to worship the Creator aligns with the reality of the one God. While Augustine did not address Islam directly, his framework suggests that sincere monotheistic worship, even if theologically distinct, is directed toward the same divine reality. Augustine’s concept of analogy is particularly relevant here. He argued that human language about God is inherently limited, reflecting partial truths about the divine nature (*Confessions*, 7.10). This perspective allows for the possibility that Muslims and Christians, despite differing descriptions of God, refer to the same divine being. Augustine’s emphasis on the oneness of God’s essence provides a philosophical foundation for understanding shared worship across traditions. St. John of Damascus St. John of Damascus (676–749 CE), a Church Father who lived in the early Islamic period, offers a more direct engagement with Islam. As a Christian living under Muslim rule in Damascus, John wrote extensively about Islam in his *Fount of Knowledge*, including a section titled “On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites.” While John critiques Islamic theology—particularly its rejection of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ—he acknowledges that Muslims worship the one God, describing them as “idolaters no longer, but worshippers of one God” (*Fount of Knowledge*, Heresy 100). This acknowledgment is significant, as it comes from a figure who was both a critic of Islam and a witness to its monotheistic character. John’s writings reflect a nuanced position: while he rejects Islamic doctrine as heretical from a Christian perspective, he recognizes that Muslims direct their worship toward the same Creator God as Christians. His perspective underscores the importance of distinguishing between theological disagreement and the shared ontological referent of worship. IV. Orthodox Christian Perspectives: Patriarchal Insights The Eastern Orthodox Church, with its rich theological tradition, provides additional perspectives on the question of shared worship. Orthodox Christianity, like Catholicism, affirms the oneness of God and shares the Abrahamic heritage with Islam. Patriarch Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, has been a prominent voice in interreligious dialogue, emphasizing the commonalities between Christianity and Islam. In a 1997 address at Georgetown University, Patriarch Bartholomew stated: > We are all children of the same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Our faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—share a common heritage in the worship of the one true God, who is the Creator of all. (Bartholomew I, 1997) This statement reflects a commitment to recognizing the shared monotheistic foundation of the Abrahamic faiths. Bartholomew’s emphasis on the “one true God” aligns with the Orthodox theological tradition, which prioritizes the unity of God’s essence while acknowledging the diversity of human expressions of faith. Orthodox theology, rooted in the writings of figures like St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus the Confessor, further supports this view. St. Gregory, for example, argued that God’s essence transcends human comprehension, and all attempts to describe God are limited by human language (*Against Eunomius*, 1.42). This perspective allows for the possibility that Muslims and Christians, despite differing theological frameworks, worship the same divine reality. The Orthodox emphasis on apophatic theology—describing God in terms of what He is not—further reinforces the idea that theological differences do not necessarily imply a different God. V. Contemporary Theological Scholarship Contemporary theologians have built on the insights of Church Fathers and ecclesiastical authorities to address the question of shared worship in a modern context. Two prominent figures, Miroslav Volf and David Burrell, offer particularly compelling arguments. Miroslav Volf In his book *Allah: A Christian Response* (2011), Miroslav Volf argues that Muslims and Christians worship the same God based on shared attributes and a common referent in the Abrahamic tradition. Volf identifies key points of convergence: both faiths affirm God as one, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and merciful; both trace their worship to the God of Abraham; and both understand God as the Creator and judge of all. While acknowledging significant differences—such as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Islamic concept of Tawhid—Volf contends that these do not negate a shared divine referent. He writes: > If Muslims and Christians have a common framework of talking about God as the one Creator, and if they refer to the same object when they talk about God, then they worship the same God, even if they understand God differently. (Volf, 2011, p. 110) Volf’s argument is grounded in both theological and philosophical reasoning, drawing on the concept of referential identity from philosophy of language. He suggests that two groups can refer to the same entity (God) even if their descriptions differ, provided there is sufficient overlap in their understanding of that entity’s essential attributes. David Burrell David Burrell, a Catholic theologian and philosopher, further develops this argument by focusing on the shared philosophical heritage of Christianity and Islam, particularly through the influence of figures like Thomas Aquinas and Avicenna (Ibn Sina). In *Knowing the Unknowable God* (1986), Burrell argues that both traditions affirm God as the singular source of all existence, whose essence transcends human comprehension. He draws on Aquinas’s doctrine of analogy, which posits that human language about God is neither univocal (identical in meaning) nor equivocal (entirely different) but analogical, reflecting partial truths about the divine (*Summa Theologica*, I, q.13, a.5). Burrell emphasizes that the Islamic and Christian understandings of God share a commitment to divine simplicity—the idea that God’s essence is not composed of parts and is identical with His existence. This shared metaphysical commitment, rooted in the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic traditions, supports the claim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, even if their theological articulations diverge. VI. The Atheist Critique: Addressing the “3000 Gods” Argument A common critique from atheists is the claim that human history has produced “3000 gods” (or more), raising the question of which, if any, is real. This argument, often popularized by figures like Richard Dawkins in *The God Delusion* (2006), points to the diversity of divine names and descriptions across cultures—Zeus, Odin, Brahma, Yahweh, Allah, and others—to challenge the coherence of monotheistic claims. However, this critique misunderstands the monotheistic perspective and the philosophical concept of divine ontology. The Monotheistic Response Monotheistic traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—assert that there is only one God, the singular ontological reality who is the Creator of all. The multiplicity of divine names does not imply a multiplicity of divine beings but reflects human attempts to describe the one God within specific cultural, linguistic, and historical contexts. As Thomas Aquinas argued, human language about God is analogical, capturing aspects of the divine reality without fully encompassing it (*Summa Theologica*, I, q.13, a.5). Thus, the “3000 gods” cited by atheists are not distinct entities but varied human articulations of the one divine being. This perspective is supported by the shared commitment to monotheism across Abrahamic faiths. In Judaism, the Shema declares, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). In Islam, the Qur’an emphasizes God’s absolute oneness: “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only” (Qur’an 112:1). Christianity, while introducing the complexity of the Trinity, maintains the unity of God’s essence, as articulated in the Athanasian Creed: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.” These affirmations point to a singular divine reality, regardless of the diversity of names or descriptions. Beyond Abrahamic Traditions The monotheistic claim of a singular divine reality extends beyond the Abrahamic faiths. In certain strands of Hinduism, for example, the concept of Brahman represents the ultimate reality underlying all existence, despite the multiplicity of divine manifestations (*Bhagavad Gita*, 10.20). Similarly, in Sikhism, the *Mool Mantar* affirms one God who is eternal and self-existent. These traditions, while theologically distinct, share the ontological commitment to a singular divine being, suggesting that the “3000 gods” argument oversimplifies the complexity of religious thought. The atheist critique also fails to account for the experiential and existential dimensions of worship. Monotheists across traditions assert that there is “one being out there listening”—a singular divine reality who responds to human devotion. This shared conviction transcends linguistic and cultural differences, pointing to a common referent in worship. VII. Theological Differences and Ontological Unity While the case for Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God is strong, it is important to acknowledge the significant theological differences between the two faiths. These differences include: - **The Trinity vs. Tawhid**: Christianity affirms God as a Trinity—one essence in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)—while Islam emphasizes Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God, rejecting any division or plurality in the divine nature. - **The Divinity of Christ**: Christians believe Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, fully divine and fully human, while Muslims regard Jesus (Isa) as a prophet but not divine. - **Revelation and Scripture**: Christians hold the Bible as divinely inspired, while Muslims consider the Qur’an the final and perfect revelation, superseding previous scriptures. These differences are not trivial and have historically been points of contention. However, they do not necessarily imply that Muslims and Christians worship different gods. As Volf argues, theological disagreements about God’s nature or attributes do not negate a shared referent, provided there is sufficient overlap in the understanding of God as the one Creator (Volf, 2011, p. 128). Philosophically, the concept of referential identity supports this view. Two groups can refer to the same entity even if their descriptions differ, as long as there is a common core of attributes and intentions. For Muslims and Christians, this core includes the belief in one God who is eternal, omnipotent, merciful, and the Creator of all. The shared Abrahamic heritage further reinforces this common referent, as both faiths trace their worship to the God of Abraham. VIII. Broader Implications for Interreligious Dialogue The recognition that Muslims and Christians worship the same God has profound implications for interreligious dialogue and coexistence. By affirming a shared divine referent, both communities can engage in meaningful conversations about their differences without negating their common spiritual heritage. This approach fosters mutual respect and understanding, as advocated by *Nostra Aetate* and the teachings of Patriarch Bartholomew I. Moreover, this perspective challenges the exclusivity often associated with religious identity. Rather than viewing other faiths as wholly other, the acknowledgment of a shared God encourages collaboration on shared ethical concerns, such as justice, peace, and care for creation. As Pope Francis emphasized in his 2019 *Document on Human Fraternity*, co-signed with Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the shared belief in one God calls for unity in addressing global challenges (*Document on Human Fraternity*, 2019). IX. Conclusion: One God, Many Descriptions The debate over whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is complex, involving theological, philosophical, and historical dimensions. Catholic Church teachings, as articulated in *Nostra Aetate* and the *Catechism*, affirm that Muslims and Christians adore the same one God, rooted in their shared Abrahamic heritage. The Church Fathers, such as Augustine and John of Damascus, provide historical support for this view, emphasizing the unity of God’s essence and the sincerity of monotheistic worship. Orthodox Christian patriarchs, like Bartholomew I, echo this perspective, highlighting the common worship of the God of Abraham. Contemporary theologians, including Volf and Burrell, offer philosophical and theological arguments for a shared divine referent, despite differences in doctrine. The atheist critique of “3000 gods” misunderstands the monotheistic claim that diverse names and descriptions reflect human attempts to apprehend the one divine reality. Across religious traditions, the shared ontological commitment to a singular God—eternal, omnipotent, and merciful—unites Muslims, Christians, and other monotheists in their worship of the same divine being who listens as the Creator of all. This conclusion does not erase the real and significant differences between Islam and Christianity, nor does it suggest a syncretistic blending of the two faiths. Rather, it affirms that, at the level of ontology, Muslims and Christians direct their worship toward the same God, understood through the lenses of their respective traditions. This recognition provides a foundation for dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to seeking the divine in a fractured world.

### References - Augustine of Hippo. (426). *City of God*. Translated by Marcus Dods. Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. - Bartholomew I. (1997). Address at Georgetown University. Retrieved from Orthodox Church archives. - Burrell, David. (1986). *Knowing the Unknowable God: Ibn-Sina, Maimonides, Aquinas*. University of Notre Dame Press. - Catholic Church. (1994). *Catechism of the Catholic Church*. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. - Dawkins, Richard. (2006). *The God Delusion*. Houghton Mifflin. - *Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together*. (2019). Signed by Pope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb. - John of Damascus. (749). *Fount of Knowledge*. Translated by Frederic H. Chase Jr. Catholic University of America Press, 1958. - Second Vatican Council. (1965). *Nostra Aetate*. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. - Thomas Aquinas. (1265–1274). *Summa Theologica*. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Benziger Bros, 1947. - Volf, Miroslav. (2011). *Allah: A Christian Response*. HarperOne. ---

Richard Dawkins Concerned Over Decline of European Christianity

Alleged atheist, Dr. Richard Dawkins who is known for his antics and bigotry against Muslims and Christians is now lamenting the decline of Christianity in Europe.

For the past decade, some have associated the lack of religious participation as a decline in Christianity and increase of immigrants from Islamic nations.

Some atheists have attributed this to atheist propaganda being spread online and in universities and Europes open borders policies. However, this is not so. What is happening is that people are not attending religious services. If there are no people going to religious services, then there is no attendance. This does not mean that there are not people joining religious faiths in Europe. In fact, Spain is seeing an increase in seminarians.

Dawkins seems to be showing some concern at this decline. He tweeted on Wednesday:

Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let’s not forget Hilaire Belloc’s menacing rhyme:
“Always keep a-hold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse.”https://t.co/02foPX69Hs

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 21, 2018

Here we see that Dawkins apparently hates Muslims more than he does Christians. He describes Christianity as a "benign" religion. Dawkins has stated before that he has not seen Christians blow themselves up or do anything similar to that of Islamist terrorists. He is now cautioning atheists against celebrating the news from a recent report which claims there is a sharp decline in Christianity in several European nations.

I believe Dawkins' concern is more about the decline of Caucasians in Europe. A similar fear is taking hold among White conservatives in the United States of America.  Many of them are afraid that America is now becoming "brown" due to an increase in Hispanics.  In Europe, there are some who believe that the continent is a "White" land and should stay that way.





Source:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2449b900-c5ed-3a2d-958c-d4a50f0aa8cb/ss_atheist-richard-dawkins-warns.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5f505598-3040-3df7-b192-9f0450f1d789/ss_reports-of-christianity%27s.html

https://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-richard-dawkins-warns-against-celebrating-demise-of-relatively-benign-christianity-in-europe-221909/

SCOTUS: Trump's Travel Ban Can Stay

The Supreme Court of the United States decided today that Trump's contested travel ban can go as planned without restriction. However, this does not mean that the ban is here to stay forever. Challenges are still traveling through the lower courts. The Supreme Court is waiting for these to decide before making a more final decision.

It is interesting to note that because the Supreme Court sided with the ban, this may indicate where it officially stands. Lower courts may have a difficult time trying to find a different rationale.  The president has an obligation to protect the nation under the Constitution, Immigration Act of 1952 and 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 

Some in the Catholic Church are attacking President Trump over this despite the Catholic Church's teaching that leaders have a right to protect their nations.

Also, the  Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People: People on the Move - N° 88-89, April - December 2002 Migration and the Social Doctrine of the Church says:

b. Is the right to emigration absolute? Can it ever be limited?
The SDC also recognizes the right of states to control entry of persons and their borders. They have a right and duty to protect their sovereignty as well as the internal order that guarantees security, basic human rights and freedoms. Thus states can make practical decisions that control immigration.[4] It is, however important to remember the principle that immigrants must always be treated with the respect due to the dignity of every human person. In the matter of controlling the influx of immigrants, the consideration which should rightly be given to the common good should not ignore this principle. The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life.[5]
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2002_88_90/rc_pc_migrants_pom88-89_blume.htm

While we must help everyone, we must also be cautious. Today's world is much more different than the world Christ was in and those who were before Him.  We live in a world where some want to kill Americans in any way possible. Our nation must be aware of who it is allowing to enter. Unfortunately, we just cannot let anyone enter these days.  It is the sad reality that we live in.  This makes our job as Catholics much more difficult and important in regards to changing this world. We must make this world submit to Christ so that we can have societies of love where people can travel to any nation and not worry about being attacked.  A world where there is no more terrorism and where we can live as brothers and sisters.




Source:


https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/12/04/supreme-court-lets-trumps-latest-travel-ban-go-into-full-effect/23296822/

https://t.co/vjvifBROH0

— ☧Sacerdotus™ (@Sacerdotus) December 4, 2017

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-trump-travel-ban-211853485--politics.html

Obama Classmate Blocks Trump Order

Here we go again. Just as President Trump's new executive order vetting travelers from nations identified as harbors of terrorists was the take effect, a judge has blocked it.  The new order was revised, taking into consideration the problems previous judges have found with it.  However, this was not enough for Hawaiian judge Derrick Watson who claims that the executive order is a ban against Muslims.  Keep in mind that Muslims from other nations not listed in the executive order can travel to the United States without extreme vetting.  In light of this, it is hard to argue that the executive order is a Muslim ban.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that Judge Derrick Watson was a classmate of Obama's at Harvard.  Could this be a sabotage plot?  Many seem to think so based on the judge's poor reasoning. The judge is relying on statements made by Trump during the election campaign to make his decision. This is odd indeed since judges are supposed to make decisions based on the letter of the law.  We are seeing judicial activism once again.  Something has to give.  We must revamp the judicial system so that judges can only make decisions based on the laws in the book, not their own views.  If we do not do this, then a liberal judge will decided based on his or her bias and vice-versa. This is dangerous and will turn America into an oligarchy.  The Trump administration plans to appeal.



Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-travel-ban-campaign.html

http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/trump-defeated-again-on-the-travel-ban-is-still-trapped-in-his-campaign

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/16/520391884/the-new-rulings-against-trumps-travel-ban-what-was-blocked-and-why

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/opinion/an-ill-considered-travel-ban.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/derrick-watson-5-things-to-know/

Anti-Catholic Jack Chick Dead at 92

Before there was Westboro, there was Jack Chick. Jack Thomas Chick was born on April 12, 1924 and died October 23 of this year 2016.  He was a cartoonist and a publisher who was fixated on defaming the Catholic Church and promoting heresies. Chick used his artistic ability to post lies and misconceptions on the Catholic faith as well as Islam, Jews, Gays and others. He published many booklets which he called "chicklets" which were modeled after comic books.  These booklets accused the Catholic Church of many conspiracies such as creating Islam, the Ku Klux Klan, the Holocaust, Communism, major World Wars, Nazism, the Great Depression and so forth.  He even claimed that the Catholic Church founded the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons!

Chick condemned Catholics and all who did not think like him to hell. He promoted bigotry and paranoia. Jack Chick became an Evangelical Baptist after World War II via the Charles E. Fuller radio program, "Old Fashioned Revival Hour." By the 1960s, he began creating his "chicklets" eventually leading to the formation of his own print company in the late '70s. As expected, Chick's tracts were controversial even among other Evangelicals who had issue with his harsh attacks against Catholics. Chick wrote a booklet on "Alberto Rivera" who was an alleged former Jesuit priest. This "priest" claimed to know secrets about the Catholic Church as an "insider." He claimed that the Catholic Church was responsible for Freemasonry and a whole host of other conspiracies. In 1981, writer Gary Metz of Cornerstone magazine exposed Alberto as a fraud.  He was never a priest and had a history of legal problems such as fraud, credit card theft and using phony checks. Alberto claimed to have left the Catholic Church in 1952, however, he was promoting Catholicism in a newspaper interview years later. His claims of possessing doctoral degrees was also proven false. He died in 1997.

Jack Chick's tactic of using falsehoods is widely known. Many in the Protestant community avoid his content as hateful and even see them as a parody. His Bible illiteracy is clearly visible in each tract. In one, he calls the Holy Eucharist "the death cookie" despite Jesus Himself stating that He is the bread of life and the historical and biblical fact that the Mass has been a rite since the times of the disciples. In fact, the Romans thought the early Christians who were Catholic were cannibals because of how serious they believed that Jesus was present under the appearance of bread and wine. Jack Chick also claimed that the words magical incantation "hocus pocus" came from the words used at Mass for Consecration (HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM).  The truth of the matter is that it was the name of a magician. \ In another tract, Chick attacks Islam claiming that it comes from a Pagan religion that worshiped a moon deity. Scholars have dismissed this claim as lacking substance.

In any event, Jack Chick was a talent artist. It is unfortunate that he used his talent to promote hate and lies. One does not have to be a college graduate to see his booklets had no academic value.  His material will most likely be collected as artifacts of American history. All we can do is pray that God had mercy on his soul. We Catholics are called to love and pray for those who hate us.  Jack Chick lived a life of ignorance and fundamentalism which is not compatible with faith in God. May God have mercy on him and may he rest in peace.

Jack Chick has died. May God have mercy on his soul for promoting hate and heresy. He lived in ignorance and did not know the evil he did.

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) October 24, 2016

 


Source:

http://www.chick.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/25/jack-chick-christian-comic-cartoonist-death

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/jack-chick-christian-tract-evangelist-dies/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/october/died-jack-chick-cartoonist-controversial-gospel-tracts.html

https://boingboing.net/2016/10/24/rip-jack-chick-father-of-the.html

Metz, Gary (1981). "The Alberto Story". Cornerstone. 9 (53): 29–31. Archived from the original on 2005-12-02

"Hocus Pocus Junior: The Anatomie of Legerdemain"

http://www.hocuspocusjr.com/hocvspocvsjr.htm

http://www.latinliturgy.com/id18.htm

4th Sunday of Easter: The Flock He Tends

Today's readings touch upon God's flock and how God wants all to hear the word, listen to the word and be saved. The Pope's visit to the island of Lesbos in Greek can be used to visualize the readings in today's context.

The first reading tells us of Paul and Barnabas who are evangelizing. They speak to the Jews and those who became Jews. They stress to the Jews to remain faithful to God's grace. However, others came to listen to them, namely the Gentiles or non-Jews.  The Jews present were jealous and angry at both Paul and Barnabas. How many times do our own fellow Catholics get jealous of us because we may be taking on a ministry in the Church and succeeding?  Fallen human nature is always a thorn at the side, so to speak. Anyhow, Both Paul and Barnabas begin to preach to the Gentiles because the Jews present did not want to hear of salvation and eternal life in Christ Jesus.  They quoted and fulfilled the verse that says, "I have made you a light to the Gentiles,that you may be an instrument of salvation to the ends of the earth” which comes from Isaiah 49:6. While God did choose a "people" as His own, the Jews. He did not leave everyone else out. The Jews would be the first to "taste the goodness of the Lord," (Psalm 34:8) but the rest of the world will soon follow. On Saturday, Pope Francis visited a refugee camp and brought three families with him back to Rome. These families are Muslim! Our Holy Father is reminding us to be like Paul and Barnabas, but above all, like Christ who came to all and to serve not be served.  We are all God's people, the sheep of His flock as the responsorial Psalm reminds us today.

We must sing joyfully to the Lord. This includes all peoples, all lands (Psalm 117:1)!  We must serve the Lord with gladness, not bitterness or out of obligation (Psalm 84:1-2). God is our Father (Mark 14:36). God cares for us for we are His people, His flock that He tends.  God is good all of the time; all of the time God is good!  He keeps us in existence, though we do not deserve it due to our sins. This shows how merciful God is.

In the second reading, we read from the mysterious book of Revelations. The Apostle John is on the island of Patmos, Greece and sees the visions while there.  He writes them using apocalyptic language or a genre that uses hyperbole, vivid imagery and symbolism to convey messages. Our reading describes angels, seals, a great multitude, the Lamb, elders and so on.  These images are symbols of heaven.  Furthermore, as we continue reading, the Scripture tells us of a great multitude that no one could count. This multitude comes from every nation, race, people, and tongue.  Who do you think these people represent?  If you guessed the Catholic Church, then you are correct. This verse is referring to the Church (Militant, Triumphant, and Suffering) composed of her saints living and deceased. These are the "Catholic" people or the universal people who come from all over the globe (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, CCC 830-831). The Church is not a "White," "Black," "Latino," "Red," "Brown," or "Asian" Church.  Christ's Church is a "Catholic" Church open to all from every walk of life, every nation, every gender, every age etc. The white robes represent our cleanliness, the robe of salvation which we received at baptism and tried hard throughout life to keep it spotless via the Sacraments, especially Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist or the "Blood of the Lamb" (Isaiah 61:10, Revelation 7:14). The palm branches represent Palm Sunday demonstrating that we are triumphant in Jesus Christ. We raise our branches and shouted, "Salvation comes from our God, who is seated on the throne, and from the Lamb" (John 12:13). Who is this "Lamb?"  Jesus of course!  Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world; sound familiar (John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19)? Next, we read of the angels and elders who prostrated themselves before the throne. These elders represent the saints and the apostles who pray for us before the Lamb (Revelations 5:8).  We must fight the good fight in order to be part of this multitude by longing to see God's face (1 Timothy 6:12, 2 Timothy 4:7).

Finally in the Gospel, we read Jesus' words about the sheep hearing His voice. He knows them and they will follow Him. He gives them eternal life and no one can snatch them away from Him.  Jesus also confirms that He and the Father are One. Two distinct persons along with the third, the Holy Spirit, but one God. God's flock is not just the Jews or Catholics, but all of humanity. Jesus said there are other sheep that are not in His main flock (John 10:16).  These too will hear His voice and come to Him. This is why we must evangelize (Mark 16:15). We must spread the Word of God not only with words, but with action. As the cliche goes, "actions speak louder than words" so too, do our Christian acts in the world speak loudly. We see this in Pope Francis who has made it a priority to preach the Gospel via action via his call to mercy.  We as Catholics have the fullness of truth, but we must not become prideful and fall into triumphalism thinking that we are better than others of different faiths or no faith (Philippians 2:3). Humility is key (Ephesians 4:2). We must be cunning like the serpent yes, but gentle like a dove when presenting the faith to others (Matthew 10:16).  Let us pray to the Good Shepherd to call all sheep back to one flock.  May Jesus Christ be praised!




Readings: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/041716.cfm

Atheist Kills Young Muslims

Craig Stephen Hicks, 46 of North Carolina murdered three Muslim students, Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, Yusor Mohammad, 21, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19 execution style according to reports.  Hicks is a militant atheist according to his facebook which is littered with atheist propaganda and religious hate.  He wrote on his page, "When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I."  The investigation is ongoing and authorities are indicating that this may have been a hate crime.

Our prayers are with the families of the #ChapelHillShooting Deah Barakat, Yusor&Razan AbuSalha. #MuslimLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/cSaViBeztG
— Abbas Sarsour (@iFalasteen) February 11, 2015

I will update this post as more information comes in.

Post from Hicks' Facebook showing his Militant Atheism

Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/us/chapel-hill-shooting/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/man-arrested-3-shot-death-north-carolina-080105974.html

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/victims-father-says-chapel-hill-triple-homicide-was-a-hate-crime/ar-AA9gDx6

https://www.facebook.com/craig.hicks.967

_________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE: 2/12/15

According to news reports, atheist Craig Stephen Hicks was known in his residential complex as being an angry tenant always complaining about parking spaces and harassing others. Last year, a meeting was held regarding his behavior. The father (Mohammad Abu-Salha) of one of the slain said that Hicks would harass the victims due to their religious garb and often intimidated them by walking to them with his handgun visible. However, Ripley Rand who is the district attorney said that the shooting seems to be an isolated incident.  Nevertheless, the local police are not convinced and are still investigating the possibility that Hicks' actions were based on religious hate.  The FBI has also stepped in to investigate the incident as a hate crime.

Thousands attended the funerals of the three victims and are calling for a charge of religious hate against Craig Hicks.  Hicks' page is full of the typical atheist nonsense meant to stir a response and offend others.  In contrast,  Yusor Abu-Salha and Barakat who were married recently often spent their time helping the homeless and even raised money to help Syrian refugees. They planned to go this summer to Turkey to undertake this endeavor.  Hicks instead used this Facebook to voice his hatred for religion and religious people.  He was described as "..very angry.." according to Samantha Maness who lives in the complex. Hicks' ex-wife described his as being out of touch with his emotions and did not response appropriately to movies that dealt with sensitive issues.

Richard Dawkins who is an idol of Craig Hicks spoke out condemning the attacks.  His doing so places an emphasis on the atheistic beliefs of Hicks since this is what Dawkins espouses.  Dawkins took to twitter to condemn the attacks despite spewing hateful anti-Muslim rhetoric.  It seems that he is trying to deflect attention that perhaps his views may have influenced Hicks hatred for Muslims and Christians.








Source:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/craig-stephen-hicks-guns-anti-theism

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/11/vehement-atheist-charged-with-executing-3-muslims-students/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/chapel-hill-shooting_n_6658580.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-follower-craig-hicks-spewed-anti-religious-sentiment-online-wife-insists-killings-of-3-muslims-not-hate-crimes-133994/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-condemns-chapel-hill-shooting-suspected-to-have-been-carried-out-by-antitheist-that-left-three-muslims-dead-10037983.html

Blogger Flogging

January 2015 has begun with the theme of freedom of speech. First the office of Charlie Hebdo was attacked killing 12 cartoonists and now a young Saudi is being flogged for blogging.

Yes you read that right.  Raif Badawi, 31 years of age was sentenced to receive 1,000 lashes, 50 every Friday for the next several months until the 1,000 lashes are completed.  His crime: blogging and using the forum to criticize the Saudi government and Islam. Here are some of his statements:

"As soon as a thinker starts to reveal his ideas, you will find hundreds of fatwas that accused him of being an infidel just because he had the courage to discuss some sacred topics. I’m really worried that Arab thinkers will migrate in search of fresh air and to escape the sword of the religious authorities."
-http://www.m.ahewar.org/s.asp?aid=225581&r=0&cid=0&u=&i=3381&q=

Secularism respects everyone and does not offend anyone ... Secularism ... is the practical solution to lift countries (including ours) out of the third world and into the first world. -http://www.m.ahewar.org/s.asp?aid=230393&r=0&cid=0&u=&i=3381&q=

"I’m not in support of the Israeli occupation of any Arab country, but at the same time I do not want to replace Israel by a religious state ... whose main concern would be spreading the culture of death and ignorance among its people when we need modernisation and hope. States based on religious ideology ... have nothing except the fear of God and an inability to face up to life. Look at what had happened after the European peoples succeeded in removing the clergy from public life and restricting them to their churches. They built up human beings and (promoted) enlightenment, creativity and rebellion. States which are based on religion confine their people in the circle of faith and fear."
-http://www.m.ahewar.org/s.asp?aid=235260&r=0&cid=0&u=&i=3381&q= 

"Actually, this venerable preacher has drawn my attention to a truth that had been hidden from me and my dear readers – namely, the existence of the so-called “Sharia astronomer”. What a wonderful appellation! In my humble experience and in the course of my not inconsiderable research into the universe, its origins and the stars, I have never once come across this term. I advise NASA to abandon its telescopes and, instead, turn to our Sharia astronomers, whose keen vision and insight surpass the agency’s obsolete telescopes. Indeed, I advise all other scholars the world over, of whatever discipline, to abandon their studies, laboratories, research centres, places of experimentation, universities, institutes etc. and head at once to the study groups of our magnificent preachers to learn from them all about modern medicine, engineering, chemistry, microbiology, geology, nuclear physics, the science of the atom, marine sciences, the science of explosives, pharmacology, anthropology etc. – alongside astronomy, of course. God bless them! They have shown themselves to be the final authority with the decisive word in everything, which all mankind must accept, submit to and obey without hesitation or discussion." -http://www.sauress.com/albilad/1010439

It is just absurd that this young guy is sentenced to get an @$$ beating just for voicing his opinion and using the gift of language and expression.  While I do not agree with some things he states such as exaggerated praise of secularism; to sentence him to get lashings is just cruel and inhumane. What is also troubling is that in the march in France where different heads of states participated, among them were Saudi officials!  How can they dare march in support of free speech when they do not permit it in their own land?

This young man did not draw vulgar cartoons or write anything vulgar. He merely gave his opinion on things around him.  Anyone who would get offended at this is just insecure and really moronic, in my opinion.  I am also saddened that the west has pretty much remained silent on this abuse.  Perhaps this is because Saudi Arabia is too intertwined with their economies that they do not want to risk ruining any business deals.

Badawi is currently hospitalized and probably would not be able to handle anymore lashings. Nevertheless, the Saudi state insists that he has to face his punishment.


Here are some petitions asking this abuse to stop:
https://www.amnistie.ca/outils/petitions/index.php?PetitionID=69
https://www.change.org/p/free-and-safeguard-the-liberal-saudi-raif-badawy-no-600-lashes
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/468/812/764/
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/free-raif-badawi-saudi-blogger-sentenced-to-seven-years-600-lashes.html






Source:


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/17/saudi-blogger-raif-badawi_n_6492030.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-saudi-blogger-extracts-raif-badawi

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/21/-sp-saudi-blogger-wife-raid-badawi-lashes

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/21319

http://www.sciencecodex.com/raif_badawi_gets_a_thousand_lashes_and_the_west_stays_silent_on_arabian_human_rights-149049

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/16/opinion/saudi-arabia-blogger-rizvi/

My Thoughts on Charlie Hebdo

In light of the recent attack on the cartoon publication "Charlie Hebdo," some have quoted Voltaire's words: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” However, there is one problem. Voltaire never said this. The words come from a woman.

Beatrice Evelyn Hall of English descent wrote a biography in 1906 entitled, "The Friends of Voltaire." She published this under the pseudonym, S.G. Tallentyre. In writing the phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” she was hoping to capture Voltaire's thoughts on the ideas of philosopher Adrien Helvetius.

"What the book could never have done for itself, or for its author, persecution did for them both. ‘On the Mind’ became not the success of a season, but one of the most famous books of the century. The men who had hated it, and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now." - The Friends of Voltaire

What Voltaire did write may surprise "free speech" advocates who endorse what I call, "bullying with the pen." Voltaire wrote:

“The supposed right of intolerance is absurd and barbaric. It is the right of the tiger; nay, it is far worse, for tigers do but tear in order to have food, while we rend each other for paragraphs." -1763 Treatise on Toleration

These words are important because they grasp my thoughts on the "Charlie Hebdo" tragedy. While I value free speech, there has to be some reservation when using it. What I mean by this is that we cannot misuse the gift of free speech in order to abuse others, bully them or slander them. Neither should we use this gift to mock or ridicule others and their beliefs. This serves no purpose in rational and intelligent discourse. It is not news that the cartoons and publications of "Charlie Hebdo" are racist, promote religious hate, and so forth. Their intention was to provoke others or instigate intolerance.

However, there is no need to make vulgar cartoons or write paragraphs that "rend" others, as Voltaire put it. If you need a cartoon or mockery in order to get your point across, then you are showing that you are not intelligent, articulate or educated enough to present your views in a logical and intelligent manner. Ridicule and mockery are for school bullies who seek pleasure in the provocation they instill on their victims. In light of this, if we are to endorse content like that found in "Charlie Hebdo," then why bother promoting campaigns against hate and bullying? Is not harassing a gay teen, minority or woman "free speech?" What is the difference? Why is this bad but cartoons mocking religion and people praised? The action is the same: bullying. What changes is the platform upon which the bullying is being communicated with.

Now we all make jokes and poke fun at each other. However, we usually do this with people who we know well and know that they can take a joke. It is not smart or wise to do this to groups of
people we do not know personally, especially groups that abide by collectivistic social scripts. The latter will get offended because their beliefs encompass what it means to be "them." So in
effect; if you mock their beliefs, then you are mocking them.  Apparently the people at "Charlie Hebdo" and those who support offending people do not understand this.  I recall watching on CNN or Fox News some people saying that "we have the right to offend people."  As I heard this and saw the passion in their facial expressions I shook my head in disbelief.  Yes we have the right to say whatever we want, but is it okay to offend people just because we can?  

We in are the month of January and in the United States of America we celebrate and honor a great man who fought for Civil Rights.  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr rose up to the challenges of his time with mere words and peaceful protests.  He offended the powers that be with peace, tolerance and the pursuit of justice; the latter which is a staple in American culture.  Dr. King did not speak at the podium or write in articles mocking Caucasians.  Nor did he label them as supremacists, racial narcissists or "crackers."  He had no need to being a man of God and relying on the power of peace and prayer which He learned from His Teacher Jesus the Lord.  In light of Dr. King, do we need to offend people in order to get ideas across or call for change?  

To quote from the old adage, “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.”  These words are applicable today.  If we truly want to dialog or express our views in a way that attracts and does not distract, then we must do so with respect, logic and consideration.  Drawing cartoons or writing articles mocking and ridiculing others and their beliefs does nothing but cause animosity and distrust.  In the age of terrorism where these delusional fanatics believe the West is "out to get them;" the use of ridicule and mockery against them only fuels that delusion.  Let us stop playing into their delusions. 

In a way, the artists of the publication "Charlie Hebdo" did cause their own deaths by putting their pride over their lives.  While no one should be killed for drawing a cartoon, the artists should have known better than to "taunt a rabid dog."  Only a reckless or suicidal person would mock "Cujo" or an angry bear.  There are others ways to communicate displeasure in Islamist views and so forth.  Is the ability to draw offensive cartoons worth more than one's own life?  What of "live today and fight tomorrow?"  

Many mourners have been gathering in squares holding up pens.  The pen is a powerful tool.  It can be used to stab people in the eye, chest and back or it can be used to write love letters, friendship letters and scholarly works.  Hopefully the events in France will promote the latter and leave the use of offending others behind in the uncivilized world where it belongs.  

May the victims of the attack on Charlie Hebdo, Rest in Peace

         

Shooting at Charlie Hebdo - JeSuisCharlie

France today has been hit by a terriorist attack. Three armed masked me entered the offices of Charlie Hebdo - a satire publication - and killed 12 people, many who were cartoonist. The attack was apparently in retaliation over cartoons published of the prophet Mohamed since they yelled that "the prophet has been avenged."  The cartoon mocked the sacred figure in Islam which prohibits the founder from being caricaturized.  The gunmen have been identified as Cherif Kouachi, 32, and his brother Said Kouachi, 34.  They were identified after one left his ID card behind at the scene.

On Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other social networks, the hashtags #JeSuisCharlie, #ParisShooting and others have been trending all day long.  Thousands of people in France took to the streets and public squares to show support for Charlie Hebdo.  Many of them simply held pens as a symbol of journalism and drawing.  Others held images of the slain cartoonists and the words "JeSuisCharlie."

The publication Charlie Hebdo is known for mocking religion and even atheists. From the Pope to Mohamed, no one seemed untouchable to them.  They were often drawn in vulgar ways.  The offices of Charlie Hebdo have been hit before by a fire bomb a couple of years ago. One of the cartoonists, Stephane Charbonnier was also on the list of Al-Qaida.

Some news reports claim that the third suspect surrendered and is 18 years old. The French police have no confirmed this.  I will update this post as I learn more.

Let us pray for France.

Source:

http://news.yahoo.com/hunt-2-french-shooting-killed-040725179.html

http://news.yahoo.com/slain-editor-of-french-newspaper-had-been-on--hit-list--of-al-qaida-s-yemeni-affiliate-013104032.html

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/paris-shooting-charlie-hebdo-office-attacked-slideshow/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/europe/france-satire-magazine-gunfire/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/charlie-hebdo-paris-shooting/index.html

"The Fallacy of Faith" Critique

It has come to my attention that the atheist caricature account on twitter known as "RosaRubicondior" posted a blog post entitled "The Fallacy of Faith."  

After reading the blog post I felt the need to critique the straw man argument proposed there against Faith.  

The blog post runs on the premise that Faith is a fallacy.  The author then begins to erroneously label what Faith means to particular religions of the world.

My comments are in black and the original blog content is in blue:


////Faith: The thing held most dearly and proudly by the ‘faithful’; the means by which the ‘faithful’ know things without evidence; the means by which no evidence is needed to believe in a god, the nature of gods, and that the things attributed to gods were indeed performed by them.///

Sacerdotus replies:

Faith is not "knowing things without evidence."  This is a misinterpretation of Faith.  Evidence is indeed needed in order for one to have Faith.  In the Old Testament, God used miracles and acts of justice in order to show the Jews and others that He was indeed God.  

Jesus in the New Testament speaks with authority and backs up that authority by performing miracles.  Furthermore, the Apostles did miracles in Jesus' name which attracted the masses to join Christianity.  These miracles served as the evidence needed to build up Faith in a people who lacked it.  This idea that people just believe without any evidence or knowledge is unfounded and shows Rosa's ignorance. 

////Faith: The knowledge of things not seen.
For a Christian, faith is the means by which they know with complete confidence that there is a god and a heaven and the ONLY way to get to Heaven is by acceptance of God’s son, Jesus and by following his teaching as revealed in the Bible which faith tells them was unquestionably either dictated by or at least inspired by the god in Heaven.////

Sacerdotus replies:

This understanding of faith is only applicable to those who subscribe to the Sola Fide theology.  This theology which comes from reformer Martin Luther has been shown to be a misinterpretation of Scripture.  The idea cannot stand on its own.  

Rosa commits a big error by grouping all Christians under the theology of Sola Fide.  It seems that Rosa is not aware that Christianity is NOT Protestantism.  The One and Only True Christian Church of Christ is the Catholic Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI.  Other denominations are man made institutions that distort the original teachings of the Catholic Church.  Some are losing Christian identity today due to the watering down of doctrine.    

///Faith is also the means by which Christians know with absolute confidence that all the other religions are wrong.//

Sacerdotus replies:

This is another misinterpretation of what Christians believe.  The Catholic Church teaches that other religions have truth to them.  

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332 -Catechism of the Catholic Church

856 The missionary task implies a respectful dialogue with those who do not yet accept the Gospel.359 Believers can profit from this dialogue by learning to appreciate better "those elements of truth and grace which are found among peoples, and which are, as it were, a secret presence of God."360 They proclaim the Good News to those who do not know it, in order to consolidate, complete, and raise up the truth and the goodness that God has distributed among men and nations, and to purify them from error and evil "for the glory of God, the confusion of the demon, and the happiness of man."361 -Catechism of the Catholic Church

Perhaps Rosa is referring to fundamentalists who feel they are the sole possessors of the Truth.  These same individuals attack the Catholic Church and other Protestant denominations.  Again, Rosa makes a big error in reasoning by grouping all Christians under the umbrella of fundamentalism.  This shows Rosa to be extremely uneducated.


///For a Moslem, faith is the means by which they know with complete confidence that there is a god and a heaven and the ONLY way to get to Heaven is by acceptance that Mohammed was the last prophet of that god and wrote a book with clear and concise instructions which must be followed without question.
Faith is also the means by which Moslems know with absolute confidence that all the other religions are wrong.
For a Jew, faith is the means by which they know with complete confidence that there is a god and a heaven and the ONLY way to get to Heaven is by following the laws and rules as revealed by God to Moses, Elijah and other prophets and which include strict dietary rules, dress codes and observance of special days when life is lived differently to normal days.

Faith is also the means by which Jews know with absolute confidence that all the other religions are wrong.
For a Sikh... but you’re probably getting bored by now and have recognised a pattern here. ///

Sacerdotus replies:

I cannot speak for Muslims, Jews or Sikhs, but do have many friends who are members of Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.  To my knowledge, their idea of faith is the same to that of the Catholic Church.  This is why the Catholic Church can hold inter-religious dialog and prayer services with them and others.

What Rosa writes here is a bare assertion fallacy.  Rosa views religion based on whatever experience Rosa had with a particular member of each specific religion.  This kind of reasoning is flawed.




///But hold on! If faith is telling different people completely contradictory things and leading them to mutually exclusive conclusions, how can it be the sure and certain way to know the truth?
Clearly it can’t, so what good is faith as a measure of physical reality, or even of mystical ‘transcendent reality’?///

Sacerdotus replies:

Rosa is confusing the different applications given to the word 'faith.'   The word can be used to describe a virtue and can describe a particular collection of beliefs.  Rosa's reasoning is flawed here in claiming that if faith tells people contradictory things, then faith is not true.  The problem here is not faith, nor the different religious faiths, but the false application of the word Rosa gives.  All believers have faith.  There is nothing contradictory about this.  However, there are differences in religious faiths, or beliefs.

////Let’s do a little mind experiment.
Imagine you’re the unfortunate victim of mistaken identity and find yourself in a court of law, charged with some offence or other of which you are completely innocent. Your defence team has brought in expert witnesses who have presented undeniable scientific evidence showing that, not only could you not have committed the crime, but you weren’t even in the same town at the time the offence was committed.

Well, that’s just about clinched it, hasn’t it? Innocence proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Case dismissed! Phew! I expect you’re wondering why you were ever prosecuted in the first place. And you WOULD be so acquitted in a society in which guilt or innocence is decided by a rational examination of evidence and logically deduced conclusions from that examination.

Imagine now you live in a society which holds that faith is a superior form of knowledge; that faith is a sure and certain way to determine the truth. So sure and certain in fact that evidence is regarded as inferior and not to be trusted, especially when it contradicts faith; a society which is, in fact, founded on good Christian, Islamic and/or Jewish principles; principles which were used to justify the society having that form in the first place. A society founded on the faith of the faithful.

The prosecution have put up a witness who has sworn on a holy book that he has faith that you are guilty. He freely admits he has no evidence but explains that his faith is strong; he has no doubt at all that you are guilty because this has been revealed to him by faith. Since faith is superior to evidence as a measure of reality, the jury should ignore the defence evidence and go with faith. In fact, he argues, it would show a lack of faith amounting to heresy to believe mere scientific evidence in the face of strong faith. So weak is mere evidence compared to faith that he did not look for it nor at the defence evidence. He had no need. His faith is strong.  The jury should understand, as good followers of the faith, that all the so-called defence 'evidence' shows is just how misleading science is and why it should not be trusted... and anyone who doesn't see that is showing suspiciously heretical arrogance and is betraying the oath they swore when they entered the jury box...

Who would you want the jury to believe?///

Sacerdotus replies:

This "mind experiment" is not well thought out.  The presentation of witnesses and "undeniable scientific evidence" does not mean automatic acquittal of a crime.  There have been cases where the aforementioned have been presented and the defense team lost.  A good example is the OJ. Simpson case in the early 1990's.  Disgraced former football player, Oriental Jones was charged with murdering his wife and her friend with a knife.  Evidence and witness testimony was given.  The famous "glove" was even presented which fit OJ's hand, and yet he was acquitted of the charges.  

What determines any case in any courtroom is not the evidence or witnesses per se, but the faith in those witnesses and evidence.  In other words, are they trustworthy?   An attorney's job is to make a case that is believable - even if the one being defended is indeed guilty of a crime.  Hence, this is why lawyers are labeled as "professional liars."  They need to present whatever evidence they have in a way that will be credulous and exonerate their client.    

////Suddenly faith is not so reliable after all. Faith can lead to completely wrong conclusions. Faith can convict the innocent and free the guilty. Faith can lead to wrong being mistaken for right.
Faith can lead the faithful to convict those with the 'wrong' faith of being unfaithful...

That’s why the same process of faith leads Christians, Jews, Moslems, Sikhs, and all the other religions, and every different sect to conclude that they, and they alone, are right and all the others are wrong.

Faith is a trap set to catch the unwary. It was invented by religious leaders because they had no evidence. Had they had real evidence, you can be sure they would be forever trumpetting that fact and citing it at every opportunity. Children the world over would be herded in droves to see this wonderful evidence. "There's your reason to believe", the priests would shout. "You don't need 'faith'! We have the evidence!"///

Sacerdotus replies:

Again, Rosa's own "mind experiment" does not take into account that any evidence presented in a court of law must be credible.  The judge and jury must have faith that the evidence presents truth.  Both sides can use the same evidence against each other, so who is correct?  

Again, the jury must decide based on which one is more believable.  

Rosa's understanding of Faith is what is not reliable.  The definition Rosa presents is a straw man and this is why Rosa can come up with the conclusion that faith is useless and brings about all kinds of religious divisions and claims of superiority.  

Faith was not invented by any religious leader.  It is instilled in us all.  We all have faith.  Infants have faith that the one caring for him/her is benevolent.  Teens have faith that their teachers are teaching them facts.  Rosa and those who subscribe to Scientism have faith that the data presented is accurate.  

////Faith is not a virtue; faith is unquestioning obedience to dogma, and that is a sin. (Tweet this)
To believe through faith alone is to make the assumption that something MUST be true just because you believe it. The arrogance of that belief would be breathtaking if the notion of faith had not poisoned our culture to the extent that this arrogance is considered an admirable quality; that being ‘faithful’ is assumed to equate to being good.

Faith is the trick by which the unscrupulous control the credulous and gullible, and make people ashamed and guilty for having doubt and asking questions.

Faith is the means by which Jewish, Islamic, Christian and other religion’s clerics and theologians have sought to exercise control and hold back human cultural, ethical and scientific development to a level it attained in the Bronze Age, at the nomadic pastoralist stage, when the myths and superstitions were first written down.

Faith is the means by which charlatans seek to prevent us asking the questions and accepting the answers which would break their grip on society.

Faith is the mind-numbing toxin of the religion parasite, in all it's different varieties. (Tweet this)

Do not have faith in faith for that way leads to insanity.////

Sacerdotus replies:

Rosa goes on a rant here against what Rosa thinks is faith.  Had Rosa done more research, this confusion would not have taken place and Rosa would not have written this straw man laced post.  In reality, we all use faith!  Scientifically speaking, we never truly perceive things.  What we perceive are the fields around it.  These fields give off charges that our nervous system interprets as hard, soft, squishy, hot, cold, warm, etc.  Our brains "lie" to us constantly.  The way you are reading this post now or see the outside of a window is not how our eyes sees them exactly.  Our brains reconstruct light stimuli in a way that is recognizable.  

It is very easy to confuse the brain.  Our brains take things on faith.  

Rosa is obviously not well read in science otherwise this assertion that faith is useless would not have been made.  Once again Rosa has demonstrated atheism to be nothing more than sophism presented as reason.   

As the great thinker and former Atheist G.K. Chesterton wrote:  

“Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”