Gay, Atheist Pope Now Warmonger?

The title of my post is ridiculous on purpose, of course. However, if you've been at all following Pope Francis' "career" as Pope, you know where the title is coming from.

When it came to the issue of homosexuality, Francis said, "Who am I to judge."

When it came to the issue of atheism, Frances clearly suggested that atheist can enter Heaven.

Now when it comes to stopping ISIS (and other such groups: Boko Haram, etc.), it's okay: Pope backs military force to protect Iraq minorities.

Pope Francis

Pope Francis

He didn't say go kill[?] ISIS, but he might as well have said it. How else could the world stop such a violently coercive and utterly wicked, Satanic group as ISIS without resorting to violence?

Well, as Christians, we're supposed to pray and not curse. Where is Pope Francis' faith?

I understand his concern. He's no more concerned than am I about the insane Wahhabists hellbent upon establishing their twisted version of Islam, as if the version Mohammed had in mind isn't confused enough.

Let me say very clearly that were I militaristic, I would advocate completely immediately wiping out all of them and all those who hold similar, belligerent positions. Any group that issues the ultimatums to people that ISIS has is certainly a scourge. They should stop, turn, and repent of their evil ways or burn. "Turn or burn" is the expression. The burn part is figurative but represents the negative consequences for such extreme wickedness that ISIS and Boko Haram exhibit.

However, I'm not militaristic. I believe Jesus Christ taught pacifism for a very clear reason that is absolutely correct. Violence hardens hearts. It makes itself acceptable. It weakens the internal, moral defenses against it. It begets itself no matter how hard those who engage in it attempt to use it selectively. They slip up and kill the innocent with the guilty. That is never acceptable.

Jesus said the following:

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. (Matthew 13:24-30 KJV)

Pope Francis is speaking very dangerous words because of what he is not saying (if he has been correctly characterized in the linked article). He is not emphatically saying to the worldly powers, don't use violence.

To those who will argue but what about the innocents being murdered by ISIS and Boko Haram, I say your argument is against Jesus. Do you think you know better than Jesus about which is the right path for humanity to righteousness? I have searched and searched and searched for better than Jesus' teachings and have found none.

We have seen the drones killing the innocent. Is your heart so hardened that it is acceptable to you that those innocent ones died so some guilty ones (questionable whether they were more wrong than those who sent the drones) could be killed so you and yours wouldn't have to face them (at least that's the reason given by the US government for killing them)?

Francis is wrong about homosexuality, atheism, and now this: "stopping them"; militarism. Francis took the right name, spoke well about the poor, and walked among the people, but that's not good enough.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Time US Changes Policy on Syria: Assad on Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Arab Spring

Syrian President Bashar al Assad's inaugural address, July 16, 2014:

Bashar al Assad did not believe that an open democracy in Syria could survive the Wahhabists. As a Baathist, he had already allowed for a great deal of neoliberalism. Where did that get him? The West was ready to overthrow him before the Arab Spring ever began.

Syrian President in ParisI think he should have tried very hard to reform as much as possible right away, but I still sympathize with his view that Wahhabism would have had none of it and would have moved to take full advantage of a more open society.

As things stand now, the US needs to back off trying to overthrow him so that ISIS doesn't survive.

Look at the US helping the Kurds who are backed by Iran against ISIS.

The US has to stop aiding and abetting a group (ISIS) on the Syrian side of the Syrian/Iraqi border while bombing that same group ISIS on the other side of the border.

The US has to stop listening to the Zionist who keep harping that Iran is the great danger when Iran isn't remotely as problematic as are the Wahhabists, who make no bones about being out for Islamic global domination by military means.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Putin Doctrine, Tom's take: "Putin Has Stumbled in Ukraine"? | The St. Petersburg Times

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, writes of Vladimir Putin:

KnockItOff...the March 18 speech he gave in Crimea was definitely in the nationalist/romance genre as opposed to a work of realism. Putin appealed to Russians as a divided people, emphasizing national values. Bringing ideology into politics, especially romantic nationalism, commits a leader, tying his hands.

A pragmatist can react flexibly when circumstances change. But romantic rhetoric, even when used as an instrument, can’t be so quickly cast off. It plays on the emotions, which can bring about a strong element of irrationalism, which is something Putin has always tried to avoid in his foreign policy.

Putin’s departure from his usual realistic approach thrust Russia into a serious international crisis.

Source: Putin Has Stumbled in Ukraine | The St. Petersburg Times | The leading English-language newspaper in St. Petersburg.

Earlier in the piece, Fyodor Lukyanov wrote:

...after Putin’s return to power in 2012, he saw the West, primarily the United States, as the main destabilizing force in the world. This wasn’t due to anti-Russian sentiment in Washington or Brussels (Putin considered that obvious in any case), but to the West’s thoughtless and arrogant interference in one situation after another, destroying the foundations of national governance.

Fyodor thinks that it was a slip to deviate from the cold realpolitik. Similarly, I questioned Putin's having revved up the troops so to speak only to appear to tone it all completely down. See: When Donetsk & Luhansk Fall, Will Sanctions Against Russia Be Lifted?

What I'm finding now is the middle ground. Vladimir Putin is doing and saying what he must in his shoes to make clear that 1) above all, Russia will defend Russia (and Russians if needs be wherever they may be, if the West won't come to its senses) and 2) Russia doesn't want war but is working for global peace and progress without Western decadence/moral decay corrupting Russia from without and within.

The combination of these concepts I term here the Putin Doctrine.

In hindsight, he has played it masterfully. Russia's aid convoy is not only practical and needed and necessary, it's genius in the way it has so far unfolded. It makes Barack Obama's policies and actions vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine appear barbaric by comparison.

I credit Vladimir Putin with having grown immensely in office. I can't say the same of Barack Obama. Obama is not making the same errors in Iraq that he made in Libya (when he followed Hillary Clinton's dreadful advice), but he's still not even close to being up on Putin's level.

Putin doesn't have a perfect history. Who does? I don't, and neither do you. I don't like militarism; but he is the leader of Russia, and there are people in the West who have had their violent and greedy sights on Russia for centuries. None of it is lost on Putin.

Vladimir Putin's recent statements making clear that he wants peace, not war, not military conquest, not even close, and his actions with the humanitarian convoy to Eastern Ukraine, which is utterly transparent and obviously not concealing anything, should be accepted by the American people at face value. They are not tricks. He is being genuine. Is that why so many American politicians hate him? That's part of it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment