Sunday, July 31, 2016

Feminism and Female Ordination: A Gateway to the Church's Destruction

A cause célèbre of modern feminism has long been the ordination of female priests based on the idea that it is just another "glass ceiling" preventing women from being the equal of men. This is not really a new development since there have been those who have pushed for the ordination of women since the earliest days of the Church, but it is different in that it has become a politicized issue. This is due in no small part to the fact that the New Testament is clear on the matter, and there are those who have their own reasons for wanting to separate Christianity from its traditional moorings.

For example, 1 Timothy 2:12 says to "suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Similarly, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." The latter idea is reinforced by 1 Corinthians 11:3, which says that "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." In Genesis 3:16, God also told Eve that Adam "shall rule over thee."

These passages raise some rather obvious problems for proponents of female clergy. How could any priest fulfill their duties if they could neither teach nor shepherd their flock? How would a priest be able to give a sermon if they are not meant to speak in a church? The fact that the passages are so blatant is precisely why modern feminism has attached itself to this issue. If they can convince all manner of religious faithful to not only reject but flaunt their rejection of the Bible on this issue, it would be all the easier to achieve the same thing on other issues that are close to their hearts, not the least of which is the effort to proclaim that homosexuality is not a sin and must be embraced.

Indeed, a leftist Romanian homosexual (living in Spain) and his gaggle of leftist American gal pals spent several hours this morning on twitter telling me things such as "God is love," that "God does not judge," and so on. One even quoted Jimmy Carter saying that Jesus was fine with homosexuality. Obviously, the Bible is rather clear that God not only judges us but punishes any who aren't penitent, and the passages regarding homosexuality certainly aren't "fine" with such activities.

For example, Romans 1:26-27 condemns men and women engaging in homosexual acts. The "liberal Christians" often claim that this passage is condemning people who go against their "natural sexual orientation," which means a homosexual engaging in heterosexual acts, apparently. In truth, however, the passage references men and women giving up natural sexual intercourse (φυσικὴν χρῆσιν) for dishonorable passions (πάθη ἀτιμίας) that are contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν). It references women with women and men abandoning nature with women (ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας) so that the men are with men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν). The message is perfectly clear.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 6:9 is often said to condemn temple prostitutes and pederasts rather than just homosexuals in general. The two terms used are μαλακοὶ (effeminate male) and ἀρσενοκοῖται ("male who lies with males"). The former is the one who "receives" while the latter "gives," so that both men involved in a homosexual act are committing their own sin. It is important to remember that "homosexual" was not coined until 1892, but "liberal Christians" often use the fact that ancient people did not use our modern terminology as a way of claiming they meant something else entirely.

Now, the interesting thing about the Romanian homosexual and his gal pals is that they first entered my mentions to defend Muslim immigration to the West. They naturally progressed from defending Muslim jihadists to homosexuals to leftism in general and finally to offering platitudes about God not judging, sins not really being sins, and so on. Ultimately, all of their arguments amount to the same principle—secular humanism with its moral relativism is true godliness. Of course, only a fool would think they could play word games with God and trick their way into Heaven, but that is precisely what the so-called "liberal Christians" and their secular allies do on a regular basis. Even while they claim to be seeking to be the best Christians they can be, all they really do is undermine and debase the faith with the inevitable outcome being a growing rot from within. Whether they claim to be a secular humanist or a liberal Christian, everything they do and say is motivated by tearing down the traditions and beliefs of the faithful so only their leftist ideology is left.

A good example of this is Eva Brunne, the lesbian "Bishop" of Stockholm for the Lutheran Church of Sweden. She not only claims to be a cleric despite the prohibition against female ordination, but she is also a lesbian in a registered homosexual relationship. She is a walking list of sins that fly in the face of the Bible and 2,000 years of Church tradition, but she is then supposed to shepherd her flock? As should be expected, her moral relativism does not stop with her own personal behavior, and she achieved fame by protesting the nationalist Sverigedemokraterna party in Sweden as "racist" in 2010. In 2015, she then proposed that a church in Stockholm remove every cross and Christian symbol so that Muslims could also use it without being offended. She even wanted the direction to Mecca to be marked within the church to help the Muslims in their prayers. Less than a year later, a Catholic priest was executed while performing Mass in France, killed by two Muslims from a mosque that had been built on land donated by the local Catholic church. Such people are who "Bishop" Burnne would see accommodated and catered to so as to avoid being "racist."

Eva Brunne is not a Christian cleric. She masquerades as one so that she can further her own agenda, but she embraces her own sins while encouraging others to do the same. She serves as a cancerous rot within the Church of Sweden while she asks the Swedish people to import and coddle infidels. After all, she will call her flock "evil racists" if they don't embrace Christianity secular humanism.

In truth, there was wisdom in the tradition of not ordaining women because they tend to be more emotional and nurturing, and, while both of those qualities seem like they would be helpful to clerics, they actually make women more susceptible to emotional manipulation. Women are also more likely to think that problems can be solved with hugs, talking, and sharing. Thus, women flock to rallies to hold up signs saying, "Refugees Welcome," because the narrative sold to them is sad. Even as the so-called "refugees" start to rape and murder people, many women will continue supporting them and even make excuses for them rather than admit they were manipulated by our enemies. Surely, it is not the Muslims' fault that they are raping and murdering people, say the women. No, it must be the evil Christians who are forcing the Muslims to behave that way through racism, sexism, and Islamophobia. If they should ever doubt their chosen path, it only takes another sob story to reassure them that the First World will be a much better and more tolerant place as part of an Islamic state.

Leftists are easily manipulated by emotional appeals, and that is true in terms of politics and religion. This is due in no small part to the fact that leftist factions are always heavily populated with women. Indeed, women are more likely to be Democrats regardless of race or age (Source). Every Christian denomination that has started ordaining women has made the steady march towards progressivism by embracing moral relativism including homosexuality, fornication, and so on. Naturally, Christians in those churches do not appreciate where their religion is being redirected, and many leave altogether rather than witness false teachers lecturing them on why their actual religion is wrong.

For example, the Episcopal Church had 2,154,572 members spread across 7,095 dioceses in the US in 2006. In that same year, Katharine Jefferts Schori was elevated from "Bishop" of Nevada to be the first female Presiding "Bishop" over the entire Episcopal Church, a position she occupied until 2015. Schori was known for being pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-Obamacare, and so on. The Episcopalians' official website has an entire section dedicated to promoting "diversity" while another is dedicated to "antiracism" and "social justice." From 2006-2014, under Schori, the Episcopal Church lost 15.7% of the active membership with a total loss of 542 dioceses. In 2015, the Episcopalians further embraced political correctness by selecting Michael Curry, the former Bishop of North Carolina and first black Presiding Bishop, to replace Schori after she chose not to seek the office again.

For any unaware, the Episcopal Church is just the American branch of the Church of England. What should be one of the most Anglo denominations in the United States has come to be dominated by feminists, non-whites, homosexuals, and so on. Naturally, the Anglo-Saxon membership continues to leave as things get worse, but "white flight" does not fix these problems. Ultimately, whites moving on to whiter pastures only serves to surrender ground to people who do not respect Christianity, our Anglo culture, or the people who built the United States in the first place. Our culture is under attack, our churches are under attack, and our people are under attack. These are not separate fights, but they are rather different fronts in the same ongoing culture war to make it so only radical leftism exists.

Women should not serve as clerics because, as a group, they tend to place empathy above reason, but the Church is perhaps one of the most important pillars of our civilization. The hierarchical Church is a sign that there is something bigger than us, something that can stretch for millennia. Once the faith is undermined, it becomes much easier for cancerous elements to push hedonism and degeneracy, to claim that all things are temporary and thus meaningless. Why does it matter if Europe and the US are Muslim rather than Christian if nothing really matters? Who cares if the people who produced the Magna Carta and the US Constitution die out if Third World immigrants can step into their shoes? Leftists promote open borders, multiculturalism, multiracialism, and so on because they are trying to eliminate obstacles that would prevent them from creating a new Tower of Babel.

God does love us, but, like a parent, that unconditional love actually presupposes that bad behavior must be punished rather than embraced and normalized. The Church must stand as a wall against our enemies—both spiritual and wordly—throughout the centuries. It must remind us that we must not live only for the here and now because there is something more, something greater than ourselves. The Church cannot be about compromising with our enemies, "coexisting" with those who would kill a priest in the middle of a church. Clerics must be shepherds, which means protecting their flock from the wolves that would devour them. Every Christian cleric must have a crusader living within their soul, or else the end is inevitable. Female "clerics" only ever seem to combat their own while embracing the enemies of the faithful. "Bishop" Eva Brunne would see churches cleansed of their Christianity so as to accommodate Muslims. "Bishop" Katharine Schori used the Episcopal Church as a tool to push her ideology, and she only served to devastate her flock with secular leftist ideals. All leftist ideology is cancerous, and it is certainly true that there are male degenerates, hedonists, and false teachers among many denominations today. But it cannot be ignored that "female ordination" is a key plank in the anti-Christian platform, and we can plainly see why.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

@KyleKulinski says @realDonaldTrump's travel ban is illegal; already the law under 8 US Code § 1182 (f)

This is an unplanned post since some loony leftist found his way into my mentions on twitter. That is not unusual since it happens on a daily basis or thereabouts, but this one was particularly loony since he declared that Donald Trump is "authoritarian" and would "imprison Muslims based on religion." Obviously, neither of those things is correct, but it is the latter claim that stands out. I questioned his assertion, and he responded by linking to a video of "The Kyle Kulinski Show on Secular Talk Radio & TYT Network" (Source). I skipped to the part with Donald Trump speaking, listened to it, and he never said anything about imprisoning Muslims based on their religion. The loony leftist apparently thinks barring foreign Muslims from entering the country is "imprisoning Muslims" because some of them may hypothetically try to sneak into the US anyway and be detained for deportation.

It's safe to say that the loony leftist in question is indeed a loony leftist. An illegal alien is detained because they are an illegal alien. Ali Akbar would be detained for trying to enter the US illegally regardless of what religion he professes. Trump's proposed ban would prevent them from receiving visas to enter the country legally until such time that such immigration was deemed safe. After the attacks in Normandy, Nice, Paris, Cologne, and so on, this is not some insane policy proposal.

This post is not about that loony leftist, however, but rather about Kyle Kulinski from the video link above. In the video, he basically just rants that barring Muslims entry to the United States would be a violation of the First Amendment, implying that Donald Trump does not understand the legal system, just makes things up, and so on. Apparently, no one at The Kyle Kulinski Show bothers to do any sort of research on subjects before letting the host rant like a buffoon about things he doesn't understand.

At issue is 8 US Code § 1182 (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President, which states, "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline" (Emphasis added).

That is and has been the law of the United States, which is exactly what Donald Trump was talking about in the video above. If the President decides that Muslims are a threat to the United States, he can declare that they cannot enter the country for any reason for any length of time. The law is very clear, and Trump was correct in how he described it. If Mr. Kulinski or someone working with him had bothered to research the subject at all, they would have discovered the law since the media has actually discussed this before regarding Trump's proposed travel ban for foreign Muslims.

As for the First Amendment, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Barring Muslims from entering the United States would not be an establishment of state religion. We would still have citizens who were Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so on. It also would not be any sort of prohibition on the free exercise of religion since "entering the United States at will" is not a doctrine of Islam, and foreigners outside of the United States are not protected by the US Constitution regardless. A Muslim in Saudi Arabia cannot claim a "First Amendment right" to enter our country, and it is cartoonishly idiotic when laid out in plain terms. The First Amendment does not say that we can never pass a law that may affect a religion at all, and it also does not say that a particular religion can force itself upon Americans from anywhere in the world.

A foreigner has no claim to rights of the American people, and there is no "right to enter the US" just because some foreigners wish to do so. We could bar anyone from entering the country, or we could single out certain nations or peoples. In fact, that is precisely what the men who founded the nation did with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited naturalized citizenship to white people. That remained unchanged until 1870, and it was not fully overturned until the 20th century. The Founders could have just as easily limited naturalized citizenship to Christians, which still would not have been an established state religion because they recognized numerous denominations as being separate. The true purpose of the First Amendment was to avoid a single denomination from coming to power and exerting control over all others, which is what had been the status quo in the early colonies as well as Britain. They had seen religious strife in the colonies, and they also knew of the many conflicts back across the pond where Catholics and Anglicans had squared off. The Founders were not protecting Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism at a time when they were virtually nonexistent, but they were rather trying to avoid Christian-on-Christian conflict arising from abuses of state power.

The moral of this story is that one should research a topic before going on-air to do a bad impression of Donald Trump while claiming he, his advisers, and, by extension, his supporters are all idiots.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Do Christians have to accept multiculturalism?

A common refrain today is that Jesus commanded Christians to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27) and to "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31). Liberals—Christian, Jew, Muslim, and atheist alike—use these lines to justify open borders and multiculturalism. If you do not accept their policies, then you are not only "racist" but also "a bad Christian." Apparently, the only acceptable society is a multicultural society so sayeth the liberal theologians.

In an earlier post, the passages of Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27 were already addressed. In English translations, there is no distinction between different categories of enemies, but there is more nuance in both the earlier Latin and Greek. For example, "love your enemies" was "diligite inimicos vestros" in Latin. An inimicus was a person with which one had an adversarial relationship. If the intention was to tell the faithful to be submissive in the face of invaders, the Latin translation would have read "diligite hostes vestros." Greek translations made the same distinction (εχθρός vs. πολέμιος). Jesus was saying that we should strive not to hate people over petty reasons in our day-to-day lives, but that does not mean that Christians must bend the knee before invaders, or invite them inside our gates.

And the latter is an important point. Foreign enemies are not naturally our neighbors. They have to be imported from elsewhere, and we can safely assume that Jesus never used "neighbor" to mean people living next door as well as people on the other side of the planet. It would have been much easier to say, "Love all people as thyself," but that is not what was said. Islam is a religion from Arabia, which spread among Arabic nomads before they then invaded the Levant, South Asia, North Africa, and even into Europe before they were finally forced out of the latter. They must be seen as invaders in all of those lands even today, not as neighbors. Muslims living next door to Christians in the West are not our "neighbors," and we certainly do not have to love them. They are invaders who are hoping we will continue to remain passive as they slowly take over our lands in the name of Islam.

Polling shows that 51% of Muslims in the United States believe that they should be able to put Sharia (Islamic law) over the Constitution, and 1-in-4 say that violence against Americans is justifiable in the name of global jihad (Source). In 2015, there were around 2.75 million Muslims in the US, and 63% of those were foreign-born immigrants (Source). That means there are nearly 700,000 Muslims in the United States today that think committing violence against Americans is justified. How can they be classified as anything but a foreign invading army sent to destroy the United States? Europe has the same problem with millions of Muslims living there with many being would-be jihadists.

We do not have to accept this situation, and our ancestors were not wrong for opposing Islam in their own time. Genesis 11:9 tells us that God divided mankind by language and scattered peoples across the face of the earth. Psalm 82 also tells us that God divided mankind into many nations, and we can see with our own eyes that there are races, tribes, and so on that are natural divisions. An Englishman and a Dutchman are of the same race yet different, and both are closer to each other than to any Asian or African people. The Bible tells us that such divisions are God's natural order for mankind. We are not supposed to be one race speaking one language, which is precisely what globalists are pushing when they tell us that we must open our borders, embrace foreigners, and so on. They are mocking God's plan, and they have convinced Christians that doing so is really God's work.

Look at the Lord's Prayer seen in Matthew 6:10—"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven"—and Luke 11:2—"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." Both versions are clear in that God's will is done both above and below. Now, we cannot see Heaven to know exactly what it is like for ourselves, but we can see exactly what God's natural order was on Earth: namely, mankind was divided into nations, by language, and so on. The peoples of the Earth are each uniquely adapted to their ancestral homeland. We are not the same by design. If God's will is done in the heavens as it is on earth, we have no reason to believe that God's Kingdom is some sort of multicultural, multiracial communist commune. God divided mankind below, so it makes sense that He also divided mankind above. Otherwise, the "liberal Christians" need to explain why God divided mankind on earth, or who else did it if not God. They must also explain away Genesis 11, Psalm 82, and every other reference in the Bible to nations, peoples, and so on where God never told believers that they should move into mixed lands and only take foreign spouses to become one race with one language and one government. That is precisely what liberals seem to think would be God's will.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

#DemsInPhilly at the #DemConvention pretend to have morals and to love America

Democrats—like European leftists—like to pay lip service to more traditional values when they think it will benefit them politically. For example, the Democratic National Convention was opened with a prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Star Spangled Banner. Numerous speakers have invoked the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. If one didn't know any better, they would be left thinking that Democrats are the party of religious faith and patriotism, which obviously is not the case.

Democrats are the party of Marxism. Even so-called "moderate Democrats" these days openly say that socialism is good for the country, and it isn't difficult to find those who espouse communism. Some may not admit to the latter, but ask democrats if they believe in national sovereignty, borders, and so on. Many, if not most, will gleefully say that nations and borders do not make any real sense, and they believe that foreigners have a "right" to live where they wish. Democrats are also believers in the Frankfurt School that applies Marxist principles to social issues. This is why they paint things as class warfare (white vs. black, normal vs. queer, men vs. women) just as they do economic classes. In their perfect world, there would be no borders or nations.

Democrats are the party of rejecting the Founding Fathers. In 1790, the free population of the United States was 98.15% white, and a Naturalization Act was enacted in that same year so that only whites could move to the country and receive naturalized citizenship. Democrats like to quote the founding documents and attribute their Marxism to the men who founded the United States, but the reality is this country was not founded to be a multicultural, multiracial melting pot with no official language and open borders. Democrats use the Founders, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence to act as shells for whatever they are promoting. They do not actually care about any of it, but they will use all of it as a way to trick the American people into swallowing their poison. They have gone so far as to run away from just the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson on their own events. That is who they really are. They are ISIS tearing down statues of what they see as infidels.

Democrats are the party that opposes law enforcement. They go so far as to declare that the term "law and order" is really a Nazi slogan straight from Hitler. Democrats side with the families of criminals who get themselves killed by attacking police, resisting arrest, and so on. When the same criminals they coddle murder police, they use every opportunity to defend the criminals and attack the police. They do not care if the officers are white or black. All law enforcement officers are seen as enemies to the Democrats aside from when they need protection, or to claim citizens do not need to own guns because the same police Democrats demonize will protect us when they aren't killing us, apparently.

Democrats are the party of abortion on demand for any reason. From their number, one will often hear that a fetus is "just a clump of cells" rather than a life. St. Basil the Great (330-379) wrote in his First Canonical Letter that whosoever "deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty of homicide." St. Jerome (347-420) wrote in a letter to Eustochium that those who "procure abortion" would "enter the lower world laden with the guilt ... of child murder." Now, some people may be able to make a case for cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is threatened, but Democrats are the party of abortion on demand for any reason without question.

Democrats are the party of degeneracy. They want grown men sharing restrooms with little girls, and they have even defended a grown man in Washington state, who claimed to be a woman, undressing in front of underage girls with his penis in full view. According to the pro-LGBT Williams Institute, "trans people" are only 0.3% of the population, but Democrats think the other 99.7% must conform to the desires of that tiny minority. Democrats have also championed homosexuality, bisexuality, and any number of other "genders" and "orientations." Deuteronomy 22:5 makes it clear that a "woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment." It is also clear in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 that homosexuality is a sin. Democrats like to pretend that "love is love," but the reality is far darker than will ever admit:


Bill Clinton may seem folksy. Democrats may be able to mimic the sounds of patriotism and faith, but they are a corrupt fifth column that would burn the Constitution, tear down every statue, and jail anyone who dared to question their actions. They have no qualms with Spanish or Chinese being used instead of English. They see the Constitution as a barrier to the "progress" they would forced upon the rest of us. They are not patriotic, moral Americans who happen to just have different views. They are a cancer attacking the organs of this Republic, and, when they're honest, they'll say as much.

Will #Normandy finally provoke Christendom into waking up?

Two Muslims armed with knives entered a Catholic church in Normandy, France, and took a total of five hostages—a priest, two nuns, and two parishioners. The priest—Rev. Jacques Hamel, 86—was made to kneel before having his throat slit while the Muslims taped the murder.

This attack comes less than two weeks after a Tunisian Muslim drove a cargo truck into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France. A total of 84 people were killed with 303 injured.

One month before that attack, a Moroccan Muslim ambushed a French police commander as he came home and stabbed him to death. The Muslim then barricaded himself inside his victim's home before murdering the wife in front of their 3-year-old son.

In January, another Tunisian Muslim entered a police station in Paris, France, armed with a meat clever, and he screamed, "Allahu Akbar," as he attempted to attack police officers. Thankfully, the officers reacted quickly and killed their attacker without any other loss of life.

In November 2015, nine Muslims launched a series of attacks in Paris, France, that killed 130 and injured another 368. In January 2015, three Muslims carried out attacks in and around Paris, killing 17 and injuring another 22.

Germany has also seen a number of Islamic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks in 2015 and 2016. This is in addition to the ongoing rape epidemic in much of Europe due to the influx of Muslim "refugees" including the New Year's Eve attacks across a few countries that included several rapes (at least) and more than 2,000 assaults and robberies carried out by groups of Muslims.

In response to the latest attack, the Archbishop of Rouen, Most Rev. Dominique Lebrun, has said that the "Catholic church cannot take up any other weapons but prayer and brotherhood among men" and that the faithful should "lower their arms before violence and to become an apostle of a civilization of love." Fr. Jacques Hamel was murdered by two Muslims inside of a church, and his own archbishop is telling Catholics to promote "brotherhood" and "a civilization of love."

This is absolute lunacy, and this passivity flies in the face of the Church that spent centuries battling to keep Muslims out of Europe and to protect the faithful from the same. The Saracens have returned to Europe, but this time they are being aided by a traitorous fifth column that has undermined Europe and the Church so that the victims of these savages hold up signs welcoming them.

It is time for Christians to stand in unison and yell, "Enough!" It is time to follow Jesus's command in Luke 22:36—if you do not own a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Liberal Christians will most likely respond by citing Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27 that both read, "Love your enemies." The problem with that is that both passages read "diligite inimicos vestros" in Latin, and this is a very important distinction that is lost in English. Inimicos (acc. pl. of inimicus) are personal enemies, but enemies of the state would have been listed as hostes (acc. pl. of hostis). This is a distinction that also appeared in Greek (εχθρός vs. πολέμιος). In short, Jesus commanded us to not hate people personally in our lives over petty squabbles, but these were not commands at all for us to open our nations to foreign enemies or to expose our throats to murderous savages. Someone who eats your yogurt at work may be your "enemy," but they are not the same as a Muslim jihadist. It is important for Christians to remember this distinction.

It is time for Christian clergy of all denominations to do what God once called them to do in a great time of need: namely, it is time to preach the Crusade. Christendom is under siege yet again, and the only way for peace to return is for Islam to be forced back into Pandora's box. That cannot and will not happen by Christians promoting "brotherhood" or "a civilization of love" as the wolves are at our gates with no intention of leaving. Christian clerics are supposed to be shepherds to their flocks, and no shepherd should willingly lead their lambs to such a slaughter.