THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
COMING HOME UNDER THE "NEW EVANGELIZATION" PROGRAM:
VICAR OF THE FALSE SOCIALIST CHRIST LEADS RAUL CASTRO TO REPENT OF
CUBAN COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT
BAN ON RELIGION
NO BIBLICAL GOSPEL HERE OF PERSONAL REPENTANCE
AND TRUST IN JESUS CHRIST FOR SALVATION;
JUST MORE FALSE RELIGION
CASTRO PROMISES TO RETURN TO CATHOLIC CHURCH;
BOTH CHRIST DENIERS BUILD RAPPORT;
FIND COMMON GROUND IN REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH;
PREPARE FOR MEETING WITH OBAMA IN SEPTEMBER TO DEVISE PLANS TO STEAL FROM THE RICH AND GIVE TO THE POOR, UNDER THE GUISE OF "SOCIAL JUSTICE"
CHURCH-STATE ONE WORLD FALSE RELIGION PLANNING TO HUNT DOWN & ROB THE WORLD'S "LOTTERY WINNERS" TO GIVE TO THE POOR ALONG WITH OBAMA
Cuba president Raul Castro visits Pope Francis
Published on May 12, 2015
The Cuban President Raul Castro paid a special visit to Pope Francis in Vatican City on Sunday. The stopover comes ahead of the pontiff’s trip to the US and Cuba in September. The brother of the revolutionary leader Fidel Castro spoke with the Pope for 55 minutes. It is unusual for the Pope to meet with someone for such a long time and meetings on Sundays are also extremely rare. The Vatican said this was strictly private and not a state visit as the Cuban leader is on the way back from Russia. During their talk the Pope is understood to have highlighted the need to eradicate poverty around the world. At the end of the meeting Raul Castro gave Pope Francis a medal commemorating 200 years of Havana Cathedral and a painting by the Cuban artist Kocho. Castro is expected to meet with the Italian Prime Minister Mateo Renzi before leaving Rome. The first Pope to hail from Latin America helped broker an historic thaw between the United States and Cuba in December. The two countries agreed to restore diplomatic ties that Washington severed half a century ago. Source: http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/10/cu...
Cuban President Raul Castro meets Pope Francis at Vatican BBC News
After Meeting Pope, Communist Castro Considers Catholicism
After meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican this month, Cuban dictator Raùl Castro was apparently so impressed that he claimed to be considering joining the Catholic Church. The May 10 audience lasted just under an hour but generated headlines — and criticism — around the world. Leader of Cuba’s dissident “Ladies in White” movement Berta Soler lambasted Castro’s comments about becoming Catholic as “a joke” — and for good reason, as Communism and Christianity are inherently opposed to each other. But the implications of the meeting are no laughing matter.
According to news reports, Pope Francis plans to visit Cuba in September, and the younger Castro tyrant has promised to attend his masses. “When the pope goes to Cuba in September, I promise to go to all his Masses, and with satisfaction,” Castro said at a press conference. “I read all the speeches of the pope, his commentaries, and if the pope continues this way, I will go back to praying and go back to the church, and I'm not joking ... I am from the Cuban Communist Party, that doesn't allow (religious) believers, but now we are allowing it, it's an important step.”
In discussing the pontiff, Castro said he had been “very impressed by his wisdom, his modesty, and all his virtues that we know he has.” Even his meeting this month was special, as audiences with the Pope on Sundays are very rare. Reuters reported the unusual exception was granted by the pope because Castro was returning to Cuba from Moscow and had the opportunity to stop in Rome while en route.
While the publicity photos of the papal audience project positive images, recent reports of Cuban refugee escapes paint a very different picture. This past Labor Day six men, escapees from Cuba, landed on South Padre Island in Texas. They made their perilous 1,200 mile voyage in a 14-foot wooden boat. An article posted on the New York Times website on October 9, 2014 related details of recent escapes from Cuba. One such escape by Leonardo Heredia was his ninth attempt. Heredia and 21 friends made a boat from scrap stainless steel and plastic foam. They powered it with a Toyota engine and navigated with a hand-held GPS.
The same article featured an interview with escapee Yannio La O, who teamed up with 31 others to escape from the workers’ paradise in a home-made boat. According to La O, nine of them, one a pregnant woman, died and had to be cast overboard. Six of them got on inner tubes and are unaccounted for. Two more died after making shore. La O said he survived by eating fish he had speared and drinking urine. Drinking seawater would have been fatal. Despite the ordeal, La O was quoted in the article saying, “I would tell anyone in Cuba to come. It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”
Reverend Rafael Cruz, father of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), was the guest speaker at a meeting of the Carrollton Tea Party in Carrollton, Texas on September 23, 2014. Rev Cruz related in detail one of the tricks used by the Castro regime in Cuba to indoctrinate kindergarten children against God. The pseudo-scientific proof that there is no God consists of having the children pray unsuccessfully to God for candy and then successfully make the same prayer to Fidel Castro. In other words, government is seeking to replace God, he explained.
Pastor Rafael Cruz on Deifying the Government:
Uploaded on May 13, 2015
On September 23, 2014, Senator Ted Cruz's father, Pastor Rafael Cruz spoke on how controlling governments brainwash their citizens into deifying their leaders.
Reverend Cruz also mentioned his contact with Virginia Prodan, who confirmed this practice was used by the Ceausescu regime in Romania. How these worldviews can be consistent with Christianity is a mystery. As Pope Pius XI put it, “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI visited the enslaved island of Cuba in 2012 and had harsh words about communism, too. “Today it is evident that Marxist ideology in the way it was conceived no longer corresponds to reality,” the Pope told reporters on the plane before his visit. “In this way we can no longer respond and build a society.”
He also said he was close to those “deprived of freedom,” widely interpreted as a reference to the communist regime’s scores of political prisoners and dissidents, before offering the church’s assistance to Cuba in transitioning toward “authentic freedom.” “We want to help in a spirit of dialogue to avoid traumas and to help move forward a society which is fraternal and just, which is what we desire for the whole world,” he said. “It is obvious that the Church is always on the side of freedom, on the side of freedom of conscience, of freedom of religion, and we contribute in this sense.”
Critics, including many conservative Catholics, have expressed concerns over some of Pope Francis’ rhetoric, and, more recently, his joining with the United Nations “sustainability” crowd. Whether or not he will be as firm as his predecessor on Cuba remains to be seen. Perhaps an even bigger question, though, is whether Castro is willing to acknowledge that God — not his murderous communist regime — is supreme and sovereign. _____________________________________________________
New Pope Is A Pure Marxist; Calls for "Carbon Tax"; Praises Mahmoud Abbas as an "Angel of Light"
Published on May 22, 2015
Pope Francis praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as an “angel of peace” during a meeting Saturday at the Vatican that underscored the Holy See’s warm relations with the Palestinians. http://www.infowars.com/pope-calls-pa...
In a debate during the 2010 campaign, O'Malley referred to illegal immigrants as "new Americans", as he endorsed tougher enforcement against illegal immigration by the federal government. In May 2011, O'Malley signed a law that would make the children of illegal immigrants eligible for in-state college tuition under certain conditions.
O'Malley voiced his support for a bill considered by the General Assembly to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. O'Malley, a Catholic, was urged by the Archbishop of BaltimoreEdwin O'Brien not to support the bill in a private letter sent two days before O'Malley voiced his support. "I am well aware that the recent events in New York have intensified pressure on you to lend your active support to legislation to redefine marriage," O'Brien wrote. "As advocates for the truths we are compelled to uphold, we speak with equal intensity and urgency in opposition to your promoting a goal that so deeply conflicts with your faith, not to mention the best interests of our society." O'Malley responded, "I do not presume, nor would I ever presume as Governor, to question or infringe upon your freedom to define, to preach about, and to administer the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. But on the public issue of granting equal civil marital rights to same-sex couples, you and I disagree."
O'Malley, a long-time opponent of capital punishment, signed a bill on May 2, 2013, that repealed the death penalty in Maryland for all future offenders.
Martin O’Malley (shown at microphone), former Baltimore mayor and Maryland governor, told reporters on Tuesday that he will announce his candidacy for the Democrat Party’s presidential nomination over Memorial Day weekend.
Despite claims that he only recently had been considering the possibility of running against Hillary Clinton and liberal Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, O’Malley has been gearing up for this since August 2013. At a National Governors Association meeting in Milwaukee, he stated then that he was already laying “the framework” for a presidential run.
And so he has. In just the last 18 months, O’Malley has appeared in 23 states, notably in Iowa (where he already has a staff of 11 in place laying that groundwork), New Hampshire, and South Carolina, each conveniently holding early primaries for 2016.
On paper he appears to be a formidable opponent to Clinton, with his long list of progressive achievements.
As governor he signed into law a bill that makes certain illegal immigrants eligible for in-state college tuition and another legalizing same-sex "marriage" (even though he calls himself a Roman Catholic).
In order to close the state’s $1.7 billion deficit in 2008-2009, rather than cut government spending, he raised income, sales, and gasoline taxes.
He also implemented a traffic speed camera enforcement program to raise additional revenues.
He presided over the implementation of gun control laws that make it virtually impossible for Maryland residents to obtain a concealed carry permit.
He ended the state’s death penalty and raised the minimum wage to $10.10.
He earned an award from Planned Parenthood of Maryland and a 100-percent rating from the Maryland chapter of pro-abortion NARAL.
It also caught the attention of leftist publications such as Esquire magazine, which named him “The Best Young Mayor in Country” in 2002, and Time magazine, which put him into their list of America’s “Top 5 Big City Mayors.”
None of which was new news to Bill Clinton, who wrote to O’Malley while he was still Baltimore’s mayor: “I wouldn’t be surprised if you go all the way [to the White House].” In 2006, the Clintons helped him gain reelection as governor by hosting fundraisers, headlining political rallies, and connecting him with their massive network of Democrat sponsors and contributors. O’Malley won in a walk.
To return the favor, O’Malley endorsed Hillary in 2008, raising at least $500,000 for her campaign for president, defending her on cable news, and even travelling out of state to campaign for her.
O’Malley has at least two problems, however: name recognition and distinctiveness. Current polls show him in the low single digits among likely Democrat voters, while Hillary has an attractiveness rating among the same group of 84 percent. When asked what makes him different from Hillary in ways that will draw some of her supporters to his campaign, he replied:
The thing I believe presents something of value to my country, especially in these times, is my experience as an executive, and as somebody who was able to bring people together in order to get things done.
In other words, nothing whatsoever. Which can only mean that he has other purposes in mind. After all, as one of his supporters noted, O’Malley is “very much like Bill Clinton in being slow and deliberative and calculating in everything he does.”
He could be a sparring partner for Hillary in the primaries, giving her additional airtime and adding interest to a campaign that at present is vacuous. That would work, of course, only if he stayed away from her various and sundry issues, i.e., missing e-mails, Benghazi, her foundation, and her character.
Or he could be waiting for Hillary to stumble, which would put him squarely in contention against Sanders, the aging liberal war horse from Vermont.
Or he could be polishing his political skills and his name recognition for another run in 2020. He’s only 52. In 2020, Hillary will be 73, and Sanders would be 79.
Or he could be a foil in the media’s attempt to make the present campaign look like a real election rather than just a coronation.
In any event, liberal observers will likely welcome the airy, handsome, articulate, far-left political conniver to add spice and flavor to the Democrat Party’s so far lackluster campaign for the White House in 2016.
Taking a stand for religious liberty, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (shown) signed an executive order Tuesday granting new protections to businesses that do not wish to service faux weddings. The move came mere hours after the Louisiana House Civil Law and Procedure Committee killed a religious-freedom bill that would have accomplished the same goal.
Commenting on the legislators’ failure to act, Jindal said in a statement, "We are disappointed by the committee's action to return the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act to the calendar," reports GOP USA. Jindal continued, writes the website:
We will be issuing an executive order shortly that will accomplish the intent of HB 707 to prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.
This executive order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
As to why it was left to Jindal to do what the legislature wouldn’t, the Weekwrites that “the panel said it was concerned the so-called religious freedom bill could trigger a backlash similar to those seen in other states that pursued religious freedom laws this year. In the most high-profile case, Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) dropped his defense of a religious freedom law and called for it to be tweaked to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
Where Pence was weak-kneed, however, Jindal has struck a note of resolve and defiance. He stated to a cheering crowd while advocating the religious-freedom bill over the weekend, “I’ll also say this to these corporations that have told me and Louisiana they don’t want us to pass our own bill protecting the rights of individuals and businesses who support the traditional view of marriage: Don’t even waste your breath trying to bully the governor of Louisiana. We’re going to come down on the side of the First Amendment.”
While Jindal’s order might be called politics — it came just a day after he formed an exploratory committee for a potential 2016 presidential run — and might even be called bad politics, given the United States' leftward drift, his claim is correct: He is protecting a legitimate constitutionally protected right.
The same, however, cannot be said for his opponents. While cries of “discrimination” have been very effective at cowing religious-freedom advocates, the reality is the latter’s bills simply protect a long-standing American freedom. They aren’t taking any liberty away — guilty of that trespass is the other side.
A certain fact should be made crystal clear. Opponents of religious-freedom bills are the very people making them necessary by doing something unprecedented in American history:
Forcing business owners to be party to events they find morally objectionable.
That this had never happened before cannot be over-emphasized. Anyone who appreciates freedom of association, such as economist Dr. Walter E. Williams, accepts that businessmen ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they please for any reason they may have; after all, it’s their business, created with their own money and by the sweat of their own brow. Nonetheless, discrimination against people was never the issue with respect to religious-freedom laws. For sure, the Christian businesses that have found themselves in the crosshairs in recent times have had a history of serving homosexual persons — they only balk at serving homosexual affairs.
In light of this and drawing analogies, many have asked: Would you force a Jewish or black businessman to service a Nazi or KKK event? For that matter, would anyone compel a Christian businessman to service an affair celebrating adultery or fornication? The Left clearly would not.
This brings us to a point. Anti-discrimination law has given us that 14th-Amendment violation known as “protected classes” in our supposedly classless society; these are classes — such as racial and sex-defined ones (homosexuals) — that businesses may not discriminate against. Other classes, obviously, would be “unprotected” and thus fair game. Yet now it might appear as if we also have “protected events.”
Except that it’s not that simple. Just consider these videos of Muslim bakers in Dearborn, Michigan, refusing to service faux weddings. Even though they were posted at the very time Christian bakers were being castigated in the news for acting likewise, the media was wholly uninterested. So if we couldn’t figure out the irresistible force/immovable object philosophical question, at least we now know what happens when a protected event meets a protected group.
Moreover, it isn’t just the media, either. As I reported last month, “Apple Corporation CEO Tim Cook recently inveighed against the religious-freedom laws in Indiana and Arkansas, yet he readily does business in Muslim countries that make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. It seems Cook’s principles take a back seat to his pocketbook.”
Meanwhile, Christian bakers, florists, and others have been, or risk being, put out of business simply for doing what everyone else does: Running their own business in accordance with their consciences’ dictates. So where does the truly unjust discrimination lie? In Christians who apply the same standard to all sinful events?
Or in governments that rob freedoms from some but not others, applying different standards to different “classes” of Americans?
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In the beginning, the homosexual agenda was about the right to be an “out” homosexual without government interference.
Now it’s about using the government to prohibit efforts to get out of homosexuality.
And the latest attack on this front is the ominously named “Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act” (TFPA), which would ban same-sex-attraction and “gender identity” reparative therapy. This is psychological counseling whose goal is to help people mitigate or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions or the phenomenon whereby a person’s perceived sex doesn’t match his actual one.
The TFPA was introduced in Congress today by Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who authored his state’s 2012 ban on reparative therapy. After the Golden State’s action, D.C. and New Jersey (with Governor Chris Christie’s signature) followed suit in prohibiting the therapy, and a similar ban is in front of openly bisexual governor Kate Brown of Oregon.
Yet while the above bills prohibit only reparative therapy for minors, according to Philly’s Josh Middleton, the TFPA would apply to all ages. Moreover, while the wisdom of such bans should be questioned, there’s no question that states have the constitutional power to enact them. Yet nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government empowered to involve itself in such matters.
As to what this involvement would be, Middleton provides some details, writing, “The ‘Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act,’ explains the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), ‘would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to clarify that providing conversion [reparative] therapy to any person in exchange for monetary compensation or advertising such services is an unfair or deceptive act or practice. This legislation would give the Federal Trade Commission the duty to enforce this provision in accordance with existing law.’”
Of course, labeling the therapy “deceptive,” critics would say, is deception itself; it’s predicated on the unproven notions that same-sex attraction and “gender identity” are always inborn and unchangeable, and that trying to alter them has negative psychological effects.
Adding to the deception, Lieu states at his website that reparative therapy “is a dangerous but often overlooked form of discrimination against LGBT Americans.” Yet this turns truth on its head. No one is forcing anyone else to participate in therapy. It is Lieu’s bill that discriminates by, as Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, put it, taking “away the rights of parents and children to receive help.”
Lieu calls reparative therapy “crappery” while Griggs position is that his “legislation was not based on science,”writes the Washington Times. So where does the junk science truly lie?
One fashionable idea underpinning Lieu’s argument is that homosexuality, and this could apply to "gender identity" as well, is inborn. Yet despite media obfuscation, no “gay gene” (pertaining to happiness or homosexuality) has been discovered. In fact, a 2001 Columbia University study found that among identical twins (who share identical genetics), the same-sex attraction experienced by one was shared by the other only 10 percent of the time. And while there are theories regarding how intrauterine hormonal anomalies might lead to a lack of masculinization of a boy’s brain — creating a lad who supposedly has a “female brain” — brain scans aren’t used in particular cases to prove the innateness of homosexuality or “gender identity” (note: this usage of “gender” is agenda-driven. The term should be applied only to words). So, put simply, the science is inconclusive.
But history may not be. For example, homosexuality was institutionalized in ancient Spartan military camps, and it wasn’t uncommon for Athenian men to chase after adolescent boys. Does this mean that most all ancient Greeks had a “gay gene”?
Let’s accept for argument’s sake, however, the supposition that homosexuality can be inborn. Given the historical point above, and common sense’s dictates, would anyone say that same-sex attraction could not be a purely psychological phenomenon in even 1 out of 10,000 cases? That would be a truly radical assertion. But if it is possible, then it could be so in 2 out of 10,000 as well, no? Or it could be 10, 20, or 50.
The point is that science can’t say — and Ted Lieu certainly doesn’t know. Yet he would deny psychological help to those in whom same-sex attraction is a purely psychological phenomenon.
But what if it is inborn, at least in certain cases? Isn’t trying to change it then a trespass? Well, this philosophy isn’t applied to most anything else. There are many inborn abnormalities, such as cleft lip, Spina bifida, Down syndrome, club foot, and Tay-Sachs disease. We happily remedy them whenever possible, unimpeded by people saying, as activists do when justifying homosexual behavior, “God doesn’t make mistakes.”
Speaking of which, one also might ask: If “God doesn’t make mistakes” (and, presumably, everything is ordained), why do the same activists advocate so-called “gender-reassignment surgery”? Shouldn’t we conclude that if God wanted you to be a member of the opposite sex, He would have created you that way? And consider further the contradiction: Lieu and his fellow travelers would forbid doctors from trying to change people’s minds — which could be a purely psychological process — but happily allow doctors to change their bodies, which certainly are innately determined.
The reality is that inborn status tells us nothing about correctness. Factors between the ears are no exception, either, and it’s particularly dangerous to assume otherwise in their case. As I wrote in February:
The same social scientists telling us homosexuality is innate also claim that psychopaths are born and not made. Does this make psychopathy a legitimate state of being? And what if it’s found that some people are born with homicidal instincts? Would it be okay for them to commit murder?
... Then there’s this study indicating that racial bias is innate. Will the Left now move to rescind anti-discrimination law?
Some may now say murder and racial discrimination are different because they hurt another person. (Of course, others assert that engaging in deviant sexual behavior with another also hurts the person.) But if what “hurts” others is to be our yardstick for determining rightness, then the inborn argument becomes irrelevant. As I continued:
After all, whether or not an action reflects inborn urges tells us nothing about whether or not it hurts another.
Stating the obvious, the inborn argument could be applied to anything inborn. Logically translated it says: If a feeling is innate, the actions associated with it are okay. This eliminates morality completely and replaces it with biological determinism (BD). This is why accepting the BD argument means accepting everything that can be proven to be inborn — even if it’s pedophilia, bestiality, or murder. It’s just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying “If it feels good, do it.” But biology does not determine morality.
Unfortunately, morality doesn’t generally determine politicians’ actions. The good news is that as with sexual feelings but with far less difficulty, politicians can be changed.