Jose "Pepe" Mujica: La sua rivoluzione si riduce ad ‪aborto‬, ‪‎nozze‬-gay, legalizzazione della ‪‎droga‬....

"Pepe" Mujica, il falso mito della sinistra latinoamericana

di Marinellys Tremamunno

Ex guerrigliero, ex presidente dell’Uruguay, considerato dalla sinistra europea che vive di miti come il modello per ogni governo, anche per la sua “povertà” di vita personale, , che si definisce “non credente”, è tornato ieri, 28 maggio, in Italia per un tour che lo ha visto tra l’altro ricevuto in udienza privata in Vaticano da papa Francesco. È la seconda volta che Mujica incontra il Papa, la prima era stata una visita ufficiale nel 2013, quando era ancora la massima carica della piccola repubblica sudamericana.

L’ex guerrigliero di ottanta anni ha approfittato del suo viaggio in Italia anche per far risuonare ancora il suo pensiero “profetico” (almeno per certa sinistra) con la presentazione della prima biografia autorizzata: “La felicità al potere”, libro in cui è contenuta anche un’intervista esclusiva rilasciata a Montevideo a Cristina Guarnieri, direttrice della casa editrice Eir. A fare da testimonial non potevano certo mancare lo scrittore Roberto Saviano e la giornalista Milna Gabanelli. “Il presidente più povero del mondo” – come è stato definito – non ha certo deluso le attese di un pubblico molto più disposto a seguire il classico mito rivoluzionario dell’America Latina (del resto cosa c’è di più invitante di un contadino diventato presidente?) piuttosto che guardare ai fatti, molto distanti da quella “felicità al potere” tanto invocata.

Le prime parole: «Non possiamo muovere un dito e fare miracoli… Quando ero molto giovane pensavo che avremmo dovuto cambiare il mondo e ora che sono vecchio continuo a pensare che potremmo cambiare il mondo…». 

In effetti Mujica non ha cambiato il mondo, ma senza dubbio ha rivoluzionato l’Uruguay con alcune leggi che piacciono tanto anche qui: depenalizzazione dell’aborto nell’autunno 2012, dando la libertà alla donna di scegliere d’interrompere la sua gravidanza; approvazione del matrimonio gay e adozione per coppie di persone dello stesso sesso a maggio 2013; legalizzazione della coltivazione e commercializzazione della marijuana, seppure sotto il controllo statale. 

Tre temi ritenuti centrali dai “rivoluzionari” ma che hanno trovato l’opposizione della Chiesa locale, per non dire delle posizioni espresse dallo stesso papa Francesco.

 ......

Leggi tutto: www.lanuovabq.it

Decisive battles are uncommon today. Enormous, massively destructive engagements may again be on the horizon.

Tomorrow’s Wars

by Victor Davis Hanson (Winter 2010 )

Have we not seen, then, in our lifetime the end of the Western way of war?” Two decades ago, I concluded The Western Way of War with that question. Since Western warfare had become so lethal and included the specter of nuclear escalation, I thought it doubtful that two Western states could any longer wage large head-to-head conventional battles. A decade earlier, John Keegan, in his classic The Face of Battle, had similarly suggested that it would be hard for modern European states to engage in infantry slugfests like the Battle of the Somme. “The suspicion grows,” Keegan argued of a new cohort of affluent and leisured European youth—rebellious in spirit and reluctant to give over the good life to mass conscription—“that battle has already abolished itself.”

Events of the last half-century seem to have confirmed the notion that decisive battles between two large, highly trained, sophisticated Westernized armies, whether on land or on sea, have become increasingly rare. Pentagon war planners now talk more about counterinsurgency training, winning the hearts and minds of civilian populations, and “smart” interrogation techniques—and less about old-fashioned, “blow-’em-up” hardware (like, say, the F-22 Raptor) that proves so advantageous in fighting conventional set battles. But does this mean that the big battle is indeed on its way to extinction?

Big battles sometimes changed entire conflicts in a matter of hours, altering politics and the fate of millions. It is with history’s big battles, not the more common “dirty war” or insurgency, that we associate radical changes of fortune as well as war poetry, commemoration, and, for good or ill, the martial notions of glory and honor. Had the Greeks lost their fleet at “Holy” Salamis in 480 bc, instead of beating back the Persian invaders, the history of the polis might well have come to an end, and with it a vulnerable Western civilization in its infancy. Had the Confederates broken the Union lines at Gettysburg and swept behind Washington, Abraham Lincoln would have faced enormous pressure to settle the Civil War according to the status quo ante bellum. If the “band of brothers” had been repulsed at Normandy Beach on the morning of June 6, 1944, it is difficult to imagine that they would have reattempted an enormous amphibious invasion soon after—but easy instead to envision a victorious Red Army eventually camped on the Atlantic Coast and occupying Western Europe.

Yet set engagements, it’s important to note, have never been the norm in warfare. The 27-year-long Peloponnesian War saw only two major ground engagements, at Delium (424 BC) and Mantinea (418 BC), and a few smaller infantry clashes, at Solygeia and outside Syracuse. In the asymmetrical struggle between Athenian naval power and premier Spartan infantry, the most common kinds of fighting were hit-and-run attacks, terrorism, sieges, constant ravaging of agriculture, and sea and amphibious assaults. True, during the murderous Roman Civil War (49–31 BC), frequent and savage battles at Actium and elsewhere claimed more than a quarter-million Roman lives. Yet after the creation of the Principate by the new emperor, Augustus, much of the Mediterranean world was relatively united and free of frequent major battles for nearly half a millennium. And after the fall of the Roman Empire, for most of the Middle Ages, sieges and low-intensity conflict were more common than major engagements such as Poitiers (732), Hattin (1187), and Crécy (1346).

In fact, the course of military history has been strikingly cyclical. The eminent military historian Russell Weigley once described an “Age of Battles”—a uniquely destructive two centuries of pitched warfare between Gustavus Adolphus’s victory at Breitenfeld (1631) and Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo (1815)—in which European armies of multifarious rivals, often in vain, sought to decide entire wars in a few hours of head-to-head fighting. That age ended with the agreements following the Congress of Vienna, which (along with military deterrence) kept a general peace in Europe for nearly a century. Set battles were common only in colonial theaters (Tel el Kebir, Omdurman), in Asia (Tsushima), and in the Americas (the decisive battles of the Mexican, Spanish-American, and American civil wars).

Then, during the first half of the twentieth century, came another Age of Battles, with the First and Second World Wars witnessing the most destructive fighting in the history of arms. The details of Iwo Jima, Kursk, Marne, Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Passchendaele, the Somme, Stalingrad, and Verdun still chill the reader. Asia saw horrors of its own: most Westerners know little about the Huaihai campaign (late 1948–49), in which the Nationalist Chinese lost an entire army of 600,000 to the Communists in mostly conventional fighting.

Today, the world is clearly enjoying another respite from huge set battles. Except for the daring American landing at Inchon (September 1950) and the subsequent first liberation of Seoul, few battles of the last seven decades resembled the Battle of the Bulge. Far more common in the past half-century have been the asymmetrical wars between large Westernized militaries and poorer, less organized terrorists, insurgents, and pirates. The list of theaters where conventional forces have battled guerrillas is long: Afghanistan, Grozny, Iraq, Kashmir, Mogadishu, the Somali coast. Seldom does an indigenous force dare to come out in the open, marshal its resources, and test head-on the firepower and discipline of a Westernized force. History’s record on that score—from Tenochtitlán to Omdurman—is not encouraging for those who try.

Those who have successfully attacked the United States—in Lebanon (1983), at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996), at America’s East African embassies (1999), on the USS Cole (2000), and in New York and Washington in 2001—did so as terrorists. If nation-states sponsored such radical Islamist groups, they nearly always denied culpability, avoiding an all-out conventional war with the United States that they would inevitably lose—as the brief rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan demonstrated in 2001.

Amid the murderous fighting between well-organized armies during the Vietnam War, North Vietnam as a matter of practice did not attempt to engage Western forces in formal set engagements. (The sieges at Khe Sanh and, earlier, against the French at Dien Bien Phu proved the exceptions rather than the rule and were themselves not traditional collisions of infantry.) In its failed attempt in the 1980s to take over Afghanistan, the Soviet army may have killed more than 1 million Afghans without once engaging in a set collision with tens of thousands of jihadists. We still do not know all the gory details of the Iran-Iraq war (1980–89), in which more than 1 million combatants and civilians perished. But despite the carnage that characterized that war, set engagements, out in the open, between two massed armies were not a major part of the conflict, so far as we know.

Even the “Mother of All Battles” in the 1991 Gulf War was largely a rout. The tank battle at Medina Ridge involved hundreds of armored vehicles but lasted little more than an hour—the Americans suffering neither casualties from enemy fire nor a single Abrams tank destroyed, while obliterating 186 Iraqi tanks. Today, few Americans even know what Medina Ridge was. In other engagements, most of Saddam’s army disintegrated rather than fight advancing American armor—as was commonly the case again during the three-week war of 2003.

Some decisive fighting took place between British and Argentinean units during the Falklands War of 1982, but on a minuscule scale compared with the twentieth century’s bloody engagements. Tank battles raged in the Golan Heights during both the Six-Day War (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). For a few days, also in 1973, the Israelis and the Egyptian Third Army fought each other openly in the desert expanses of the Sinai Peninsula. But the far more usual pattern of the inconclusive Israeli-Arab conflict has been terrorism, intifadas, bombings, and missile strikes.

Why does decisive battle wax and wane in frequency, and why has it become rarer again? The political landscape certainly explains much. Empire of any sort can lessen the incidence of warfare. Unified, central political control transforms the usual ethnic, tribal, racial, and religious strife into more internal and less violent rivalries for state representation and influence. Once Philip unified Greece under a Macedonian hegemony after Chaeronea (338 bc), set battles between city-states, so common earlier in the fourth century bc, became a rarity. For now, anyway, the European Union lacks the interstate rivalry that plunged Europe into murderous battles for much of the first half of the twentieth century.

When the world is divided into larger blocs that have sizable, competent conventional forces—such as the Soviet and American spheres during the Cold War—confrontation can potentially turn catastrophic, given the vast resources available to each side. Yet it’s also possible that in such a bipolar world, battling along nationalist lines, among a variety of state players, will be less frequent. No nation of the Warsaw Pact fought the Soviet Republic; American allies like Iran did not threaten American allies like Israel; Tito and Yugoslavian Communism for a time kept Bosnians, Croats, Kosovars, Macedonians, and Serbs from killing one another.

In the present age, many of the most powerful economies in the world are united under the loose rubric “the West,” which includes some former nations of the British Empire (Australia, Canada, New Zealand), the transatlantic NATO alliance (most of the European Union and the United States), and democratic nations of the Pacific (Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan), along with miscellaneous allies, capitalist and democratic, such as India and Israel. At present, there is virtually no likelihood that we will see decisive battles between any of these similarly minded democratic states, even though a mere 70 years ago, when consensual government was less widespread among them, most of them squared off in various temporary alliances against one another in terrible engagements.

Technology also helps explain the current decline in conventional battles. The battlefield can now be seen and mapped to the smallest pebble through aerial photography, often by unmanned drones that update pictures second by second. Surprise is rare. Potential combatants know the odds in advance. They can use the Internet to download the most minute information about their adversaries. Generals can see streaming video of prebattle preparations and calculate, to some degree, the subsequent cost.

Uncertainty and the unknown were often essential to the outbreak of decisive battles, since each opposing force usually felt it had some chance of operational success. Had the British enjoyed satellite reconnaissance of the German lines in the days before and during the Somme, they might have curtailed their suicidal assaults. Had the Americans possessed live streaming video of Japanese forces fortifying bunkers on Okinawa, they might not have chosen to assault the Shuri Line frontally. Pickett’s Charge up Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg was predicated on an erroneous assumption that there was an especially weak spot in the Union’s line—a conjecture that General Robert E. Lee would have easily corrected if he’d had a Predator drone at his disposal.

Weaponry is not static. It resides within a constant challenge-and-response cycle between offense and defense, armor and arms, surveillance and secrecy. Body armor may soon advance to the point of offering, if only for a brief period, protection against the bullet, which centuries ago rendered chain and plate mail useless. The satellite killer may render the satellite nonoperational. Sophisticated electronic jamming may force down the aerial drone. Yet for now, the arts of information-gathering about an enemy trump his ability to maintain secrecy, thus lessening the chance that thousands of soldiers will be willing to march off to massive battle.

The cost of today’s military technology, too, renders big battles more unlikely. To wage a single decisive battle between tens of thousands of combatants along the lines of a Gaugamela or a Verdun would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a figure far beyond the resources of most belligerents. A single B-1 bomber on patrol overhead represents a $1 billion investment. Abrams tanks go for over $4 million. A single cruise missile can cost over $1 million. One GPS-guided artillery shell may cost $150,000; one artillery platform could expend over $10 million in ordnance in a few hours. Even a solder’s M-4 assault rifle runs well over $1,000. The result is that very few states can afford to outfit an army of, say, 100,000 infantry, supported by high-tech air, naval, and artillery fire—much less keep it well supplied for the duration of battle. Even in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when weapons were cheap compared with today’s models, both Egypt and Israel needed massive amounts of new weaponry from the Soviet Union and the United States shortly after the commencement of fighting.


..........................


Read more: www.city-journal.org

Opción preferencial por la Familia – 100 preguntas y 100 respuestas acerca del Sínodo

«VADEMECUM SOBRE LA FAMILIA»

Tres obispos publican «Opción preferencial por la Familia: 100 preguntas y respuestas acerca del Sínodo»

• Un vademecum de 100 preguntas y respuestas que expone la doctrina de la Iglesia sobre matrimonio y familia ha sido publicado con el fin de aclarar la confusión, con vistas al Sínodo de Obispos sobre la Familia de octubre próximo. 

• Sus autores, Mons. Aldo di Cillo Pagotto, arzobispo de Paraíba (Brasil), Mons. Robert Vasa, obispo de Santa Rosa, California (EE.UU.), y Mons. Athanasius Schneider, Obispo Auxiliar de Astana (Kazakstán), describen la publicación como un «vademecum sobre la familia».

(NCR/Bastionfamiliar) De acuerdo a Mons. Vasa, dada la proximidad del Sínodo, «era tiempo de reiterar las cosas que la Iglesia ha enseñado en forma clara y constante».

En declaraciones al National Catholic Register durante el lanzamiento de «Opción preferencial por la Familia – 100 preguntas y 100 respuestas acerca del Sínodo», dijo el Profesor de Filosofía Tomasso Scandroglio - «Queremos llamar la atención sobre la verdad de ciertas doctrinas, muchas de ellas tocadas en el Sínodo Extraordinario del año pasado sobre la Familia», dada la importancia de «mostrar las soluciones pastorales que podemos aplicar como principios del día de hoy».

Los autores manifiestan que desean abordar cuestiones fundamentales sobre el matrimonio y la familia y que «las necesidades pastorales del momento requieren también de nosotros ser enteramente claros en puntos cruciales y delicados debatidos en el último sínodo, cuya interpretación fue en parte distorsionada por algunas escuelas teológicas, con el apoyo avasallador de los medios».

«Así, resulta apropiado reiterar algunas verdades doctrinarias fundamentales y requisitos pastorales esenciales respecto al problema de la familia, cuya real situación es muy diferente de lo que quieren hacernos creer».
Enfrentando la «ofensiva anti-familia»

La publicación, agregan, está pensada ante todo para servir como guía no sólo a «obispos, sacerdotes, religiosos, catequistas» y laicos en puestos de responsabilidad y liderazgo, sino también a todo fiel empeñado en contrarrestar la aviesa y poderosa ofensiva anti-familia de los medios de comunicación».

Traducido a varias lenguas, el opúsculo se divide en 13 capítulos con preguntas y respuestas simples. Comienza explicando cómo es el sínodo de los obispos, y su autoridad y preparación del próximo Sínodo. Luego continúa con la respuesta a preguntas sobre la relación de la Iglesia con la Familia, la revolución sexual, la enseñanza moral y la práctica pastoral.

Aborda temas como la conciencia de las personas y el Magisterio, la naturaleza y finalidad del matrimonio, las declaraciones de nulidad, divorcio y separación, y la comunión a los divorciados civilmente re-casados. También abarca el tema de la homosexualidad y de las uniones entre personas del mismo sexo, la aplicación de misericordia a la situación familiar y el rol de la gracia sobrenatural en el compromiso de castidad familiar.
Palabras talismán

Las respuestas a cada una de las preguntas «recuerdan continuamente la doctrina de la Iglesia Católica en estas materias», dijo Scandroglio.

Un capítulo está dedicado a analizar algunas palabras clave usadas en el último sínodo –a las que llama «palabras talismán»-, cargadas de «fuerte contenido emocional», y por eso consideradas «totalmente flexibles y maleables».

Expresiones como «herir a las personas», «misericordia», «acogida», «ternura» y «profundización» tienen una «elasticidad», de acuerdo a los autores, que las torna «susceptibles de ser usadas para efectos de propaganda y de ser objeto de abusos con fines ideológicos».

Al ser utilizadas –afirman- pueden «llevar a los fieles a reemplazar un juicio moral por uno sentimental, o un juicio substancial por uno formal, llevándolos a considerar como bueno, o al menos tolerable, lo que antes consideraban malo».

En el prefacio, el Cardenal Jorge Medina Estévez, Prefecto emérito de la Congregación para el Culto Divino, subraya que los observadores más objetivos coincidirán en que la familia se encuentra en una «crisis real y profunda».

«Ante esta realidad, no sería una actitud sabia ignorar o minimizar esta crisis» –escribe- agregando que la Iglesia debe «evaluar su campo de acción y magnitud y luchar para encontrar caminos para superarla».

«Ese es el fin perseguido, con realismo y esperanza, por este opúsculo», dice, y subraya más adelante que lo más importante cuando se enfrenta la crisis de la familia es la conversión del corazón, algo que presupone una «radical purificación del pensamiento».

El vademécum está siendo enviado a todos los obispos del mundo. Los participantes en la iniciativa están promoviendo asimismo la «Filial Suplica» al Santo Padre sobre el futuro de la Familia, en la que piden mayor claridad en las enseñanzas de la Iglesia sobre estos temas. La petición ha recibido más de 250.000 firmas, incluyendo las de cuatro cardenales, 23 obispos y arzobispos, académicos y figuras de destaque, y será presentada al Papa Francisco antes del Sínodo de Octubre.

Hablando en el lanzamiento del opúsculo, John Smeaton, principal director de la Sociedad para la protección de los Niños por Nacer, dijo que se trata de una «publicación maravillosa», que viene al encuentro de la «confusión de los católicos comunes, formados en la fe pero avasallados por las imposiciones culturales de la revolución sexual».

El vademecum «nos provee de un lenguaje para hablar con la gente joven acerca del casamiento, la fidelidad, la castidad y la salvación». «Nos da un sentido del poder de Dios, de su gracia, que obtiene verdadera felicidad humana». En contraste, agregó, la revolución sexual ha sido orquestada por poderosos lobbies «para destruir las familias y destruir la felicidad».

Fuente: infocatolica.com

«Soyons terribles pour dispenser le peuple de l’être »: un tribunal que personne n’a regretté mais qui a inspiré bien d’autres régimes

Il y a 220 ans : 

la fin du tribunal révolutionnaire

par Henri Saint-Amand

C’est un anniversaire que ne fêtera pas le ministre de l’Éducation nationale, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, car s’il peut faire partie de sa culture, il n’entre (et n’entrera pas) dans les programmes d’histoire


C´est un anniversaire que ne fêtera pas le ministre de l’Éducation nationale, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, car s’il peut faire partie de sa culture, il n’entre (et n’entrera) pas dans les programmes d’histoire. Le gouvernement de Manuel Valls aime trop les excès de la Révolution et valoriser les bienfaits de cette période pour commémorer le symbole de l’échec républicain.

En effet, le décret du 12 prairial an III (31 mai 1795), il y a tout juste 220 ans, supprimait le Tribunal révolutionnaire qui, après un peu plus de deux ans d’existence, a fait monter à la guillotine un nombre important d’innocents. Rien que 2.800 à Paris si l’on en croit les historiens. Sa suppression ne met pas fin à la Révolution (dont on constate encore les dégâts aujourd’hui), mais elle donne une bouffée d’air frais aux Français qui ne se voient plus systématiquement conduits au « Rasoir national » pour un oui ou pour un non. Une première fois créé le 17 septembre 1792 puis supprimé en novembre 1792, il resurgit avec la loi du 21 ventôse an I (10 mars 1793) quand Georges Danton proclame à la tribune de la Convention nationale : « Soyons terribles pour dispenser le peuple de l’être. »

Sur son initiative et aussi celle des députés Robert Lindet (1746-1825) et Robert Levasseur (1747-1834), le tribunal criminel extraordinaire (sa véritable appellation) entame son œuvre de destruction. Son objectif : « punir tous les ennemis du peuple », c’est-à-dire « tous ceux qui cherchent à anéantir la liberté publique, soit par la force, soit par la ruse », selon le décret de la Convention du 22 prairial an II (10 juin 1794) qui durcit encore plus la Terreur. Dieu sait si la liste est longue, surtout après l’approbation de la loi des suspects approuvée le 1er jour complémentaire an I (17 septembre 1793). Premiers visés par le décret et la loi : les prêtres réfractaires, les aristocrates, les parents d’émigrés mais aussi les étrangers coalisés, qui menacent le territoire, et les Vendéens qui se sont récemment soulevés pour « Dieu et le Roi.

.....................

Lire la suite: www.bvoltaire.fr

La droite ne sera à la hauteur de sa tâche que si elle répond aux légitimes inquiétudes identitaires et morales du pays

«La droite doit nous parler de la France!»

Par Denis Tillinac

Source: www.lefigaro.fr

La droite française s'offre une cure de jouvence à l'enseigne des «Républicains». Pourquoi pas? En panne sèche d'idéal, l'UMP avait le souffle court et s'enlisait dans des zizanies au ras des pâquerettes. Autant ordonner les obsèques d'un sigle démonétisé et repartir à l'abordage sous une étiquette qui ne mange pasde pain partisan.

Les orateurs vont dénoncer à juste titre l'arrogance, le sectarisme, le clientélisme et la pusillanimité des socialistes. Ils vont effeuiller le catalogue de recettes libérales opportunes, mais jusqu'alors jamais appliquées par la droite au pouvoir, ou si peu. Puissent-ils se pénétrer d'une évidence: on ne sortira pas la France de sa déprime avec un peu plus de croissance, un peu moins de chômage. Puissent-ils aussi nous épargner les litanies d'usage sur les «valeurs républicaines». On permettra à un écrivain d'être un peu sourcilleux sur le sens des mots. Les «valeurs républicaines», ça n'existe pas. La république est un principe d'organisation politique à géométrie variable, pas une valeur. Elle ne recèle en soi aucune vertu morale. Par pitié, que la droite laisse le clergé gaucho battre de l'aile dans son panier sémantique percé et aborde enfin ce qui nous touche au plus intime: l'identité de la France.

L'historien Pierre Nora, peu suspect de sympathies réactionnaires, signifiait clairement ces jours derniers dans les pages duFigaro que notre vieux pays a perdu ses ancrages. Ça se voit, ça se sent, ça s'entend dès qu'on se hasarde hors du Quartier latin ou du faubourg Saint-Honoré.

• Cette dépossession est-elle irrémédiable? 
• Doit-on se résigner à subir un multiculturalisme à la botte de minorités récriminantes? 
• Dissoudre notre héritage chrétien et notre fond de sauce culturel catho dans un brouet syncrétiste où tout s'équivaudrait sur les étals du consumérisme? 
• Réduire la France aux acquêts d'un agrégat de Länder comme le préfigure sa découpe en zones abusivement qualifiées de régions? 
• Sommes-nous condamnés à survivre dans un espace aléatoire où, sous couvert de compassion pour les déshérités, des individus hors sol camperont dans la pire acculturation, celle qui nourrit les rancœurs et prédispose au nihilisme? 
• La France est-elle vouée au destin accessoire d'un canton touristique dans la gigue du cosmopolitisme mondialisé? 

L'air du temps prédispose à ce déni de mémoire et au fatalisme qui l'accompagne.

Retrouvez l'intégralité de notre article dans l'édition du Figaro à paraître samedi 30 mai 2015, ou dès maintenant sur Le Figaro Premium

Jean-Paul II : «Il est nécessaire de préparer convenablement les chrétiens qui vivent au contact quotidien des musulmans à connaître l'islam de manière objective et à savoir s'y confronter. » (Ecclesia in Europa, n°57)

Saint Jean Bosco et la religion mahométane

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

Un lecteur a traduit le traité populaire introduit par Saint Jean Bosco sur la vraie religion dont le titre est « Il cattolico istruito nella sua religione : trattenimenti di un padre di famiglia coi suoi figliuoli, secondo i bisogni del tempo, epilogati dal Sacerdote Bosco Giovanni » 1853 « Le catholique instruit de sa religion : entretient d’un père de famille avec ses fils, selon les besoins du temps » Download .pdf ici -www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu

« le dialogue cité se passe entre un père de famille préoccupé du salut de l’âme de ses fils, c’est le fils aîné qui parle au nom de tous ses frères :

P (le père): Si vous le voulez-bien, je vous parlerais des autres religions en commençant par l’Islam (il dit la religion mahométane).

F (fils) : Oui, oui commencez par nous dire ce que l’on entend par religion mahométane ?

P : On doit la comprendre comme un assemblage de maximes extraites de diverses religions, qui une fois pratiquées finissent par détruire tous les principes moraux.

F : l’Islam de qui est-il né ?

P : de Mahomet

F : Oh ! Nous voulons avoir le plaisir d’entendre parler de ce Mahomet : dîtes-nous tout ce que vous savez sur lui !

P : Ce serait trop long de vous rapporter tout ce que l’Histoire raconte de cet imposteur fameux : je vous ferai pour votre bien seulement connaître qui il fut, et comment il a fondé sa religion.

Mahomet naît d’une pauvre famille, de père païen et de mère juive, l’an 570, à la Mecque, ville d’Arabie, peu distante de la Mer Rouge. Il rêvait de gloire et d’un désir d’améliorer sa condition, et vagabondait à travers plusieurs pays. Il réussit à se faire l’agent d’une veuve commerçante de Damas, et peu après l’épousa. Il était si malin qu’il sut profiter de ses infirmités et de son ignorance pour fonder une religion. Souffrant d’épilepsie de naissance, il affirmait que ses fréquentes rechutes étaient en fait des extases par lesquelles il s’entretenait avec l’Ange Gabriel. 

F : Quel imposteur ! Tromper ainsi les gens de cette manière ! A-t-il au moins tenté de faire quelques miracles pour confirmer sa prédication ?

P : Mahomet ne pouvait faire aucun miracle pour prouver sa religion, parce qu’il n’était pas envoyé par Dieu. Dieu seul est l’auteur des miracles. S’il se vantait d’être supérieur à Jésus Christ, tout de suite les gens lui demandaient de faire des miracles. Il leur répondait que des miracles de Jésus Christ : Il en était comme tous ceux qui se vantent d’en avoir fait... Il disait pour sa part qu’était tombé dans sa main un morceau de la lune et il savait si prendre pour embobiner les gens. En mémoire de ce miracle ridicule les mahométans ont pris comme emblème la demi-lune. 

Vous riez, ô mes fils, vous avez raison, parce que un homme de cet acabit aurait dut se regarder comme un menteur, et non comme un prédicateur d’une nouvelle religion. Justement à cause de cela sa réputation se répandit qu’il était un imposteur, et comme perturbateur de la tranquillité publique, ses concitoyens voulurent l’emprisonner et le condamner à mort. Cependant il réussit à prendre la fuite et se retira dans la ville de Médine avec quelques un des libertins qui l’aidèrent à s’en rendre maître. 

F : En quoi vraiment consiste la religion de Mahomet ?

P : La religion de Mahomet consiste en un monstrueux mélange de judaïsme, de paganisme et de christianisme. Le livre de la loi mahométane est dit Coran, ce qui veut dire le livre par excellence. Cette religion se dit encore Turque parce qu’elle est très répandue en Turquie, Musulmane de Musul, nom que les mahométans donnent au directeur de la prière ; Islamisme du nom de ses réformateurs, mais c’est toujours la même religion fondée par Mahomet. 

F : Pourquoi Mahomet fit-il ce mélange de diverses religions ?

P : Parce que les peuples d’Arabie étaient pour partie Juifs, pour partie chrétiens et les autres païens, et lui pour les conduire à le suivre, pris une partie de la religion qu’ils professaient. Il prit et mit en avant spécialement les points qui pouvaient le plus favoriser les plaisirs des sens. 

F : Mais il était nécessaire que Mahomet fut un homme docte ?

P : En fait il n’en est rien, il ne savait même pas écrire. Par exemple pour composer son Coran il s’aida d’un juif et d’un moine apostat. Quand il parle de chose contenu dans l’Ecriture Sainte, il confond un fait avec un autre. Par exemple il attribue à Marie, sœur de Moïse, plusieurs faits qui se rapportent à Marie, mère de Jésus, et beaucoup d’autres erreurs encore.

F : Cela me semble impossible : si Mahomet était un ignorant qui ne fit aucun miracle, comment a-t’il pu propager sa religion ?

P : Mahomet propagea sa religion, non pas avec des miracles et la persuasion de la parole, mais bien plutôt avec la force des armes. Cette religion qui favorise toutes sortes de conduites contraires aux bonnes mœurs, fit qu’en peu de temps Mahomet devint le chef d’une formidable troupe de bandits. Ensemble ils parcourraient les pays de l’Orient gagnant les peuples, non par la diffusion de la vérité, non pas avec des miracles et des prophéties,mais uniquement par l’unique argument de l’épée sur la tête des vaincus en criant : croyez ou mourrez. 

F : Canailles, ce sont là des arguments propres à convertir les gens ? Sans aucun doute, Mahomet étant si ignorant, a dû disséminer dans son Coran beaucoup d’erreurs ?

P : Le Coran si l’on peut dire est une série d’erreurs les plus énormes, contre la morale et contre le culte du vrai Dieu. Par exemple il excuse quiconque nie Dieu par peur de la mort, permet la vengeance, assure à ses disciples un paradis, mais rempli des seuls plaisirs terrestres. En somme la doctrine de ce faux prophète permet tellement d’obscénités, que l’âme chrétienne a en horreur de les nommer. 

F : Quels sont les différences entre l’Eglise Chrétienne et celle mahométane ?

P : La différence est immense. Mahomet fonda sa religion avec violence et par les armes, Jésus Christ fonda son Eglise avec des paroles de paix, à destination des pauvres, comme ses disciples."

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Video: Annoncer l’Évangile aux musulmans ? 

par Abbé Pagès

Auteur du livre Interroger l´Islam. Élements pour le dialogue islamo-chrétien, l'abbé Guy Pagès viendra animer une table ronde à la 24e université d'été de Renaissance Catholique sur le thème Comment annoncer l’Évangile aux musulmans ?. Il nous présente ici la nécessité absolue de leur apporter la Bonne Nouvelle.

http://gloria.tv/media/1mt4ah3SwLS

Vous ne vous rendez pas compte de la progression de l’Islam chez vous, demain Daesh sera chez vous

Demain Daesh sera chez vous.

L’islam modéré ça n’existe pas

Mardi 26 mai, le Père irakien Michael Nageeb a donné une conférence à Paris dans le cadre de l’exposition « Mésopotamie, carrefour des cultures : Grandes Heures des Manuscrits irakiens ». 

Après avoir rappelé que son couvent de Mossoul avait été transformé en prison et en centre de torture de l’État Islamique, il déclare :

« Ce n’est pas pour nous que nous avons peur, c’est pour la France, c’est pour vous les chrétiens de France ! Vous étiez une terre chrétienne… Il faut prier beaucoup Marie avec le chapelet pour la conversion des musulmans sinon… 

La civilisation chrétienne en Europe est endormie et vous ne vous rendez pas compte de la progression de l’Islam chez vous, demain Daesh sera chez vous. Je suis venu et je reviendrai pour dire, éveiller, réveiller les consciences, les âmes, les esprits (…) 

Au lendemain des attentats du mois de janvier ici [à Paris], les musulmans de France ont demandé la construction de 2 000 nouvelles mosquées en France, et l’État a dit oui. 

Et si les chrétiens demandaient la construction de 2 000 églises ? Il faut d’abord remplir les vôtres. 

L’islam modéré ça n’existe pas. Les hommes politiques parlent de l’islam de France ou de l’islam en France : non ! L’islam c’est l’islam, une religion de conquête où le mot amour n’existe pas. 

Ce qui se passe : le coran vendu en France est un coran édulcoré, adouci pour attirer et séduire, la base étant enracinée, les durs, les islamistes s’infiltrent dans les familles et c’est parti… Ils veulent vous envahir (…) Le coran d’ici n’est pas le coran des djihadistes. 

Il y a chez vous entre 7 et 8 millions de musulmans : ça compte pour les hommes politiques et c’est pour ça qu’ils cherchent à les séduire et qu’après avoir délaissé les chrétiens ils comptent sur leurs voix. 

La laïcité française n’est pas bonne : elle est fausse. La vraie, c’est chaque religion pratique librement. 

Chez vous : on ignore les chrétiens et on fait du charme aux juifs et aux musulmans. 

Le cardinal Barbarin a bien compris cela, il est venu plusieurs fois et il a vu : il a lancé une neuvaine de 9 mois pour la France. 

Il vous faut beaucoup prier. Prier chaque jour en famille. Prier avec vos amis. Prier avec vos enfants, leur apprendre à prier, la prière des enfants touche le cœur de Jésus. Prier le chapelet avec Marie. 

Gardez la Paix et l’Espérance, soyez des chrétiens contagieux, des missionnaires heureux, la Foi n’est plus une affaire privée, soyez des disciples dans vos milieux de vie, parlez de Jésus autour de vous. 

Si les chrétiens sont tièdes, le monde sera glacé. C’est par vous que la France peut redevenir une terre vivante et chrétienne. »

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com

F.Hollande:"Il faut passer par la Franc-Maçonnerie"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=27&v=YVy8yhocrmA



Extrait des vidéos 

• "Franc-Maçonnerie : Allégeance des candidats à la Présidentielle de 2012" : http://youtu.be/NFaIcjUsIZ4 et 

• "Franc-maçonnerie Disséquée": http://youtu.be/xO3Go6-khiE

El padre Santiago Martín habla sobre el error del "desarme moral"

Desarme moral, solución errónea


http://videos.religionenlibertad.com/video/ghoPleDvaM/Desarme-moral-solucion-erronea

Aceptarlo todo siempre que sea consentido, es decir, renunciar a la moral sexual: es lo que parecen proponer algunos obispos para que (aunque los resultados en sus diócesis no les avalan) se llenen las iglesias y los jóvenes no se alejen. El padre Santiago Martín cuestiona ese planteamiento. Fuente: Magnificat TV.

Fuente: videos.religionenlibertad.com

Until yesterday, no society had seen marriage as anything other than a conjugal partner­ship: a male-female union.

A Constitutional Defense of Marriage

By Robert P. George

If marriage were simply a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, then the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment would require the Supreme Court to strike down state laws limiting marriage licenses to male-female partners.

There would be no principled basis for distinguishing opposite- from same-sex relationships—or, for that matter, from multiple-party (“polyamorous”) ones. Any two (or more) people can feel affection for one another, believe that the quality of their relationship is enhanced by mutually agreeable sexual acts, and make a commitment to caring and sharing. So if our law understood these things as the essence of marriage, then restricting it to two-person, opposite-sex partnerships would be invidiously discriminatory—a denial of equal protection.

Historically, however, our matrimonial law has not conceived marriage as mere sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership; nor is there anything in the text, logic, structure, or historical understanding of the Constitution that commits the nation to such a conception of marriage.

In fact, the Constitution does not attempt to settle the question of how marriage should be defined. It dictates no choice among competing conceptions of what marriage is. It does not, for example, forbid polygamy or require states to permit it. Nor does it choose between marriage conceived as a genderless institution and marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Rather, the Constitution leaves the choice among competing conceptions of marriage where it leaves most policy questions, namely, to the judgment of the people and their elected representatives.

A Defense of State Marriage Laws

So, historically, how have the states understood and defined marriage?

They have understood and defined it as a relationship shaped by the needs of children for mothers and fathers, rather than as an institution whose purpose is to serve the interests or desires of adults by facilitating sexual-romantic companionship. Our laws, including those under review in the cases now pending before the Supreme Court, reflect the judgment that marriage is the conjugal union of spouses, rooted in the sexual-reproductive complementarity of male and female, which brings together a man and a woman as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children born of their union. As a social institution, it aims to secure for children the inestimable blessing of being brought up in the committed love—the marital bond—of the man and woman whose union brought them into being, and the related benefit of both maternal and paternal influences and care.

This understanding of marriage as a conjugal union recognizes that not all married couples will have children, though most will. But it responds to the biological fact that every child will have a mother and a father, and recognizes the psychological reality that children generally long to know and be known by, and to love and be loved by, both their fathers and their mothers. And it is built upon the fact that the social purpose of legally recognizing and supporting marriage as an institution—the goal that gives the state any legitimate interest in marriage—is to ensure that as many children as possible are brought up by their father and mother in the marital bond. After all, the state has no interest whatsoever in the romantic lives of its citizens as such.

But what about the fact that some married couples cannot have children? Does that show that marriage cannot really be a conjugal relationship, but does in the end boil down to sexual-romantic companionship?

No. Our law, and the traditions of thought that have informed and supported it, have always understood marriage as the type of relationship that would naturally be fulfilled by the spouses having and rearing children together. And sexually complementary spouses can enter into precisely that type of relationship even when one or both happen to be infertile.

This understanding of the matter simultaneously and perfectly coherently holds two important truths: (1) the very idea of marriage is rooted in the male-female complementarity that makes sexual reproduction possible, and (2) the value of marriage cannot simply be reduced to its utility as a means to the end of having and properly rearing children. Men and women are so constituted that being in a marriage—a sexually complementary relationship that, as such, is naturally ordered to procreation and that would be fulfilled by having and rearing children together—is valuable in itself, and not merely as a means to something else, even where that something else is the great good of having and rearing children.

....................

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

El gobierno de Obama obligará a beneficiarios confesionales de subsidios a contratar a LGBT

La Casa Blanca ordenará a beneficiarios de subsidios de carácter confesional que acepten postulantes LGBT
Por Austin Ruse

Una fuente dentro del gobierno federal ha informado a Friday Fax que la Casa Blanca está avanzando en sigilosamente con un cambio normativo que exigirá que las agrupaciones humanitarias benéficas acepten postulantes LGBT a fin de reunir las condiciones para recibir subvenciones del gobierno, incluso aquellas instituciones confesionales que podrían tener objeciones religiosas.

El cambio normativo está vinculado a un decreto del ejecutivo que el presidente Obama emitió en julio pasado, el cual prohíbe que los contratistas federales tengan prácticas discriminatorias de contratación basadas en la orientación sexual y la identidad de género. Las agrupaciones confesionales ya estaban lidiando con esa disposición.

Las cosas están por ponerse peores de manera exponencial para las agrupaciones confesionales que realizan tareas humanitarias y obtienen no contratos sino subsidios financieros para llevarlas a cabo.

Aunque el decreto presidencial del verano pasado tenía que ver específicamente con el abastecimiento y los contratos federales, no alcanzaba a los beneficiarios de subsidios que superan considerablemente en número a los beneficiarios de contratos.

Sin embargo, la Casa Blanca ha ordenado recientemente a las agencias federales que incluyan la cláusula «orientación sexual e identidad de género» en todos los acuerdos de subsidios. La Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional (Usaid, por sus siglas en inglés), ha accedido a realizar esta modificación y se dice que está a semanas de su implementación.

La fuente añadió que las agencias federales están siendo presionadas para realizar este cambio sin un decreto del ejecutivo posterior y que la oficina jurídica del Departamento de Estado ha informado a la Casa Blanca que esto no es un asunto jurídico sino político.

Las consecuencias de esta modificación serían devastadoras para los más necesitados en el caso de que las instituciones benéficas deban poner fin a programas en las regiones más pobres de todo el mundo si ya no reúnen las condiciones para recibir subsidios del gobierno.

Un arma de defensa que les quedaría a las agrupaciones confesionales sería una demanda conforme a la Ley de Restauración de la Libertad Religiosa. Pero el problema de eso es que sería el beneficiario del subsidio quien tendría que presentarla y llevar a juicio al gobierno. Sería una posibilidad larga y costosa, y el éxito distaría de estar asegurado.

El congresista demócrata Bobby Scott y otros han estado presionado a la Casa Blanca para que elimine completamente la excepción religiosa del decreto presidencial de la época de Johnson que el presidente Obama modificó el verano pasado para incluir a los homosexuales.

Se informó a Friday Fax que algunas agencias federales están indecisas respecto de efectuar el cambio, pero que, debido a la presión de la Casa Blanca, les cuesta decir que no.

Esta modificación es solo la última de una serie de desafíos a la libertad religiosa que apuntan a instituciones benéficas por parte del gobierno de Obama.

En diciembre pasado (en Nochebuena) el gobierno de Obama publicó el anuncio de que las instituciones benéficas que trabajan con niños refugiados que ingresan a los Estados Unidos deben incluir servicios de salud sexual y reproductiva que podrían abarcar la anticoncepción y el aborto.

En julio del año pasado, el decreto presidencial de Obama que prohíbe que los contratistas federales discriminen al emplear a personas que se identifican como lesbianas, gais, bisexuales y transgénero, no eximía a las organizaciones religiosas. En el momento del anuncio, dos obispos que presiden la conferencia episcopal católica de los Estados Unidos reprocharon inmediatamente la orden diciendo que era «sin precedentes y extrema, y debería ser combatida»

..........................

Leer más aquí: c-fam.org

“Castro continues to provide a safe haven to terror groups like the Colombian FARC and Spanish ETA and harbors fugitives from American justice,”

Boehner, top Republicans blast Obama for removing Cuba from U.S. terror list
By Guy Taylor and Ben Wolfgang

The Obama administration on Friday officially scrubbed Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, removing a key barrier toward full normal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the communist island.

While the move was weeks in the making — under U.S. law, the administration had to wait 45 days between announcing and formalizing the delisting — Friday’s development prompted harsh criticism from top Republicans and members of the Cuban-American delegation in Congress.

“The Obama administration has handed the Castro regime a significant political win in return for nothing,” said House Speaker John Boehner, Ohio Republican, who asserted that the “communist dictatorship” in Havana has failed to offer “any indication it will cease its support for violence throughout the region.”

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Cuban-American and long an outspoken critic of the Castro government, went further, asserting that the administration had no real justification for removing Cuba from the state sponsors list, which now consists of just three nations: Iran, Sudan and Syria.

“Castro continues to provide a safe haven to terror groups like the Colombian FARC and Spanish ETA and harbors fugitives from American justice,” the Florida Republican said.

“President Obama’s decision to remove Cuba from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list demonstrates that this administration has once again put politics over policy,” Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen added. “Cuba should not have been removed … since one of the many reasons for its inclusion are its links to repressive regimes around the world such as Iran, Syria, and Russia.”

...................

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com

Rostislav Ishchenko: “the civil war will not only continue” in the Donbas “but spread throughout all of Ukraine.”

Russia Now in ‘a State of War for Survival with the US,’ Russia Today Commentator Says
by Paul Goble

Staunton, May 22 – Rostislav Ishchenko, a commentator for Russia Today who gained notoriety for arguing that Moscow should “preventively occupy” the Baltic countries, says that Russia today “is in a state of war with the United States and that each of its citizens is on the front lines regardless of whether he is fighting with arms in his or her hands.”

In a speech to a May 17 conference on “The Ukrainian Crisis and Global Politics” organized by the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISI) and in an interview given to Prague’s “Parlimentni Listy” portal yesterday, Ishchenko presents these and other notions which because of his closeness to the Kremlin deserve attention.

(For his speech to the RISI meeting in St. Petersburg, see riafan.ru/278739-rossiyanam-pora-ponyat-chto-oni-uzhe-na-voyne-ekspert/ as discussed by Kseniya Kirillova in nr2.com.ua/blogs/Ksenija_Kirillova/Kremlevskiy-analitik-priznal-chto-lidery-LNR-rossiyskie-marionetki-97299.html.For his interview, see parlamentnilisty.cz/arena/rozhovory/Ukrajinsky-politolog-vazne-mluvi-o-veseni-oligarchu-Valka-pry-zaplavi-celou-zemi-a-pricina-je-v-USA-375962 and in Russian topwar.ru/75365-intervyu-rostislava-ischenko-cheshskomu-izdaniyu.html.)

In his speech in St. Petersburg, Ishchenko, who is also president of the Moscow Center for Systems Analysis and Prediciton, said that it was already long past time to speak about the existence of a state of war, about why it had come about, and about how Russia must prosecute it in order to ensure its national survival.

According to Ishchenko, “the war was inevitable” because the US needed to expand its markets and could do so only by turning Ukraine against Russia. Only Russia could resist the US, he says, because of Moscow’s nuclear arsenal, one “approximately equivalent” to that of the US, even though Russia’s economy is much smaller.

Indeed, he continued, “GDP and other economic indicators do not play as important a role” as many imagine. “The barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire even though their GDPs were microscopic” in comparison with Rome’s. That must be kept in mind, he said, now when “a war for survival, for determining who will live in the brave new world,” is taking place.

In this situation, he argued, it is important to understand that “we are on the frontlines. We have a common enemy and we have a common victory. Each of us is fighting for his or her future. It is not important what weapons we are employing, guns, computers, or pieces of paper. We are fighting for our lives” and for “the survival of our people and of ourselves.”

“Unfortunately,” Ishchenko said, “the eney is a very serious one. This is the largest economy in the world. One cannot defeat it today or tomorrow however much we would like. Yes, we will take losses, in the Donbas and in other places, not just in Ukraine.” Instead, Russia is facing as its zone of operations “all of Eastern Europe.”

In his Prague interview, Ishchenko provides context for these extremely militaristic and aggressive views. He argues that Putin’s “greatest service” to Russia has been that he has restored the country’s power step by step rather than by radical measures, so gradually that only now can Russians “see the gigantic extend of the work he has carried out.”

The war in Ukraine is a result of a general overreaching by the United States, a trend that reflects the “dizzy with success” feelings many American officials had after the collapse of the USSR and their sense that the US could do anything. Now, thanks to Putin’s rebuilding of Russia, they are learning that they have underrated the power of those arrayed against them.

“Putin has acted correctly,” Ishchenko says. “Now his time has come and he can calmly offer the US any compromise. Washington has gone too far. Compromise for it is defeat and loss of face.” Because that is the case, the US will increase tensions in what will prove a failed effort to reverse the situation.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, Ishchenko argues that “the civil war [there] will not only continue” in the Donbas “but spread throughout all of Ukraine.” And he adds that those parts of Ukraine, like those parts of other former Soviet states, will ultimately rejoin Russia in one form or another.

“There won’t be such small states around Russia,” he suggests. “Most likely they will become part of Russia [because] that is what the people populating these regions are seeking. If there won’t be such a possibility, then they will form under a Russian protectorate a confederal or federal union (or even two or three of these).”

Source: windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com