Two notable totalitarian ideologies come to mind which enact “anti-defamation” laws. Defamation means That sounds good, doesn’t it? After all, by that definition, we shouldn’t defame anything or anyone, as a matter of practice.
However, what if the definition of “defame” is changed to mean “critically analyze”, or worse – what if the “defamation” is true, which according to its traditional definition, would not be considered “defamation” at all?
While I am not a Catholic, I include this story as indicative of the kind of “pacts” the Soviet Union made with organizations, even religious institutions.
According to Malachi Martin, prolific author and former Jesuit, the Catholic Church made a formal agreement with the Soviet Union which came to be known as the “Metz Pact”:
“…In the late spring of 1962, a certain Eugene Cardinal Tisserant had been dispatched by Pope John XXIII to meet with Russian prelate, one Metropolitan Nikodim, representing the Soviet Politburo of Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Pope John ardently desired to know if the Soviet Government would allow two members of the Russian Orthodox Church to attend the Second Vatican Council set to open the following October. The meeting between Tisserant and Nikodim took place in the official residence of Paul Joseph Schmitt, then the bishop of Metz, France. There Nikodim gave the Soviet answer. His government would agree, provided the Pope would guarantee two things: that his forthcoming Council would issue no condemnation of Soviet Communism or of Marxism, and that the Holy See would make it a rule for the future to abstain from all such official condemnation.
Nikodim got his guarantees.¹ (emphasis mine)
Imagine the audacity of a government which requests abstention from all condemnation, not to mention all future condemnation! This unjust pact effectively tied the hands of all subsequent popes whose conscience may have continually been pricked against Soviet atrocity. Yet they were reduced to “watch” the grievous antics from afar.
The Metz Pact was not the only such Vatican agreement with the Soviets.
“…that 1962 pact was merely a renewal of an earlier agreement between the Holy See and Moscow…in 1942, in the reign of Pope Pius XII. It was in that year that Vatican Monsignore Giovanni Battista Montini…as Paul VI, talked directly with Joseph Stalin’s representative. Those talks were aimed at dimming Pius XII’s constant fulminations against the Soviet dictator and Marxism.”²
Again there were similar talks between the Vatican and the Communist Party held in 1944, for a total of three such agreements.
Of course, decades later these pacts made things difficult for a certain Karol Józef Wojtyla, also known as Pope John Paul II. Wojtyla was intimately familiar with the injustices of Communism having grown up under its tyrannical system in his home country of Poland. In the early 1980’s, the Pope wanted to combat the growing tendency of priests and nuns taking up arms to fight against Latin American governments – on the side of Communist rebel fighters. However, many advisors, such as the Secretary of State for the Vatican, Agostino Casaroli would quickly remind His Holiness of the “Metz Pact” anytime he felt a course-correction was warranted. This created a great quandary:
How could John Paul II indict the Jesuits for their support of Marxist thinkers and Communist guerrillas in Latin America without explicitly condemning Soviet Marxism and its Communism surrogates?³
Ahh, the joys of “political correctness”. How can we be “salt and light” in this world when we sign anti-Christian agreements with lawless men or governments? We cannot.
Choose you this day whom ye will serve. (Joshua 24:15 excerpt)
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is a creature of the UN, apparently aimed at presenting a moderate image of Islam to the world…. Typical of the OIC’s activities is the resolution it sponsored and which was adopted by the General Assembly in November 2012. The resolution proclaimed a consensus among the UN members to combat intolerance and discrimination based on religious belief. That resolution is consistent with earlier resolutions the OIC had offered…. Those earlier versions had drawn opposition from Western states as an effort to make speech against Islam a crime. Saudi Arabia, as in other Islamic countries, has no freedom of speech and, in fact, prohibits it in its Basic Law. In the case of the OIC, those least tolerant of other religions are persuading others to condemn intolerance.4
And it appears that the West is dutifully listening to Saudi Arabia, despite her nefarious role in supporting (and exporting) Wahhabi terrorism around the world. Now, it appears to be unsafe to decry or opine against the party line in ‘Amerika’:
According to Independent Journalist Robert Spencer, “House Resolution 569 condemns ‘violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.’ The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.” In Spencer’s article uncovering Resolution 569, notice Clinton signing legislation next to the “OIC” Secretary General [picture taken from Spencer’s article]:
Is it “hateful” to hate a “hateful” totalitarian ideology? King David said, “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” (Psalm 119:104 emphasis mine) Surely King David would be suspect in this generation. And it appears his son, King Solomon wouldn’t fare well either; perhaps he would require Hillary Clinton’s Re-Education Camps because he certainly wasn’t well-versed in the ways of political correctness or anti-defamation: The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverse mouth I hate. (Proverbs 8:13) Should we believe what the pundits say; Islam is a peaceful religion? Perhaps it would be prudent to understand what the Qur’an has to say; we will explore various verses or suras further down in our study of anti-defamation.
Dave Hodges is one of many Christians who finds himself ‘in the sights’ of our democratic friends because of his outspoken criticism of Islam.
Dave Hodges is a radio talk show host and alternative news author who writes articles relating to the various issues of our day. He has taken issue with the legion of injustices perpetrated by the Obama Administration. Hodges is currently under the US Government’s proverbial microscope for his opinions on Islamic Immigration. Hodges writes:
I was told yesterday, by no less than 40 people, that Attorney, Loretta Lynch(Mob), has threatened to prosecute myself, personally, and other talk show hosts for revealing the truth about the Refugee/Resettlement Program which is bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants from parts of the world who traditionally hate Americans and mean us harm. Loretta Lynch(mob’s) FBI is not even allowed to investigate the background of even one immigrant. This is national suicide. Subsequently, Loretta Lynch should be immediately run from office.
The FBI states that approximately 10% of any Muslim population is radicalized and should be considered a threat to the national security of the United States. That means I don’t worry about the 90%, but I do worry about the 10% and I want to know which 10% I have to be concerned about. As a result, I have repeatedly called for stopping the importation of Muslims who are not adequately screened for being a security risk. In doing so, I and my broadcasting brethren have drawn the apparent ire of Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She is threatening to jail any talk show hosts who darez (sic) to point out the obvious dangers associated with the Refugee/Resettlement Program.
But isn’t tolerance a Christian principle, you may ask? Shouldn’t we open our borders to everyone and anyone – isn’t that a clear commandment of Scripture? Why would Christians speak with an apparent lack of compassion towards refugees who have already endured a horrible civil war? Is not the Bible full of commandments given for the protection of the “stranger” or “foreigner”:
“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless.” (Exodus 22:21-22)
This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3 – emphasis mine)
“So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi 3:5 – emphasis mine)
Jesus told a parable which revealed those things his true followers would be known for doing – those who enter his eternal kingdom:
Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ (Matthew 25:34-36 – emphasis mine)
God teaches equity among all who dwell in the land:
The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.” (Exodus 12:49)
And of course the “golden rule”:
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-32 – emphasis mine)
As Dave Hodges points out, there is the legitimate refugee, and then there is the invader whose heart and mind is set on murder, maiming, altering the host law of his (or her) sanctuary country into Sharia, and crushing all religion except Islam. And the real danger is that the latter “refugee” or “invader” is following his religion to the letter, as we will soon address.
To continue, go to: Anti-Defamation “Law” – Really? (Part 2)