THE BIBLE A "RACE-HATE" DOCUMENT?
Ian Wilson LL.B.
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.
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.
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  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.
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.
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
Section 8 adds the offence of "religious belief or activity".
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.
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.
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".  So much then for section
11 exemption for artistic and scientific works. 
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.  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. 
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.  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.  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.
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.  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.
 Others have seen Hollywood as a "cinema of defamation"  and others
still, as a part of the "strip mining of American culture." 
issue of the Jewish dominance of Hollywood was raised by an article by W. Cash
in the British Spectator in 1994.  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."  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. What can one say
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.  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.
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.
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.
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.
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."  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
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."  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." 
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.  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
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.
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".  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." 
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."  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."  If this is so then it
is a truly terrible situation, not corrected by the word "sorry".
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.
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.
N. Finkelstein, "The Holocaust Industry," (Verso, London, 2000).
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
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,
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."
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).
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.
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
20. As above.
21. As above p.184.
22. As above pp.184-185.
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
TESTAMENT IS ANTI-SEMITIC:
CLAIMS ADL'S FOXMAN
Rev. Ted Pike,
Director, National Prayer Network, USA
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. 
his recent book, "Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism,"
 Foxman claims this "deadly" 
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." 
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."  In the book
of Revelation, recorded by John, Jesus says those Jews who reject Him are "the
synagogue of Satan,"  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.  The
book of Acts squarely lays blame for the crucifixion upon the Pharisees and the
nation of the Jews.  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."
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."
Foxman's Case Against the New
"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." 
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." 
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." 
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." 
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.
is trying to instill a guilt complex in Christians and a desire in the Jewish
people to resist, restrict, and ultimately persecute Christians; 
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.
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
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.  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.
Christians Change the New Testament?
Can Christians accommodate Foxman
and disregard the New Testament? Not without destroying Christianity - the New
Testament defines Christianity
After 300 years
of blessing  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
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;
was a unique historical event nearly 2000 years ago when Christ was rejected by
2 Harper, San Francisco, 2004.
3 "...Christianity developed
a set of doctrines that proved to be deadly," p.97.
4 Matt. 23:27.
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 man...you 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;
I Thess 2:19, 15.
10 Matt. 27:22, 25.
11 P. 47 and 48.
12 P. 93 and 94.
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;
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)