The documentary was produced by Edward Jacob Lang, arguably one of the most persecuted January 6th defendants and political prisoners in America today.
It aims to tell his story alongside the events of the day.
A screen grab from crystal clear new video footage of the West Capitol Steps showing Jacob Lang teargassed with fist in the air. This footage will premier with the documentary “The Truth About January 6th”.
Lang has been moved around more than any other J6 prisoner- first from DC Gitmo to USP Lewisberg Penitentiary then to Alexandria Detention Center where he is currently being held.
“Lang is moved around and targeted a lot because he finds a way to talk to the media and expose the Biden Regime,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “They are trying to silence him by moving him from place to place.”
** To support Jake Lang and his mission to further expose the truth about January 6th donate HERE.
Incredibly, this documentary was narrated by Lang from solitary confinement with the help of his team. He has not seen the documentary due to his strict conditions as a political prisoner but was able to provide detailed commentary as a result of his first-hand experience as an eyewitness and participant at January 6th.
“I lived through it,” said Lang. “I saw it with my own eyes. It is my story. I do not need to see the video. It is forever embedded in my memory.”
A screen grab from never-before-seen footage of Jake Lang recovering from pepper spray on January 6th.
“Hopefully after seeing this documentary the public will remove the lens of distortion and the outrageous censorship that we have seen in the mainstream media for the January 6th event,” said Lang. “This documentary really shows the actual full scope of the event. It shows the protesters that were brutally assaulted and ambushed by the Capitol Police- and in some cases even murdered on the steps of our own Capitol. I think it is a great opportunity for people to draw their own conclusions about January 6th and escape the mainstream media’s false narrative.”
In ancient Rome, fathers had almost unlimited rights over their families. These paterfamilias, as they were called, could even take their own infants and abandon them in the wilderness if they didn’t want them. Sometimes a passing stranger would find these children and raise them as slaves, but more often the children would be ripped apart by animals or slowly die of starvation.
Amidst this horror, the members of a new religion called Christianity took a stand. Their catechisms forbade killing children before and after birth and some believers even rescued abandoned infants and raised them as their own children. Fathers in the Roman Empire had the right to choose what happened to their families, but Christians said no one has the right to “choose” to directly kill another innocent human being.
Today the killing of unwanted children still takes place, but it doesn’t happen in the wilderness. Instead, it takes place in hospitals and clinics, where it’s called the “right to choose.” But just as it did two thousand years ago, the Catholic Church opposes the killing of unborn human beings and it does so with nonreligious arguments any reasonable person can appreciate.
If the unborn are not real human beings, then abortion is just a routine surgery
Some people say, “Don’t like abortion, don’t have one!” or “Don’t impose your morality on me!” But civilized people impose morality on each other all the time. We impose the view that stealing is wrong on shoplifters who think “it’s not a big deal.” We impose the view that child abuse is wrong on parents who think hitting their kids “is not anybody else’s business.” Furthermore, the Church does not impose morality. Instead, she gently proposes a way to live that treats all human beings with respect and kindness.
Once when I was giving a presentation at a secular university, a woman in the audience asked me if I would deny abortion to a pregnant woman who had three children she could barely feed. I agreed with her that poverty is incredibly difficult, but then I asked, “Would it be wrong for this woman to kill one of her born children, like say a two-year-old, in order to free up resources for her unborn baby?” She said, “Of course that would be wrong,” to which I simply asked, “Why?”
“Because you can’t kill real human beings,” she replied.
That, rather than poverty, was the real issue. If the unborn are not real human beings, then abortion is just a routine surgery and personally opposing it would be as odd as personally opposing heart surgery. But if the unborn are human beings like you or me, then personal opposition to abortion is not enough. If we care about justice and equality, then we must change people’s minds so that the lives of unborn children can be protected under the law.
We don’t have the right to use our bodies to hurt other innocent human beings
If the fetus or unborn child is growing, then he or she must be alive. If a fetus has human parents and human DNA, then he or she must be human. The human fetus is also not a body part like skin cells or sperm or an egg. It is a whole human being who just needs time, nutrients, and the right environment in order to develop into a fully grown human being (the same things you and I need to develop into fully grown human beings).
The standard medical text Human Embryology & Teratology states: “Fertilization [also called conception] is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed.
Some people say that even if a fetus is a member of the human species, it is not a “person,” or it is not “fully human.” But what is a “person”? What makes us “fully human”?
If being able to think or feel makes someone a person, then newborns and certain disabled born humans would fail that test. Born babies can’t think or feel more than nonhuman animals like cows or rats, but we treat those infants better than these animals just because they are biologically human. Since science proves that unborn children also belong to the human species, this means we should value unborn children in the same way we value newborns, and protect them from being killed through abortion.
Other people say that an unborn child isn’t viable until birth, so it’s not a person because it needs the mother’s body in order to live. But what gives us the right to take a human being who can survive in one environment and place him in an environment where he can’t survive? Imagine if a group of Martians teleported us to their planet, whereupon we suffocated due to the lack of oxygen. Would their actions be justified because earthlings aren’t “viable” on Mars? Of course not! Just the same, unborn humans have the right to live in the environment that is designed to sustain their lives: their mother’s womb.
At this point, some people say, “Fine, it is a baby. But I have the right to do what I want with my body.” But if that were true then doctors could not deny pregnant women drugs like thalidomide, which, while effective at reducing nausea in pregnancy, can also cause babies to be born without arms or legs. Even more absurd, there would be nothing wrong with taking a healthy, prematurely born infant out of a hospital incubator, reinserting him into his mother’s womb, and then killing him, since a woman can do “anything” with her own body.
It’s true that we have the right to control our bodies, but that doesn’t give us the right to use our bodies to hurt other innocent human beings. This is especially true with the tiny, unborn human beings a man and woman helped to create. If we expect fathers to be responsible and pay child support for the children they create, then shouldn’t we expect mothers to be equally responsible for those same children? Shouldn’t they provide “child support” through bodies that are naturally designed to care for those children?
The Council of Ephesus formally declared the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the “Mother of God” in A.D. 431. That declaration came in response to the heresy of Nestorianism, which claimed that Mary was “Mother of Jesus” but not “Mother of God.” According to the Nestorians, Mary only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus.
The Council properly grasped that Mary gave birth to a person, not just a nature. Mary gave birth to a whole, complete Person who had both the natures of God and of man. Just as no woman gives birth to “1.4” children, so Mary did not give birth to a part of her Child.
Ephesus affirmed Mary deserves the title “Mother of God,” but the term the Council used was “Theotokos”—“God bearer.”
The feast of the Visitation shows us that Elizabeth anticipated Ephesus by about four hundred years. In today’s Gospel, she asks, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
Today’s feast is not just some remembrance of something some holy people did some two millennia ago. If we think about it, its message is exceedingly relevant for today.
In the Gospel account of the Visitation (Luke 1:39-56), the human realities of prenatal life are clear. We might say that the Gospel simply takes them for granted. But in our modern world, we should make them clear.
The Visitation features two pregnant women. It is their pregnancies that have brought them together. Mary, in consenting to be the Mother of God, learned of Elizabeth’s pregnancy from the Archangel Gabriel. In response, she makes her way to Judea.
Both women’s pregnancies are unusual. They are unusual because, while God is involved in the creation of every human life, Divine agency is particularly evident here. Like Israel’s matriarch, Sarah, Elizabeth is older and childless. Zechariah, like Abraham, knows that, in the natural order of things, maternity is unlikely. But Elizabeth is pregnant because “the Lord has looked with favor” (v. 25) on her. Mary, who “has not known man,” (v. 34) nevertheless is pregnant because, as she says, “the Mighty One has done great things for me” (v. 49).
Those pregnancies are blessed but also problematic. Elizabeth is older and could probably have used her younger “kinswoman’s” help, especially in her advanced state. (We celebrate the Nativity of John the Baptist on June 24). For her part, Mary must have had an inkling that her fiancé was having doubts about her blessed state (Matthew 1:18-25).
Both women needed each other. Again, in terms of today’s debates, the Visitation not only acknowledges the reality of unborn human life but also encourages us to lend practical assistance to mothers in need. Those tasks are complementary, not contradictory.
The Gospel account of the Visitation clearly presents the encounter as a foursome. When Mary greets Elizabeth, John the Baptist “leaps” in her womb for joy. Elizabeth clearly differentiates between “my womb” and “the baby,” and it is she who attributes agency to her son: “the infant in my womb leaped for joy.” In response to all those who deny the humanity of the unborn on the claim that they lack “agency,” Elizabeth—who, as the mother involved, should know—clearly declares that her boy’s movement is a happy reaction not just an involuntary movement.
The movement of a prenatal child in utero used to be called “quickening,” and you’re likely to hear about it a lot in the lead-up to the Supreme Court’s upcoming Dobbs abortion decision. In Anglo-American law, “quickening” was an important moment in the law, after which any injury to the unborn child was considered even more aggravated than before.
Why? Well, the female reproductive system was not well understood until the 19th century. This was not because of “patriarchy” or “misogyny.” It was because it was internal. In a pre-anesthetic age (ether was first used in surgery in 1846), the female reproductive tract in a living woman was not accessible. So, “quickening” was one sure sign that pregnancy was on course and advanced. This does not mean that the pre-quickening child did not count.
Quickening was the pre-19th century science to enable us to know when life was advancing. It is perhaps paradoxical that today’s advocates of abortion—who promote abortion for any reason up through birth without apology—don’t even want to rely on pre-19th century science to guide them, much less the clear insights into the life of the unborn that modern fetology and ultrasonography afford, science that makes it clear that life begins at conception.
Elizabeth also recognizes Mary as a mother, “the Mother of my Lord.” She recognizes Mary, centuries before Ephesus, as bearer of the Living God. Mary is not carrier of a clump of cells. Elizabeth declares that Mary carries, “my Lord.” She tells Mary that she and “the fruit of [her] womb” are blessed.
As abortion increasingly roils American public life, today’s Gospel refutes the false prophets within Christianity, and unfortunately even Catholicism, who claim that support for abortion and Christianity are compatible. As is clear from the Gospel, the simple acknowledgment of prenatal human life is not the invention of a pope or some ecclesiastic; it is presumed by one of the canonical Gospels that Christians believe to be divinely inspired.
So, something has to give: either your political choice or the Gospel of Luke. Putting it that bluntly exposes the lie of “devout Christians” who nevertheless advocate “choice.” Their position is simply incoherent in the light of the Visitation, which is a normative Christian mystery and not just a biblical story. As Elizabeth confesses, she who has come to visit her is already Theotokos—the God-bearer.
It’s too bad the U.S. Supreme Court has not scheduled today as an opinion issuance day to hand down rulings but only an order list day. For Christians, it would be a great day to overturn Roe.
Whatever type of organization you’re leading, to be effective in your role requires being able to influence people. If your skills are more focused in other areas of leadership, here are some tips that can help you increase your influence in every direction—up, down and across.
Understand your organization. Great influencers have a solid sense of organizational intelligence. They understand every level of their organization, top to bottom. Building that understanding means spending time with people throughout the organization, being inquisitive and listening carefully. People who are tuned in to the big picture of their organization—who know how it operates and how to make things happen—carry great influence.
Develop a solid reputation. The best influencers understand the importance of building and maintaining an excellent personal reputation. They cultivate the kind of behavior that inspires trust and respect in the people around them. That means being present, being dependable, being personable, and communicating not only expectations but also a shared vision.
Cultivate trust. Influence is central to leadership, and trust is central to influence. Especially when you’re guiding people through risk and change, they need to know they can count on you. Influential leaders make sure their character is grounded in integrity. They’re inclusive and transparent in communicating and hold themselves to consistently high standards to build their influence by fostering a sense of trust.
Promote others. The best influencers look for ways to bring value to others—to promote people’s potential and encourage them to think and act that bring out their best. They empower others to develop their talents and excel in everything they do, and then they reward that excellence. Promoting others goes far in influence.
Build networks. No leader is an island, and effective influencers give a high priority to making connections and engaging with others—whether it’s their employees, senior leadership, peers within their profession or anyone with interesting ideas. And they don’t stop there; they work to add value to their relationships and making their connections mutually beneficial. This ability to build relationships and alliances gives leaders the ability to influence up, down and across.
Create opportunity for growth. The best employees are in constant need of opportunities to grow and develop. Leaders who create or seek out those opportunities and make them available show a high level of caring, cultivating respect and manifesting influence. People know they can rely on you to help them keep moving forward.
An organization’s best leaders are those who leverage their influence to make things happen and cultivate change. But influence doesn’t come automatically, and it can’t be accomplished by relying on power, authority or a title; it takes hard work and dedication of time and talent.
Lead from within: The key to having the right kind of influence is helping people become who and what they want to be by supporting, guiding and lending your expertise to them.
Monday, May 30, 2022 by: Mike Adams This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
(Natural News) In today’s Situation Update podcast, we cover Dr. David Martin revealing the simple truth about monkeypox: It’s a psychological terrorism operation to keep humanity paralyzed with fear while our rights and liberties are stripped away under one world government.
After two years of covid lies, lockdowns, depopulation vaccines, lockdown tyranny and anti-humanity genocide carried out by the medical establishment, anyone who still believes in government authority is truly an idiot.
But globalists are counting on that.
They are using monkeypox — and the coming monkeypox vaccines — to literally weed out the dumbed-down, obedient human beings who are too stupid to survive a basic IQ test. Globalists have long decided that they want to exterminate billions of people on planet Earth, and to their own surprise, they eventually came to realize that with the proper media narrative, they can get the oblivious masses to literally line up and be euthanized with injections without even a whimper of resistance.
At some point, you have to concede that perhaps some of these oblivious masses truly are too stupid to represent the future of the human race. Not that we want to see vaccine violence committed against billions, of course, but there is a point where, after warning people over and over and over again, you just shrug your shoulders and invoke the Darwin Awards as the only applicable explanation.
Abortion is “always a woman’s choice”
Also today, we feature the shocking demand from a pro-abortion Democrat woman who insists, during a recorded interview, that it’s okay to murder your own five-year-old child because it’s “always a woman’s choice.” This video, from the Live Action pro-life group, is getting major play.
Watch 35 seconds of sheer liberal murderous insanity that’s begging for mockery: (does this woman work for the Babylon Bee?)
In today’s Situation Update podcast, I offer additional questions that could be asked of such abortion advocates. After all, this is rich territory for mockery and satire, given that some left-wing women believe it’s okay to murder their offspring at any age.
The answer to school shootings: Tactical Mom to the rescue!
Also in today’s Situation Update podcast, I reveal the need for local police to hire “Tactical Mom,” the ass-kicking, door-busting momma cop who can rescue children without any special equipment whatsoever, all while male cops are standing around in the parking lot comparing the size of their red dot sights and all their tacticool gun gear.
Tactical Mom can rescue children while wearing flip-flops. She needs no ballistic shields or even a firearm. She’s got mom power to instantly paralyze all young men into a state of instant fear and compliance. Tactical Mom wields a 15-pound purse and can slap the smirk off the face of armed teenagers in no time flat. She needs no flashlight because Tactical Mom has mom radar. She knows exactly where you are when you’re doing something bad.
Some Protestants criticize the doctrine of purgatory by saying it’s “bad news” in contrast to the “good news” of salvation revealed in the Bible.
But that’s not so at all. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is indeed good news.
The joyful truth is that purgatory provides consolation for believers. It does so in a variety of ways.
1. Purgatory consoles believers concerning loved ones who die without the perfect holiness required for heaven.
Purgatory gives us the assurance that even though our loved ones die without the perfect holiness required for heaven, we know they’re not forever excluded from there. The late Marian scholar Fr. Martin Jugie puts it beautifully:
They who mournfully follow the coffin, are consoled with thoughts of the mercy of God; of the expiation of venial sin and the cleansing of the wounds, left by mortal sin, after death; of extenuating circumstances which may have rendered certain sins venial for the dear deceased one. The anguished heart, torn with dread about the fate of the loved one, clings to this last hope, and there finds solace and some peace.
That’s good news!
2. Purgatory consoles believers in knowing that the relationship with our loved ones can continue after death even though they have not yet attained the beatific vision in heaven.
The doctrine of purgatory provides consolation for a believer because it offers hope that our loved ones who die with imperfection aren’t forever excluded from heaven. But a believer might still be disheartened by the thought that if his loved one isn’t in heaven yet, then he can’t have a relationship with that person in the present moment. He would have to wait.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, the doctrine of purgatory entails that we can assist our loved ones in purgatory by offering the Mass, prayers, indulgences, almsgiving, and other works of love for them. This is based on the Christian belief in the communion of saints, which includes the souls in purgatory.
The holy souls are still members of the mystical body of Christ. Death did not separate them from us. As St. Paul writes, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall . . . [the] sword? . . . I am sure that neither death . . . nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35, 38-39).
From this it follows that we are not separated from our loved ones in purgatory. We are still united to them by grace. Consequently, our relationship with them can continue. We don’t have to wait until they get to heaven. That provides a believer great consolation. That’s definitely not bad news.
Some Protestants say we’re blurring the real distinction between the visible (Christians on earth) and invisible (Christians in purgatory) dimensions of the one body of Christ. Just because there’s one body, so it’s argued, it doesn’t follow that our relationship with each dimension is the same.
It’s true that our relationship with our loved ones in purgatory is not the same as our relationship with them here on earth. But the relationship we have with them by grace is the same. In fact, it’s even better because they’re confirmed in grace without the possibility of falling from it. From this it follows that the relationship with them is secure, on condition that we stay in grace.
This relationship we have with them by grace is what allows us to continue expressing love toward them, even though it’s not the same kind of expressions of love as when they were on earth. We can’t hear or see them when we talk to them. We can’t give them a hug. But we can pray for them and will what’s good for them—namely, the removal of any impediments to entrance into heaven.
The relationship might not be the same. But it is a relationship nevertheless!
3. Purgatory consoles believers in knowing that the souls in purgatory can pray for us.
We have good reasons to think the souls in purgatory pray for us. The Catechism teaches, “Our prayer for them [souls in purgatory] is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective” (958).
One rationale for this is that the souls in purgatory are perfected in charity. Since charity involves not only love of God, but also love of neighbor, and love of neighbor is expressed in intercessory prayer, it seems reasonable to conclude that the souls in purgatory would express their love by interceding for us.
That our loved ones in purgatory are praying for us is a consoling thought. Their prayer for us, and our private request for their prayers, is one way by which we keep a relationship with them.
It’s good news to know we have friends who can’t waver in charity and are constantly praying for us. For St. James says, “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16).
4. Purgatory consoles believers in knowing that our prayers console our loved ones in purgatory.
The consolation that we can provide the holy souls in purgatory in turn brings us consolation. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that love is “to wish good to someone,” “just as he wills good to himself.”
It follows from this definition of love that the good the souls in purgatory experience by having their impediments to heaven removed is experienced as our own good. That means that their consolation is our consolation; their source of joy is our source of joy. As the late Frank Sheed writes, “there is a special joy for the Catholic in praying for his dead, if only the feeling that there is still something he can do for people he loved upon earth.”
In 2008, John David Mann and Bob Burg wrote a book called, The Go-Giver: A Little Story About a Powerful Business Idea. The book took off like gangbusters, and John and Bob went on to apply their inspirational, truly useful ideas to a series of books focused on their core message: that shifting our focus from getting to giving is not only a fulfilling way to live life and conduct business, but the most profitable way, as well.
“To attend to someone’s needs, you have to investigate the person and truly get to know what it is that makes them happy.” – John David Mann
I love this book, because it brings together an interesting, entertaining fable with science, research, and practical advice. You can tell it was jointly imagined, jointly written and edited, and jointly presented in a way that exemplifies the real joy that we can experience when we take their core advice, “The more you give, the more you have.”
“There is an epidemic of criticism across the world, and in marriage.” – Ana Gabriel Mann
Change Your Thinking, Change Yourself
It’s not just advice, though. It’s a cognitive behavioral approach. As Ana said to us, “If you can change your thinking, then you can change your behavior. And then the outcome changes you, yourself.”
[I]f one non-Muslim attack on a mosque is enough for the UN to institutionalize a special day for Islam, what about the countless, often worse, Muslim attacks on non-Muslim places of worship? Why have they not elicited a similar response from the UN?
The above list, it should be noted, is hardly comprehensive; there have been many similar attacks on churches — in Egypt alone. But because there were few, if any, fatalities, they received little or no coverage in the Western press.
This dismissal is especially true for those remote — and, apparently, in the views of Western media, “unimportant” — regions, such as Nigeria, where Christians are being purged hourly in a Muslim-produced genocide. Thus, after noting that Muslims have eliminated 60,000 Christians between just 2009 and 2021, an August 2021 report states that, during that same time frame, Muslims also destroyed or torched 17,500 churches and 2,000 Christian schools. How many undocumented souls perished in those largely unreported terror attacks?
Therefore, the original question: If one non-Muslim attack on a mosque, which claimed 51 Muslim lives, was enough for the UN to establish an “international day to combat Islamophobia,” why have so many Muslim attacks on churches, which have claimed thousands of Christian lives, not been enough for the UN to establish an “international day to combat Christianophobia”?
The UN, it seems, would have us ignore and brush aside all these ongoing massacres of Christian church worshippers as unfortunate byproducts of misplaced “Muslim grievances” — and instead fixate on this one singular, if admittedly horrendous, incident.
For the UN, evidently, one incident constitutes a “pattern” — one in dire need of recognition and response. The response is to silence, ignore or attack all those who expose the heavily documented real pattern of abuse and violence against non-Muslims — which, make no mistake, is precisely what “combatting Islamophobia” is all about.
On Easter Sunday, April 21, 2019, Muslim terrorists bombed three churches and three hotels in Sri Lanka; 359 people were killed and more than 500 wounded. Pictured: The wreckage of St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo, Sri Lanka, on April 21, 2019, following the bomb attack. (Photo by Stringer/Getty Images)
The United Nations recently named March 15 as “international day to combat Islamophobia.” That date was chosen because it witnessed one of the worst terror attacks on Muslims: on March 15, 2019, an armed Australian, Brenton Tarrant, entered two mosques in New Zealand and opened fire on unarmed and helpless Muslim worshippers; 51 were killed and 40 wounded.
Not only has this incident been widely condemned throughout the West — and rightfully so. It has also caused the UN to single out Islam as needing special protection.
This response, however, raises a critically important question: if one non-Muslim attack on a mosque is enough for the UN to institutionalize a special day for Islam, what about the countless, often worse, Muslim attacks on non-Muslim places of worship? Why have they not elicited a similar response from the UN?
Consider some of the fatal Muslim attacks on Christian churches — many, to underscore the religious animosity, occurring just on Easter or Christmas — in recent years:
Sri Lanka (Apr. 21, 2019): Easter Sunday, Muslim terrorists bombed three churches and three hotels; 359 people were killed and more than 500 wounded.
Nigeria (Apr. 20, 2014): Easter Sunday, Islamic terrorists torched a packed church; 150 were killed.
Pakistan (Mar. 27, 2016): After Easter Sunday church services, Islamic terrorists bombed a park where Christians had congregated; more than 70 Christians — mostly women and children — were killed. “There was human flesh on the walls of our house,” a witness recalled.
Iraq (Oct. 31, 2011): Islamic terrorists stormed a church in Baghdad during worship and opened fire indiscriminately before detonating their suicide vests. Nearly 60 Christians — including women, children, and babies — were killed (graphic pictures of aftermath here).
Nigeria (Apr. 8, 2012): Easter Sunday, explosives planted by Muslims detonated near two packed churches; more than 50 were killed, and unknown numbers wounded.
Egypt (Apr. 9, 2017): Palm Sunday, Muslims bombed two packed churches; at least 45 were killed, more than 100 wounded.
Nigeria (Dec. 25, 2011): During Christmas Day services, Muslim terrorists shot up and bombed three churches; 37 were killed and nearly 57 wounded.
Egypt (Dec. 11, 2016): An Islamic suicide bombing of two churches left 29 people killed and 47 wounded (graphic images of aftermath here).
Indonesia (May 13, 2018): Muslims bombed three churches; 13 were killed and dozens wounded.
Egypt (Jan. 1, 2011): Muslim terrorists bombed a church in Alexandria during New Year’s Eve mass; at least 21 Christians were killed. According to eyewitnesses, “body parts were strewn all over the street outside” and “were brought inside the church after some Muslims started stepping on them and shouting Jihadi chants,” such as “Allahu Akbar!”
Philippines (Jan. 27, 2019): Muslim terrorists bombed a cathedral; at least 20 were killed, and more than 100 wounded.
Indonesia (Dec. 24, 2000): During Christmas Eve services, Muslim terrorists bombed several churches; 18 were killed and over 100 wounded.
Pakistan (Mar. 15, 2015): Muslim suicide bombers killed at least 14 Christians in attacks on two churches.
Germany (Dec. 19, 2016): Near the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Berlin, a Muslim man drove a truck into a Christmas market; 13 were killed and 55 wounded.
Egypt (Dec. 29, 2017): Muslim gunmen shot up a church in Cairo; nine were killed.
Egypt (Jan. 6, 2010): After Christmas Eve mass (according to the Orthodox calendar), Muslims shot six Christians dead as they exited their church.
Russia (Feb. 18, 2018): A Muslim man carrying a knife and a double-barreled shotgun entered a church and opened fire; five people — all women — were killed, and at least five wounded.
France (July 26, 2016): Muslims entered a church and slit the throat of the officiating priest, 84-year-old Fr. Jacques Hamel, and took four nuns hostage until French authorities shot the terrorists dead.
The above list, it should be noted, is hardly comprehensive; there have been many similar attacks on churches — in Egypt alone, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But because there were no or only few fatalities, they received little, if any, coverage in the Western press.
This dismissal is especially true for those remote — and, apparently, in the views of Western media — “unimportant” regions, such as Nigeria, where Christians are being purged hourly in a Muslim-produced genocide. Thus, after noting that Muslims have eliminated 60,000 Christians between just 2009 and 2021, an August 2021 report states that, during that same time frame, Muslims also destroyed or torched 17,500 churches and 2,000 Christian schools. How many undocumented souls perished in those largely unreported terror attacks?
The list above of fatal Muslim attacks on churches does not include any of the many that were botched, for example, a March 28, 2021 attack on a church during Palm Sunday service, where only the suicide bombers — a Muslim man and his pregnant wife — died.
Therefore, the original question: If one non-Muslim attack on a mosque, which claimed 51 Muslim lives, was enough for the UN to establish an “international day to combat Islamophobia,” why have so many Muslim attacks on churches, which have claimed thousands of Christian lives, not been enough for the UN to establish an “international day to combat Christianophobia”?
Put another way, why is one immensely reprehensible but lone incident of a Western man killing 51 Muslims of far greater importance to the UN than the countless instances of Muslims killing untold numbers of Christians?
If ever cornered and forced to explain this discrepancy, no doubt the UN would say that, unfortunate as all of those church and other attacks might be, they do not reveal a pattern, the way “Islamophobia” does; that church attacks are all byproducts of terrorism (which reportedly is in no way connected to Islam) fueled by economics, territorial disputes and inequality, in a word, “grievances.” Fix those temporal problems and attacks on churches will cease.
In reality, the exact opposite appears to be true: whereas the New Zealand mosque attack was indeed an aberration — evidenced by its singularity — Muslim attacks on churches are extremely common, not only now but throughout history. In Turkey, for example, one can see what became of the great Christian Byzantine Empire after it was first invaded by Arabs in the seventh century, to when Constantinople fell to Sultan Mehmed II in 1453, and on to the early 20th century genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks.
As can be seen here, seldom does a month pass in the Muslim world today, and increasingly in the West, without several assaults on, or harassments of, churches taking place. While some of these, fortunately, may not have been fatal, they all underscore Islam’s indisposition to churches, and, it would seem, to any religious structure or symbol that is not part of Islam.
Revealingly, those who terrorize churches often share little with one another: they come from widely different nations (Nigeria, Iraq, Philippines, etc.), are of different races, speak different languages, and live under different socio-economic conditions. The only thing they do share—the one thing that, it seems, leads them to assault churches and murder Christians — appears to be their religion.
Memorial Day provides an opportunity to reflect on faith, patriotism, and the ultimate sacrifice. Much wisdom can be found in Bp. Sheen’s words of encouragement to soldiers in the Second World War, excerpted from his Wartime Prayer Book:
The evil in the world must not make me doubt the existence of God. There could be no evil if there were no God.
Before there can be a hole in a uniform, there must be the uniform; before there is death, there must be life; before there is error, there must be truth; before there is a crime, there must be liberty and law; before there is a war, there must be peace; before there is a Devil, there must be a God, rebellion against whom made the Devil.
We should not call God “good” because He does our will, nor should we call him “evil” because He does not.
Because there is a God, this war is not Hell. God permits it to happen only for a greater good presently unseen.
The war is more like Purgatory than Hell, for through its refining flames we were meant to have the dross of our materialism burned away.
It is not easy to explain why God permits evil; but it is impossible for an atheist to explain the existence of goodness.
How could a spiritless, soul-less, cross-less, Godless universe become the center of faith, purity, sacrifice, and martyrdom? How can decency be the decent thing, if there is no God?
Since God is love, why should we be surprised that want of it should end in pain, hate, broken hearts, and war?
There are only two philosophies of life: the Christian, which says: first the fast, then the feast; and the pagan, which says: first the feast, then the headache.
In either case, there is pain.
The Christian never ends with it, even if he waits until the end of time.
There is a greater tragedy than death: the victory of evil.