Monday, August 4, 2014

Robert Cornuke Proposes Different Location for Jerusalem Temple

TEMPLE: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything About the Location of Solomon's TemplePaperback– April 30, 2014
In a book that is being heralded as "an investigative maserpiece" with "astounding archaeological and prophetic implications," TEMPLE: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything About the Location of Solomon's Temple, by Robert Cornuke, is sending shockwaves through the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian worlds.

Can you imagine the upheaval in political and religious thinking if the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is not the site of Solomon's and Herod's temples? And what if the stones of the Wailing Wall are not what tradition says? In this highly-researched, exciting book, the author proposes from current archaeological excavations and Scriptural corroboration that the true temple location is not where tradition teaches. This is must reading for anyone who wants to fit together the pieces of biblical records, current geo-polotics, and prophecy.

Says the author, "Let the adventure begin as we now take the Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other and dig up some long-lost buried bones of biblical history. Along the way we will walk unknown passageways, known only to the prophets of old, as we search for the true location of the lost temples of Solomon and Herod. We will also lift a candle into the dim recesses of history and uncover secrets about the Ark of the Covenant and the gold Mercy Seat's prophetic obligation as it relates to the future Millennial temple."

....

Taken from: http://www.amazon.com/TEMPLE-Discoveries-Everything-Location-Solomons/dp/193977909X

Pope Francis: ‘Put the Needs of the Poor Ahead of Our Own’


 

Holy Father says the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes is all about compassion, sharing and the Eucharist.


08/04/2014 Comment

Intermirifica.net

He clarified that this compassion of God is not merely a feeling of pity, but is, as the word suggests, a suffering with that “identifies with the suffering of others, to the point of taking it upon himself.”
“Thus is Jesus: He suffers among us; he suffers with us; he suffers for us.”
Then the Pope asked, “When we talk of the poor, do we feel for that man, that woman, those babies, who lack the necessities of life, who do not have food to eat, do not have clothing, do not have the possibility of getting medicine … also those children who do not have the possibility of going to school?”
Follwing this question, the Pope moved on to reflect on the second theme of the Gospel: sharing.
Contrasting the reactions to the crowd of the disciples and of Christ, he said they are “two different reactions, which reflect two opposing logics: The disciples are thinking according to the world, for which everyone has to take care of himself; Jesus thinks according to the logic of God, which is that of sharing.”
“How often do we turn away so that we do not see the brethren in need?” the Holy Father asked.
This, Pope Francis said, “is not of Jesus: This is egoism.”
The multiplication “ is no magic trick, but a ‘sign’: a sign that invites us to have faith in God, the provident Father, who will not force us to go without ‘our daily bread,’ if we know how to share it as brethren.”
Finally, the Pope turned to the final theme of his Angelus message: the Mass, saying the scene “prefigures the Eucharist.”
“We must go to the Eucharist with the sentiments of Jesus, that is, with compassion and the will to share,” he emphasized. One who “approaches the Eucharist without compassion for the needy and without sharing will not find themselves well with Jesus.”
Compassion, sharing and the Eucharist, Pope Francis said, are part of “the way which leads us to fraternity with the needs of this world yet which takes us beyond this world, because it comes from God the Father and returns to him.”
He concluded: “May the Virgin Mary, Mother of divine Providence, accompany us on this way.”

....
 

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Global Sexual Revolution and Gender Ideology. An Enlightening Book

Monday, 23 September 2013 18:32 Antonio Malo (*)
E-mail Print


By Antonio Malo (*)

Gabriele Kuby is a German sociologist and publicist as well as one of the most renowned authorities on criticizing the today’s Western relativism. For example, it is thanks to her that the Federal Minister for the Family, Ursula von der Leyen was forced to remove from circulation the sex education book Body, Love and Playing Doctor, which amongst other aberrations encouraged parents to engage in sexually orientated games with their children.
The Global Sexual Revolution has the same subject as two of her previous publications: Gender Revolution (2006) and Nationalization of Education. On the Way Becoming New Men (2007). As the title of this latest publication states, we face a worldwide revolution, which, as the subtitle indicates (Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom) claims to radically change people and society by levering on a will of power, of a clearly Nietzschean inspiration. It is from this interpretative key that Kuby tells the history, the methods and the consequences of a powerful global agenda which seeks to modify the constitutions of countries, educational institutions and social norms of people with one unique aim: the construction of a global society where people are completely (or almost) manipulated.

kuby
Gabriele Kuby, The Global Sexual Revolution. Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom, preface by Robert Spaemann, Fe-medienverlag, Kiblegg 2010, pp. 453.

A reader might think that it is the usual book about plots and intrigues but it is sufficient to see the quantity of documents analysed, the facts and statistics gathered to understand that this a book which has been objectively and rigorously written. Despite the vast quantity of information material, the reading of the book is far from being boring and each page is filled with suspense and startling revelations. The reader is informed about the backstage, the means, and the intricate web of government organisations and non-governmental organisations involved in this global agenda. In the first part of the book (chapters 1-4), Kuby briefly describes the historical framework of today’s sexual revolution: the French Revolution as the beginning of the fight for equality and the feminist movement in 1968 as the preliminary stage towards gender ideology. According to this movement, Humanity is no longer made up of men and women but of a mass of equals which have the right to construct their own sexual identity. In other words, gender theory recognises not two sexual identities but many gender identities: lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transsexual men and women. The author states that the connection between the 1968 movement and ideology of gender is Malthusianism, i.e. the attempt to diminish the world population, above all the poor in the Western world and in developing countries. The author quotes numerous renowned writers such as Magret Sanger, Alexandra Kollonti, Wilhelm Reich, Eddie Bernays, Simone de Beauvoir, John Money, Judith Butler and others who support this point of view. The global impulse of sexual revolution does not proceed solely by ideas but also through conferences organised by The United Nations (Peking, Cairo, etc.) who deconstruct human rights, deregulate norms of sexuality and the family. And as a consequence, various slogans have reached the four corners of the world such as abortion is a woman’s right, “gender” should not be imposed but a choice. In spite of the past centuries, the methods of the global sexual revolution are the same as those used by the old French Revolution: the use of terror. Today, however, the guillotine is not used to cut off the opponents’ heads but simply their jobs, academic or political careers.
In the second part of the book (chapters 5-10), Kuby continues her analysis of organisms and documents, which try to introduce gender theory. One of these is the 29 principles of Yogyakarta (on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) which were formulated in 2007 by a group of “human rights experts” without any authorisation or legitimacy in a private meeting in the town of Yogyakarta. In March of the same year, these principles were presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. The media gave the impression it was an official document when it was nothing of the sort. From this, the European Union accepted immediately these principles and sought to implement them in various institutions, hospitals and tribunal courts, etc… and in nurseries and schools. Kuby explains that the reason for this lies in the attempt to destroy the values that the family is based on and in order to do this, it is necessary to mine the heterosexual union (an immense task to fulfil when the majority of adults are heterosexual). Children and adolescents, on the other hand, are easily influenced and we can imagine the consequences if the ministry of family policies shares the same ideology. In a hyper-sexualised society, children are sexualised by the entertainment industry, the media and compulsory sex education programs. The latter is used to mine parental authority. Children are sexualised through games, stories and plays in schools and nursery playgrounds. Children are exposed and encouraged to engage in deviant sexual practice and as such their personality can have irreversible changes. In this way, children’s innocence is taken away from them. By implementing gender mainstreaming, “language is corrupted in the service of political mass manipulation”. Pornography too plays a decisive role in corrupting the values of the family today. Not surprisingly, Kuby defines them as the new global sore of society. Through the creation of neologisms like “gender” and substituting words like parent A (father) and parent B (mother) is simply a way to corrupt words and give them the origins to “new realities”. As – ideologists of each era have always thought- “it is not the truth which makes us free, but freedom which makes the truth”.
In the last part of the book (chapters 11-15), Kuby analyses the arms which a totalitarian agenda uses to fight its rebels: intolerance and discrimination. As the author explains there is a paradox (see subtitle of book), i.e. the idea of taking away freedom in the name of freedom. In order to fight against this ideology which makes sex an instrument to impose a new anthropological conception, the author strongly advises the reader to look deep and hard into themselves, to their conscience to seek the “true, faithful, life-giving love…….for it is a battle for the dignity of man, the family and our children”. In other words, Kuby’s antidote to gender ideology is to educate about love and not about sexuality.
As Spaemann writes in the preface, Kuby has to be thanked for having the courage to speak up against this new ideology by offering an illuminating essay that reveals the importance of linguistic, pedagogical and academic changes which, at first sight, seem to be only a little bizarre. What in actual fact we find out is that there are many governments, parties, organisations, groups and associations which are all involved in the construction of a new humanity.
I think that this book deserves to be translated in various languages and would like to make two suggestions to the author. The first point is to review the last chapters to give a better form to the ideas in order to avoid repeating them. The second point is to give a better definition of the two types of feminism: those who fought for and continue to fight for the recognition of political and social rights of women, i.e. the equality of woman as a person, and the other more radical type which imitates the degenerated masculine sexuality for which sex is simply for sexual pleasure without responsibility or consequence. In this way, I think it would make clear what constitutes to be the feminine genius: the act of self-giving; the assertion of which is far from being an obstacle to love but rather its premise.

(*) Professor of Philosophical Anthropology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Rome)


....


Pope Francis condemns ‘gender ideology' as 'demonic’



Austrian bishop Andreas Laun              


 
VATICAN – Pope Francis strongly condemned “gender ideology” in a private conversation with Austrian Bishop Andreas Laun earlier this year, the bishop related in a recent essay.
In doing so, the pope follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI. Nearing the end of his pontificate, the pope emeritus spoke twice about gender ideology as “a negative trend for humankind,” and a “profound falsehood,” which “it is the duty of pastors of the Church” to put the faithful “on guard against.”
Bishop Laun, auxiliary bishop of Salzburg, wrote about the words of Pope Francis in March in an essay for the German Catholic news publication Kath.net. Bishop Laun told LifeSiteNews that he met the pope briefly on January 30 as part of the Austrian bishops’ ad limina visit, a meeting with the pope that bishops must do every five years.  Laun added that he was the last of the bishops to speak with the Holy Father.
Pope Francis incense

“In response to my questioning, Pope Francis said, ‘Gender ideology is demonic!’” Bishop Laun wrote in his essay, adding that the pope was not exaggerating in his comment. Steve Jalsevac/LifeSiteNews.com

Bishop Laun, auxiliary bishop of Salzburg, wrote about the words of Pope Francis in March in an essay for the German Catholic news publication Kath.net. Bishop Laun told LifeSiteNews that he met the pope briefly on January 30 as part of the Austrian bishops’ ad limina visit, a meeting with the pope that bishops must do every five years.  Laun added that he was the last of the bishops to speak with the Holy Father.

“In response to my questioning, Pope Francis said, ‘Gender ideology is demonic!’” Laun wrote in his essay, adding that the pope was not exaggerating in his comment.  “Indeed, gender ideology is the destruction of persons, which is why Pope Francis was justified in calling it demonic,” he said.
Writing of gender ideology, Bishop Laun explained that “the core thesis of this sick product of reason is the end result of a radical feminism which the homosexual lobby has made its own.”
“It asserts that there are not only Man and Woman, but also other ‘genders’. And furthermore: every person can choose his or her gender,” he added.
“Today,” he said, “it is promoted by governments and VIPs and substantial amounts of money are spent on spreading it, even in teaching materials for kindergartens and schools.”
For more information on the subject, Bishop Laun encouraged the reading of the latest book by famed German Catholic sociologist Gabriele Kuby, Die globale sexuelle Revolution: Zerstörung der Freiheit im Namen der Freiheit (The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom).
Kuby, a long-time acquaintance of Pope Benedict, formally presented the now-pope-emeritus with a copy of the book in November 2012. “Thanks be to God that you write and speak (about these things),” Pope Benedict said to her.
For Kuby it is no shocking thing to call gender ideology demonic.
“Gender ideology is the deepest rebellion against God that is possible,” Kuby told LifeSiteNews. “Man does not accept that he is created as man or woman, no, he says, ‘I decide! This is my freedom!’ - against experience, against nature, against reason, against science!”
“It is the ultimate perversion of individualism,” she explained, “It robs man of the last remnant of his identity, that is, to be a man and a woman, after having lost faith and family and nation.”
“It is indeed diabolical,” she concluded, “that an ideology, which every person can discern as a lie, can capture the common sense of people and become the dominant ideology of our time.”
In his December 21, 2012 address to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict gave an extensive warning on the use of the “term ‘gender’ as a new philosophy of sexuality.”
“According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society,” he said. “The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious.”
The pope continued:
People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question.
Benedict XVI noted the philosophy’s harm on human dignity, family, and children. ”When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being.”
Pope Benedict again addressed gender ideology a month later in a January 19, 2013 address.  “It is the duty of pastors of the Church,” said Pope Benedict, “to put the Catholic faithful and every person of good will and right reason on guard against the trend of these ideologies.”
“It is a negative trend for humankind, although it may be disguised by good feelings in the name of alleged progress, alleged rights, or an alleged humanism,” he said. “Thus the Church reaffirms her great ‘yes’ to the dignity and beauty of marriage as an expression of the faithful and generous bond between man and woman, and her no to ‘gender’ philosophies, because the reciprocity between male and female is an expression of the beauty of nature willed by the Creator.”


John-Henry Westen
By John-Henry Westen 

...

Taken from: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/austrian-bishop-pope-francis-told-me-gender-ideology-is-demonic

The ‘culture of death’ wilfully rejects the truth about man

Architects of the Culture of Death. By Donald De Marco and Benjamin D. Wiker, Ignatius Press. Distributed by Family Publications, £11.95.

In their introduction to this volume the authors, the former a philosophy professor and the latter a science and theology lecturer, quote from the Didache, a first century manual for those considering becoming Christians: “You shall not commit adultery. You shall not corrupt boys. You shall not commit fornication…You shall not use magic. You shall not administer drugs [magic potions, contraceptives and abortifacients]. You shall not slaughter a child in abortion, nor slay a begotten one…”It is a chastening list for, after 2,000 years of Christianity, which has given us sublime teaching and great saints to exemplify it, the Western world in our times has slipped back into the spiritual darkness and immorality of the pagan world. How could this have happened? This book singles out the men and women of the last 200 years whose theories and ideas have been so potent and so poisonous in subverting our formerly Christian culture.

Expanded from articles published in the National Catholic Register, the authors bring together all these ‘architects of the culture of death’ in their arresting phrase, so that, like the disgraced Nazi leaders in the dock at Nuremburg, we can learn to recognise them and to understand why they stand indicted at the bar of our moral judgement. They are divided into seven different categories: will worshippers, evolutionists, secular utopians, atheistic existentialists, pleasure seekers, sex planners and death peddlers.
Some are famous names and formidable intellects, such as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud and Sartre; others, like Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Kinsey and Margaret Mead, have been shown to be academic charlatans, inventing pseudo-scientific theories backed by spurious research, to suit their own perverse inclinations. Yet others, like Helen Gurley Brown, long-time editor of Cosmopolitan and creator of the ‘Cosmo girl’, or Dr Jack Kevorkian, inventor of the ‘mercitron’ or death machine, could only have come to prominence in a culture that has already lost its moral bearings. Of this latter, a fellow doctor confesses, “I feel the deepest shame in my profession that [Kevorkian] should be counted a member.”
The authors tackle five major themes: militant atheism, the isolation of the will from the consequences of its choices, making freedom into an absolute, the obsession with sex and the erosion of the sense of human dignity. They do not simply set out to write potted histories of these pernicious ideas; they include biographical material on each of their subjects so that readers can see how theories which have borne such Dead Sea fruit arise from particular lives – lives that were generally warped, solitary, bitter and selfish.
As might be expected, the personalities examined in these pages are largely unattractive: both domineering and egocentric. Charles Darwin, happily married with a large family, is an exception; yet his hypotheses on evolution and the survival of the fittest are no less baneful in their influence than those of Margaret Sanger, the strident champion of eugenics and birth control. Professor Peter Singer, who makes no distinction between human and animal life and who advocates infanticide for the disabled, merely takes Darwinism to its logical conclusion.
The ‘culture of death’ in all its insidious disguises, whether Freud’s reductive analysis of human nature or Marx’s advocacy of violent class conflict, wilfully rejects the truth about man: his inherent dignity as a person made in the image and likeness of God and therefore having an immortal destiny. This traditional Christian teaching throughout the ages has been deepened and developed during the providential pontificate of our present Holy Father, through his philosophy of ‘Personalism’.
Living under both Fascism and Communism and acquainted with the consequences of unfettered individualism in the West, John Paul II knows how ideology always depersonalises – and therefore betrays - the persons it purports to serve. The authors contrast the supernatural attractiveness of the Pope’s teaching with the hollowness of the enemies of truth that is exposed in these pages.
Marx, who had the valid insight to see that there is deep injustice in the workplace, did not understand that “there can be no justice without love”. The true hope for mankind lies in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with its call to selflessness and love of neighbour, its culture of life. “Our primary task as persons is to participate lovingly in each other’s lives”, state the authors. The central human drama, they emphasise, is to “make the journey from selfish egoism to loving personhood.” This drama is played out in every human soul. “Morality begins when people are generous and loving, when they exercise their duties to be decent, rather than their rights not to be inconvenienced”, the book observes, in contrast to the chilling, pro-euthanasia remark that “some individuals have a duty to die”.
What unites the individuals described in this book is their decision to reject a loving creator-God and then refashion Him in their own image: gross, distorted parodies, leading not to life and love but to death. Death is often literally the case; Derek Humphrey’s book, Final Exit, which extols the ‘virtue’ of euthanasia and which was the best-selling non-fiction book in the US in 1991, has been a suicide handbook for hundreds of people. As an undergraduate, I recall picking up Jean-Paul Sartre’s autobiography, Words; reading this clever, cold testimony made me feel so depressed that I abandoned it halfway through. Such is the power of words adrift from the Word of God that is Christ.
People yearn for truth; famished souls, longing to discover the meaning of their lives, will seize on any half-baked, garbled statement and invest it with significance far greater than it deserves. Ayn Rand’s cult book among college students of the 1960s, Atlas Shrugged, articulates the ludicrous principle that “…I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Students especially should read this volume: idealistic, critical of hypocrisy, open to new ideas yet often without a solid foundation on which to test them, they will find it a sure and revelatory guide as they tackle their reading lists or encounter another cult book on the campus.
The women depicted in the book are, if anything, more lonely and embittered than the men: Ayn Rand, who announced that man ‘is a self-made soul’; Simone de Beauvoir, who wanted to ‘liberate women from reproductive servitude’; Helen Gurley Brown, who preached ‘sex, money and success’ to young women in her widely read magazine, all rejected the fulfilment of either spiritual or natural motherhood and this is reflected in their disordered and unhappy personal lives. They are testimony to the ravages wrought by feminism and its repudiation of true womanhood. Judith Jarvis Thomson, a philosophy professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of a highly influential defence of abortion, who regards the embryo as an alien invader of its mother’s body, is “compelled to rationalise the death of the person as a locus of love and generosity…If our souls are dead, we will surely be dead to the iniquities of abortion.”
In these brief, clear summaries of the writings and influence of those who have hugely contributed to the present moral and spiritual decay of our society, the authors underline a stark truth: if you cut yourself off from God you are most likely to end up also being cut off from your fellow-man. “No man is an island”, the poet John Donne wrote – except, one might add, those who choose to be; this where hell begins. To close off the ‘I’ from the ‘Thou’ – Icheinsamkeit (I-aloneness) – is, as the authors observe, the path to insanity - and perdition.

Christians must not delude themselves that they can somehow remain untouched by the ‘culture of death’. We, too, become its architects if we do not fight it. In the film ‘Judgement at Nuremburg’ the moment of truth occurs when Spencer Tracy, a small-town American judge, confronts Burt Lancaster, a judge in the Third Reich, and reminds him that the horrors of the Nazi period began with the tiny lies, intellectual subterfuges and compromises of ordinary living. This is where our battle begins.

....

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Worshipping the State

How Liberalism Became Our State Religion – April 5, 2013

Dr. Benjamin Wiker

Dr. Benjamin Wiker is one of the most popular speakers ever to appear on the campus of Colorado Christian University. He is enthusiastically remembered for his presentation on Ten Books That Screwed Up The World. Returning to CCU in April, Dr. Wiker will analyze “How Liberalism Became Our State Religion” and offer a "simple, step-by-step strategy for disestablishing the state church of secularism."
 
....
 
 
 
 
Praise for Worshipping the State

This wide-ranging and clearly-written account of the intellectual background of recent efforts to drive Christianity from public life makes clear the depth of the problem. Wiker's account covers figures from Machiavelli through Spinoza, Locke, Jefferson, and the founders of today's education system, and emphasizes the ways in which influential anti-Christian thinkers who may seem very different from each other agree on basic issues. It is a sobering call for the transformation of political and academic life that should be taken seriously by anyone alarmed by the current plunge into the soft totalitarianism of radical secularism.”
James Kalb, author of The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command
Ben Wiker’s book is a no-holds-barred assault on liberalism, as the established (secularist) religion of our times. Current discussions of American public philosophy have to confront these fundamental questions: Has liberalism taken an unfortunate turn – one that was not inevitable – and can it be rehabilitated? Or was it rotten at its core, from the start, and therefore irredeemable? This book lays out, with power and passion, one way of answering those questions, and deserves to be part of that discussion.”
Christopher Wolfe, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, Co-director of the Thomas International Center, and author of Natural Law Liberalism (Cambridge)
Benjamin Wiker's book is the most forthright and unblinking analysis yet published of the ubiquitous assault on religion in American society. Not only every religious believer but every believer in religious liberty should read it.'
James Hitchcock, Professor of History, St. Louis University and author of What is Secular Humanism?, The Recovery of the Sacred, and The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life.

Christianity is being deliberately pushed out of our culture—so that secular liberalism can be established in its place. I use the term “establish” quite deliberately. One religion is being actively disestablished, while another is being (in fact, largely has been) established in its place.

Liberalism is more than a political persuasion. It’s a religion with its own doctrines about cosmology and morality. I am aware that this is a controversial claim; it will take the bulk of this book to prove it.
The religious nature of liberalism is obscured by liberals' ostensible embrace of neutrality, pluralism, and tolerance. These are the reasons given for the disestablishment of Christianity. But what actually occurs is that ‘neutrality, pluralism, and tolerance’ are inevitably used as instruments for establishing liberal doctrines and dogmas in the place of Christian ones.
But just exactly what is liberalism? Historians have difficulty pinning down a definition that clears up the many different ways the term ‘liberal’ has been applied. To help clear up this confusion, we are going to have to do a little history, and the key to understanding the historical development of liberalism is the above-noted animosity of liberalism to Christianity.
When we follow the development from contemporary liberalism to its roots, we discover that the liberals in ascendancy in America today are the intellectual heirs of a way of thinking that from the beginning has been characterized by a desire to be free from the burden of Christianity. (Liber in Latin means free.) Anti-Christian liberalism is much older than the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. It arose about five hundred years ago within an almost entirely Christianized culture. As a rebellion against Christianity, its negative goal defined its positive form: the desire to remove the church and replace it with the state gave liberalism its structure, beliefs, and goals.
Freedom from Christianity defines the political goal of liberalism. As the liberal state takes over the form and functions of the church, it excludes the actual Christian church from having any presence or influence in the public square. In its most virulent forms it actually persecutes Christians, as if Christianity were a kind of heresy deviating from the liberal religion.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I: The War on Christianity
Chapter 1: Reading the Signs of Our Times
Part II: Christianity Destroys the Pagan Idol of the State
Chapter 2: Back to the Beginning: the Church versus Pagan Imperial Rome
Chapter 3: How the Bible Kept the Church from Becoming a Department of the State
Chapter 4: From the Conversion of Constantine to the Fall of Rome

Chapter 5: The Middle Ages: Defining the Church-State Distinction

Part III: The Rise of Liberalism and the Re-Paganization of the State

Chapter 6: Machiavelli Invents the Secular State and Its Church
Chapter 7: From Henry VIII to Thomas Hobbes: the State Church, Leviathan, and the Sovereign Individual
Chapter 8: Spinoza: the Liberal Elite and the Established Secular Church
Chapter 9: Rousseau’s Radical Liberalism: Establishing Civil Religion
Part IV: The New Big Picture
Chapter 10: Liberalism Triumphs in the Modern World
Chapter 11: Sorting Out the Confusions
Chapter 12: John Locke and the Two Faces of Liberalism
Part IV: Liberalism Comes to America
Chapter 13: The First Wave: Locke, Deism, and the Founders
Chapter 14: The Second Wave: Radicals at the Universities
Chapter 15: Secularization, American Style
Part VI: Disestablishment
Chapter 16: Disestablishing Secular Liberalism

....

Taken from: http://www.benjaminwiker.com/worshipping-the-state.html

The ‘Pope Francis effect’—changing the way the world sees the papacy


 
By Phil Lawler (bioarticlesemail) | Jul 29, 2014
 
….
 
A long-overdue reform of the Vatican’s media operations is still only in the planning stages, yet the “Pope Francis effect” has already become evident in the way the Vatican handles the news.
Take a look at today’s statement from the Vatican Information Service (VIS), about the Pope’s visit to the Church of Reconciliation in Caserta. The Vatican release summarizes the Pope’s remarks to the Evangelical congregation. Of course. That’s what you would expect.
But what you would not expect, if you read Vatican releases on a regular basis, is equal treatment for the remarks of the Pope’s host, Pastor Giovanni Traettino. I have been reading VIS releases on a daily basis for nearly 20 years now, and I can testify that in the past, when the Pope has been one of two or more speakers at a public event, the Vatican barely mentions the others; the focus is always on the Pontiff. A speech by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople or the Cardinal Secretary of State may merit a summary, but never as much coverage as the Pope’s talk. Yet here the Vatican news service took pains to provide a fair summary of the talk given by an Evangelical pastor. L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage was remarkably similar, devoting roughly equal space to the Pope’s remarks and those of Pastor Traettino.
Now if you’re tempted to think that the Vatican is slipping into religious indifferentism, by putting a Protestant minister on equal footing with the Pope, please stop. VIS is a news service, serving the needs of journalists. A statement by the Roman Pontiff is certainly more authoritative than one by a Protestant leader, but it is not necessarily more newsworthy. The Vatican evidently wanted to call attention to the words with which Pastor Traettino greeted the Pope.
Still I have no question that this new approach represents a shift in the way Vatican officials view the papal office—a shift that Pope Francis is doing everything that he can to encourage. The “old” approach treats the Pope like an 18th-century monarch, and suggests that when he is in the room, everyone else present pales into insignificance. The “new” approach treats the Pontiff as an ordinary human being—admittedly one with extraordinary responsibility and commensurate authority—in conversation with other human beings who might have interesting things to say.
Clearly Pope Francis is on a campaign to remind the world—and, yes, to remind his aides at the Vatican—that the Bishop of Rome is not a temporal potentate, and the spiritual authority of the papacy should not be camouflaged by the trappings of an archaic monarchy. That message, I sense, is beginning to sink in.
Ready for another illustration of my point? Check out this report from Vatican Radio, on the Pope’s earlier visit with Catholic priests in Caserta. To be more specific, take a good look at the photo that appears on the top of the Vatican Radio report. Do you notice anything unusual?
I do. The Holy Father is sitting beside another bishop (I assume that’s Bishop Giovanni D’Alise of Caserta) at a small table. The Pope is not seated on a throne, not set apart, not alone on a raised platform, not even on a higher chair. He is seated beside his brother bishop as any other man might be seated beside a colleague at a business meeting. At first glance it seems so natural, and in fact it is. But again I can testify that in 20+ years of following news from the Vatican, I cannot recall similar staging for any public appearance by a Roman Pontiff.
Some good Catholics regret this Pope’s approach, I realize. Some people love the traditional honors reserved for the Roman Pontiff. For myself, I have trouble imagining St. Peter in a cappa magna let alone a sedia gestatoria. Traditions can enrich us, but they can also sometimes imprison us. If the “old ways” of the Vatican have interfered with the exercise of the Pope’s spiritual leadership, then the changes wrought by the “Pope Francis effect” may be a tonic.
 
….
 
Taken from: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1046