Jesus Was A Terrorist, According to Anglican Chaplain

(www.RemnantNewspaper.com)  Canon Philip Gray, chaplain to Anglican Bishop Nicholas Reade of Blackburn, Great Britain, believes that the Islamic suicide-bombers who carried out the July 7, 2005 attacks upon central London’s transportation system, which killed 52 people and injured more than 770, share “the same religious passion and spiritual single-mindedness” of the medieval Catholic Crusaders.

"Behind modern fanatical Islamic terrorism lie many spiritual and religious passions and narratives also found in the Christian tradition," wrote Gray in the Blackburn diocesan newsletter. In his editorial, Gray blames Samson for committing “an act of suicidal terrorism as he destroys the pillars of the pagan temple.” He also chastises the ancient Israelites for singing their song of triumph “as the bodies of the Egyptians float in the Red Sea."

Canon Gray did not spare Jesus Christ Himself from his list of religious terrorists. "We cannot simply ignore the violent passion of Jesus cleansing the temple with whips,” he said. “We are never told of the collateral damage possibly resulting from his actions.”

Jonathan Bartley, director of the religious think-tank Ekklesia, which reported this story (Aug. 31, 2006), suggested that Philip Gray had raised important issues. "If Christians are to speak meaningfully about terror, as Gray has highlighted,” said Bartley, “they will need to face up to the violence contained within their own scriptures and indeed some manifestations of Christianity today."

The Express newspaper reports that the Church of England distanced itself from the comments made by Canon Gray. A spokesman said: "These were the canon’s personal views.”

Comment: In December of 1999, the International Theological Commission issued its document, Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past. Prepared under the editorial direction of then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, the document was intended to be an explanation of Pope John Paul II’s March 12, 2000 “Day of Pardon of the Holy Year.” On this sadly historic occasion, John Paul issued a formal apology for the misdeeds of the members of the Church in the past, including a renewed apology for all anti-Semitic actions by Catholics. 

Many readers will recall how well the Pope’s apology was received. No sooner had he delivered it when the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yisrael Lau, went on record to express his disappointment that the Pope had failed not only to mention specifically the “holocaust,” but also to condemn Pope Pius XII, who, according to the Chief Rabbi, was guilty of “standing on our blood without saying one word to prevent the bloodshed.”

Memory and Reconciliation introduced the world to the concept of “purification of memory,” which means “eliminating from personal and collective conscience all forms of resentment or violence left by the inheritance of the past, on the basis of a new and rigorous historical-theological judgment, which becomes the foundation for a renewed moral way of acting.” An example of the doctrinal toxins being introduced into the Body of Christ via this seemingly benign process can be found in this quote from Memory and Reconciliation:

Emblematic models of such an effect, which a later authoritative interpretative judgment may have for the entire life of the Church, are the reception of the Councils or acts like the abolition of mutual anathemas. These express a new assessment of past history, which is capable of producing a different characterization of the relationships lived in the present. The memory of division and opposition is purified and substituted by a reconciled memory, to which everyone in the Church is invited to be open and to become educated.

“A new assessment of past history” which includes an updated manner in which the declarations of past Church councils are regarded? The abolition of mutual anathemas? New “authoritative judgments” which may someday be forced upon the “entire” Church? Sounds like something that Big Brother would be preaching from the video screens of Orwell’s 1984. 

Where do all these self-flagellating “new assessments” end? They might end with Jesus Christ, or His Church, at the very least, being likened to terrorists. Or imagining Samson as the ancient version of Osama Bin Laden. Yes, the idiotic statements were made by a Protestant. But the door was opened by a Catholic Pope.

There is an inherent danger in self-loathing. It lies in the opening up of oneself to all manner of nasty impulses and dark spirits. It is the danger of wanting to spread your psychological disease by desiring that your own brethren jump into the swamp of self-loathing with you. And it is no coincidence that this self-destructive trend should be so manifest in the Catholic Church, for Satan wastes no time with counterfeits. We see no grand gestures of self-debasement from Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus. Many of our post-conciliar Catholic shepherds, in turn, have created a cult out of false humility, unaware that true humility before Christ makes one strong, not weak. There are enough real terrorists out there, without combing the past for more.

Also, I can’t help but notice that Canon Gray failed to mention the fact that the establishment of his own “religion” was accompanied by the perversely brutal torture and murder of many fine Catholic men and women during the “English Reformation.”

Interfaith Pact Signed By Israel’s Chief Rabbis & the Archbishop Of Canterbury

On September 5, 2006, a Joint Declaration was signed by Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Shlomo Amar and Yonah Metzger. The aim of the document, according to the signers, is the commitment “to a continuing relationship based on mutual trust and respect.”

“We seek a dialogue which draws both on our particularity and also on the universal nature of our respective communities and which makes its contribution to the wider dialogue of the religions of the world in which we share,” states the declaration.

Divided into 15 paragraphs, the Joint Declaration (which proclaims in Paragraph 7 that “neither evangelism nor conversion has a place amongst the purposes of the dialogue”) addresses such topics as:

- “the too many times of violence and persecution by Christians of Jews.”

- “the importance of continuing to develop our relationships of trust with Islam.”

- “the rise of anti-Semitism in Britain and the rest of Europe, in the Middle East and across the world at  the present time .... to educate the coming generations in the history of anti-Semitism, recognizing that there have been times when the Church has been complicit in it.”

- “the task of peace making in the Holy Land .... the rights of the state of Israel to live within recognized and secure borders and to defend itself by all legal means against those who threaten its peace and security.”

"This is a welcome development and will hopefully lead to better relations between the Anglican Communion, Israel and the world Jewish community, following recent tensions," said Abraham H.  Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL), referring to a February 6^th vote by the Church of England's General Synod to divest from companies profiting from what it called "Israel's illegal occupation" of land.

Comment: One cannot place this “historic” Joint Declaration in its proper context without taking note of the events which were referred to by the sly Foxman as “recent tensions.”

In February of 2006, the Church of England held its General Synod. At that time, a motion was proposed that the Synod "heed the call from our sister church, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, for morally responsible investment in the Palestinian occupied territories and, in particular, to disinvest from companies profiting from the illegal occupation,” such as Caterpillar Inc., an American company which manufactures bulldozers used in clearance projects in the occupied territories, as well as by Palestinians in their own rebuilding work. The motion was passed overwhelmingly, in spite of strong lobbying from leading members of Britain's Jewish community, according to The Times (Feb. 7, 2006).

Not surprisingly, Jewish groups protested the motion. Morton A. Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, called it “an outrageous decision that does the Church of England no credit,” while an ADL press release referred to the decision as "a moral outrage.”

The Chief Rabbi of England, Sir Jonathan Sacks, stated that the motion would have “adverse repercussions” on “Jewish Christian relations in Britain.” What else is new? Catholics have been hearing this same threat for years. If we don’t play by MY rules, I’ll take my ball and go home! After Edith Stein was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1986, Abe Foxman and Rabbi Leon Klenicki of the ADL announced that her upcoming canonization “has created a storm of controversy in the Jewish community, affecting the Catholic-Jewish dialogue.” Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ was called “an attack on 40 years of Jewish-Christian Dialogue” by Samuel and Carol Edelman, writing in Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies. And so it goes, on and on ... and on. The Church’s knock-kneed commitment to false ecumenism/interreligious dialogue, and her cowardice in the face of  her detractors, has left her vulnerable to such intimidation.

And now the Anglicans have joined the League of Grovelers. It is no secret that Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a signer of the Joint Declaration, was a supporter of the Synod’s divestment proposal. Williams responded to Rabbi Sacks by assuring him that “no one in the synod would endorse anything that could even appear to endorse terrorist activities or anti-Semitic words or actions.” But, as we have learned in the recent Mel Gibson fiasco, apologies are never enough for self-interested parties. They must be accompanied by displays of obeisance and fealty.

And so we have the new Joint Declaration, “modeled upon the current Vatican–Jewish dialogue” (The Church of England Newspaper, Sept. 8, 2006), which is perceived by many Arab Christians as an event staged for the appeasement of Israel. According to Ekklesia (Sept. 6, 2006), Anglican Bishop Riah Abu al-Assal of Jerusalem has said that "senior people of the Church of England informed me that the whole event came to appease Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Israel and the Jewish lobby because of what happened at the Synod of the Church of England regarding the issue of divestment.”

And yet, there is a form of proselytism that is both allowed and encouraged here. It is politics-as-religion, a secular proselytism which demands loyalty to a foreign power, Israel, and equates any criticism of Israel as “anti-Semitism.” Going hand-in-hand with this support is the ongoing vilification of Christianity’s “hateful” history. One need not be either a critic or supporter of Israel to see how dishonest is this unfortunately tried-&-true tactic of intimidation.

Ancient Biblical Waterworks Found In Israel

Reuters reports (Aug. 23, 2006) that archaeologists in Israel have unearthed an ancient water system which was modified by the conquering Persians to turn the desert into a paradise.

The network of reservoirs, drain pipes and underground tunnels served one of the grandest palaces in the biblical kingdom of Judea. Archaeologists first discovered the palace in 1954, a structure built on a six-acre site where the communal Ramat Rachel Farm now stands. Recent excavations unearthed nearly 70 square meters (750 square feet) of a unique water system.

"They had found a huge palace ... even nicer than the palaces in Jerusalem, (dating) from the late Iron Age to the end of the biblical period in the 7^th century," Oded Lipschits, a Tel Aviv University archaeologist, said.

The infrastructure of the palace was remodeled throughout the centuries to fit the needs of the Babylonians, Persians, Romans and Hasmoneans who ruled the Holy Land, said Lipschits, who heads the dig with an academic from Germany's University of Heidelberg.

But it was the Persians, taking control of the region around 539 B.C. from the Babylonians, who renovated the water system and turned it into a thing of beauty by adding small waterfalls.

"Imagine on this land plants and water rushing and streaming here," Lipschits said. "This was important to someone who finds aesthetics important, for someone who wanted to feel as though they are not just in some remote corner in the desert."

 Yuval Gadot, a biblical archaeology expert from Tel Aviv University who is taking part in the excavation, said it was unclear exactly how the water system worked.

"Probably rainwater came down on the roof of the houses (in the palace complex)," he said. "From there, it was collected by drains into pools or to the underground reservoir and taken to nearby fields for crops or nice gardens."

Gandhi Honored In London For 9/11 Anniversary

According to Ekklesia (Sept. 1, 2006), Mahatma Gandhi made a “surprise visit” to London to mark the 5^th anniversary of the September 11^th terrorist attacks.

September 11^th also marked the 100^th anniversary of Gandhi’s famous declaration of nonviolent passive resistance ("satyagraha") in front of 3000 Indians in the Empire Theater in Johannesburg, South Africa. This declaration was commemorated with a short act of commitment to the principles of nonviolence at St. Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and Peace in the City of London, which was also the site of terrorist bombings in 2005.

The first church of St. Ethelburga was built around 1180. Having survived the Great Fire of London (1666) and the Blitz (1941-3), it was devastated by a massive IRA bomb on April 24, 1993. However it was then rebuilt in a new form, reinstating its medieval exterior, whilst creating a remarkable new meeting space inside to serve as a “Centre for Reconciliation and Peace.”

The act of commitment held at the Centre included readings from Gandhi's writings, a short talk and some prayers. The Centre also arranged to borrow the life-size image of Gandhi from Madame Tussaud's waxwork museum.

Gandhi lived in South Africa for 21 years. The September 11, 1906 Johannesburg meeting convened by Gandhi and his colleagues in the Congress movement resulted in the famous Fourth Resolution, by which Indians solemnly determined not to submit to a proposed ordinance which would impose pass laws on the Indian community in South Africa, but to suffer instead all the penalties attaching to such non-submission. The “Asiatic Ordinance” required every Indian man, woman or child older than 8 years to register with a government official, who would take their fingerprints and issue them with registration certificates, which they had to show to any policeman who asked to see them. An Indian who could not produce a certificate could be fined and sent to prison.

Comment: The September 7, 2006 edition of The Sikh Times featured an article entitled “Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: Would the Real Gandhi Please Stand Up?” The author of this piece, G.B. Singh, a colonel in the U.S. Army, is also the author of the 2004 book, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. In his researches, Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years, collecting his speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi had left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu, the second god of the Hindu triad and preserver of the universe, representing mercy and goodness.

One of the many Gandhi myths exploded by G.B. Singh is the belief that the 1906 Fourth Resolution was all about the disenfranchisement of Indians living in South Africa. G.B. Singh says that “as my research led me to delve more deeply into the historical records, I learned that the inception of Gandhi's satyagraha had the underpinnings of anti-Black racism.” In his own writings, Gandhi related the circumstances of a 1908 imprisonment (one of four terms he served in South Africa):

The cell was situated in the native quarters and we were housed in one that was labeled 'For Colured Debtors.' It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the natives.

Gandhi, who also wrote that “many of the Native [Black] prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal,” goes on to relate that “passive resistance” [i.e., satyagraha] had not been undertaken too soon by the Indian community, because “degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives”:

The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. The fault did not lie with the goal authorities. It was the fault of the law that has made no provision for the special treatment of Asiatic prisoners.

By his own admission, the “Mahatma” (i.e., Great Soul) considered Indians living in South Africa to be “fellow colonists” along with the White colonists, over the indigenous Blacks. Was satyagraha born, then, not from a desire for equality, but through a distaste for equality? Col. Singh sums it up thusly:

We accredit Gandhi with inventing the great technique of satyagraha, the nonviolent resistance movement to redress wrongs. Satyagraha had its birth in South Africa, and the popular history books laud Gandhi's successes in his struggles for his people against the system of apartheid. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. We need to ask: If Gandhi's technique was so good and was of such tremendous importance to the suffering Blacks of South Africa, then why is it that not a single Black newspaper ever mentioned Gandhi's satyagraha?

And this is the “saint” trotted out to be the guiding star for a September 11^th memorial? What was this event but a mimicry and mockery of Catholic devotion to Saints, right down to the waxwork statue? They might just as well have held a special Guy Fawkes Day celebration while they were at it!