Tuesday, May 2, 2017

#PopeFrancis "Jesus says “Look within yourselves:” #Homily

(Vatican Radio) “The Lord softens those with hard hearts, those who condemn all who are outside the law.” This was the message of Pope Francis homily, during tuesday’s Mass in the Vatican’s Santa Marta residence.  He said that those who are hard hearted do not know the tenderness of God and his ability to remove hearts of stone and replace them with hearts of flesh.
Beginning with the first reading, in which St Stephen was stoned to death by the temple authorities in Jerusalem, the Pope reflected on the witness of Christian obedience. He said that those who stoned Stephen to death did not understand the word of God. Stephen had called them “circumcised of heart,” which was the equivalent of calling someone a pagan.
According the Pope, there are different ways of not understanding the word of God. For example, when Jesus had met the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, he had called them “fools.” This was not an expression of praise, but it was also not a strong word either, unlike Stephen’s expression.
“They did not understand, they were afraid, because they did not want problems, they had fear, but they were good men, open to the truth” said the Pope.
“And when Jesus rebuked them, they let his words enter them and their hearts burned within them, whilst those who stoned Stephen were furious and did not want to listen!” This, according to the Pope, is the drama of the closed hearted.
Turning to Psalm 94, the Lord admonished his people not to harden their hearts. Then Pope Francis said, the prophet Ezekiel makes a “beautiful promise” to change the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, a heart that knows how to listen and receive the witness of obedience.
“This causes suffering in the Church. The closed hearts, the hearts of stone, the hearts which do not want to be open, do not want to hear, the hearts which only know the language of condemnation. They know how to condemn, they do not know how to say ‘Explain it to me, why do you say this? Why this? Explain it to me.’ No, they are closed. That’s all they know. They have no need of explanations,” said Pope Francis.
The rebuke that Jesus speaks of also led to the killing of the prophets, “because they spoke to you what you did not want to hear. A closed heart cannot let the Holy Spirit enter in.”
Pope Francis said “There was no place in their hearts for the Holy Spirit. In fact, the letter today speaks of how Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit, he had understood everything, he was a witness to the obedience of the word made flesh, and this was done by the Holy Spirit. He was filled. A closed heart, a hardened heart, a pagan heart doesn’t let the spirit in and feels himself in himself”
According to the Pope, the disciples on the road to Emmaus represent us, “with our many doubts, many sins. Many times we want to move away from the Cross, from the truth, but let us make space to hear Jesus, who makes our hearts burn. The other group, who are closed in the rigidity of the law, who do not want to hear Jesus, are saying worse things than Stephen did.”
The Pope concluded with a reflection on the meeting between Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. He said that every one of us enters into a dialogue between Jesus and the victim of the hearts of stone, the adulteress. And to those who want to stone her, Jesus says “Look within yourselves:”
“Today, we look at the tenderness of Jesus, the witness of obedience, that great witness, Jesus, who has given life, which makes us look for the tenderness of God, confronting us, our sins, our weaknesses. Let us enter this dialogue and let us call for the grace of the Lord which softens the rigid hearts of those people who are always closed in the law and condemn all who are outside the law. They do not know that the word became flesh, that the word is a witness to obedience. They do not know the tenderness of God and his ability to take out the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh."  

Historic #ProLife Speech on Human Rights for All Humans by William Baptiste, SFO - P. II

PART II of The Historic Speech
Which Forever Redefines the Abortion Debate Worldwide
 Introduction to
“The Winning Strategy for ‘The Culture of Life’ to WIN the ‘Cultural War’ with ‘The Culture of Death,’ to Save Humanity Forever from ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’”
by William Baptiste SFO, Founder and Director of Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!
Delivered Friday, April 7, 2017, blocks away from Parliament Hill
At the beginning of this historic speech on Parliament Hill March 19, 2017 I said:
As a sometime-university professor, now a “professor of human rights,” I could easily lecture for 3 hours.  But I’m not going to do that. Instead, [in 1 hour] I’m going to inspire you, first with knowledge, and then with WINNING STRATEGY.  Before your eyes this afternoon I am going to redefine the terms of the abortion debate from now on, and give you CONFIDENCE that we can WIN the victory of Equal Human Rights for All Humans, born and preborn, far more QUICKLY than you ever imagined.  And we can end all the incessant attacks on religious freedom and democracy itself at the same time, because in my new book Democracy 101 and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy: The Antidote to Worldwide "Creeping Totalitarianism" Now Threatening Human Rights, Religious Freedom, and Lasting Democracy, I prove in detail that Pro-Life=Pro-Democracy and this afternoon I can prove it with just the “Top 6” Facts!
Now, during the speech at Parliament Hill I did most of what I said I would do in the hour I had to speak during the afternoon Pro-Life on Parliament Hill Rally.  But due to time constraints I did not get to introduce, as I intended, “The Winning Strategy for ‘The Culture of Life’ to WIN the ‘Cultural War’ with ‘The Culture of Death,’ to Save Humanity Forever from ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’” – and I did not have time to explain WHY I am convinced that we CAN successfully implement this strategy and end BOTH legal abortion AND the incessant attacks on religious freedom which my work shows is directly related to it far more QUICKLY than you ever imagined.  I will at last do this this evening.
For those who did not attend Part I of this speech on Parliament Hill, I will first very briefly review some of the major features of the “Hill  Speech” for context:
[using the original written speech from March 19 (as above), the speaker listed the THE TOP 6 FACTS FEW KNOW ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS HISTORY WHICH PROVE PRO-LIFE = PRO-DEMOCRACY]
[and then listed THE TOP 6 MAJOR ASSAULTS ON DEMOCRACY IN "PRO-CHOICE-TO-KILL-HUMANS" CANADA -Similar Trends in Other Countries - SINCE 2015]
[The speaker also re-introduced the earlier Parliament Hill speech’s “New Terms to Clarify the Essence of the Central Dispute of Our Time: Where do you stand on the current Human Rights for All Humans debate? Do you believe in equal Human Rights for All Humans, or do you believe Human Rights can and should be denied to some humans? That is, are you “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live” or “ProChoice-to-Kill-Humans” ? “]
[Having recapped Part I of the speech] Now -  before going on to introducing the “winning strategy,” I wanted to put the facts and logic that underlie the Pro-Life position, now clearly shown, SIDE BY SIDE with the facts and logic used by the Pro-Choice side, which they actually are silly enough to call their “strongest arguments” for legal abortion – in a section I call:

Next to the Genuine Facts of History and Science Implicitly Underlying Human Rights and Democracy (and Made Explicit in Democracy 101), The Best "Pro-Choice Abortion" Justifications and Arguments are Obviously Weak and False, Just as Next to Real Money the Counterfeit Looks Fake

Just like it is much more valuable to for bank officials to study genuine money than to study counterfeit money, because, if they are intimately familiar with the real thing, that itself makes it easy to recognize any counterfeit (whatever precise form it takes), so my principal educational works like the treatise and the Pledge concentrate on the real facts and logic implicitly undergirding all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, without discussing in depth all the many various arguments put forth today to justify all the currently fashionable non-traditional values which are undermining genuine Human Rights and Democracy, simply because next to the real, traditional foundations of Human Rights and Freedoms these recent, anti-traditional ideas and arguments look as weak (if not colossally stupid) as they are, and there is little need to waste more time refuting them. 

For example:  having first recalled the Science of Biology in fact confirms beyond dispute that any human life is the same unique living individual biological human organism with absolutely unique human DNA utterly distinct from his or her parents at every age and stage of his or her human life-cycle from zygote (fertilized egg) to senior adult (yes, that fetus in your mother’s womb with your unique DNA that you grew from to be the size you are now was YOU!); and having first established from undisputed facts connected using compelling logic that all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms are historically and logically rooted in traditional Western values including the essentially "Pro-Life" historic Foundational Principles Human Rights and Democracy, which are given an eminently logical, mature and precise articulation in the first 5 Articles of the Pledge; and having also first demonstrated that "Pro-Choice abortion" philosophy throughout history has always gone logically hand-in-hand with oppressive totalitarianism, simply because there is no logical reason for any State to grant either Human Rights or Democratic Freedoms to humans in any State which does not even recognize any Inherent Human Right to Live, because abortion is legal (and having pointed out the undisputed fact the first two modern States to de-criminalize abortion were totalitarian Soviet Russia and totalitarian Nazi Germany) -- with that much solid and sensible education in view, it is simply not necessary to waste much time refuting the silly argument that the current abortion-on-demand of preborn humans in many jurisdictions should be legal (despite the fact it undermines democracy from its foundations) just because a tiny fraction of the human-killing abortions currently performed end pregnancies where the human baby was conceived in rape and was not the result of adult sexual consent.

In this factual light the "Pro-Choice abortion" argument is that we should follow the precedent of oppressive totalitarian regimes and actually undermine the whole fabric of our entire free and democratic way of life by legally eradicating the Inherent Human Right to Live of all of us by de-criminalizing abortion, and kill millions of humans worldwide every year, just because a tiny percentage of those humans were not conceived consensually and thus not wanted by their mothers.

As the counterfeit money is obvious next to the real thing, so it is obvious next to the facts undergirding all Human Rights and Democracy that there have to be much better ways to deal with the evil of rape than by adopting totalitarian anti-human policies which ultimately lead only to oppressive totalitarianism (as the current "Creeping Totalitarianism" specifically to ensure "abortion access" proves); there have to be better ways to deal with rape than legally eliminating the Inherent Human Right to Live (for BOTH the child AND the mother, since with legal abortion the mother too has no inherent Human Rights and could have been legally aborted by her mother too, as could ALL OF US who no longer have a recognized Inherent Human Right to Live because of this ridiculous "solution" to the social problem of criminal rape).  It should be also noted that the Pro-Choice position is not even remotely logically consistent, since Pro-Choicers argue that abortion should be legal if a child is produced by a non-consensual rape, and at the same time the Pro-Choice argument is that we should also undermine Human Rights for everyone by legally killing millions more human babies who were in fact conceived as the result of adult sexual consent, in a (scientifically, biologically speaking) successful sexual encounter of consenting adults which successfully resulted in sex's whole biological purpose, of human procreation - just because some are immature and irresponsible enough to engage in nature's process of producing the next generation of precious humans without any intention of nor even openness to the possibility of successfully doing so (which is an irresponsible and inhuman use of nature's way of producing humans, that violates our human biology itself - so no wonder it leads also to compromised Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms for all humans through de-criminalized abortion eradicating the legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live when immature and irresponsible people demand the "right to kill" by abortion their irresponsibly produced preborn precious human children). 

Here is another example of sloppy "Pro-Choice abortion" thinking (one cannot call it "logic") that is revealed as being as counterfeit and absurd as it is just by knowing all the actual facts underlying Human Rights: the notion that it was worth eliminating the Inherent Human Right to Live for everyone and unleashing the current "Creeping Totalitarianism" undermining Democracy into the West "because some pregnant women get hurt or die from illegal abortions."  This "reasoning" (if one can call it that) was actually used in the de-criminalization of abortion in many countries, even though it is exactly like saying "because some people getdesperate enough to commit crimes for sometimes sympathetic reasons, we should de-criminalize the crimes so anyone - desperate or not - can legally do them for any reason."  Would we de-criminalize stealing because some cat-burglars, some of whom are desperate enough to steal for sympathetic reasons like feeding their poor family, get hurt or killed in the dangerous process of committing their crime (by crawling into upper-storey windows where they could fall)?  The whole fabric of the Law which guards the Human Rights (and property rights) of everyone is offended by this "reasoning."  Clearly, if a woman for whatever reason, however sympathetic it might be, feels desperate enough to kill her own child that she is willing to risk her own life while committing the crime in a dangerous illegal abortion (as in the “cat burglar” analogy where a man feels desperate enough to steal to feed his family that he is willing to risk his own life while committing the crime in a dangerous upper-story cat-burglary), the solution in either case cannot be to legalize the crime, which can only make more innocent human victims, because it only motivates many more people, who are NOT criminally desperate, to commit the same crime as the few who are criminally desperate.  The solution has to be to uphold the law which protects the rights of everyone (the right to life or the right to property) but seek social reforms and social support programs that lessen people’s temptations to become desperate enough to commit a crime, whether a crime against humanity or a crime against property.

The third big "hard case" used illogically to somehow justify legal abortion-on-demand in addition to the "hard case" is that abortion should be legally allowed in cases "where medically necessary to save the mother." But if one thinks this "hard case" logically through, this "hard case" is dead easy to resolve without in any way compromising Democracy's foundation of the Inherent Human Right to Live and driving "Creeping Totalitarianism" with legal "abortion-on-demand."

The Pro-Life principles which Democracy 101 prove are so foundational to lasting Democracy itself are simply enough applied even to difficult medical decisions in a way which maintains the value and dignity of allhuman life.  In the exceedingly rare case where a complication in the pregnancy puts the mother’s health in serious danger, it will be a human tragedy if either the mother or the baby or both die. If doctors are in the very rare situation of having to make a decision to save one of the two human lives or the other but cannot save both, in that case whichever one dies will be a tragedy, because every human life is precious.  Even in these cases, some "Pro-Life" surgeons argue there is no such thing as a “medically necessary abortion,” because a medical procedure that saves the mother’s life which the baby will not survive (as a side-effect) stilldoes not need to target the baby for death (as the intended effect) as an abortion does. So there is simply no need to legally allow abortion when necessary to save the mother - all the law has to do is simply acknowledge the (worldwide daily) reality in emergency rooms that medical personnel, who (like the government in a healthy democracy!) are obligated to do all they can to save precious threatened human lives,sometimes are unable to do so.

As long as neither mother nor baby are "devalued," as long as one is not bigotedly viewed as "lesser" than the other and both are recognized as precious humans, which obligates the doctors to do their best to save both IF POSSIBLE, a failure to save both precious human lives is not a violation of Human Rights and there is no need to violate Human Rights by specifically legalizing the abortion-killing of humans in medical emergencies.  It is simply a human tragedy when the doctors, despite their best efforts, are unable to save both; and it is tragic if in the course of saving the mother who had the best chance of survival, the doctors had to make the uncomfortable decision to do a medical procedure which (as a side effect not as the main intended effect) they knew the baby would not survive.  This is a tragedy, not a "choice," and certainly not a "right," if there are any Human Rights at all.

Nothing could be more asinine and ridiculous than arguing that because doctors sometimes have to make the hard choice to save the precious mother not the precious baby when there is an unusually bad complication in a pregnancy, and an abortion or abortion-like procedure the precious baby will not survive occasionally has to be done only in order to save the precious mother, that somehow this precedent of a supposed "need" for abortion-killing to save another valuable human life in a rare "hard case" in any way justifies abortion-killing of precious humans in any case (the current "abortion-on-demand" in many countries).

Any logical thinker would recognize this as a "non sequitur" -- "it does not follow" that even if abortion-killing of one precious human life is occasionally, in a rare and extreme set of circumstances, necessary to save another precious human life, that therefore somehow there is no Inherent Human Right to Live (as any legal abortion implies) and abortion should be legal for any reason.  Yet this illogical application has become common.

But the only sensible thing, once one is educated enough to know lasting Human Rights and Freedoms depend on the "Pro-Life" Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, is to not make abortion legal in any circumstances, but merely acknowledge that sometimes a precious mother's life can only be saved by a medical procedure that her precious baby will not survive (a procedure that surgeons confirm does not have to target the baby for death the way an abortion does at all -- so there are no "medically necessary abortions").
All of these three examples – (which have in fact been used to justify following the totalitarian Soviet and Nazi precedent of de-criminalizing abortion) - represent the strongest arguments usually presented for legal abortion.  None of them have anything to do with facts or logic, but all are merely emotional appeals to genuinely sympathetic "hard cases" - and none of them can be logically applied to a general policy of legal abortion outside of the "hard cases" - nor even within the "hard case."  Of course we should have sympathy for the tiny percentage of women who suffer the violent crime of rape who become pregnant by this non-consensual sexual act.  But does this mean we should eliminate the Inherent Human Right to Live and thus undermine democracy with "Creeping Totalitarianism" just because we legitimately feel sorry for a woman who is pregnant through no fault of her own and does not want to be?  Nothing could be more illogical, and if this is the best solution the “Pro-Choice abortion” mindset can come up with to complicated human social problems including rape – to kill more humans – following totalitarian precedent, and undermining democracy itself - they must have seriously deficient creative problem-solving intellects.

How YOU Can Learn and Participate in the Winning Strategy for the 'Culture of Life' to WIN the 'Cultural War' with the 'Culture of Death,' to Save Humanity Forever from 'Creeping Totalitarianism'

GENERAL STRATEGY IN BRIEF: The British Abolitionists successfully and peacefully ended legal slavery (which was fundamentally incompatible with Democracy and the conflict had to be resolved for the stability of society) by EDUCATING FIRST THEMSELVES, THEN THE ELECTORATE OF VOTING CITIZENS FROM THE GRASSROOTS UP in the TRADITIONAL AND DEMOCRACY-GROUNDING PRINCIPLE of EQUAL HUMAN PRECIOUSNESS until there were sufficient numbers of EDUCATED voting citizens who believed that EVERY HUMAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION HAD EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTSto convince the politicians to end the entrenched and powerful, profitable SLAVE TRADE which DENIED HUMAN RIGHTS TO SOME HUMANS.  In the same way, today’s TRADITIONAL believers in the SAME Democracy-Grounding Principle can become “New Abolitionists” and “Democracy Pledgers” WHO CAN END the current worldwide trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism” which is driven by now-popular “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans” abortion policies that are just as fundamentally incompatible with Democracy and thus de-stabilizing to society as legal slavery was, because they violate the SAME TRADITIONAL underlying principle that EVERY HUMAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION HAS EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS  that legal slavery did by DENYING HUMAN RIGHTS TO SOME HUMANS like legal slavery did and – worse than slavery – legally eradicating the Inherent Human Right to Live which is the foundation of all Democracy.  To end the killing of humans and end “Creeping Totalitarianism at the same time, following the example of the original Abolitionists, “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live” New Abolitionists (like YOU) just need to make sure that enough voting citizens in every country (starting with themselves) become EDUCATED enough in where Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms historically and logically come from that sufficient numbers of EDUCATED voters will no longer vote for UNEDUCATED politicians who are undermining the very fabric of Democracy in their IGNORANCE of the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy(which are the SAME TRADITIONAL underlying principles held by the Abolitionists who ended slavery).  Knowing and holding the now-clearly-identified historic and logical Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy (which are backed up by the science of human life)  should be a minimum qualification for politicians in any democracy which wants to remain a democracy long-term and not fall to current trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism,” and making sure there are enough EDUCATED VOTERS to convince the politicians to constitutionally enshrine the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy is the core of the “Winning Strategy” which was successfully used by the Abolitionists to end legal slavery (who held these same principles like EVERY HUMAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION HAS EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS).
So, if I am encouraging you all to become “Democracy Pledgers”, just what is one?
Definition:  A “Democracy Pledger” is someone who takes responsibility for Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms for everyone rather than taking them for granted; someone who bothers to learn where they come from so they can protect these rights and freedoms for future generations, rather than not even knowing where they come from and so not being vigilant to maintain their foundations, and thus being prone to ignorantly compromise Human Rights and undermine Democracy without even realizing it, which uneducated ignorance on a wide scale in both politicians and voters has brought on the current worldwide threat of “Creeping Totalitarianism” necessitating the educational Democracy 101 & The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy to combat this uneducated ignorance.  A “Democracy Pledger” reads the Pledge (Democracy 101) to learn Democracy’s historical and logical foundations and then spreads it to others who spread it to others, until there are enough EDUCATED citizens in their country (who no longer take Human Rights and Freedoms for granted) to ensure they last long-term.
A “Democracy Pledger” “takes the Pledge” by reading it and spreading it to others as part of a new worldwide grassroots movement to make sure Human Rights and Freedoms last forever on their firm traditional, historical, scientific and logical foundations – until enough citizens in their country understand and stand up together in Solidarity for the constitutional enshrinement of the essential content of The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and The Core Principles of Lasting Democracy identified from history, science and logic in PLEDGE PART II and clearly articulated in PLEDGE PART I of Democracy 101 & the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy.
I have chosen the word “Solidarity” here very deliberately.  Do you THINK the current movements and forces of “Creeping Totalitarianism” undermining traditional Western values in so very many ways with massive social and legal changes, undemocratically imposed, look scary and can’t be beaten?  Well, guess what!  No anti-democratic forces EVER looked stronger than the Soviet Union, but it fell like a house of cards, more quickly than anyone ever imagined, when people with TRADITIONAL Western values JUST LIKE YOU stood up together in Solidarity against it.  The Polish Solidaritymovement, inspired by the Polish Christian, Pope John Paul II, undermined even full-blown hardline Communist Soviet totalitarianism in the Eastern Bloc Warsaw Pact countries, AND IT FELL WITHOUT BLOODSHED AGAINST ALL EXPECTATIONS.  We are only dealing with “Creeping Totalitarianism” rooted in the ignorance of politicians who are just too uneducated to know any better how to make democracy last; we are NOT facing full-blown and deliberate totalitarianism like the Polish Solidarity movement was.  If we stand up together in Solidarity for the TRADITIONAL Western values now clearly articulated as the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, all the current “Creeping Totalitarianism” will also FALL LIKE THE INSUBSTANTIAL HOUSE OF CARDS IT IS.
Don’t believe me?  Well, as my final encouraging point, please consider my assertion that Gandhi's Sequence of Progressive Government Response to Non-Violent Protest Against Injustice Indicates the "Pro-Human-Right-to-Live" (or "Pro-Life") Side Will Soon Win the Victory of Human Rights For All Humans Against Current Democracy-Destroying “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans” (or "Pro-Choice") Laws and Policies
The classic description attributed to Gandhi of the stages of government response to non-violently seeking political change where there has been injustice, when genuine rights have been trampled by the government is: "First they ignore you.  Then they ridicule you. Then they persecute you.  Then you win."
When a government that fancies itself democratic or benevolent to humans (and not totalitarian) realizes that they can no longer ignore nor ridicule nor persecute the protest movement against a legitimate complaint against injustice or a Human Rights violation without betraying their own best principles and becoming obvious Human Rights violators themselves by violently quelling those standing up for justice or genuine Human Rights, then they concede to the protesters and correct the injustice, and uphold Human Rights.
In this manner Gandhi's non-violent non-acceptance of injustice convinced the British Empire to change certain prejudiced policies (in both South Africa and India) which did not treat all human citizens of the Empire equally (and eventually to peacefully leave India - on friendly terms - to rule itself).   Even though some British policies did not live up to Britain's own highest, traditional Western (Christian) ideals of equal human preciousness, still Britain had these ideals.  And thus Gandhi's non-violent non-compliance with injustice, when they could no longer ignore it, forced the British in South Africa and India to realize that to continue the status quo of their existing  prejudiced policies, they would have to become their own definition of totalitarian monsters through repeated, consistent persecution through arrests or violence of those who would no longer put up with the injustice of the government not treating all humans under their power equally.  So the British government, after some incidents of violent persecution they themselves found highly distasteful, but which were necessary if they really wanted to enforce their current unjust laws which did not treat humans as equally valuable, had to concede that their laws and policies were unjust - and changed them.
They would have to be monsters to continue to enforce compliance upon those refusing to accept the injustice and non-violently protesting it.  They would have to be monsters to silence the voice of legitimate protest against an inhuman injustice.  So they finally decided they were not monsters, upheld their own highest democratic ideals and conceded to justice which treats humans equally, changing laws and policies which did not treat all humans equally.  All "Pro-Human-Right-to-Live" "Pro-Lifers" (New Abolitionists) are doing is in the same way standing up for the just equal treatment of all humans, for the equal Human Rights for All Humans that is the historical and logical ground of Democracy, by protesting the injustice of legal abortion which similarly does not treat all humans equally because of one kind of bigoted prejudice or another which cannot in any way be justified by the science of human life (age-bigotry "this human that is smaller than me has no rights" instead of race-bigotry "this human that is darker-skinned than me has less rights").  Since all instances of not granting all humans equal Human Rights are unjust, my below analysis of Gandhi's Sequence of Progressive Government Response to Non-Violent Protest Against Injustice indicates that "Pro-Lifers" can soon expect a major victory for their cause of having preborn humans treated equally with the same rights other humans have.
Now, how "soon" is "soon" will vary a great deal from country to country, but according to Gandhi's progression we will soon have a "Pro-Life" Human Rights for All Humans victory, because the "Pro-Choice abortion" side has kept the upper hand in worldwide governments so long only by staying in Gandhi's "ignoring" stage, which they cannot do for much longer; and they cannot seriously ridicule the "Pro-Life" side without looking like idiots themselves since the great weight of history, science and logic support the "Pro-Life" position as essential to lasting Human Rights and Democracy (this was always the case, which is why there has not so far been serious ridicule of the Pro-Life side, which would invite average people to really examine the relative merits of each side's case and see the side against current abortion law is much stronger; but now Democracy 101 & The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy has made it extremely easy for anyone to see that in fact Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy.  So From now on, any government which tries to ignore or deny that Human Rights are for All Humans, and that this is the Foundation of Lasting Democracy, will be easily seen as uneducated/ignorant at best; or illogical/unintelligent; or selfish/evil and totalitarian at worst.  So now these “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans” governments cannot ridicule the “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live” side without looking uneducated or evil; they also cannot seriously violently persecute the "Pro-Life" side to silence it without looking totalitarian and anti-democratic for violently suppressing peaceful "Pro-Life" Human Rights advocates who are only reminding people that killing humans is wrong and championing Human Rights for All Humans in a democracy that is supposed to recognize Human Rights; this means the only stage they can reasonably progress to, as continuing to ignore the "Pro-Life" voice becomes no longer viable, is to conceding we win and abolishing abortion so that Human Rights are for All Humans, now that the naturally-ensuing rotten "Creeping Totalitarian" fruit of legal abortion cancelling the Inherent Human Right to Live has grown to its logical democracy-compromising maturity.  The logical ultimately totalitarian results of de-criminalized abortion (which followed the precedent of the totalitarian Soviets and Nazis in the first place) can no longer be hidden (as in the 6 Canadian assaults on democracy since 2015 listed before); this natural rotten fruit of abortion has grown too large, and they can no longer ignore the "Pro-Life" voice which can now point at obvious compromises of democracy which are specifically to ensure "abortion access" or other anti-traditional values contrary to Democracy's Traditional, historical and logical foundations [defined clearly in Democracy 101].
and start [incessantly] asking hard questions, the government will no longer be able to ignore us without looking like uneducated fools at best and “totalitarian creeps” at worst.  We can ask them [with the same incessant tenacity the original Abolitionists used to end legal slavery], “Why do the Canada and Ontario governments (and U.S. and European and other governments) not believe killing humans is wrong, like every totalitarian State government does not?  Why does the Canadian government not recognize human rights for all humans, like every totalitarian State does not, and like every State where slavery is legal does not?  Why does our government no longer legally recognize the Inherent Human Right to Live because every human is EQUAL and PRECIOUS, which is the very foundation of Democracy - Like every totalitarian State does not?”

Just like the fall of Soviet Communism, the victory for traditional Western, democracy-grounding values of ending abortion – and ending “Creeping Totalitarianism” at the same time – is much, much, closer than you or anyone have ever expected.  If you want to start working on it right away, then come to Lasting Democracy Study Nights, soon to be started all over Canada and all over the West [once Democracy 101 and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy is released in May as the text to read and discuss at such study nights], because we don’t have to be afraid of Creeping Totalitarianism in Western democracies anymore, we only have to stand up together against it in Solidarity, as EDUCATED “Democracy Pledgers,” and it will fall like the house of cards it is because our whole free and democratic way of life is based on our TRADITIONAL WESTERN, Christian and “Pro-Life” values as its necessary foundation.

-         by William Baptiste SFO, Founder and Director, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!
-         Part I of Speech delivered March 19, 2017, on Canada’s Parliament Hill
-         Part II of Speech delivered April 7, 2017, blocks away from Parliament Hill


Parts I and II of the above speech Human Rights for All Humans Because Pro-Life=Pro-Democracy emphasize the intellectual, factual and logical basis of the traditional, Pro-Life Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and their implications towards ensuring that lasting democracy defeats current worldwide trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism.”  But a “Part III” of the speech is currently being prepared, aimed specifically at Christians.  One does not strictly need to be Christian to hold these traditional Western Pro-Life values which all human rights and democratic freedoms were historically and logically built upon, and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy within the new book Democracy 101 and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy has been written specifically so that non-Christians who also uphold traditional Western, democracy-grounding values (and who also want to keep their threatened democratic freedoms) can feel comfortable taking and spreading “the Pledge” so that human rights, religious freedom, and democracy for everybody can last long-term.  But the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy are in fact specifically Christian values, which Christianity introduced the West to and which the West specifically adopted from Christianity starting in the 4th Century, and as such, Christians should have a particular interest in learning well and spreading these democracy-grounding values, and in supporting the spread of these values for the sake of precious human life and religious freedom.  Thus, Christians can watch for an upcoming “Part III” of the above speech, for now provisionally entitled Part III: The Spiritual and Prayer Dimension Needed to Back Up And Empower the Spread of the Human Rights Education Contained in Democracy 101 and Proclaimed in the Historic Speech Human Rights for All Humans because Pro-Life=Pro-Democracy. Part III will include a Christian theological section entitled Foundation of the Foundations: God is Love – The Foundation of The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy.

In the meantime, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! encourages everyone (Christian or not) who wants human rights and democratic freedoms to weather the current storms of “Creeping Totalitarianism” and last forever on their firm traditional, historical, scientific and logical foundations to GET INVOLVED in making sure they do last, by getting involved in implementing the Winning Strategy for the 'Culture of Life' to WIN the 'Cultural War' with the 'Culture of Death,' to Save Humanity Forever from 'Creeping Totalitarianism,' which was introduced in the speech.  Resources to assist doing so are available at the following:

·        To order the new book (scheduled for release in May 2017) Democracy 101 & The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy:  The Antidote to Worldwide "Creeping Totalitarianism" Now Threatening Human Rights for All Humans, Religious Freedom, and Lasting Democracy, go to http://protecthumanrightsandfreedoms.ourchur.ch/order-democracy-101
·        Link to a video of the speech at http://protecthumanrightsandfreedoms.ourchur.ch/historic-speech (or directly on YouTube at https://youtu.be/Z7wyuPeLrdw 
·        To join and help form the new community of patrons financially supporting Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! (even just $5/month) in its world-educating and world-changing goals of human rights for all humans and lasting democracy and religious freedom go to https://www.patreon.com/humanrightsandfreedomsforever  and click “Become a Patron”
·        For more information, e-mail humanrightsandfreedomsforever@outlook.com  or call 1-613-761-0147

Today's Mass Readings and Video : Tuesday May 2, 2017 - #Eucharist

Memorial of Saint Athanasius, Bishop and Doctor of the Church
Lectionary: 274

Reading 1ACTS 7:51—8:1A

Stephen said to the people, the elders, and the scribes:
"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears,
you always oppose the Holy Spirit;
you are just like your ancestors.
Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute?
They put to death those who foretold the coming of the righteous one,
whose betrayers and murderers you have now become.
You received the law as transmitted by angels,
but you did not observe it."

When they heard this, they were infuriated,
and they ground their teeth at him.
But Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit,
looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God
and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
and Stephen said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened
and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
But they cried out in a loud voice,
covered their ears, and rushed upon him together.
They threw him out of the city, and began to stone him.
The witnesses laid down their cloaks
at the feet of a young man named Saul.
As they were stoning Stephen, he called out,
"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Then he fell to his knees and cried out in a loud voice,
"Lord, do not hold this sin against them";
and when he said this, he fell asleep.

Now Saul was consenting to his execution.

Responsorial PsalmPS 31:3CD-4, 6 AND 7B AND 8A, 17 AND 21AB

R. (6a) Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.
R. Alleluia.
Be my rock of refuge,
a stronghold to give me safety.
You are my rock and my fortress;
for your name's sake you will lead and guide me.
R. Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.
R. Alleluia.
Into your hands I commend my spirit;
you will redeem me, O LORD, O faithful God.
My trust is in the LORD;
I will rejoice and be glad of your mercy.
R. Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.
R. Alleluia.
Let your face shine upon your servant;
save me in your kindness.
You hide them in the shelter of your presence
from the plottings of men.
R. Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.
R. Alleluia.

AlleluiaJN 6:35AB

R. Alleluia, alleluia.
I am the bread of life, says the Lord;
whoever comes to me will never hunger.
R. Alleluia, alleluia.

GospelJN 6:30-35

The crowd said to Jesus:
"What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you?
What can you do?
Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written:

He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

So Jesus said to them,
"Amen, amen, I say to you,
it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven;
my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven
and gives life to the world."

So they said to Jesus,
"Sir, give us this bread always."
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life;
whoever comes to me will never hunger,
and whoever believes in me will never thirst."

Saint May 2 : St. Athanasius : Doctor : Patron of #Handicapped and #Orthodoxy

St. Athanasius

Feast Day:
May 2
295 at Alexandria, Egypt
2 May 373 at Alexandria, Egypt
Major Shrine:
Saint Mark Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo, Egypt

San Zaccaria, Venice, Italy
St. Athanasius, known as the "champion of orthodoxy," was  born about the year 297, in Alexandria. There is a tradition, related by Rufinus, that he first attracted the notice of Patriarch Alexander as he was playing at baptism on the seashore with other small boys. After watching young Athanasius perform the rite, the prelate called the boys to him and by questioning satisfied himself that the baptisms were valid. He then undertook to have these boys trained for the priesthood. Athanasius received an excellent education, not only in Christian doctrine, but also in Greek literature and philosophy, rhetoric, and jurisprudence. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, and learned theology from teachers who had been confessors during the terrible persecutions under Maximian. In youth he appears to have formed friendships with several hermits of the desert, especially with the great Antony, whose biography he was to write. He was reader to the patriarch, and in 318 became his secretary. During this period he wrote a discourse, <Against the Gentiles>, in which he attempted an explanation of the Incarnation and the doctrine of the Trinity.
In Egypt two strong and often divergent forces had early appeared in the Christian Church: the conservative hierarchy in Alexandria, represented by the patriarch or bishop, and the theologians of the schools, who cared little for tradition and stood for free reasoning on theological subjects. The leaders of the latter party had sometimes been obliged, like the famous Origen, to go into exile. There were also schisms over the distribution of authority in the Church and over doctrinal questions. It was probably about the year 323 that one Arius, a priest of the church of Baucalis, began to teach that Jesus, though more than man, was not eternal God, that he was created in time by the Eternal Father, and could therefore be described only figuratively as the Son of God. The patriarch demanded a written statement of these doctrines. With only two dissenting voices the bishops condemned them as heresy, and deposed Arius, together with eleven priests and deacons of Alexandria. Arius retired to Caesarea, where he continued to propagate his ideas, enlisting the support of Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia and other Syrian prelates. In Egypt he had already won over many of the metaphysicians, as well as Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, and leader of a dissident group. Theology being the topic which most deeply engaged men's minds, the Arian controversy interested all classes of the population. The heretical propositions were publicized in the form of songs set to popular tunes, and these were chanted in the forums and carried by sailors from port to port.
Athanasius, as the patriarch's secretary, took a prominent part in this great Church struggle. It is probable that he even composed the encyclical letter announcing the condemnation of Arius. We know that he was present, as an attendant on Alexander, at the famous Council of Nicaea, summoned by the Emperor Constantine to determine matters of dogma. There the sentence against Arius was confirmed, and the confession of faith known as the Nicene Creed promulgated and subscribed. This gathering of churchmen influenced Athanasius deeply, and, as a modern writer has said, the rest of his life was a testimony to the divinity of the Saviour.
Shortly after this Alexander died, and Athanasius succeeded him, although he was not yet thirty. One of his first acts was a tour of his enormous diocese, which included the great monastic settlements, especially the Thebaid. He ordained a bishop for Abyssinia, where the Christian faith had recently been established. Yet in spite of his best efforts, there was strong opposition. The Meletians made common cause with the Arians, and the movement, temporarily discredited by the Council of Nicaea, was soon again rampant in Asia Minor and Egypt.
In 330 the Arian bishop of Nicomedia, Eusebius, returned from his exile and before long had persuaded the aging Constantine to write to Athanasius, bidding him readmit Arius into communion, in the interests of unity. Eusebius sent an ingratiating letter in defense of Arius, but Athanasius held to his conviction that the Church could have no communion with heretics who attacked the divinity of Christ. Then Eusebius wrote the Egyptian Meletians urging them to impeach Athanasius for personal misconduct. They brought charges that he had levied a general tribute of linen for use in his own church, and made other petty accusations. At his trial before the emperor, Athanasius cleared himself and returned in triumph to Alexandria, bearing with him a letter of approval from Constantinople.
His enemies now accused him of having murdered a Meletian  bishop named Arsenius, and summoned him to attend a council at Caesarea. Knowing that his supposed victim was in hiding, Athanasius ignored the summons. In 335 an order came from Constantinople to appear before another assembly at Tyre, packed by his opponents and presided over by an Arian who had seized the see of Antioch. Realizing that his condemnation had been decided on, Athanasius abruptly left the council and took ship for Constantinople. There he accosted the emperor as a suppliant in the street and obtained an interview. So completely did he vindicate himself that Constantine summoned the bishops to Constantinople for a retrial of the case. Then, for some unexplained reason, he suddenly changed his mind. Before the first letter arrived, a second was sent, confirming the sentence and banishing Athanasius to Treves. During this first exile, Athanasius kept in touch with his flock by letter.
In 337 Constantine died, shortly after his baptism by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and his empire was divided among his three sons, Constantine II, Constantius, and Constans. Many of the exiled prelates were now recalled. One of the first acts of Constantine II, who had sovereignty over Britain, Spain, and Gaul, was to allow Athanasius to return to his see. Two years later Constantine II was to be killed in battle in Aquileia. The patriarch reentered Alexandria in seeming triumph, but his enemies were as relentless as ever, and Eusebius of Nicomedia had completely won over the Emperor Constantius, within whose portion of the empire Alexandria was situated. New scandals were invented and Athanasius was now accused of raising sedition, promoting bloodshed, and keeping for himself corn intended for the poor. A Church council which met at Antioch again deposed him, and ratified an Arian bishop for Alexandria.
In the midst of all this confusion a Cappadocian priest named Gregory was forcibly installed as patriarch of Alexandria by the city prefect, pagans and Arians having now joined forces against the Catholics. Confronted unceasingly by acts of violence and sacrilege, Athanasius betook himself to Rome to await the hearing of his case by the Pope. A synod was summoned, but the Eusebians who had proposed it failed to appear. The result was a complete vindication of Athanasius, a verdict afterwards endorsed by the Council of Sardica. Nevertheless he found it impossible to return to Alexandria until after the death of Gregory, and then only because Emperor Constantius, on the eve of a war with Persia, thought it politic to propitiate his brother Constans by restoring Athanasius to his see.
After an absence then of eight years, Athanasius was welcomed back to Alexandria in 346, and for three or four years there was comparative peace. But the murder of Constans in 350 removed the most powerful support of orthodoxy, and Constantius, once he found himself ruler of both West and East, set himself to crush the man he now regarded as a personal enemy. At Arles in 353 he obtained the condemnation of Athanasius from a council of Gallic bishops, who seem to have been kept in ignorance of the importance of the issues. Two years later at Milan he met with more opposition from the Italian bishops, but when with his hand on his sword he gave them their choice between condemnation of Athanasius and exile, by far the greater number yielded. The few stubborn bishops were exiled, including the new Pope Liberius. He was sent into isolation in Thrace until, broken in body and spirit, he too gave his consent to the Arian decrees. Athanasius held on for another year with the support of his own clergy and people. Then one night, as he was celebrating a vigil in the church of St. Thomas, soldiers broke in. Athanasius was instantly surrounded by his people, who swept him out into the safety of darkness; but for six years thereafter he had to live in hiding. His abounding energy now expressed itself in literary composition, and to this period are ascribed his chief writings, including a <History of the Arians>, three letters to Serapion, a defense of his position to Constantius, and a treatise on the synods of Rimini and Seleucia.
The death of Constantius in 361 was followed by another shift in the situation. The new emperor, Julian, a pagan, revoked the sentences of banishment enacted by his predecessors, and Athanasius returned once again to his own city. But it was only for a few months. Julian's plans for a reconquest of the Christian world could make little headway as long as the champion of the Catholic faith ruled in Egypt; he also considered it necessary to banish Athanasius from Alexandria as "a disturber of the peace and an enemy of the gods." During this fourth exile, he seems to have explored the entire Thebaid. He was in Antinopolis when two hermits informed him of the death of Julian, who, it was later ascertained, at that moment was expiring in distant Persia, slain by an enemy's arrow.
The new emperor, Jovian, a soldier of Catholic sympathies, revoked the sentence of banishment and invited Athanasius to Antioch, to expound the doctrine of the Trinity. Jovian's reign lasted only a year, and his successor in the East, Valens, succumbed to Arian pressure in Constantinople and in May, 365, issued an order banishing again all orthodox bishops who had been exiled by Constantius and restored by his successors. Once more the worn and aged prelate was forced to flee. The ecclesiastical historian, Socrates, tells us that Athanasius hid himself this time in his father's tomb, but a better- informed writer says that he spent the months in a villa in a suburb of Alexandria. Four months later Valens revoked his edict, fearing possibly a rising of the Egyptians, who were determined to accept no other man as bishop. Joyfully they escorted him back. Athanasius had spent seventeen years in exile, but his last years were peaceful. He died in Alexandria on May 2, 373. His body was twice removed, first to Constantinople, and then to Venice.
While the theological controversies which marked this period  may seem both complex and remote, they were an important milestone in the history of the Church, Athanasius rendering an outstanding service. The statement of Christian doctrine known as the Athanasian Creed was probably composed during his life, but not actually by him. In his works there is deep spiritual feeling and understanding, and as Cardinal Newman said, he stands as "a principal instrument after the Apostles by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world."
Lives of the Saints - Alban Butler