The AntiChrist

The AntiChrist

edomite jew

Judaism is the only religion that have sex when they pray (thrusting their pelvis) to Sex Goddess Shekinah.

Now you understand why their Holy Books allow sex with babies and children.

GOD cursed the Satanists out of Jerusalem for life. Jesus focused on Jerusalem because it was the most unholy, evil, place on earth… still is today.

Kethuboth 11b : “When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl, it is nothing. Having intercourse with a girl less than 3 years old is like putting a finger in the eye. It sheds a few tears but soon heals.
Sanhedrin 55b: A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his”

Satanic Jews

satans chosen people

Satanic Jews

Satanic Jews

Satanic Jews

Ancient Satanic Torah found in Turkey

Burning of Christian churches in israel justified, Jewish leader Benzi Gopstein says

Satans chosen Jews

Satans chosen Jews

Jews

 

 

Jews sharing pics of killing semite palestinian children again

Jews killing semites again

Ancient Torah Proves Jews worship Lucifer

Jew admits to killing Christians for centuries

Gay LGBT Jews

 

Judaism is the only religion that have sex (thrusting their pelvis) when they pray to Sex Goddess Shekinah.

Jews today continue to murder Christian and non-Jewish children to use their blood in Jewish rituals and Jewish holidays.
Judaism Satans black cube

Judaism Satans black cube

 

 

Kabbalah Judaism is Satanism

The AntiChrist

When there are severe disturbances in superstitious societies such as these, they result in ever more propitiations to Satan, so as to restore peace and tranquility. When Hernando Cortez and the Catholic Conquistadors were closing in on the Aztec capital of Mexico City in 1521, the Aztec priests began frenetically sacrificing ever more victims on their blood-smoking pyramid.The AntiChrist(left, Putin is a Kabbalist)

2. The Zohar is the source of the Gnostic, New Age and neo-Nazi belief that Satan and the God of the Bible are the same person.In many passages in the Zohar, the conflation of Yahweh and Satan is difficult to miss.

For instance, the Book of Genesis testifies that the Biblical patriarch Joseph was beloved by God, while the Zohar states that for the crime of kidnapping and selling Joseph, which Joseph’s brothers had committed, it was Satan who sought retribution against Joseph’s enemies (2:33a).

To refute the nonsensical tale circulating among “evangelical Christians” that Orthodox Judaism is not Kabbalistic and that the Kabbalah is actually heretical and not part of Orthodox Judaism, we refer the reader to one of the largest and most politically influential branches of Orthodox Judaism in the United States: Chabad-Lubavitch, which proudly operates “Kabbalah Online.”So-called “Christians” who cooperate with the Orthodox rabbinate do so in defiance of II Corinthians 6:14. They are complicit in the diabolism of the Zohar and cognate sacred Kabbalistic texts.

The AntiChrist(left, Trump is a Kabbalist)

There is no denying the pivotal role of the Kabbalah and its principal book The Zohar in much of Orthodox Judaism.Furthermore, every U.S. Congress since the administration of Ronald Reagan, has officially marked the birthday of the Kabbalist Menachem Mendel Schneerson — Chabad-Lubavitch’s last Grand Rabbi– as “Education Day USA,” a Congressional decree which is intended to lay the legal groundwork for officially promulgating in the United States the Seven “Noahide” Laws of the Chabad, and of Orthodox Judaism in general.

As we assured The Saker in his interview with this writer, the Noahide Laws require the execution of anyone who engages in Avodah zara, i.e. “idol worship.” Orthodox Judaism declares Jesus Christ an idol, and Christians as idol worshippers. The Right-wing Church-goers who follow Pence, Pompeo and Ben Shapiro cooperate in the suicide of Christianity.

Michael is a former reporter for the New York Bureau of the Associated Press and the author of nine books of history and literature. These include Judaism Discovered, as well as Judaism’s Strange GodsUsury in ChristendomSecret Societies and Psychological WarfareThey Were White and They Were SlavesThe Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, and his latest, Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People. These and other volumes are available from https://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-hoffmans-online-revisionist.html

Hoffman’s blog The Truth About the Talmud is published as a public service for the liberation of all people, Judaic as well as goy.

Michael’s Revisionist History® newsletter (https://truthfulhistory.blogspot.com/2016/03/subscribe-to-revisionist-history.html) is published six times a year

Twitter: @HoffmanMichaelA

Source Article from https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/02/hoffman-Cabala-Judaism-is-Satanism.html

Jesus Christ is NOT a Jew

 


Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information.


  • Uncategorized
Jesus Christ is NOT a Jew ChrSat20180127-Excerpt_Jesus_not_a_Jew.mp3 — Downloaded 54971 times

Your browser does not support the audio element.

 

Jesus Christ is NOT a JewThis recording has been appended to the Christogenea Saturdays program for January 27th, 2018. It merits this serparate posting.

What if Jesus were descended from the Israelite tribe of Judah, as the Scripture says that He is? Well, of course He is, because the Scriptures do not lie. But what if the people known as Jews today were NOT of the tribe of Judah? Nor even of Benjamin or Levi? Then how could Jesus possibly be a Jew? The answer is easy, Jesus is not a Jew because the people known as Jews today are not of Judah. The Bible itself tells us this.

For this reason Jesus Himself told the church at Smyrna, in Revelation 2:9: “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

Just in case that is not understood, Jesus also said to the church at Philadelphia, in Revelation 3:9: “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

So according to Jesus Himself, the people calling themselves Jews at this time are not “real” Jews, meaning that they are not actually of the tribe of Judah. But how can that be? First, we will see that Paul of Tarsus agrees with Jesus, and the events which Luke recorded in Acts chapter 26 had actually transpired about 35 years before John recorded the Revelation.

In Acts chapter 26, as Paul addressed King Herod Agrippa II, he spoke about the promise of the Gospel and he said: “6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.”

So according to Paul, the promises in Christ are for “our twelve tribes”, meaning the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. But the Jews, whom Paul mentions as an entity distinct and apart from the twelve tribes, were opposed to that promise, and therefore on account if it, they were making accusations against Paul. You won’t find too many modern so-called pastors preaching on this passage from Acts.

To Paul of Tarsus, the twelve tribes are not “Jews”, and the Jews are not the twelve tribes. That is why Paul had a Gospel message to the nations of Europe, because that is where the twelve tribes were. But that is a different story entirely.

One place in the Bible where the confusion is cleared up a bit is in Romans chapter 9. Here are some excerpts, with brief explanations, and we shall use the King James Version:

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

So Paul is concerned for his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, those who are really Israelites, and here he is praying for them. He is grieved that many of them have not yet accepted Christ, because for them are the promises, covenants, and other things which should be associated with Christianity. Then he continues:

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Here it is evident, that not everyone in Israel, claiming to be an Israelite, or at that time least a Judaean (“Jew”), are legitimate descendants from or heirs of Isaac. Paul continues:

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The promise was the promise made to Isaac, which was despised by his son Esau, and therefore it was inherited by his other son, Jacob. The people in Judaea claimed to be Judaeans, and they were not. They held the label of “Israel”, but they were not the children of the promise, as Paul in the verse which follows tells us which promise he means:

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

And Rebecca was the mother of Jacob and Esau, and as he explains here, she also had a promise. So Paul continues and shows how the Scripture distinguishes between Jacob and Esau:

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So the election might stand, as God had chosen and promised the inheritance to Jacob even before the two sons were born. Later in their lives, it was confirmed on several occasions in Scripture that Jacob was the recipient of the promises, and Esau was excluded.

Paul is comparing Jacob and Esau here because “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”, and he is explaining that it is because many of them are from Esau, they are Edomites, and not Israelites after all. For that same reason, Christ had told them in John chapter 10: “26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” Christ never told His enemies that they were not His sheep because they did not believe Him. Rather, He told them quite the opposite, that they did not believe Him because they were not His sheep.

If the Jews are from Esau, and if Jesus is of the tribe of Judah, then how could Jesus be a Jew?

In John chapter 8 we see the following exchange between Jesus and these Jews, starting with verse 32 where Jesus is speaking:

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

The Israelites had always considered themselves as having been in bondage in Egypt. The true Judaeans had considered themselves as having been in bondage in Babylon. While Edomites were subject to Israel in the days of David and Solomon, these Pharisees obviously did not concede these things. So we continue in John chapter 8:

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

The children of Israel are freed from the bondage of sin in Christ, as Paul explained frequently, and as John also explained at length in his first epistle. Otherwise, there is no propitiation for sin after Christ. Again continuing with John 8:37, Christ tells His adversaries:

37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

They did not believe Him, as He explained, because they were not His sheep. The only Judaeans who could be Abraham’s seed, and yet not be true Israelites, are the descendants of Esau, the Edomites, as well as those of Judah’s Canaanite son Shelah, and the Ishmaelites. History and Scripture demonstrate that the Edomites were in Judaea at this time and in large numbers, and that they had taken on the laws and customs of the Judaeans. There is also evidence in Scripture for the presence of some people who were descended from other groups as well, but these are the main groups, Israelite Judaeans and Edomites Judaeans. In the first century, Judaea was a Roman province of diverse races, and not truly an ethnic description.

The famous Geographer, Strabo, who lived and wrote to about 25 AD, attested that the Idumaeans, or Edomites, were “mixed up” with the Judaeans, and that they “joined the Judaeans, and shared in the same customs with them” (Strabo, Geography, Book 16, chapter 2 [16.2.34]). The late first century Judaean historian, Flavius Josephus, supplies all of the historic details of Strabo’s statement. In Ezekiel chapter 35, in verse 10, we see a prophecy that Esau would take for himself the lands of Israel and Judah after the people were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Classical records tell us that this did indeed happen. Then, where he discussed the period of the Hasamonaean dynasty, called the Maccabees, which ruled Judaea from about 156 BC to the time of Herod around 36 BC, Josephus describes how certain of them forcibly converted to Judaism all of the Edomites of what later became known as Judaea.

In his Antiquities, Book 13, from line 257 Josephus described how the high priest John Hyrcanus, some time around 125 BC, had forced the conversion and circumcision of the Edomites of Dora and Marissa and their environs, where Josephus said that “they were hereafter considered to be Judaeans.” Then later, in that same book of Josephus’ Antiquities, from line 393, we see the much greater extent of the conversion of the surrounding Edomite and other non-Israelite peoples to Judaism, which took place while Alexander Janneus was high priest and king, from 103 to 76 BC. Here Josephus described the conversion of at least 30 different cities and towns at this time, many of which places which were inhabited by Edomites and other Canaanites. Students of the Old Testament should understand that the Canaanites were a people accursed by God, and that Esau really lost his birthright because he had taken Canaanite wives.

From this point the Edomites eventually came to dominate all of Jerusalem and Judaea, including the Temple, which they had full control of by the time of Christ. Herod was an Edomite, as Josephus also attests, and began appointing his own cronies and partisans to positions in the Temple. That is why the position of priest is often distinguished from the Levites in the New Testament. That is why Christ, in John chapter 8, conceded that they were of Abraham’s seed, because they were indeed descendants of Esau. That they were not Israelites is attested to both in that same chapter where Christ told them that they were children of the devil, that first murderer Cain, and in John 10:26 where Christ told them “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep”. They were not His sheep because they were not Israelites, but Edomites. The links from Esau to Cain lie in the genes of his Canaanite wives, and the intermingling of Kenites and Canaanites which is evident throughout the history of the Old Testament, and suggested in Genesis chapter 15. So descendants of Esau are also descendants of Canaan and Cain.

Returning to John chapter 8, in the verse which follows, Christ denies that these Judaeans have a common origin with Himself:

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Esau had married the daughters of the Canaanites, Hittites, and race-mixing is called fornication in the New Testament (i.e. Jude 7, 1 Corinthians 10). The Ishmaelites and children of Shelah were also mixed in this same manner. In the decades before Christ, many of the tribe of Judah were also mixing with these people. While these Judaeans denied it, they were indeed products of fornication. Here in this exchange between Jesus and the Jews we have a fulfillment of the prophecy found in Malachi chapter 2, especially at verse 11, where it says:

7 For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law. 10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

Malachi was a prophet of the second temple period, and his book of prophecy foretold of John the Baptist as well as of Christ Himself. Malachi chapter 2 is therefore entirely relevant to the ministry of Christ. These Judaeans may have been descended from Abraham, but because they were not true Israelites, Christ told them “my word hath no place in you.” Then he continues to explain to them that they are indeed bastards:

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

This is why Paul compared Jacob and Esau in reference to Judaea in Romans chapter 9, and in Hebrews chapter 12 Paul described Esau as a “fornicator, or profane person” because he was a race-mixer and had no legitimate offspring.

While some of the Pharisees, which were, basically, a political and religious sect, were indeed Israelites, many were not. But the high priests and most of the “gang” that ran the temple during the entire period from the death of the first Herod to the destruction of Jerusalem were not Pharisees, but Sadducees, a group which Jesus never even directly addressed, unless they accosted Him. The Sadducees were the most consistent adversaries of Paul and the other apostles as well. So while it cannot be imagined that all of the adversaries of Christ were of the same mind or origin, speaking to the leaders of the temple, whom John called “the Jews” in chapter 10 of his Gospel, Jesus said to them:

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

As we have just explained, Jesus did not tell the Jews that they were not His sheep because they did not believe Him. That is what the denominational churches teach, and they have it wrong. Jesus told the Jews that they did not believe Him because they were not his sheep! In other words, the Jews who opposed him were not the people of Israel for whom Jesus came. Paul later tells us in Romans, as we have also already described, that not all of the people of Israel were actually of Israel. So we see why these people were not His sheep, and we see why Christ later told us in the Revelation that there were “them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

As Paul consistently taught in his epistles, the Judaeans who accepted Christ became one with Greeks who accepted Christ, and they lost their identity as Judaeans. Judaeans who were His sheep heard His voice and eventually lost their identity as Judaeans, becoming Christians. Today’s Jews are descended from all of those Jews who rejected Christ, who were not His sheep in the first place.

So how could Jesus be a Jew?

Insisting that Jesus is a Jew like these modern Jews is like believing that the founding fathers of our own nation were negroes, because most of the current residents of Washington DC, Philadelphia and the rest of our major cities today are Negroes. There may be some White people in Washington, or Baltimore, or Atlanta right now, but neither does that make them negroes. Likewise, Jesus was not a Jew. He was a man of the tribe of Judah, and today’s Jews are clearly not of Judah.

Georgina Sarikoudis with her crucifix outside St Raphael Greek Orthodox Church in Bentleigh. Picture: Yuri Kouzmin
Georgina Sarikoudis with her crucifix outside St Raphael Greek Orthodox Church in Bentleigh. Picture: Yuri Kouzmin

Qantas worker files discrimination claim over crucifix ban

A FORMER Qantas employee has accused the airline of banning crucifixes while allowing Muslim women to wear head scarfs.

Georgina Sarikoudis claims the airline discriminated against the Christian faith by demanding she and others discard the religious insignia.

Mrs Sarikoudis, a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, claims in tribunal documents she was subjected to “threats and ridicule” by managers who ordered her to cut off her prayer-knot bracelet and remove her necklace with a crucifix on it.

“The Qantas uniform policy allows for head scarfs by Muslim females but no allowance for the wearing of crucifixes, religious bracelets or other religious … artefacts. Qantas staff have a religious belief other than Muslim,” Mrs Sarikoudis claims.

The Ormond woman, who says she wore a crucifix during 19 years at the airline, says she was confronted after Qantas changed its uniforms late last year.

The carrier’s staff dress code — which didn’t change — prohibits visible necklaces and bracelets, except for medical alert purposes.

Women are allowed to wear head scarfs for “cultural, religious and medical reasons”.

The former Melbourne Airport customer service agent claims she was “grilled” about her devotion to her beliefs, her reasons for wanting to wear religious symbols, and even how often she attended church.

She claims other staff — including a woman who wore rosary beads — were ordered to remove jewellery with Christian icons.

Mrs Sarikoudis, who accepted a redundancy offer earlier this year, said she refused to take off or hide the items of jewellery despite months of bullying.

“For Christians, this is our uniform. Everyone should be allowed to manifest their religion as they see fit,” Mrs Sarikoudis said.

In her claim before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Mrs Sarikoudis is demanding the airline change its uniform policy to allow “religious items of significance” to be worn, as well as an apology from her former employer.

A Qantas spokeswoman said the uniform standards didn’t ban religious jewellery worn under the uniform.

“Our uniform standards don’t prohibit employees from wearing religious jewellery,” the spokeswoman said.

“Many of our employees wear such jewellery every day, it’s simply worn under their uniform.

“We give our employees plenty of options so they can continue to wear religious jewellery that is in accordance with the requirement of their faith.

“As with most airlines, employees are required to follow uniform rules and guidelines.

“There has been no change to our uniform standards in relation to religious jewellery since the introduction of the new uniform, but we have reminded employees of what the uniform standards are.”

Christian teacher in Berlin banned from wearing crucifix necklace

Share this article

Christian teacher in Berlin banned from wearing crucifix necklace
File photo: DPA.
Berlin’s neutrality law is most often discussed in relation to the Islamic headscarf. But one Christian teacher has found that it applies to other religions as well.

A Protestant teacher working in the Wedding district of Berlin was told to immediately stop wearing her cross necklace, the German Catholic News Agency (KNA) reported on Tuesday.

Consistorial president of the Berlin-Brandenburg Protestant Church Jörg Antoine confirmed last week that the woman had been given the instructions, which were based on Berlin’s neutrality law that prohibits teachers and other public sector workers from wearing religious symbols.

The neutrality law has generally applied to Muslim women who wear a hijab, or headscarf.

Proponents of the law argue that it prevents teachers from religiously influencing their students, the Berliner Morgenpost notes.

But it has also come into question after a 2015 German Constitutional Court ruling found general headscarf bans to be unconstitutional – unless headscarves are found to “constitute a sufficiently specific danger of impairing the peace at school or the state’s duty of neutrality.”

In February, a Muslim teacher in Berlin won nearly €9,000 in compensation for discrimination after she was denied a position at an elementary school due to her headscarf.

But more recently, the European Court of Justice in March upheld employers’ rights to ban religious symbols if there is good reason.

Still, Antoine of the regional Protestant Church said that after the 2015 German Constitutional Court ruling, the Church finds Berlin’s neutrality law to be unconstitutional.

He further insisted that in the case of the Christian teacher, the school should have been less strict. He was supported by Berlin Bishop Markus Dröge.

“We advocate for the freedom to wear a cross,” said Dröge.

Italy school crucifixes ‘barred’

Italian classroom (file photo)

Catholicism stopped being the state religion in Italy in 1984

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child’s right to freedom of religion.

The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a secular education.

The Vatican said it was shocked by the ruling, calling it “wrong and myopic” to exclude the crucifix from education.

The ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move “shameful”.

The Strasbourg court found that: “The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities… restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions.”

It also restricted the “right of children to believe or not to believe”, the seven judges ruling on the case said in a statement quoted by AFP news agency.

European identity

Mrs Lautsi complained to the European court that her children had to attend a public school in northern Italy that had crucifixes in every room.

She was awarded 5,000 euros ($7,400; £4,500) in damages.

Vatican spokesman the Rev Federico Lombardi said the European court had no right intervening in such a profoundly Italian matter, the Associated Press reported.

“It seems as if the court wanted to ignore the role of Christianity in forming Europe’s identity, which was and remains essential.”He told Italian TV: “The crucifix has always been a sign of God’s love, unity and hospitality to all humanity.”It is unpleasant that it is considered a sign of division, exclusion or a restriction of freedom.”‘Italian tradition’Many politicians in Italy have reacted angrily.Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini said the crucifix was a “symbol of our tradition”, and not a mark of Catholicism.One government minister called the ruling “shameful”, while another said that Europe was forgetting its Christian heritage.The government says it will appeal against the decision.The BBC’s Duncan Kennedy in Rome says that it is customary in Italy to see crucifixes in public buildings, including schools, despite the constitution saying that there should be a separation of church and state.The law requiring crucifixes to be hung in schools dates back to the 1920s.Although a revised accord between the Vatican and the Italian government ended Catholicism’s position as the state religion in 1984, the crucifix law has never been repealed.Some conservatives have already complained about schools dropping nativity plays to avoid upsetting Muslim children.

Facebook Bans Catholic Ad Featuring Crucifix for Being “Excessively Violent”

by ChurchPOP Editor

@FranciscanU, Twitter

This seems a bit strange.

Franciscan University of Steubenville says Facebook wouldn’t allow them to run a particular ad on Facebook due to it violating their prohibition of ads that are “shocking, sensational, and excessively violent.

The ad in question? It featured a San Damiano crucifix.

Here’s the ad:

@FranciscanU, Twitter

The twitter account for Franciscan University of Steubenville wrote, “An ad we placed was rejected by Facebook today for content that is ‘shocking, sensational, and excessively violent.’ We must agree with them.”

The ad was likely deemed “excessively violent” by either an algorithm automatically or a person whose job it is to view and approve/reject a very large number of ads. In other words, it’s unlikely this represents an anti-Christian bias by Facebook.

Last summer, Facebook shut down a large number of major Catholic pages, mostly in Brazil but also some in the United States, without explanation. After online pressure and in-person lobbying at Facebook offices in Brazil, the pages were restored and Facebook apologized to the Brazilian bishops’ conference. Facebook said the pages were accidentally shut down by an anti-spam detection system, though the fact they seemed to target Catholic pages made the explanation seem less plausible.

European Union

EU Court moves toward a ban on Christians wearing crosses in the workplace

 

This isn’t the headline in most of the UK media, for some reason, which appears to prefer singling out Muslims and hijabs. There’s nothing quite like a bit of Islamomania in a morning to go with your toast and marmalade, is there? ‘Top EU court adviser backs workplace Muslim headscarf ban‘, says the BBC. ‘EU’s top judge backs workplace ban on headscarves‘, writes the Independent. ‘Senior EU lawyer backs workplace ban on Muslim headscarves‘, proclaims the Guardian., above a picture of Muslim women wearing sky-blue burqas (which the Guardian calls a ‘headscarf’) emblazoned with the stars of the EU flag. ‘Top European Union court adviser says employers should be allowed to ban Islamic headscarves‘, says the Evening Standard, while the Express goes with: ‘Bosses can ban Muslims wearing headscarves at work‘.

It’s left to the Telegraph to take a more equitable and accurate approach to headlines: ‘Bosses can ban headscarves and crucifixes, EU judge says‘, they write (noting that ‘crucifix’ sounds a bit meatier than ‘cross’ in the spectrum of hallowed bling). But even this doesn’t extend to kippahs, tichels, turbans or karas. Why not just say: ‘Bosses can ban religious clothing and jewellery in the workplace’? Or does that leave hanging the fuzzy question of facial hair? Should hirsute tendencies be exempt? If so, why?

The legal opinion (HERE in full) was issued by Juliane Kokott, an Advocate General to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in response to clarification sought by a Belgian court on what precisely is banned under anti-discrimination laws, following the dismissal of a receptionist who refused her employer’s request not to wear her hijab at work.

Samira Achbita worked for G4S, a Belgian security company. She claimed the ban on her wearing a hijab amounted to discrimination on the grounds of her religion, especially since the company had no written dress-code policy asserting any kind of ‘neutrality’. The opinion issued by Juliane Kokott is that such a ban is not discriminatory, provided that the employer prohibits all employees from wearing any articles of religious clothing or other visible symbols. This seems such an obvious argument that it hardly needs a 14,000-word legal opinion to make it. The point is that a ban on wearing a hijab in the workplace may be admissible if the ban is based on a general company rule to ensure “religious and ideological neutrality”: if no religious symbols are permitted, the ethos becomes one of political, religious and philosophical non-expression.

The ECJ will now consider what final guidance to issue, and whether the legal anti-discrimination principle trumps the freedom of religion enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. After all, if everyone has “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, and that right includes the “freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”, how can that manifestation practically extend to the public realm but not to the place of employment? Will a Muslim woman walk along the street in a hijab but be required to remove it as she enters through her workplace door? Will a Sikh gentleman be required to unravel his turban and shave on the pavement? We’re not talking about those cases where religious clothing may present an obvious endangerment to health and safety, such as hygiene in hospitals: this is about benign practice and observance. You can see millions of euros now heading toward lawyers’ coffers as they argue whether hijabs, turbans and beards are mandatory observances, while crosses and crucifixes are nothing but expendable trinkets.

But Advocate General Kokkot offers an interesting comparative point:

While an employee cannot ‘leave’ his sex, skin colour, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or disability ‘at the door’ upon entering his employer’s premises, he may be expected to moderate the exercise of his religion in the workplace, be this in relation to religious practices, religiously motivated behaviour or (as in the present case) his clothing.

Setting aside the contentious science/religion nature/nurture dispute over whether sexual orientation is innate and fixed or moral choice and mutable, is she saying that a Sikh may not wear a kara, and a Muslim may not wear a hijab, but a gay person may wear (say) a rainbow bracelet, pink-power T-shirts or a Terence Higgins Trust lapel badge? If “discrimination may be justified in order to enforce a policy of religious and ideological neutrality”, why does that extend only to religious clothing and jewellery? In order to ban hijabs, is an employer not also obliged to ban the wearing of poppies or ‘end-cancer-now’ advocacy jewellery? Surely a ban founded on a general rule must be applied generally? If employers are no longer to be required to show flexibility in matters of political or philosophical expression, or in religious manifestation, why should they tolerate any employee who manifests or expresses anything political, philosophical or religious which contravenes the ‘neutrality’ (which is no neutrality at all) of the secular, apolitical, amoral workplace?

And what if religious belief is no more a matter of choice than sex, ethnicity or sexuality? There is a considerable body of evidence in the field of cognitive science which suggests that the propensity toward religious belief may be genetic and inescapable. This being so, the mandatory demand to renounce or deny a cultural manifestation of that innate belief becomes an offence to identity and diversity.

Juliane Kokott’s legal opinion is not binding on the ECJ, but the Court does tend to take such opinions very seriously and rule in accordance with them. It certainly gives an indication of how the EU’s supreme court will rule in similar cases from now on, which ought not to surprise us: indeed, it ought to spur us on toward ever-further Brexit. How long before the Established Church is ruled discriminatory? How long before the Monarch’s Coronation Oath is ruled inequitable? How long before Bibles are banned from state schools under the guise of political, philosophical and religious ‘neutrality’?

The EU is a product of secular Enlightenment idealism. It is becoming aggressively anti-Christian because it is pathologically anti-religious, under the guise of rationalism and an assertion of the necessary truths of reason. It is intolerant of the Cross of Christ and the Star of David because it cannot brook any revelation which might challenge its infallible and immutable creeds. Human rights and equality and are its archai kai exousiai. In order to guard the European Union from Islamification, it has to eradicate the residues of Christendom, for that is equitable and ‘neutral’. If we remain subject to its legal authority, we will witness a prohibition upon Christians not to worship in private, for that is guaranteed by the Charter, but to walk in spirit and in truth, for the gospel is a scandal and the Cross an offence.

While politicians wrangle over issues of economics and hypnotise us with how the merchants of the earth may or may not trade, we are being taken captive by judicial activism. The prophetic vision is blurred by the political reality. The EU is no community of faith: it is no home to Christian values or sacred virtues. Vote to remain on 23rd June, and it will mean the end of centuries of hard-won rights and incrementally-gained liberties. The witness of history cries out.

Meet the Only Nun Sentenced to Death by Hitler’s Nazi Jewish Court

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

2 Responses to “The AntiChrist”

  1. Alex Jorge says:

    Amazing all this.
    With this Accused Incest and Pedophile President Joe Biden I believe you Page will last long.

Leave a Reply

The maximum upload file size: 28 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded.

*

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes