As the U.S. Air Force Academy embraces witchcraft and grows hostile toward Christianity, fires threaten the institution

As this article notes, "Dozens of House lawmakers accused the U.S. Air Force this week of being 'hostile towards religion.'"  But those lawmakers are mistaken.  It's not religion in general which the Air Force is becoming hostile toward.  It is Christianity.

Jean Bodin, in his work "De la Demonomanie des Sorciers," writes, "Sorcier est celuy qui par moyens Diaboliques sciemment s'efforce de paruenir a quel que chose" - A sorcerer is one who by commerce with the Devil has a full intention of attaining his own ends." The Air Force Academy, while growing ever more hostile toward Christianity and the Word of God,  has decided to open a chapel for such servants of the Devil. See here.


What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church have to say about such activity? Paragraph 2117 explains that, "All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity."

In 1974, the American Council of Witches issued the "Principles of Wiccan Belief." No. 10 states: "Our only animosity towards Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be 'the only way,' and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief."

So Wicca acknowledges an "animosity" toward Christianity which teaches that salvation is in Jesus alone (Acts 4:12). The question presents itself: what does this animosity consist of?

In an article published in Polish in Panorama and written by Dr. J. Coleman, an Intelligence officer, Dr. Coleman is quoted as having said that, "The One-World Government is going to consist of hereditary oligarchs who will divide the power between themselves. There is going to be only one legal religion and only one state church. Only Satanism and Luciferism will be the legal religious subjects in state schools. No other schools (private, Catholic, etc.) will be allowed. All present Christian education systems are going to be destroyed (and the fact is — they are destroyed in the most part) from inside, and become extinct. Satanism is already considered to be a 'true and legal religion'. In fact, on some U.S. military bases, they already celebrate black masses and worship Satan."

And as the Air Force Academy embraces Witchcraft, wildfires threaten the institution.
What do you think?  Is God pleased?

Walsall Manor Hospital in England fires a doctor for circulating a prayer of St. Ignatius of Loyola

The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians is reporting that a Christian doctor who was fired (sacked) for emailing a prayer to his colleagues has lost his clam for unfair dismissal, after an Employment Tribunal ruled that there was "no need" for religious references to be made at work.


We read here that, "Dr David Drew (aged 64) took legal action against Walsall Manor Hospital after he was dismissed for e-mailing a motivational prayer by St Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, to his department, stating that his colleagues had made him feel like a 'religious maniac' for circulating the message.

However, Employment Judge David Kearsley ruled that the hospital had not acted unlawfully in sacking Dr Drew because discussions about religion should be avoided if considered 'inappropriate.' He said: 'There is no need for such assertions in professional communication nor was there a need to make religious references if they are considered inappropriate and if they hinder proper communication.'

One employee also complained about a text message that Dr Drew had sent wishing him 'a peaceful Christmas'. An independent investigation subsequently conducted into Dr Drew's behavior, ordered him to 'refrain from using religious references in his professional communications, verbal or written'. Dr Drew rejected the recommendations and was subsequently dismissed after refusing to accept a 'bribe' from hospital bosses to leave quietly.

Dr Drew said: 'The allegation that I have forced my religion onto other people, that I am some kind of religious maniac, was made worse by the fact that they told me there was no need to understand what this is all about. This means that you cannot be yourself in the workplace, you cannot say 'I am a Christian.'

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, commented: 'This is like the shutting down of identity. This approach to Christians is like forcing them to deny their identity – being Christian isn't something which you take off when you go to work. To say that it is not appropriate to say that you are a Christian at work is to totally misunderstand our history, our heritage, freedom under the law, freedom of religion, it is deeply illiberal, it is wrong.'"

I would like Judge David Kearsley to explain how an inspirational prayer from St. Ignatius of Loyola, sent to co-workers in an email, may be interpreted as "inappropriate" and how such a communication could possibly "hinder proper communication."  If Dr. Drew had sent an email promoting an LGBT event, would such an email also be considered "inappropriate" and as obstructing proper communication?  Or as evidence of fanaticism or mania?  How about a passage from the Koran?  Or a quotation from one of Richard Dawkin's books? Or is it only the Christian message and Christian prayer which are deemed "inappropriate" and a stumbling stone toward inter-office communication? 

I think we all know the answers to these questions.  But I would still like to hear from Judge Kearsley. 

Writing for the Church of England newspaper last month, Andrew Carey noted that, "Free speech is an increasingly limited value in modern Britain.  Yet it is astonishing that there is so little outcry over the limitations to free speech that have been introduced in recent years."  Astonishing.  But not unexplainable.  Increasingly, the peoples of the West are being desensitized to the rapid decay in faith and morals and the loss of freedoms which result from what Pope Benedict XVI has called "the dictatorship of relativism."

The English psychiatrist William Sargent explained that, "It is not the mentally ill but ordinary normal people who are most susceptible to 'brainwashing.'" And in her book The Nazis and the Occult, Dusty Sklar notes how, "Hitler's early speeches were so mesmerizing that even people who were repelled by his ideas felt themselves being swept along. The playwright Eugene Ionesco mentions in his autobiography that he received the inspiration for Rhinoceros when he felt himself pulled into the Nazi orbit at a mass rally and had to struggle to keep from developing 'rhinoceritis.' We 'catch' ideas, too, because we want to be like others, particularly when we want not to be our despised selves. If we're satisfied, we don't need to conform, but if we're not, we imitate people whom we admire for having greater judgment, taste, or good fortune than we do....Through conformity, the person who feels inferior is in no danger of being exposed. He's indistinguishable from the others. No one can single him out and examine his unique being. Conformity, in turn, sets him up to be further canceled out as an individual, to have no life apart from his collective purpose. This gives a movement tremendous power over the individual. Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. Heinrich Hildebrandt, a schoolteacher who was anxious to hide his liberal past, joined the Nazi party, and to his own disgust, found himself 'proud to be wearing the insignia. It showed I belonged, and the pleasure of belonging, so soon after feeling excluded, isolated, is very great...I belonged to the new nobility..'" (The Nazis and the Occult, pp. 157, 158).

It was Tacitus who proclaimed, "O man, how prompt to slavery."  And waiting in the wings is a Lawless One who will rule over such men.  The Christian message will not be tolerated.  He will strive to stamp it out altogether.  He will seek to eradicate any expression of Christian thought or prayer.  He will outlaw the Holy Mass.  And then he will demand worship of himself.