Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction


by Ian Wilson LL.B.

September 2006

"No matter whose lips that would speak they must be free and ungagged. The community which dares not protect its humblest and most hated member in the free utterance of his opinions, no matter how false or hateful, is only a gang of slaves." - Wendell Phillips

In 1996 Eric D. Butler gave an insightful speech entitled "Was God a Racist?" He concluded that by the standards of modern political correctness, God must have been a "racist". Mr. Butler's aim was to argue for a reductio ad absurdum - showing that the political correctness doctrine was absurd by intellectually unpacking its consequences. As a civil libertarian, a person whose main bee in his bonnet, is the defence of civil liberties, primarily free speech, my target there will be an old favourite, Australia's race hate legislation.

Race Hate Laws
Australia's race hate laws have the same logical structure. There is first a prohibition of offensive behaviour based on "racial hatred" and then an exemption clause. The Commonwealth, but UN inspired Racial Discrimination Act 1975 section 18B states that if (a) an act is done for two or more reasons and (b) one of the reasons is the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person (whether or not it is the dominant reason or a substantial reason for doing the act), then the act is taken to be done because of the person's race, colour or national or ethnic origin. Note clause (a) that the act is done for "two or more reasons". What if the act was done for one reason only (say a "racist" reason)? Clause (a) would not be met, so as 18B consists of a conjunctive set of propositions (meaning (a) and (b), if one proposition is false, both are. So that sort of "racist" singular act would seem to escape the legislative net. This however is only the first of the sacred multicultural mysteries of this field of legislation. Someone primarily interested in, say the environment or human rights and only 0.1 per cent interested in race, etc., would still be nailed under section 18B.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 states that it is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise in private if : (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate another person of a group of people and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. An act is taken to be not done in "private" if it (a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or (b) is done in a public place or is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place. A "public place" is any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation.
In McGlade v Lightfoot [2002] FCA 1457 (26 November 2002) the Federal Court held that it was not an act committed in private for Senator Lightfoot to make certain "racial" remarks about Aborigines in his office to a reporter. In general if the remarks are made to another party, or if the remarks reach the public in any way, the remarks will be public. The Federal Court adopts such a narrow "but for" account of causality that if the actor did not do the act, then the communication would not have occurred. The causality issue is problematic because the High Court of Australia has rejected this test, at least for torts. We flag this issue for future discussion.

Finally, Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 has an exemption clause. The act does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith: (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any genuine purpose in the public interest. Nor does it render unlawful in making or publishing (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

The state of Victoria has its own unique version of this general race-hate law, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. Section 7(1) states that a person must not, on the grounds of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, or serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons. This includes use of the internet, and conduct outside of the State of Victoria. Section 24 adds the offence of Serious Racial Vilification, with six months imprisonment or 60 penalty points.
Section 8 adds the offence of "religious belief or activity".
Section 9 makes the Motive and Dominant Ground irrelevant for sections 7 and 8. Section 11 gives an Exemption if the vilifier's public conduct was engaged "reasonably and in good faith" in, among other things, the performance of an artistic work, for genuine academic, artistic and religious or scientific purpose, or any purpose that is in the public interest.

There you have it; if you are politically incorrect these laws (along with the new sedition laws) are what are likely to be used by powerful ethnic groups against you. Now in my introductory comments I have already indicted that I believe that the laws have intrinsic jurisprudential flaws, but more on that in another paper. Here I wish to explore the issue of legal ramifications of various theological arguments. But first, some necessary historical background to the use of race hate laws and the general issue of cultural and racial sensitivity.

Cultural and Racial Sensitivity
In June 2003 Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 was used to stop the screening of David Irving's film, In Search of Truth in History (which claims that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz) at a Melbourne film festival. Also banned was a film about the Israeli-Palestine conflict entitled: "The Israeli-Palestine Conflict: A Palestinian Perspective". Among other things, the film claimed that the Holocaust was used to justify US support for Israel, a claim also made by the Jewish critic of Zionism, Norman Finkelstein in "The Holocaust Industry". [1] So much then for section 11 exemption for artistic and scientific works. [2]

When One Nation questioned the wisdom of allowing private banks to create almost 95 per cent of the domestic money supply some regarded this proposal as anti-Semitic and by definition an act of race hate. [3] It has been said by various US authorities to be anti-Semitic to say that Jews have a greater than their population proportion control over the Western media and finances - even though Jewish academic writers such as Ginsberg in "The Fatal Embrace" and Goldberg in "Jewish Power" essentially say the same thing. [4]
Is it anti-Semitic to say that in 1998, 5 of the 10 richest individuals in Australia were Jews, a figure that has remained relatively constant. [5] And what about the statistical claim that up to 42 per cent of Australian Jews earn more than $50,000 - double the rate of other Australian families and over 70 per cent of Jewish families have incomes more than $80,000, compared to 6.1 per cent of other families. [6] I personally cannot see why one would be offended by pointing out these facts of Jewish success. I, for one, would be proud of it, not offended if I was Jewish.

Criticism of Hollywood on moral grounds has also been considered anti-Semitic - as Marlon Brando found out the hard way, from two critical comments, the first published in Playboy magazine in January 1979 and the second based on comments made on the Larry King Live programme, 5 April 1996. Brando said that "the Jews" had "largely founded" the film industry and racially stereotyped various ethnic minorities - all except their own. The Jewish influence in Hollywood is easily supported by scholarly references. [7] Jewish film critic Michael Medved argued that Hollywood corrodes the institutions that hold society together. In his book "Hollywood v America" he portrays Hollywood as a poison factor. [8] Others have seen Hollywood as a "cinema of defamation" [9] and others still, as a part of the "strip mining of American culture." [10]
The issue of the Jewish dominance of Hollywood was raised by an article by W. Cash in the British Spectator in 1994. [11] It was met by an interesting reply by Leon Wieseltier, a Jew, and literary editor of The New Republic: "We will bide our time and silently see justice done. Maybe before Passover. You run a filthy magazine." [12] Touché!
The character of Watto (who has a big hooked nose) in Episode 1: The Phantom Menace of Star Wars, was regarded as a Jewish stereotype by the Anti-Defamation League.[13] What can one say…?

A more important source of anti-Semitism today is anti-Zionism. Some Jewish critics of Zionism and, many left wing critics argue that "criticism" of the State of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Thus Professer Yuhuda Bauer of the International Centre for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University in Israel has said that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is not even racism, he has said, because racism is based on biology whereas anti-Semitism is based on culture. [14] Oxford University research fellow in philosophy, Brian Klug, writing in The Guardian newspaper of 3 December 2003 and in a February 2004 edition of The Nation, has argued that anti-Zionism is conceptually distinct from anti-Semitism because the Jewish State cannot be conflated with the Jewish people.

Other left wing "critics" of Zionism in Britain openly support Palestinian violence against Jews because in the reputed words of one pillar of society "they are Nazis, racists and I fell nothing but hatred for them." Criticism of Zionism is one thing but it is important to define what "criticism" is. If the criticism's aim is to de-legitimatise the Jewish State and therefore recommend the destruction of Israel, and the murder of Jews, then to my mind this is real anti-Semitism, not the silly straw-man type just discussed. All ethno-racial groups that self-define themselves as having a unique identity and desire self-determination should, in my opinion, have a right to self-determination - and that principle applies to Jews, Palestinians and even Nordic Europeans (who are now ethnic minorities in what was once their own lands).
Anti-Zionism for the Left, has become a trendy way to make anti-Semitism - genuine hatred of Jews, not merely legitimate criticism - acceptable within public discourse.

Is the Bible a "Race-Hate" Document?
Having given an outline of Australia's race-hate laws, and an introductory discussion of various issues associated with anti-Semitism and cultural sensitivity, I turn now to my main theses.
At this point I want to call my first witness, a liberal theologian with impeccably 'politically correct' credentials and a great friend of the Jewish people. Surely there is no secret anti-Semitism here as may be suspected of other left wing sources.
The witness: Bishop John Shelby Spong, and his book entitled: "The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love." [15] Spong's thesis is that the Bible - both the Old and New Testament as read literally - cannot be the "Word of God" because of the hate-speech and politically incorrect, anti-liberal passages.
Spong cites passages advocating open genocide (Joshua 10:12-15; 1 Samuel 15:3; Psalm 137:8-9) slavery (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The New Testament has its homophobia as well in the writings of St. Paul (Romans 1:21, 26-27). But beyond this, Spong notes, are "terrible texts" which promote anti-Semitism.

Samuel Sandmel puts it like this: "The New Testament is a repository of hostility to Jews and Judaism. Many, if perhaps most, Christians are completely free of anti-Semitism, yet the Christian scripture is permeated with it." [16] Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" was viewed at the time of its release with concern by a number of Jewish bodies because it was felt that the film could ignite latent anti-Semitism. Particular concern was voiced at the "director's cut" version which has the Jewish high priest Caiaphas cursing the Jewish people after Jesus' crucifixion saying: "His blood be on us and our children." [17] This would seem, in the context, to be a fair concern.
Before returning to the good Bishop Spong, a brief Australian tangent. J. Meacham, writing in The Bulletin says that the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie in a literal "reading" or "misreading" of the New Testament texts. [18] The "Jews" implicated by the Gospels were the temple elite of the time, priests who had an understanding with the Romans to keep the peace, and arguably does not refer to all "Jews". According to this line of thought the "blood guilt" is based upon a set of texts which were written many decades after the events they describe, to get converts among Gentiles. Hence these Gospels have an anti-Semitic, pro-Roman flavour. Thus we have scenes of a large chanting Jewish crowd yelling for Jesus' crucifixion and the portrayal of Pilate as a fair and just man when in fact he was a blood thirsty tyrant (substantiated by independent historical evidence).
According then, to this view, Vatican II for example, repudiated the idea of the Jews being guilty of deicide, an idea supported by a number of Popes since Pope Innocent III in the early part of the 13th century.

As we have seen Matthew 27:25 has the Jewish crowd, prior to Jesus' crucifixion, and in response to Pilate's plea of innocence saying: "His blood be on us, and on our children" Bishop Spong says of this verse: "No other verse of the Bible reveals more tragically the "sins of scripture" or better earns for itself the designation of a "terrible text". [19] There are other anti-Semitic passages that cannot be explained away as merely directed at the temple elite which seem to be, as literally read, of a general ahistorical anti-Semitic nature such as John 8:39, 44 and Romans 11: 7-8. Indeed the Gospel of John is a real problem as Bishop Spong observes because whenever John speaks of "the Jews" "there is a pejorative undertone." [20]

Conclusion: The Legal Consequences
There is good theological and hermeneutical evidence that the New Testament, at least, infringes section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The literal anti-Semitic passages - and there are many - have offended Jewish people in the past. And the reactions to the film "The Passion of Christ," shows that such concerns are of contemporary relevance. Bishop Spong goes so far as seeing Christianity as "intensely hate-filled toward all things Jewish." [21] Further, that "deeply destructive attitude continues to this day. Throughout the centuries the primary gifts that Christians have given to the Jews have been pain, death, ghettoization and unimaginable religious persecution. The words that were most frequently used to justify that negative behavior came time after time from the New Testament itself." [22] If this is so then it is a truly terrible situation, not corrected by the word "sorry".

Merely claiming that these attitudes are no longer current, but still publishing the offending words in current Bibles, could be argued by plaintiffs to be an act of bad faith by the defendant Christian Churches. It does not appear to be reasonable and in good faith to publish Bibles (and get profits from such publications) where the text literally makes race hate statements. If the statements in question are not true, then shouldn't they be removed from the text of the Bible in future printings? In any case, it seems that the Bible itself fails to meet a section 18D defence of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. It is doubtful even whether the Bible is an academic, artistic or scientific work.

This means that the Bible itself conflicts with contemporary Australian law. However, by the same argument almost all great religious texts will also be seen to be in conflict with contemporary legal standards of political correctness - so if the Bible is to be censored, so too must these texts. These are but some of the absurd legal consequences of multiculturalism/multiracialism in the law. I take this conclusion to be a reductio ad absurdum of our politically correct laws.

1. N. Finkelstein, "The Holocaust Industry," (Verso, London, 2000).
2. G. Kaszubska, "Outrage at Jewish Bid to Stop Film," The Australian 4 July, 2003, p.5.
3. See K. Davidson, "It's Come to This: Only Hanson Defends the Nation-State," The Age, 29 June 1998, p.13. On another issue, the claims made by MP Ken Aldred, that Jewish organisations were suspected of being involved in tax scams, part of a political and bureaucratic cover-up involving overseas tax havens, was regarded by some as anti-Semitic: "MP's Claims Anti-Semitic - Tax Lawyer," Herald Sun 10 July 1992. Aldred did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim. However, if he had proved that the claim was true, would his claims still be anti-Semitic (constituting true anti-Semitic statements) or was it the case that his claims were only anti-Semitic because of the lack of probative merit of the claims, so that causal issues of intentionality became relevant?
4. For various opinions on these issues and debates consult: L. Moldofsky, "Rich Jews and Anti-Semites," The Australian Jewish News (Melbourne) 6 March 1998, p.6; J. Jones, "Racism Report Card," The Review, March 2004, pp.22-23; H.M. Sachar, "The Course of Modern Jewish History," (Vintage Books, New York 1990); M. Friedman, "Capitalism and the Jews," Encounter, June 1984; B. Ginsberg, "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and The State," (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1993), pp.1-2; C. Silberman, "A Certain People," (Simon and Schuster, New York 1985), pp.143-144; J.J. Goldberg, "Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment," (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1996), pp.280, 287-288.
5. B. Freedman, "Five of 10 Richest on BRW List are Jewish," Australian Jewish News, 29 May 1998, p.7.
6. J. Murray, "Jewish Community Tops Class in Achievement," The Weekend Australian 2-3 December 1995, p.5.
7. See N. Gabler, "An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood," (W.H. Allen, London 1989). Gabler says that the Eastern European Jews who founded the American film industry through the screen attempted to "create a new country - an empire of their own, so to speak,, one where they would not only be admitted, but would govern as well. They would create its values and myths, its traditions and archetypes." (pp.5-6)
8. H. Medved, "Hollywood v America," (Harper Perennial, New York, 1993).
9. Michael A. Hoffmann II, "Hate Whitey: The Cinema of Defamation," (Independent History and Research, Coeur d' Alene, nd).
10. See Medved as above and on "dumbing down" in general. K. Washburn and J.F. Thornton (eds), "Dumbing Down: Essays on the Strip Mining of American Culture," (W.W. Norton, New York and London, 1996).
11. W. Cash, "Kings of the Deal," The Spectator 29 October 1994; D. Ezor, "Hollywood's Image of the Jews," The Australian Jewish News 19 March 1993, p.5; S. Wyndham, "Did You Hear the One About the Touchy Moguls Already?" The Australian 18 November 1994.
12. L. Wieseltier, The Spectator 19 November 1994, p.44.
13. A. Dickter, "Star Wars Character a Jewish Stereotype?" The Australian Jewish News 18 June 1999, p.7.
14. P. Bone, "The Rise of Anti-Semitism," The Age, 22 October 1991, p.11.
15. J.S. Spong, "The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love," (Harper San Francisco, New York, 2005).
16. S. Sandmel, "Anti-Semitism in the New Testament," (Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1978), p.166, cited from Spong as above at p.193.
17. S. Morris, "Senior Jews Fear Anti-Semitism with a Passion," The Australian 19 February 2004, p.7.
18. J. Meacham, "Who Killed Jesus?" The Bulletin 17 February, 2004, pp.44-53.
19. Spong as above p.185.
20. As above.
21. As above p.184.
22. As above pp.184-185.

The New Times Survey is published monthly: For just AUS$25.00 annually you will receive a full copy of this journal by post every month. ORDER NOW: Send your Cheque/Money Order to: Australian League of Rights, Box 1052 GPO Melbourne Vic. 3001.


by Rev. Ted Pike,
Director, National Prayer Network, USA

Reading between the lines of newspaper reports and the political agenda now taking shape, it was just a matter of time before the attack on The New Testament was launched by groups such as Abe Foxman's B'nai B'rith. The following report came from the Rev. Ted Pike's National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog group in the United States. We may not agree with all he writes but appreciate his courage in doing so.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, believes anti-Semitism will last as long as Christians accept the New Testament's "lie" that the ancient Pharisees were responsible for the death of Christ. [1]
In his recent book, "Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism," [2] Foxman claims this "deadly" [3] deception has caused untold Jewish suffering through the millennia. Such New Testament-generated hate culminated in the Holocaust, he claims - but it breaks out afresh as the "Christ-killers" charge is inferred in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and readings from the "anti-Semitic" Christian story at Easter.
Foxman says another wave of global anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews could be on the way unless Christians agree to ignore large sections of the New Testament.
What sections will probably be on his "must censor" list? Certainly, it would include Christ's incendiary attacks on the Pharisees, whom He called "whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones." [4] Foxman would also censor the Apostle John: "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son does not have the life... Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." [5] In the book of Revelation, recorded by John, Jesus says those Jews who reject Him are "the synagogue of Satan," [6] another passage Foxman would certainly cut out.

But most importantly, Foxman would censor the multitude of passages in all the Gospels that reveal a pharisaic conspiracy to entrap and finally murder Christ. [7] The book of Acts squarely lays blame for the crucifixion upon the Pharisees and the nation of the Jews. [8] To please Foxman, St. Paul's clear indictment must also be omitted: "The Jews...killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God but hostile to all men." [9]
Foxman claims Jews were not responsible for the crucifixion and that Roman officials masterminded Jesus' death. But only one "Roman official" is mentioned in the New Testament as authorizing the crucifixion; Pontius Pilate was a weak-willed political opportunist, reluctant to condemn Christ. He was coerced by an entire Jewish Sanhedrin and a mob of Jewish citizens who screamed, "Crucify him! His blood be upon us and on our children." [10]

Foxman's Case Against the New Testament
"Over the last century a growing preponderance of evidence and scholarly study has demonstrated that the execution of Jesus was instigated primarily by the Roman authorities who ruled Palestine in the first century C.E., not by the Jewish people. And the anti-Jewish rhetoric that mars several books of the Christian New Testament has been shown to reflect not historical fact but the rivalry at the time the books were written between Jews who followed Jesus and those who did not.
"Nonetheless, versions of the Gospel narratives that emphasize Jewish guilt (rather than the responsibility of the Roman imperial authorities who actually imposed and carried out the death sentence) were included in the Christian canon. As a result, with every annual reading or reenactment of the story of the death of Jesus in Christian churches, millions of Christians imbibed the notion that the Jews had been guilty of the worst crime in history. Into our own time, the deicide libel has been used to justify hatred of Jews and violence against them, including from Christian pulpits. Through the centuries these denunciations have led to countless outbreaks of violence against Jews, including murderous pogroms, a bitterly ironic betrayal of the legacy of the man Christians revere as the Prince of Peace.
"For almost two thousand years Christian teachings drove the spread of anti-Semitism throughout Europe and beyond. (As we'll see, the current explosion of anti-Semitism in the Moslem Middle East is fueled largely by myths and doctrines that originated in Europe.) The story of Christian anti-Semitism is a long, complicated and tragic one. Scholars such as the late Dr. James Parks have traced a direct line from ancient Christian teachings on Jews and Judaism to the death camps of Hitler." [11]

Christians Still Guilty
According to Foxman, Christians in modern times are also very largely responsible for the Holocaust. "...many Germans and Austrians who spent the week murdering Jews then went to church on Sunday, apparently seeing no inconsistency in their actions and it's also true that the political and social atmosphere in which the persecution and killing of millions of Jews could be seen as broadly acceptable could not have existed without the tacit acceptance of the Christian churches - as well as the ingrained anti-Semitism of twenty centuries of dogma, doctrine and preaching that demonized Jews...because Christians and the Christian churches had spread hatred of Jews for so long, it's impossible for Christians - and in particular the Catholic Church - to regard themselves as passive or innocent bystanders during the Holocaust. The killings could not have happened without the sins of millions Christians - sins of commission as well as sins of omission." [12]

Modern Christianity, Foxman asserts, is thus based on hateful, vengeful lies spread by the New Testament. He says the evangelism practiced by devout Christians is also anti-Semitic. "Although it is supposedly motivated by love for the Jews, this idea [that Jews should be converted] is inherently anti-Semitic in that it implicitly denigrates the value of Jewish belief." [13]

Threat of Religious Right
But Foxman's allegations go farther still. He says we should fear Christians because they want to take over America! They are "part of a broader strategy to transform American government into a wholly owned subsidiary of the evangelical movement... They seek the power to impose that faith on everyone in America, replacing pluralism and tolerance with theocracy." [14] Ironically, Foxman thus becomes one of the "conspiracy theorists" he usually rails against. Foxman's ADL exerts enormous influence over at least half a million Jewish members of B'nai B'rith worldwide. His dark warnings about the Christian threat helps explain the eagerness of many Jews to oppose Christian symbols, ceremonies, holidays, and values.

Foxman is trying to instill a guilt complex in Christians and a desire in the Jewish people to resist, restrict, and ultimately persecute Christians; [15] ADL/B'nai B'rith hate laws were created for this purpose. To stimulate Jewish anger at Christians, evil Jewish leaders are creating a truly Big Lie: that the New Testament is inherently evil, anti-Semitic and violence-generating - a book which, like Mein Kampf, should not be read.

How Should Christians Respond to Foxman?
Bible-believing Christians remain extremely reluctant to identify Jewish leaders for what they are (Jewish). Such truthtelling, however, would be very constructive. It would embarrass the Jewish community into restraining their brethren in Jewish "civil liberties" groups and the media. Tragically, lack of specificity from evangelicals only gives a green light to Jewish leadership, hidden behind a media they control. Eventually, they will convince not only the Jewish people but the world that Christianity is the most hateful and hurtful of the world's religions. A generation from now, our media-reared children may regard Christianity as deserving outright persecution…
Nowhere does the New Testament remotely hint that Christians should persecute Jews, nor does it provide even one example of such persecution. On the contrary, the book of Acts contains at least 20 instances of Christians being persecuted at the urging of Jewish leaders. [16] This is the kind of persecution that ADL's national executive board member, Philadelphia district attorney Lynne Abraham, brought down upon 11 Christians in Philadelphia in 2004. They were jailed and threatened with 47 years in prison and $80,000 fines each, for the "hate crime" of witnessing to homosexuals on a public sidewalk.

Should Christians Change the New Testament?
Can Christians accommodate Foxman and disregard the New Testament? Not without destroying Christianity - the New Testament defines Christianity…[17]
After 300 years of blessing [18] from Christian America, a nation established on New Testament values, it is time for Foxman to face reality. Jews, far from being harried victims, have been the coddled darlings of evangelical New Testament-believing Christians since at least the 17th century.
Foxman and Jewish leaders should stop raking up the past and count their present blessings - blessings which would never have come upon them except within a civilization upholding Christ's New Testament message of love and forbearance. The church must stand resolute against Foxman's demands that it deny the New Testament. It is Foxman's persecution complex which must end.
Rev.Ted Pike is the author of: Israel: Our Duty, Our Dilemma, available from all League Book Services.
Source: National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015

Rev. Pike's abridged End Notes:
1 Most Christians already accommodate Foxman by saying we "all" have crucified Christ by sinning. This doctrine was virtually unheard of before the 1970s when Billy Graham first promoted it;… The crucifixion was a unique historical event nearly 2000 years ago when Christ was rejected by His own…
2 Harper, San Francisco, 2004.
3 "...Christianity developed a set of doctrines that proved to be deadly," p.97.
4 Matt. 23:27.
5 I John 5:12; 2:22.
6 Rev. 3:9.
7 Christ's revelation that He would suffer under the Jews and be killed. Mt. 16:21, Mk. 8:31, Lk. 9:22; "One man should die for the people." "...planned together to kill Him." Jn. 11: 47-53, Jn. 18:14;…
8 "...this nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." Acts 2:23; "God has made Him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:36; …
9 I Thess 2:19, 15.
10 Matt. 27:22, 25.
11 P. 47 and 48.
12 P. 93 and 94.
13 P. 138.
14 P. 140 and 141.
15 To combat "a looming international emergency" of global anti-Semitism, Foxman urges his readers to "work for passage of hate crimes legislation on the national level and in states and localities where no such laws currently exist" (p. 178). …
16 Acts. 4:1-21; 5:17-18;…
17 Mark 8:38.
18"Three and one-half million Jewish immigrants arrived on our shores around the turn of the century with an average of $9 per person in their pockets, less than almost any other immigrant group. Six decades later the mean family income of Jews was almost double the national average." (George Gilder, p. 11, Wealth and Poverty)


"Future Fastforward: The Zionist Anglo-American Empire Meltdown," by Matthias Chang.
Matthias Chang is a former political secretary to Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. This is an interesting book because it is a critique of Zionism from an Asian nationalist. Further, the book does more than merely describe "Zionist power" - it predicts an end to the "Zionist-Anglo American Empire" through a type of imperialist overshoot or meltdown with inevitable nuclear wars: "The 21st Century will be the most violent century in the history of mankind." (p.7) The entire map of the world will be redrawn.
No doubt the reader will not agree with everything in the book, but one cannot fail to be stimulated. Also well researched and referenced, which should appeal to students. Price: $48.00 posted Available from all League Book Services.

Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion":
For a better understanding of modern Judaism's beliefs we recommend Israel Shahak's book: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years."

Read Shahak's book in conjunction with the booklet "The Australian Heritage Series":

Three brilliant essays by Christian theologians on the hatching of Christian freedoms, the basic philosophical importance of the Athanasian Creed and the Christian basis of common law.
SPECIAL OFFER: 2 copies of "The Australian Heritage Series" FREE with every copy of "Jewish History: Jewish Religion" $52.00 posted.

"Has Christianity Failed?" by Eric D. Butler. Price: $4.50 posted
"Releasing Reality," by Eric D. Butler. Price $7.00 posted.
Two great books by Eric D. Butler - a man far ahead of his time. In a world writhing in the agonies of the money-torture and the push for a new world order, Eric Butler's words ring so true. For those who really do believe that the truth alone can set us free - though not now until the lessons have been learnt from the consequences of the mass-pursuit of untruth -Butler's works will help to break the chains of lies.