Thursday, August 20, 2009

The great Brazilian miracle

The great Brazilian miracle

Phenomenal resistance by a poor Christian minority in Brazil hinders the advance of several threats from the gay agenda subsidized by the Lula administration

By Julio Severo

Barack Obama, the would-be Antichrist, barely became US president and he has already been advancing anti-“homophobia” bills.

For years, Lula, the socialist president of Brazil, has been trying to advance such bills in Brazil, with the assistance of many homosexual groups that receive training and grants from powerful US organizations, but he is stumbling in difficulties because of a very small opposition. Why is Obama, in so a short time, being more successful than Lula?

The opposition to these bills in Brazil and the US is being made by conservative Christians. The difference is that, while conservative Christians in the US count on numerous well-funded pro-family groups, the Brazilian Christian mobilization looks likes a pack of people in rags. They have no resources; they have no TV stations, etc.

This does not mean that Brazil has no strong, well-funded Christian groups. The Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus (Kingdom of God Universal Church, whose Portuguese initials are IURD) has vast financial resources, radios and many TV stations, including Record, the second most important TV channel in Brazil. There are also the Reborn in Christ Church and many other denominations with TV channels. The common denominator of those powerful evangelical organizations is their support for the same administration that has been promoting abortion and homosexuality in the Brazilian society.

The small Christian mobilization in Brazil does not count on any powerful organization and additionally it has to face the Lula administration, the liberal media, progressive evangelicals and Catholics, and the omission of the vast majority of Christian leaders who prefer not to speak openly against the pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality policies of the government.

The only recourse for the active Christian minority is prayer and action.

The powerful

Before the gay-agenda threats in Brazil, where are the powerful evangelical leaders? The powerful are with the powerful. Not accidentally, the inauguration of Record News, a news channel owned by TV Record, had the attendance of the “powerful” Lula, who wanted to be together with the “powerful” Bishop Edir Macedo, the founder of the “powerful” IURD. The powerful please the powerful.

In the past Brazilian presidential elections, IURD leaders supported Lula, and in turn Lula supported its candidates too. They have been allies.

So Lula, whose administration is openly pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality and pro-socialism, is at ease with Record TV, which has been in a steady pro-abortion campaign. In his interview to the Veja magazine (the Brazilian counterpart of Time magazine), Bishop Honorilton Gonçalves, the IURD strongman responsible for Record, revealed the reason Record defends abortion.

Veja magazine: “Recently, Record assumed openly the pro-abortion position — which is compatible with the IURD view on the subject. Why to adopt such position?”

Bishop Gonçalves: “It was a direct orientation from Mr. Edir Macedo, who asked us to make the society conscious on the importance of a woman being able to determine her own destiny”.

Later, Bishop Macedo voiced his own view in the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper.

Folha de S. Paulo: “In your biography, you defend abortion. Currently, Record and Record News show a pro-abortion campaign. Why?”

Bishop Macedo: “I support the decriminalization of abortion for many reasons…”

With this same “moral” base, Macedo has recently accused that “many ‘Christians’ have treated homosexuals as lepers in the past”. When it comes to the Gospel, Christians condemn sin, but not the sinner. When it comes to their social responsibilities, they reveal to society the divine condemnation on homosexuality, and because of it they are condemned themselves by gay activists and by society as condemners of homosexuals. And now Macedo joins in the social and gay chorus, making the comparison of homosexuals and lepers, as if they were equal.

Did Macedo see “many” Christians churches expelling “many” homosexuals? Perhaps he saw “many” Christians keeping away from homosexuals openly kissing one another. Or perhaps the “many” Christians are, according to his “moral” view, the Christian mobilization against anti-“homophobia” bills…

Ultimately, are homosexuals today like the lepers in the past?

“Leprosy is an unalienable human right!”

Perhaps Macedo does not know, but lepers in the past did not have any freedom to make huge parades of “leprous pride”. They could also not kiss one another openly and lobby city councils, legislative assemblies and the Congress for bills against “leprophobia”.

There was no bill against “leprophobia” to fight “leprophobics”. There was not also any legal means to prosecute priests who said any negative word against leprosy.

Lepers had no freedom to manifest their views in radios, TVs, newspapers and magazines, by saying, “Leprosy is a human right! Leprosy is a normal lifestyle. I have the right to be a leper, because I was born this way!”

Poor modern gay activists! They also have no such rights!

Bishop Macedo is not an idiot — in a purely earthly sense. He is smart — in a purely earthly sense. He knows — or he should know — that the command for the social isolation of lepers in the Old Testament came from God, not from religious leaders. And God broke this isolation when Jesus touched lepers. God commanded the isolation, and he himself broke it to bring healing.

What is then Macedo’s motivation for his comparison of homosexuals with lepers?

Pleasing the powerful

He knows that two important issues for the Lula administration, for the social elite and for the world government are abortion and homosexuality. Whoever favors these two issues receives the favors of the Lula administration. Whoever favors these two issues receives the favors of the social elite, the Obama administration, the UN, etc.

In a time when IURD periodically faces most serious scandals, nothing better than to please the social elite to hide under the rug its “inconveniences” and escape from the dens of scandals and corruption.

Gone was the time when those who had the name of “great men of God” trusted in God to escape from the lion’s den.

Daniel escaped from the lion’s den because of his integrity before God, especially his spiritual and financial integrity. Today, the “great men of God” leave the lion’s den — dens of scandals and corruption they dig themselves through their lack of integrity — pleasing the powerful.

The approval of abortion and homosexuality pleases the powerful — including many religious powerful.

What then to do in this political, social, cultural and religious climate of hostility against the Bible positions against the sin?

The passive Christian before the advance of the evil in the society

Naive Christians have a “spiritual” answer to these challenges: They just refrain from acting and manifesting the Bible positions. Just visualize one of these Christians back in the Nazi Germany talking to another in a street, “Brother, do not rebel and do not react against the evils you see in the Nazi society. Remember: our destiny is heaven and we should not worry about earthly things. Let’s pray for Hitler, because he needs salvation. Let’s pray for Nazis, because they need salvation. Let’s pray for the persecuted Jews too. Our mission is only to pray. Nothing else”.

Nazi Germany, whose high political leaders were composed mostly of violent fascist homosexuals, was a society where euthanasia, abortion, evolutionism and other perversities were actively promoted, before the passivity of the overwhelming majority of the German Christians.

Passivity is not a call for the true citizens of the Kingdom of God. Passivity is not my call. I have been a consistent intercessor for more than 20 years. I know by experience that firstly God calls us to prayer and next to action.

Whom should Christians please?

Prayer that does not lead us to spiritual action is empty religious recitation, with no power to influence our own lives and nation.

So I am not attached to such recitation, but attached to the Powerful One through prayer and God’s Word.

Offending the powerful, who want to impose homosexual “marriage” and other homosexual insanities in the society, I speak what God speaks on homosexuality.

Offending the powerful, who want to impose a completely anti-natural homosexual normalcy and criminalize every effort to assist people who want to leave out homosexuality, I speak that God has healing, hope and deliverance for everyone, including those in homosexuality.

How is then a poor Christian minority being able to hinder several threats from the gay agenda in Brazil?

The great Brazilian miracle is being made possible not because of the religious powerful, but because of those who, even offending the powerful, want to please only the Powerful One.

Portuguese version of this article: O grande milagre brasileiro


Read also:

Director of YWAM in Brazil attacks Christian activism against the anti-“homophobia” bills and homosexual “marriage”

To know more about Bishop Macedo in Portuguese, click here.

To know more about TV Record in Portuguese, click here.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Director of YWAM in Brazil attacks Christian activism against the anti-“homophobia” bills and homosexual “marriage”

Director of YWAM in Brazil attacks Christian activism against the anti-“homophobia” bills and homosexual “marriage”

Bráulia Ribeiro accuses Christian mobilization against gay agenda as “hate and prejudice crusade”

By Julio Severo

The year is 1932. Evangelical churches, highly moralist, were marked by holiness in their behavior and a major concern for an ethical and impeccable testimony. There was also a real interest in the purity of the Gospel and in sacrifices for its spread to a lost world.

To transform such interest into action is more than fair. Since the Gospel offers hope to the sinner, decades before the first anti-“homophobia” bills, churches took on the prophetic head, launching in the 1930s campaigns to fight discrimination against homosexuals.

The initiative included propaganda in trains, carts and streets, educating the astonished population — who were having a very hard time to understand what was happening — that those committing homosexual acts are normal and deserve respect…

As a direct result of those pioneering pressures from evangelical ministers in the 1930s, today homosexuals run no risk of being assaulted or murdered in prostitution and drug quarters at 2 a.m. Special police units escort homosexuals before and after their sexual encounters, guaranteeing protection and safety for their activities. Because of evangelicals, homosexual safe sex became a reality.

That odd fairy event should have been reality, according to a recent article by Bráulia Ribeiro, who suggested that efforts against “homophobia” should have been firstly launched neither by homosexual activists nor by the Lula administration, but by Christians.

Christians in the 1930s would have been astonished and frightened if they had been told that the 21-century society would be immersed in a homosexual obsession — not mentioning that they would have been shocked by the idea that they in their days should have launched campaigns for the social acceptance of homosexuals as normal individuals.

Churches know how to be pioneering in positive campaigns. Decades before the first social campaigns against smoke, many churches were delivering alerts. These alerts were treated by the secular world as fanaticism, but today this same world is treating such addiction in the same way churches treated it: as a health risk.

I believe that churches acted appropriately in the past, treating homosexuality as an abomination, a serious sin that should be shunned, but the declarations of Bráulia Ribeiro inspire doubts and confusion, because she did not know how to make the distinction between the role of the Gospel and the role of a Christian as a citizen in a society needing not only the Gospel, but fair laws to rule.

Bráulia Ribeiro speaks, Julio Severo answers

Following are the declarations of Bráulia Ribeiro, in her Portuguese article “Não quero o direito de ser homofóbica” (I do not want the right to be homophobic), published in some Brazilian leftist magazines and websites.

Bráulia Ribeiro: “It is not our role to legislate morality”.

Answer from Julio Severo: “It is not our role to legislate morality”. This is, Christians should just stay passive while the wicked legislate every kind of immorality. You can hardly hear Satan saying to evangelical ministers and politicians, “Listen, you Christians! I am legislating immorality throughout the society and I do not want you disturbing my activities. For the time being, you are free to legislate your morality only within your churches”. You can find the echo of these words among feminists, who tell, “The State is secular. You Christians cannot promote the value of life in society. Only we, who are not Christians, have the right to legislate abortion and whatever else we want. Keep away. This domain — the society — belongs to us”. The words of homosexual activists are not different, “The State is secular. Only we can do whatever we want. You Christians may legislate your morality only within your churches”. Sometimes, a Christian voice appears to give them support. Such are the voices of Bráulias.

The argument that “It is not our role to legislate morality” will be also used against Christians fighting pedophilia. In the Netherlands, which was the first nation to legitimize homosexual “marriage”, there is an official pedophile party composed by homosexual members and because of the pressures of homosexual activism the age for sexual consent has been lowered. According to Bráulia, if homosexual activists want the same “conquests” in Brazil, we cannot “legislate morality” to thwart them.

Bráulia Ribeiro: “God did not assume that because there is an ideal, we would be forced into it”.

Answer from Julio Severo: The ideal, for the sexuality, is marriage between a man and a woman, as Bráulia acknowledged. But, as she also acknowledged, many turn away from the ideal, making wrong choices. Those deviations include: men who prefer other men, men who prefer boys, men who rape women, men who rape girls, etc. Bráulia suggests that there should be no law to enforce the ideal. So if there cannot be just laws to enforce the ideal, does it make any sense to allow passively the imposition on the society of unjust laws protecting the deviation from the ideal?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “The Bible stresses more adultery than perversions, strongly defending family limits. We Christians do not give to adultery the same importance. We excuse, understand and even ‘defend’ adultery in the name of personal happiness and in the name of the mere hedonism that flavors our religion with the same worldly aroma”.

Answer from Julio Severo: God hates adultery, but when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, the cause was homosexuality. Additionally, we do not see pride parades of adulterers, there are no groups of adulterers throughout Brazil pressing city councils, legislative assemblies and the Brazilian Congress for the approval of bills against “adulteryphobia”, there is no federal campaign “Brazil without Adulteryphobia”, etc. Schools do not receive from the government orders to praise adultery, teaching children to see it as a natural option.

Besides, churches preaching against adultery are not threatened by lawsuits and federal prosecutors. But if you preach against homosexuality, threats will come.

The media, the schools and the government exalt much more homosexuality today than adultery. Even though churches have the responsibility to condemn both sins, we have to admit the reality of our days. Fifty years ago, churches openly condemned adultery, and did not talk about homosexuality, because homosexuality was not a societal obsession. Today, the homosexual subject is compulsory throughout the society. Cannot Christians talk about what the whole Brazil is talking about?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “In a society that lives Bible principles, the responsibility to legitimize marriages belongs to family. It is in the domain of families that the union of two young people and the formation of a new family are legitimized and strengthened. We see marriages in the Bible, but no marriage established or legitimized by the church or by the State”.

Answer from Julio Severo: I fully agree with Bráulia.

Bráulia Ribeiro: “If the State sees fit to legitimize homosexual union and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

Answer from Julio Severo: She could also have told,

“If the State sees fit to legitimize abortion and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

“If the State sees fit to legitimize infanticide and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

“If the State sees fit to legitimize pedophilia and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

If Bráulia had been in Nazi Germany, her argument would have been,

“If the State sees fit to legitimize persecution to Jews and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

Hitler was democratically elected, and most of the German population supported him. He introduced many wicked laws in the predominantly and nominally Christian Germany. The Christian majority, as Bráulia, thought, “As Christians we can do nothing”.

Yet, two Christians did not think as she does. Evangelical Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Catholic Claus von Stauffenberg were members of small groups that wanted to eliminate Hitler. Today they are famous and admired, but in their own time they suffered the contempt from the government of their own country and the contempt from the most German Christians.

By sheer coincidence, the man that Stauffenberg wanted to eliminate was homosexual. In fact, the highest Nazi German leaders were violent fascist homosexuals.

If Christians are supposed to do nothing when the State sees fit to legitimize evil and the population of the nation agrees, why then did Stauffenberg and Bonhoeffer do?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “To mix God and State was a mistake in the time of Constantine and it is a mistake today”.

Answer from Julio Severo: Secularists and the Lula administration are certainly saying “Amen” to the declaration of Bráulia. All that humanists, socialists, gay activists, feminists and anthropologists want is a society where laws and politicians “do not mix God and State”.

The mistake of Constantine was not to mix God and State. His mistake was to force the conversion to Christianity of all inhabitants in the Roman Empire.

To mix God and State produces successful results. King David did it, and the result was success. Early America did it, and the result was success.

In fact, Romans 13 clearly instructs that politic officials have the calling to serve God, to be ministers of God. How to serve God as a politician when socialists and now even Bráulias demand separation between God and State?

What about, Mrs. Bráulia, to demand separation between State and gay agenda, feminist agenda, abortion agenda and Indian infanticide agenda?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “A fair State, which reflects God’s values, will defend for each individual the right to his personal choices, providing such choices do not infringe on the other’s right”.

Answer from Julio Severo: The reality that most homosexuals suffered sexual violence from a male adult in their childhood demonstrates that someone made a choice that hurt a boy. How can Bráulia use the right to choice considering such brutal reality? She wants everybody to see the brutality of the Indian infanticide. What about other brutalities? Don’t they count?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “Many evangelicals have been expectantly waiting a kind of Christian sharia, where Christian morality would be enforced by the State. This unjust and absurd sharia would not change the heart of men…”

Answer from Julio Severo: The Christian mobilization against the gay agenda has been shy, because each Christian step is ruthlessly attacked by the media. And now, joining the chorus of such attackers, Bráulia raises the absurd charge of a Christian sharia, while the Brazilian society is being engulfed by a real socialist sharia and is about to suffer a homosexual sharia.

Laws are not made to change the hearts of people. No law against murders and rapes changes the hearts of people. Laws serve only to control harmful behaviors. If we cannot create laws because they do not convert, then are laws against murders and rapes useless because they have never converted anyone?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “We have the Christian obligation to fight homophobia… The anti-homophobia voice should have been heard firstly from our mouths… If we had led this fight probably we would not have to live today the discomfort of the imposition of the homosexual agenda as we are living. We would have joined them for Christ’s sake, and not raised us against them in a hate and discrimination crusade…”

Answer from Julio Severo: Are public schools indoctrinating children in homosexuality? The blame, according to Bráulia, is on the Christian churches, which were not pioneering in the fight against homophobia.

Before, during and after Christianity, boys were abused by homosexuals? The blame, according to Bráulia, is on the Christian churches, which were not pioneering in the fight against homophobia.

Homosexual activist groups are distorting statistics of homosexual crimes to advance special laws to protect homosexuality? The blame, according to Bráulia, is on the Christian churches, which were not pioneering in the fight against homophobia.

Are Christians faithful to God and to the Bible and good-will people under the threat of being jailed if they criticize the homosexual behavior? The blame, according to Bráulia, is on the Christian churches, which were not pioneering in the fight against homophobia.

I have frequently heard homosexual activists accusing Christians of “hate and prejudice”, only because Christians do not accept the gay dictatorship. You have an obligation to accept this dictatorship. If not, you are automatically labeled a “hate and prejudice”-filled bigot.

In fact, FUNAI — the Brazilian government agency that directs and controls Indian affairs — sees only “hate and prejudice” in the YWAM’s efforts to save Indian children. At last, Bráulia found a way to revenge what YWAM has been suffering.

The difference between poor Julio Severo and wealthy YWAM

The secular world has a very clear vision on the role of Christians in the society:

Abortion: Christians should respect abortion as a women’s human right, because the State is secular and what must prevail is the secular State’s will.

Indian infanticide: Christians should respect Indian culture. Child-killing is part of the Indian culture and it is rejected only by Indians influenced and tainted by the Christian “culture”.

Speaking on Indian infanticide, Bráulia has a view on this issue. As the director of YWAM in Brazil, Bráulia complains that YWAM is victim of persecutions and false charges.

Federal prosecutors in Brazil and the Lula administration classify as crimes the YWAM actions to save Indian children from murders.

Similarly, federal prosecutors in Brazil and the Lula administration classify as a crime my fight against the gay agenda.

Do you know the difference? I give all my support to the hard mission of YWAM. I give it wholeheartedly. In fact, the YWAM video exposing the killing of Indian children was posted in my blog, where more than sixty thousand Brazilians have watched. I have fought in many other necessary battle-fronts. I am involved in the direct fight against abortion for more than 20 years, as witnessed by my friends for more than two decades Congressman Talmir Rodrigues and Dr. Humberto L. Vieira, the director of Associação Nacional Pró-Vida e Pró-Família (National Pro-Life and Pro-Family Association).

By God’s Grace, YWAM has the support from powerful national and international Christian institutions in its honorable fight against Indian infanticide.

Yet, in my fight against the gay agenda, I receive discouragement, charges and threats.

There is an abyssal difference between Bráulia and someone like me, who fight the gay agenda — and fight also Indian infanticide. Bráulia has the privilege to be the director of an institution of huge financial power and she has no hard time to get access to a good accommodation in any place in the world, because YWAM is present in many nations.

In my fight against the gay agenda in Brazil, I do not have the support from any group as powerful as YWAM. I am wandering among the nations, without an adequate place where to stay, because I have the support from no group that is present in many nations. Differently from Bráulia, who lives by and from YWAM, I can live only by faith. Nothing else.

Institutional interests versus spiritual interests

By embracing an schizophrenic stand minimizing the gravity of the homosexual agenda, of the sexual sacrifice of boys and the value of the efforts of Christians fighting this threat, and respecting exclusively conveniences and particular interests, Bráulia behaves as an institutional Christian, as an institutional individual, who in everything takes into consideration the interests of the institution which he works for, sacrificing everything else.

It is not wrong to work for an institution. I know YWAM since 1984, and I had many national and international contacts with people from YWAM. I read the biography of Loren Cunningham, founder of YWAM in the US, and I liked very much. I praised and I praise God for his life. Even so, I admit that over the time religious institutions become corrupted. They become slowly corrupted until to reach the stature of a futility and imbecility far from their own foundation. Harvard University, founded centuries ago to form evangelical ministers, is an excellent example. It became so corrupted that today it effectively forms anti-Christian activists. YWAM owns major institutions, including a great university in Hawaii, and such human greatness requires caution to avoid the first steps into futility and imbecility.

Throughout the history, the biggest resistance to the Holy Spirit moves came from institutional Christians, that is, Christians connected to institutions that, even though founded on Christian principles, got hardened in a closed vision, resisting God’s actions.

I do not think that churches should have moved beforehand, decades ago, to fight the prejudice against the murder of Indian children or against homosexuality or against abortion.

Indian infanticide worries me, because it involves the sacrifice of children. Abortion worries me, because it involves the sacrifice of children. The advance of the gay agenda worries me, because it involves the sexual sacrifice of boys. The absolute majority of homosexuals suffered experiences of sex abuse. And while society is pressed by gay militants to give special attention to rare cases of murdered homosexuals — many of them involving sexual affairs as cause or even high risk behaviors of homosexuals that walk through insecure drug and prostitution quarters at 2 a.m. — thousands of boys are raped and even murdered, and society and Bráulias do not remember that children deserve protection against an admittedly-threatening sexual behavior

Bráulia Ribeiro and the leftist chorus

The call from Bráulia “We have the Christian obligation to fight homophobia… The anti-homophobia voice should have been heard firstly from our mouth…” has been echoing throughout the Christian left. Not by coincidence, her article was published in the Eclésia magazine, a direct successor of the overtly leftist Vinde magazine, founded by Caio Fábio, who was the responsible for the approximation of evangelical leaders to Lula many years ago. This Brazilian magazine, which was busy indoctrinating the Brazilian public with a leftist vision, never spared efforts to neutralize Christian actions not complying with the Theology of Liberation dictates.

Her article was also published in the FENASP website, founded by Bishop Robson Rodovalho, a socialist politician who openly supported Lula in the last two presidential elections in Brazil.

Not by coincidence also, Bráulia is a regular contributor for Ultimato, a leftist evangelical magazine, and she has a book published by the Ultimato publishing house. The ideological extremism of Ultimato would never have allowed so a strong involvement or bond if Bráulia did not have in major points the same interests. Bráulia’s voice in the “homophobia” issue is the voice of the world Christian left.

Socialism — whether evangelical or anti-Christian — does two things: promotes the advance of their ideology and demotes all authentic Christian vision and mobilization not conforming to the will of Karl Marx.

While Muslims, socialists and gay activists impose a sharia, Bráulia Ribeiro attacks Christian activism

When a Christian tries to help protect Indian children from murders, secularist priests appear with charges that we are imposing a Christian culture, etc. They label us Nazi, etc. Perhaps the only term they did not use still is that we want to impose a Christian sharia — a Muslim term Bráulia used against Christians fighting the gay agenda. Her term will serve greatly in the repertory of those attacking all kind of Christian mobilization in the society.

If the winds of institutional interests or objectives were blowing in the opposed direction, Bráulia could possibly have behaved in an inverse way, giving preference to the homosexual subject and to the sexual sacrifice of boys, and making Christians opposed to Indian infanticide equal to Muslims wanting to impose a sharia.

For her own interest, Bráulia did not use the term sharia in the issue of Indian infanticide, even though the YWAM enemies are essentially saying that YWAM is imposing a sharia on the “Indian culture”. What is Bráulia going to do to appease the wrath from the YWAM enemies? “Hey, you secularists, anthropologists and Lula administration! I also want to show that I am allied to you in some points. I am going to do it to gain your sympathy and friendship! Are you opposed to homophobia? Me too! What about now? Can we be friends now? I am being kindly to you in the homophobia issue. Now be kindly to me in the Indian infanticide issue”.

Even as YWAM is treated by its enemies, so Bráulia treated the Christian opposition to the gay agenda — perhaps as a compromise and bargain.

But why to be in friendship with the world only halfheartedly? Why to be hard in one issue and soft in another? Why to be lukewarm to please everybody?

She makes compromises even in music, embracing the practice of singing secular songs in the YWAM evangelical meetings. If the objective is to please, to make compromises is a must.

Real Christian activism should fight every wicked agenda

Because of the video “Hakani” of YWAM on Indian infanticide and because of my friend Dr. Damares Alves, I got involved in the fight against murders of Indian children. I had the privilege to know personally Hakani, Bráulia Ribeiro and Dr. Wilson Bonfim, who fight Indian infanticide. The first time she saw me, the girl Hakani said to her mother Márcia, “See Jesus Christ there, mommy!” The only reason I do not fight in a more intensive way is because, thank God, there are many groups and Christians engaged in this fight.

In the homosexual issue, when I began my awareness campaign years ago through my book O Movimento Homossexual (The Homosexual Movement), published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers, the absolute majority of Christians were frightened to confront the gay agenda. Today, not much, but disinformation, timidity and even fear still persist. The reason is simple: To fight the gay agenda is so risky as to fight Indian infanticide, because the liberal and leftist media gives no value to those battling in these two fronts. My mission is to keep my awareness campaign.

The Indian infanticide issue does not affect the whole Brazil, but only the Indian tribes. Yet, the homosexual issue affects Brazil from North to South. It affects poor and rich. It affects atheists and Christians. Rich and poor homosexuals, born into Christian or atheist homes, confess experiences of abuse. Men raping boys is not a reality restricted to tribes. It is a reality present throughout the Brazilian society. So my fight is to help Brazil to avoid the destiny of Sodom and Gomorrah.

However, our fight against the gay agenda, the abortion agenda and the socialist and secularist agenda protecting and covering Indian infanticide requires union, because a “household divided against itself will not last”. And this household has been very divided, with Christian leaders who do not denounce the gay agenda and the pro-homosexuality campaigns by the federal government because they themselves have alliances with the Lula administration. And now why is YWAM in Brazil joining the anti-“homophobia” chorus? Does YWAM in Brazil want to alleviate the burden of its uncomfortable “cultural” situation before the Lula administration?

“I do not want the right to be against evil in the society”

“I do not want the right to be homophobic” is nothing else than a big appeal directed to the cultural forces today hostilizing YWAM in Brazil because of the movie “Hakani”. “Homophobic” is a politically-charged adjective whose meaning is: an individual that hates homosexuals.

For the homosexual activists, every minister preaching against homosexuality is “homophobic”.

For the homosexual activists, every parent protecting their children from homosexuality is “homophobic”.

For the homosexual activists, every citizen fighting the gay agenda is “homophobic”.

For the homosexual activists, every former homosexual sharing that homosexuality can be left is “homophobic”.

“Homophobic” is an adjective used usually by the cultural forces that hostilize the Christian opposition to the gay agenda. In her wish to appease those forces that also hate YWAM, Bráulia has debased herself by using the same term of hate they use to throw Christian to the lions.

How to leave the lion’s den without throwing other Christians into there?

Daniel was saved from the lion’s den because he trusted God. But some Christians today want to leave the lion’s den by throwing other Christians into there.

“I do not want the right to be homophobic” is a title that pleases secularists and the Lula administration. But if Bráulia wants to keep pleasing, she will need to write also “I do not want the right to be against the Indian culture”, because whatever she or I try to explain, all that secularists and the Lula administration are able to see in the Indian infanticide is “Indian culture”. Nothing else.

If to receive the support and sympathy from the media, we who fight the gay agenda have to throw into the lion’s den our brothers and sisters who fight Indian infanticide, this is a cost I do not want to pay.

It is a pity that in her praiseworthy fight against Indian infanticide, Bráulia has chosen to pay such cost, with the heads of those sacrificially fighting the gay agenda.


Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Globalization “Elders” want female ordination as ministers, priests and rabbis

Globalization “Elders” want female ordination as ministers, priests and rabbis

Campaign by the 12 “apostles” of the New World Order criticizes churches for female exclusion from male leadership

By Julio Severo

Billionaire Richard Branson and Nelson Mandela, a known pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality Marxist, have launched an international campaign against churches that refuse to ordain women. For their campaign, they convened the “Elders”, a group formed by twelve former world leaders who work together to promote peace and the “shared interests of humanity,” and to fight human suffering.

The “Elders” include ex-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso; former Irish Prime Minister and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and pro-abortion feminist, Mary Robinson; former US President Jimmy Carter; former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland; Nelson Mandela: and others. Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu serves as chairman of the “Elders”.

In the campaign, the “Elders” attack the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and any other religious tradition that refuses to permit women to become ministers, priests, or bishops. In his participation, “Elder” Jimmy Carter notes that he left the Southern Baptists because women are “prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.”

“We believe that the justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable,” says a statement by The Elders.

“We especially call on religious and traditional leaders to set an example and change all discriminatory practices within their own religions and traditions,” says the release, referring to the ban on women occupying leadership roles in these religions and traditions.

Carter: “no” to Christian churches not ordaining women, but “yes” to Muslim groups mistreating women

Carter has been the most prolific “Elder” on the matter. Writing a column for the UK Observer which has since been republished elsewhere, Carter claims: “During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.”

Carter ties in the refusal to ordain women as ministers, priests and rabbis with abuse of women, saying that the decision to restrict ministry to men “provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.”

Even though Carter has been very hard on evangelicals, Catholics and Jews, nevertheless he does not display similar hardness to Muslims. Recently, he befriended Islamic terrorist groups like the Hamas, which want the destruction of Israel and have horrific policies in the treatment of women.

He left Southern Baptist Convention over female ordination, but he has a hard time to avoid terrorist Muslim groups over mistreatments and even “honor killings” of women. On abortion, he said, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but women have the right.” Even though his former Southern Baptist Convention has no sympathy for legal abortion and mistreatments and “honor killings” of women, this is basically his view:

* Female freedom should involve access to abortion and to all male leadership positions.

* The Hamas, which commits terrorist acts against Israel and crimes against Muslim women, should be respected and not treated as a terrorist group.

* Evangelical and Catholic churches and synagogues that do not ordain women should be boycotted…

Marxist atheist “Elder” rebukes churches

The 12 “Elders” have spoken out against what they consider religious discrimination against women in videos produced for the campaign condemning female exclusion from male leadership roles in the churches. “Elder” Fernando Henrique Cardoso says in his video, “the idea that God is behind discrimination is unacceptable.”

Even though his profile as an atheistic Marxist and marijuana supporter makes him distant from Christianity, “Elder” Fernando Henrique Cardoso is engaged in the elimination of all hindrance against the total female inclusion in the leadership of Christian churches.

The involvement of a Marxist atheist in the rebuke of churches is a drastic change in the global politics for women. These politics, which for decades required the opening of all the workforce spaces for women, were always limited to the secular realm.

UN World Conference on Women

One of the main intents of the United Nations, for example, has been to push all women into the workforce, especially leadership posts. The Fourth World Conference on Women, held by UN in Beijing, China, 4-15 September 1995, emphasized the formulation of national and international politics and laws to push married women into the workforce. Many other UN conferences and documents put women as priority of its politics.

The final report of this UN conference recommends emphatically,

“Special measures must be taken to ensure that young women have the life skills necessary for active and effective participation in all levels of social, cultural, political and economic leadership”. (Report of the Fourth UN World Conference on Women, Beijing, China, 4-15 September 1995, Chapter 2:40.)

“Develop leadership training and opportunities for all women to encourage them to take leadership roles…” (Report of the Fourth UN World Conference on Women, Beijing, China, 4-15 September 1995, Chapter IV:83.[h].)

Ostensibly, the UN intentions are just to promote the well-being of women. Yet, all UN politics in education, health and work for women are tied to contraceptive measures, this is, measures which turn women away from home and a normal, free and healthy fertility.

NSSM 200: What is behind of the “good” intentions…

To understand what is behind these politics, it is important to know the paper “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests”, classified under the code “NSSM 200”, a confidential White House paper formulated in 1974. NSSM 200 says,

“Finally, providing integrated family planning and health services on a broad basis would help the U.S. contend with the ideological charge that the U.S. is more interested in curbing the numbers of less developed countries people than it is in their future and well-being”. (NSSM 200, page 177)

NSSM 200 makes it clear that the incessant recommendations for indoctrinating women into equality with men in the workforce and in political and social leadership are aimed not at freeing women in the Christian sense, but in their utilization for the control of births,

“The status and utilization of women in less developed countries is particularly important in reducing family size. For women, employment outside the home offers an alternative to early marriage and childbearing, and an incentive to have fewer children after marriage. Research indicates that female wage employment outside the home is related to fertility reduction.” (NSSM 200, page 151)

NSSM 200 reveals that, in addition to abortion, the most effective strategy to reduce the world population is integrating birth control into the health services for women and investing in international laws to promote the mass entrance of women into the workforce.

The New World Order imposed by the UN under American inspiration

With colossal investments by the US government for years, the confidential recommendations of NSSM 200 were eventually carried out. The United Nations has been the main agency for the implementation of these politics that, with the pretext to advance women’s rights, promote the interests of the globalist elite, which sees women as an absolute priority in their ambitious mission to reduce the number of babies born into the world.

Even though the extinct Soviet Union was the greatest investor in the worldwide promotion of socialism (whose ideology preached and practiced in the Soviet society the control of births, the forced inclusion of married women in the workforce, the deflation from home of all female presence, etc.), by far the greatest investor and promoter in the international backstage, including in the UN, of politics and laws promoting abortion, contraception and the mass entrance of married women into the workforce is the United States.

The UN and the US control over women through health services and politics inducing women to occupy male leadership posts in the workforce has the exclusive intent to decrease the number of babies in the world and downsize the human family.

It is exactly in this context that you should understand the campaign by the “Elders”, whose initiative for the inclusion of women in the church leadership is nothing else than a religious extension of the secular US and UN measures to reduce the world population.

“Elder” Tutu: female and homosexual ordination

Today, the “Elders” demand from the churches female ordination, alleging that not to ordain them as ministers, priests or rabbis amounts to persecution and abuse against them. As far as it depends on Desmond Tutu, the chairman of the “Elders”, the New World Order demands on the churches will not be limited to feminism, because recently Tutu compared the ordination of homosexuals to that of women, saying, “I would find it impossible to stand by when people are being persecuted for something about which they can do nothing — their sexual orientation.”

The work of married women, whether as ministers or any other profession, reduces their fertility and the size of their families. Likewise, the involvement of men in homosexuality results in a decreased male fertility in the society: few men marrying women and begetting children in the marriage. Both examples serve the interests of the population-control elite.

The talk of Tutu is: not to open church leadership for women and homosexuals is abuse against women and homosexuals and it is, according to him, the cause of persecution and violence against women and homosexuals.

So churches are receiving rebukes and orders from ultra-liberal religious leaders as Tutu and even from atheists as Fernando Henrique Cardoso, so that they may get adapted to the New World Order. After many decades of actions by the UN and the US social planners, now even churches cannot get exemption from the global transformations demanded by the 12 “apostles” of the New World Order.

If women are able now to serve as soldiers, army generals and occupy many other male leadership posts, why should they be banned from being ministers, priests and rabbis? If religions are left untouched by female inclusion in their leadership, NSSM 200 and the UN plans may not be effectively and fully implemented in societies. For their low-birth agenda to advance, all women should have access to all leadership positions, including religious.

Population control: its effects

When it comes to population control, the US, the UN and the “Elders” are willing to push the human family to make any sacrifice. And the sacrifice they demand is more women in contraception and in male leadership posts and more men in homosexuality.

The same world system that commanded the inclusion of women in all the spaces of secular male leadership now imposes on the churches the inclusion of women in the ecclesiastic leadership, making all pulpits part of the ambitions population-reduction agenda to all families on Earth. The same world system today commanding the valorization of homosexuality in the society and the inclusion of homosexuals in the secular leadership posts sooner or later will not exempt churches and their leadership spaces from the same attacks.

However, all these measures are insufficient to achieve a complete reduction in the world population, because as NSSM 200 noted, “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion” (NSSM 200, page 182). This is why the UN conferences, which were able to implement and consolidate the NSSM 200 recommendations on the inclusion of women in the world social leadership, are now engaged to transform, along with homosexuality, abortion into an unalienable human right.

Population controllers have several strategies, but their goal is only one: babies. Their strategies include:

* Pervasive contraception in marriages: fewer babies. A product internationally imposed by the UN and the US.

* Pervasive sex divorced from marriage commitment: fewer babies. A product internationally imposed by the UN and the US.

* Pervasive female inclusion in all the male leadership posts in the secular world: fewer babies. A product internationally imposed by the UN and the US. What the “Elders” want is only an extension of this strategy to the religious world.

* Pervasive homosexuality in men: less male fertility in society and fewer babies. A product internationally imposed by the US and the UN.

* Pervasive legal abortion as a mere women’s “right”: fewer live babies. A product internationally imposed by the US and the UN.

This is the war against babies. This is the cost of the population-control agenda.

Population control: its roots

Yet, the campaign by the “Elders” is not the first population-control initiative to hit Christians. The birth control movement, which birthed the population-control movement, was a spiritual, not secular, movement. The first preacher for the reduction of the number of babies born to Christian families was lesbian Annie Besant (1847-1933), who was a revolutionary socialist, feminist, spiritualist and theosophical leader in England. The audience of her preaching was a predominantly Protestant England.

Later, promiscuous Margaret Sanger (1883-1966), who invented the term “birth control” and was equally a revolutionary feminist, socialist and theosophist in America, launched the challenge of female liberation through contraception. She founded the birth-control movement in the predominantly Protestant America and organized the pioneering World Population Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1927. This first population-control conference was the precursor of the modern major UN population conferences.

Today, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), founded by Sanger in 1952, is the most important ally and inspirer of the United Nations and it has been for many decades the biggest abortion, family-planning and sex-education promoter in the world.

In her first paper The Woman Rebel Sanger declared, “Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity…”

She was right. The most pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-contraception and pro-feminism nations today had once predominantly Protestant cultures. They are now post-Christian nations, where under the dominant contraceptive culture — with its women in male leadership, men in homosexuality and few and small families — Europe population is shrinking drastically and Muslims in Europe — with their wives staying at home and having children — are experiencing an explosive population growth through their many large families. Birth control assured for a near future the extinction of the European civilization and the unprecedented Muslim domination in Europe. (See this video:

Who will resist the “Elders”?

Whether consciously or not, the lifestyle and mindset of many churches and Christians have already collapsed under the massive spell and delusions from the New World Order inspired and created by Annie Besant, Margaret Sanger, NSSM 200, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations. How will they be able to resist the globalization “Elders” now?

With information from the article “Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, and Other Ex-Presidents Slam Christian Churches for Not Ordaining Women” by John-Henry Westen & Patrick B. Craine.


Read more:

Rivers of Blood: A Brazilian pro-life Evangelical writes about the contraceptive culture and prophecies in Revelation (short version published in LifeSiteNews)

Blood in the rivers: the contraceptive culture and prophecies in Revelation (original version)