Top Menu

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Head Of Traditionalist Catholic Sect, Says Jews Are ‘Enemies Of The Church’

A new priest receive insignia from Bisho

Robert Spencer is yet to condemn this. Does this mean that Catholicism is inherently predisposed to antisemitism? Of course we don’t think so, but those opposed to the second Vatican such as Spencer are silent on the matter.

What if they were Muslim? (h/t: JD)

Bernard Fellay, Head Of Traditionalist Catholic Sect, Says Jews Are ‘Enemies Of The Church’

(HuffingtonPost)

The head of a controversial Catholic sect says that Jews are “enemies of the Church,” but the sect has denied any anti-Semitic intentions.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, declared Jews “enemies of the Church” during a talk that aired on a Canadian radio station, the Catholic News Agency recently reported. Fellay’s remarks took place on Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Chapel in New Hamburg, Ontario.

Fellay, discussing negotiations with the Vatican in 2012 concerning the Society’s future, said the following during the address: “Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society? The enemies of the Church. The Jews, the Masons, the Modernists.”

Fellay said Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s,” according to the Catholic Register.

The Second Vatican Council modernized the Catholic Church in the 1960s and is the reason the Society of St. Pius X split from the main body and was founded in 1970 as part of the Traditionalist Catholic movement. Some traditionalists blame Jews for the reforms that took place during the Vatican II council sessions, notes the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The Society of St. Pius X posted a press release in response to Fellay’s “enemies of the Church” comment, denying any anti-Semitic connotation. The release reads that “enemies” refers to “any group or religious sect which opposes the mission of the Catholic Church and her efforts to fulfill it: the salvation of souls.”

The release continued thus:

By referring to the Jews, Bishop Fellay’s comment was aimed at the leaders of Jewish organizations, and not the Jewish people, as is being implied by journalists. Accordingly the Society of St. Pius X denounces the repeated false accusations of anti-Semitism or hate speech made in an attempt to silence its message.

This is not the first time one of the sect’s members has spoken out against Jews.

In 1985, one of the Society’s founders, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also identifiedenemies of the faith as “Jews, Communists and Freemasons,” according to JTA. In addition, traditionalist Bishop Richard Williamson has denied that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews in the Holocaust and that no more than 200,000 to 300,000 Jews died during WWII.

Jesuit Priest Rev. James Martin expressed his disapproval of Fellay’s comment and of the Society in general. “I cannot imagine how any further talks can continue with the group,” Martin told The Huffington Post. “Theologians have been silenced for dissenting in lesser ways from official church teaching.”

, , , , ,

  • Sam Seed

    Exactly the point.

  • Pingback: Bishop Bernard Fellay, Head Of Traditionalist Catholic Sect, Says Jews Are ‘Enemies Of The Church’ | WhatIfTheyWereMuslim.com()

  • Just_Stopping_By

    I’m not sure that I follow that argument that if Jews accepted that Jesus was “a good man” they would have to admit that he was either a prophet or divine.

    I have read the New Testament and find many of Jesus’ teachings quite positive and have no reason to doubt that he was a good man in general. As to whether he claimed to be a prophet or divine or whether those are later associations applied to him, it does not matter to me, as I believe that there are many good men and women who espouse positive teachings while being neither a prophet or divine.

    And if Jesus made statements about being a prophet or being divine, I have no problem believing that he was right in some other teachings but was wrong in those beliefs about himself, and it doesn’t bother me if others take a different view.

    I also don’t think that Jesus or anyone else should be or should have been killed for espousing a viewpoint, even if it appears blasphemous or seditious to others. With regard to SGP’s argument, I condemn the killing of anyone for merely expressing a point of view. To paraphrase another good teaching, there should be no compulsion in religion or in other beliefs or points of view.

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    Even if I did find stevens arguments convincing ( and I dont ) if jews accepted that jesus was ‘ a good man ‘ they would have to admit his teachings had merit therefore he was either a prophet or devine making them not jews but muslims or christians. So its a no win game for them.
    Sir David

  • I hope you’re right about not many people finding his arguments convincing. I think that just about the only people that will, will be people who already thing the way he does.

  • Stephen G. Parker

    Thank you for your reply, llisha. I am not familiar with the story of Zaineb’s poison to which you referred (or at least I don’t remember it). I tried to look it up with a web search, but was not able to find anything; so I don’t know whether or not I would find it relevant.

    At any rate, it really does puzzle me that you and others should find ‘novel’ the idea of collective unity and generalizations concerning collectives. In my reading of the Qur’an I find it to be a consistent practice to refer to collective peoples rather than just individual persons: the Jews, Christians, Lot’s people, Noah’s people, etc. We are told over and over of whole communities punished by God – the teaching being that the whole community was guilty of sin, except for a few individuals who were spared from the punishment.

    With the Jews specifically, both the Bible and the Qur’an testify to the obvious fact that the Jewish people were not in fact completely destroyed by any of God’s punishments; and they continue as a people (though dispersed throughout the nations) to the present day. But there is nothing at all ambiguous in the statements given to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) that he would always find all but a few of them to be treacherous; and that God would send suffering on the Jewish people by means of other peoples “until the Day of Resurrection” because of their sins. It’s possible that my interpretation is ‘novel’ that this warning was conditional – if the Jews collectively repent, then the warning of continual suffering will no longer apply. If it’s not conditional, then we’re simply left with an unavoidable promise that the Jews will suffer God’s retribution “until the Day of Judgment”. You decide for yourself whether you believe the ‘threat’ is conditional.

    In Sura 4, in the famous passage in which the assurance is given that the plots of the Jews to kill Jesus were thwarted by God, it is said that the all the People of the Book must believe on Jesus – and Jesus will bear witness against them on the Day of Judgment. There are several interpretations of verse 159; but in general they all come to the conclusion that there is a continuing responsibility for the People of the Book (and the Jews are being specifically referred to here) to believe on Jesus, and that they will be judged according to whether or not they do so. One or two of the interpretations say that the Jews WILL believe on Jesus – either at the time of their death, or before Jesus dies after he returns – but then according to Qur’anic doctrine it will be too late for them. The interpretation I find most satisfactory is that all Jews are required to believe on Jesus before they themselves die; and Jesus will bear witness against them if they fail to do so.

    As to this question: “In any case, even if we accept your novel interpretation, what should we do? Hate Jews? Curse them? Force them to convert?” – surely you’re not implying that what I have said leads to such a response! I also pointed out, I believe in the first of my comments, that Jesus Christ (peace be with him) told his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. I also pointed out that the instruction to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) to forgive them and overlook their misdeeds was the equivalent of the exhortation of Jesus Christ to love and pray for them.

    As we no doubt all know, such love and forgiveness is extremely difficult to our human nature; so those who wish to follow the teachings of those Prophets will find themselves driven to God and His gracious power to enable them to fulfill those exhortations.

    All I’m saying – and I believe it’s the same thing as what the Bishop was saying – is that love and forgiveness does not mean being unrealistic and trying to pretend that our enemies are not really our enemies. If we’re to love our enemies, then we have to recognize that we have enemies. If we’re to forgive wrongdoings done to us, we must admit that people have done wrong to us.

    At any rate, I’m not inclined to hate, curse, or persecute anyone whom I consider to be my enemy – whether it’s Jews who consider me an anti-Semite; or Muslims on Loonwatch who say I’m misrepresenting or perverting Islamic teachings; or Christians who consider me ‘apostate’ and a ‘heretic’ because I deny many of the fundamentals of ‘traditional’ or ‘orthodox’ Christianity. And I certainly don’t believe it would be right to seek to ‘force their conversions’. Any conversion not willingly made is not true conversion anyhow. There is nothing wrong (and everything right) in seeking to point out what I believe is wrong or ‘wrong headed’, and exhorting people to change. But I have neither responsibility nor right to force the change I believe is needed. And I am exhorted by both Jesus Christ and Muhammad (peace be with them both) to love, pray for, and forgive my enemies/people who are ‘treacherous’.

  • Pingback: Bishop Bernard Fellay, Head Of Traditionalist Catholic Sect, Says Jews Are ‘Enemies Of The Church’ | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • Stephen G. Parker

    I am making one last comment to try to answer some objections to what I have said in defense of Bishop Fellay’s statements. I can’t keep responding to each individual – and I doubt anyone here would wish me to try. 😀

    Thank you, Sam Seed, for at least pointing out that I have not used foul language in my comments. I seek to keep my comments respectful in tone and language, even though everybody nevertheless seems to find them offensive.

    Sir David – With regard to your last response about an 11th century pogrom: if present day British people are still glorifying that pogrom, and continuing to act in similar fashion with the Jews or other people, then I do indeed say that they share in the guilt of that pogrom. That is the situation I see with “the Jews” throughout the centuries. The treachery of the Jews of Jesus’ time is not simply one historical event long forgotten. The Jews of that time as a collective called for the murder of Jesus (even though, of course, there were certainly Jews who did not cooperate with that effort and who therefore did not then share in the blame for the murder/attempted murder of Jesus Christ). This was one of the most important events in Jewish history (as well as in the history of the world), and it remains in the collective Jewish conscience until the Jews collectively ‘repent’ (that is, until the majority of the Jews repent). God (or ‘karma’ if you will) will not let it be otherwise. Throughout history since then, up to and including today, Jewish people have been gleefully acknowledging that “WE killed your [supposed] Messiah”. Therefore, such Jewish people share in the guilt of the original crime/sin.

    Ilisha – Obviously one person (such as Sarah Silverman) can’t ‘atone’ for all the Jews by repenting of her own statements and actions. Nor can one Jewish person bring guilt on the whole Jewish collective by his/her individual actions. My contention (and Bishop Fellay’s, I think) is that the Jewish majority either participated in the the murder/attempted murder, or openly supported (‘aided and abetted’) the crime/sin. It is also our contention that the Jewish majority in the centuries since have continued to glory in that atrocity, and have remained enemies to Jesus Christ and his followers.

    The way to achieve removal of the collective guilt is for the collective to repent and believe in Jesus – at least as a “good man” and perhaps a Prophet who was undeservedly murdered and whom they have wrongfully continued to slander. When the Jewish people as a majority do this – just as the majority of German people have long since completely repudiated the atrocities which they acknowledge were committed by Hitler and the Nazi Party – then they will remove the collective guilt from themselves. (If the German people of this generation were glorifying the Holocaust and saying that they’d do it again if they had the opportunity, then they would justly be said to share in the guilt of Hitler and the Nazis.)

    Just Stopping By – My position concerning Neturei Karta remains the same. Their views concerning ‘Zionism’ and ‘the Jewish State of Israel’ are not merely ‘political’; rather they are intensely religious views. They maintain that the destruction of Jerusalem and the State of Israel by the Roman Army was in reality an act of judgment by God for the Jewish people’s sins. This is precisely what Christians and Muslims maintain, and it was predicted by the Prophet Daniel in Daniel 9:26. They maintain that the Jewish people are obligated to remain in humble submission to God’s judgment until such time as the Almighty Himself shall miraculously restore them to the land; they must not lift a hand to try to reverse their ‘dispersed’ situation. Therefore they absolutely deny all legitimacy to the present “Jewish State of Israel” and demand that the land be wholly returned to the possession of the Palestinians.

    Neturei Karta, in claiming that Israel’s troubles are a punishment from God for their sins, and in openly stating that those calling themselves Jews who support Zionism and the “Jewish State” are not true Jews, sounds amazingly similar to Jesus Christ and his disciples (whether or not they realize that fact). Jesus and his cousin John “the Baptist” both denounced both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and said their claim to be children of Abraham was false. Instead they were the children of the devil. Jesus is said to have stated through John in the book called “Revelation” that those who called themselves Jews were not actually Jews; they were liars and were in fact the synagogue of Satan. As I said, the statements of Neturei Karta sound amazingly similar to those of the Prophet Jesus and his disciples.

    So since they so openly oppose mainstream Judaism, including mainstream “Orthodox Judaism”, I do not presume (as you do) that they uphold the same slanders against Jesus and his mother Mary that mainstream ‘Orthodoxy’ does. I am going to presume that they are among those referred to in one of ‘New Testament’ verses I quoted (John 7:12 and 13) who said that Jesus was a good man, rather than being among those who said he led people astray. In the verses in John, it is said that the people remained silent “for fear of the Jews”. Neturei Karta does not seem to me to be trembling in fear of “the Jews” (who are not truly Jews, but are the synagogue of Satan) 😆 ; but perhaps they just ‘pick their fights’. It is more important at this time to follow the teachings of Jesus and all of the prior prophets by repudiating the hellacious occupation of Palestine by the “Jewish State”, with the deceit, lies, and murders involved. Whatever the reason for their ‘silence’ on the matter at this time, I’m going to presume that they think Jesus was a good man, not a blasphemer.

    Of course I could be entirely wrong about them; God knows, and He is the best of judges. So far I have seen no slander of Jesus or Muhammad (peace be with them both) on their web site, and they certainly openly support the Palestinians and Iran while repudiating mainstream Judaism as not being true Judaism.

    Geiji – I appreciate your statement that you usually find my comments interesting. However, in this case you are making the same mistake about Bishop Fellay and myself that Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, et. al. make about the Qur’an. For instance, 5:51 says: “You who believe, do not take THE JEWS and CHRISTIANS as allies: they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them – God does not guide such WRONGDOERS.” Robert, Pam, and their ilk exclaim “see how anti-Semitic and anti-Christian Islam is?!” After all, they’ll say, the Qur’an there says “the Jews” and “Christians” without any qualifying statements! Therefore it must mean all Jews and Christians for all time!

    Of course, as Imran Hosein would say, that’s the ‘lazy man’s interpretation’ of that statement. Both a few verses earlier, as well as numerous other places in the Qur’an, it is made clear that “they are not all alike”. There are some among both the Jews and Christians who are true believers; and 5:51 is not talking about them. As verse 57 makes clear, it is those ADVERSARIES who mock and ridicule the Muslim faith who are being referred to. However, concerning the Jewish portion of “the People of the Book” it was stated in 5:13 that all but a very few of them would always be found to be treacherous.

    Again, in 5:82 and 83 we read this: “You [Prophet] are sure to find that the most hostile to the believers are THE JEWS and those who associate other deities with God; you are sure to find that the closest in affection towards the believers are those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ for there are among them people devoted to learning and ascetics. These people are not given to arrogance, [83] and when they listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger, you will see their eyes overflowing with tears because they recognize the Truth [in it]…”

    Note that again there is no qualifying phrase when it is said that THE JEWS as well as polytheists will be most hostile to the believers. How is this different than what the Bishop and I say about the relationship of THE JEWS to ‘the Church’ (or followers of Jesus Christ)? Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) was told that THE JEWS would be enemies of the believers; and we say the same thing.

    But we no more mean that ‘all Jews without exception throughout all generations’ are enemies of believers in Jesus (peace be with him), than Muhammad – peace be with him and his family – (or God and the angel Gabriel) meant that ‘all Jews throughout all generations’ would be enemies of the Muslim believers. I have stated this several times in my comments; but you and others continue to overlook this and make the same accusations against me that Islamophobes make against the Qur’an. Am I to assume that you are so determined to find fault with me that you close your eyes and just ignore what I say- as is the case with the Islamophobes regarding the Qur’an? I hope that’s not the case.

    Note also that in 5:82 it is said that those who call themselves Christians will be closest in affection to the Muslim believers – even though 5:51 had said not to take Christians as allies. This again shows that such phrases as “the Jews” and “the Christians” imply qualifiers even when such qualifiers are not directly stated. This is commonly understood and taken for granted in normal speech, as I pointed out in a previous comment. “The people of the USA elected Barack Obama to a second term of office”, even though a large minority of people didn’t vote for him. We don’t usually question such statements, because we understand the necessary qualification. We could say “the majority of the people…”, but we frequently don’t do so.

    My saying that present day Jews share responsibility for the historical crucifixion (or attempted crucifixion) of Christ – because they continue to glory in that event and follow in the evil footsteps of prior generations who persecuted and killed the prophets – has nothing to do with any concept of ‘original sin’. I do not at all say that Jewish children are BORN bearing the guilt of their forefathers. Their share in collective guilt is due to the fact that they choose, as adults, to follow in the steps of their forefathers in slandering Jesus and other Prophets, and otherwise practicing the evil ways of previous generations. Those “very few” who do not continue the evil ways of previous generations do not bear any guilt for prior sins.

    I gave a reference from the Qur’an that shows this concept of collective guilt assumed by disbelievers of all generations. In 2:91, when the Prophet Muhammad addressed Jews of his generation and called on them to believe the message God brought through him, they responded that they would only believe what God had previously revealed (the Torah). Muhammad was then instructed to ask: “Why did YOU kill God’s prophets in the past if YOU were true believers?” In the viewpoint of God and his Prophet, the Jews of Muhammad’s generation were intimately connected with the disbelieving Jews of previous generations who had killed prophets who were sent to them. THEY shared in the guilt of the previous generations’ murders. This is precisely what I (and the Bishop) have said – and it has nothing to do with some concept of “original sin”.

    I would also remind you again that Sura 7:167 and 168 insist that it is GOD who would send people against the Jews – until “the Day of Resurrection” – to inflict suffering on them. It was GOD who dispersed them throughout the world in separate communities as punishment for their sins. I have to say that if you’re not comfortable with that concept, then you’re not comfortable with Islam, the teachings of Jesus Christ, or the teachings of the Hebrew Prophets. They are all consistent in this teaching.

    However, all of the Prophets have also emphasized God’s mercy and forgiveness to those who repent and change their ways. This mercy and forgiveness is toward individuals as well as collectives. While God does not change anyone’s condition until that person (or collective) changes him/herself; He DOES change their condition when they repent. So we can reasonably assume that there is an implication, regarding 7:167, that God will send people to cause suffering to the Jewish people until the Day of Resurrection – UNLESS THEY REPENT. If they repent of their evil ways before the “Day of Resurrection”, then God will forgive and the threat will no longer apply.

    Finally, regarding the guilt of the descendants of the Romans, it should be fairly obvious that the Roman people actually embraced Christianity (no matter how distorted that ‘Christianity’ was from its origins), thereby nullifying their complicity in the death of God’s Christ (or apparent death). Later, Islam prevailed over the former Roman Empire and many embraced Islam – which as you well know honors Jesus Christ very highly. This amounts to the required repentance.

    It should also be obvious that the Roman Empire itself was destroyed so that it no longer exists as such. This I believe (and I acknowledge that it is only my belief, though I think I’ve read something similar in a Muslim commentator or two) was the fulfillment of John’s vision in Revelation 19:11-21. After the destruction of “the Great Whore” – which referred to Jerusalem and Israel in the 1st century C.E. – the vision was given of the destruction of the Roman Beast by the “Word of God” riding on a white horse. I believe this refers to Jesus Christ (peace be with him) who, from ‘heaven’, ultimately sent the ‘holy spirit’ (Muhammad – peace be with him and his family) whom he said in John 14-16 he would send “from the Father”. This ‘holy spirit’ would “convict the world of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged”. The “ruler of this world” was the Roman Beast, and Islam put the finishing touches to its existence.

    So while the Roman Empire was judged by God, the Roman people embraced the one whom Pilate agreed to crucify. The Jewish people (as a collective) have yet to embrace Jesus even as “a good man”.

    [By the way, as a footnote: the Pharisees were not simply a small sect among the Jews. There were two major ‘sects’ among the Jewish people: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. For dominance within Judaism, these may be compared to the Democrats and Republicans in the USA. When you talk about those two political parties, you’re talking about just about all of the political scene in the USA. The largest “third party” is the Libertarians, and they’re so small at present as to be insignificant.

    So it was in Judaism: when you talk about the Pharisees and Sadducees, you have covered almost the whole religious scene. I believe the largest “third party” was probably the Essenes, and they were probably comparable in size to the Libertarians in the USA so far as percentage of the population is concerned.

    Both the Pharisees and Sadducees received their share of intense condemnation by Jesus and John “the Baptist”; and they are said to have conspired in the plot to crucify Jesus. Therefore it wasn’t just some relatively insignificant sect within Judaism which opposed Jesus Christ and sought his death. Forget about the absurd notion that when Jesus said the scribes and Pharisees were “of their father the devil, and did his desires” he was only referring to some small insignificant sect withing Judaism.]

  • It seems that you and I clearly have different standards for what should constitute a ban, then. Stephen has posted something that counts as unapologetic bigotry toward a particular group (in this case, Jews). Every site I’ve been on in the past would consider that, if not a warning offense due to no prior infractions, warranting a ban. He did not recant his position on the subject, either. It is not about silencing debate, but upholding a level of civility, even if his theses are patently absurd. An odious idea is still odious no matter how pleasant it’s stated.

    LoonWatch has also banned others in the past as well, if I’m not mistaken. If no action is taken against him, so be it, even if I’ll remain sorely disappointed in the position the site takes in this regard.

    P.S. Someone took the time out of their lives to down vote every comment directed against Stephen? Really?

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    I agree with stevens right to say it even though he is mistaken about this. Having a true debate rather than the troll festival that is on yahoo or the iron hand of dictatorship found on Atlas does drugs is one of Loonwatch’s strengths. No one was rude or used foul words everyone else in different ways pointed out while they thought him mistaken

    Sir David

  • Sam Seed

    I don’t think it should be banned how ever distasteful his comments may seem, as Stephen has not used any foul language. He is addressing a point that you may disagree with but by not publishing it would undermine the credibility of Loonwatch.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    Géji: You are right that it is not that simple. I agree with you that sincere, open debate and legitimate disagreements are helpful for any community. My point is that as a non-Muslim, it is not my role to tell you how to interpret your texts. At best, I can suggest some thoughts or interpretations and see whether Muslims think that those are consistent with their views of Islam. It would be extremely rude and arrogant for me to tell Muslims that their own interpretations of their Scripture is incorrect or does not make sense, especially when I know much less about Islamic exegesis than the Muslims I am speaking with.

    In fact, I once offered an interpretation of a surah that a Muslim friend found insightful and novel. (I did point out that it might have appeared novel not because it was actually original, but because he may just not have heard of that interpretation before.) But, I wasn’t debating him or disputing his beliefs, just offering an idea for his consideration.
    As an “outsider,” I have enjoyed and learned from reading Islamic texts, I think mostly because I approach them the same way that I approach a Jewish text, hopeful and in a generous spirit. It is the outsiders like Geller and Spencer, those who approach those texts hoping to find “evidence” to attack the religion, to show how awful it must be, or to score political points, that ruin such interfaith discussions for all of us.

  • Géji

    “As a Jew, I won’t debate how you should interpret the Scriptures you believe in, as there are obviously multiple possible interpretations and it is not for me to determine what someone of another religion should believe. ”

    JSB, its not that simple, unfortunately we also cannot blind the ‘outsiders’ from our religious community, nor from what our religious texts ‘explicitly advocates or says. Some uttering are quite obvious to the naked eye, lots are what those outsiders eyes sees. And therefore, “interpretational” attitudes don’t give much room to sincere, open debate, nor are to dismiss legit disagreements by “interpretation” helpful for any community. By the way, the Qur’an is not so opposed to debate concerning its concepts, especially with the “people of the Book”.

  • Géji

    Sorry Ilisha, I don’t know why my reply to Stephen showed your name, but the reply is for Mr Parker.

  • Géji

    Stephen,

    Even though I perceived you’ve been harshly at times whenever you addressed some subjects related to Jews (contrary to your normal coolness regarding other subjects), and though I’ve try to understand in some ways some of your past posts your frustration regarding the ill actions done by some Jews, whether in the past concerning Jesus Christ or the present day ill actions done by some extremist Zionist Jews engaged in apartheid and ethnic-cleansing crimes, and we all do get frustrated by those some, first and foremost including Jews themselves, nonetheless your latest posts seem to be getting more and more harsher, and frankly bordering bigotry!.

    And regarding your collective guilt nonsense, those are still the actions of some and NOT the actions of *all* the community, nor are the sins of the some can ever affect the whole, otherwise its total injustice. But let me ask you this though, you know very well that there’s been some Muslims and that there’s been some Christians, be they in past times, or be they in present times, or even inevitably in the future times to come who’ve have done & and are doing things as horrible if not even more horrible than the actions of those SOME past Jews you decry, and whom supposedly (according to you) *all* Jews, for *all* times are responsible for and must eternally pay for by associated shaming guilt the actions done by some of their past extremist co-religious, fine.

    So then, just to be fair in your unfairness, and thus by the same token and with same proportionate condemnation at carrying the sins of the others, so that at least we can understand the condemnation is not something unique to them, will you then also condemn in that spirit all Muslims and all Christians for all times for any crimes and atrocities committed/or to be committed by the some of their extremist and bigoted co-religious? ‘Cause ONLY then will I understand that the unjust thinking you’re holding and at display here are equally for *all* mankind, and NOT just some bigoted manners at singling out Jews as the forever “original-sin” guilt carrier sinners! AND which by the way the Qur’an categorically rejects. I cannot speak for what’s in the Christian Gospel, and maybe that where you get this idea of blaming the actions of one, or even some on the whole (original sin?), but this is a concept totally rejected throughout the Qur’an. And since you seem to be suggesting that the Qur’an supports your collective guilt notion (and please don’t hesitate to bring that surah), then it appears that we Muslims had wrong on our own book all this time, even in the most obvious and simplest matters, idiot of me thus! and me who thought that one of the principal of the Qur’an was one crucial essence that says – NO one can absolve the sins of others in matters related to God BUT God, and no one can carry the sins of others be they still living here on earth, or be they the day they will face their creator in the hereafter. And I cannot understand how you can say with blunt face that the Qur’an supports such a notion of collective guilt, when in fact it IS one of its most famous rejections regarding old unjust conceptions, and this even the not so educated about the book understands ( kind of a la Qur’an for dummies). That, He (Allah) refuted the nonsense of such notion by rejecting our supposed collective guilt by association concerning Adam’s original sin, BY forgiving Adam Himself. Please do think about that for second.

    And as an friendly advice since I have enjoyed reading most of your past posts, nonetheless my dear Stephen you truly are dropping the ball on this on, please I do hope you’ll come to your known common sense and drop this nonsensical way of thinking, Inshallah. Salaam.

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    I dont know any Englishman who repudiates the 11 century pogrom of Jews living in England . So there fore we all carry the blame ?
    ( look up” jews burning york castle” in googol )
    Sir David

  • Just_Stopping_By

    SGP:

    As a Jew, I won’t debate how you should interpret the Scriptures you believe in, as there are obviously multiple possible interpretations and it is not for me to determine what someone of another religion should believe. I will say, however, that all of the Christians and Muslims I have known in real (non-Internet) life seem to have a completely different view than you do and do not find in their Scriptures any basis for thinking of Jews or Judaism as their enemies.

    But, I want to get back to the quotes from you I had in a prior post on this thread (please see that comment so I don’t have to repeat a few lengthy quotes). In those quotes, you said that you “welcome” Neturei Karta, the most prominent religious anti-Zionist Jews, who otherwise maintain traditional Orthodox Jewish beliefs, including, presumably, any views you think Jews have about Jesus or his crucifixion.

    It appears to me that you were willing to let your political views override your religious views. Was that true? If not, how do you explain “welcoming” Jews that you must imagine have beliefs about Jesus that you completely disagree with? And, if that was true, do you still allow your political views to override your religious ones?

    I ask because my Christian and Muslim friends don’t let political differences or agreements overrule their religious views, which are strongly in favor of respecting other religions and treating those of other religions with respect, while it appears that you share neither their commitment to such respect nor what I would say is the strength of their religious convictions in the face of political expedience. I wonder if that is a coincidence.

  • I’m sure that somewhere in the distant past my ancestors in the wilds of Magna Germania were out raping and pillaging in Roman towns that shared their border. I know for a fact that one of my ancestors engaged in the slave trade here in North America (a minor plantation owner in Virginia before and during the American Civil War). I’m sure many more died fighting in the futility of Europe’s endless wars with one another prior to the early 19th century, for no other reason than the King of England (and later, the United Kingdom) willed it. Many others could claim similar heritage, though their circumstances might differ slightly.

    By your own pseudo-theological and philosophical grounds, this means that I am guilty for the actions of my ancestors even though I’m so far removed from their times and circumstances. Clearly, all peoples descended from the British Isles and Germany (who share this collective ancestry) *are* guilty because, unlike myself, not everyone denies those parts of their heritage. Some think that those were glorious moments, even the natural order of things, at least as far as racism goes. Until we apparently all come to the consensus (through some sort of hive mind, I guess) we will be damned due to things beyond our control. Even more, as an American, I am apparently responsible for every atrocity my government has either committed (Native American treatment in general) or quietly acquiesced to (such as Chile’s 1973 coup d’état).

    According to your worldview, this is acceptable, justifiable even.

    I have always been loath to Godwin, but your contempt for the world’s religious Jewry is the same sort of appalling justification some angry Germans gave in support for the National Socialists following World War I. Centuries of anti-Semitism bubbling up from the surface to coalesce into one final orgy of destruction. I’m sure it’ll be fired back you don’t want to see Jews dead, don’t be absurd, but, as Loon Watch has noted before with Robert Spencer, Julius Streicher never wanted to see Jews dead either, but gave every reason to Germans who read Der Sturmer that they should. Your post above this one literally reads the exact same way; you only attempt to weasel around this by citing Jews who’ve converted away from Judaism, but you call them “children of the devil” in another breath.

    You can continue to try to salvage yourself here to others, but frankly, I don’t think it matters much at all.

  • Stephen G. Parker

    Sir David – the situations you present are miles apart from the Jewish instigated crucifixion of Jesus.

    With regard to 9/11: First, assuming the ‘official story’ is true that 19 Muslims (mostly Saudis) representing ‘Al Qaeda’ planned and carried out the murders, it is demonstrably provable that only a handful of Muslims had anything to do with that event. The majority of Muslims have spoken out vociferously against it. But the majority of the Jews of Jesus’ day supported the murderous plots of their leaders – as the followers of Jesus had very good reason to know as they continued to receive that opposition. And Judaism since has, in general, been proud of what their forefathers did and boasted that they had killed “the Messiah” (that is, speaking sarcastically, the one the Christians believed to be Messiah).

    But as most people here at Loonwatch are probably aware, I am one of those who do not for a moment believe the ‘official story’ of 9/11. I believe that atrocity was planned and carried out by the CIA and Mossad – and ‘Muslims extremists’ had absolutely nothing to do with it. So from my viewpoint, blaming the Muslims for 9/11 bears no resemblance to blaming the Jews for the crucifixion (or attempted crucifixion) of Jesus (peace be with him).

    With regard to the Germans, no matter how many German people supported Hitler at that time, it is quite obvious that since the end of WWII the overwhelming majority of German people have openly and vociferously repudiated the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazi Party; therefore today’s Germans cannot be said to share in the blame for that event. If there are any Germans in Germany who even have the audacity to suggest that Hitler and the Nazis have been greatly misrepresented and that most of the atrocities attributed to them are lies, they are of course too frightened of the legal consequences of saying so to dare speak up. (Even such people, obviously, do not support the Holocaust; they just deny it ever happened. They question or deny the ‘official story’ of that event just as much as I deny the ‘official story’ of 9/11).

    I don’t believe you can show me any evidence that the Jews today acknowledge the evil murder of Christ by their forefathers, but vociferously repudiate that murder. I will not claim that any Jew you can produce, who repudiates his forefathers’ actions as the present Germans repudiate the actions of Hitler, shares any responsibility in the crucifixion of the Messiah.

    And again, I have not said that “all Jews” then or now approved of the murder (or attempted murder) of Jesus. I do say that all but “a very few” then and now do so, though.

  • Stephen G. Parker

    I posted the last comment accidentally before I was finished; so I’ll continue here.

    The disciples were meeting behind locked doors because of fear of “The Jews”; yet it is obvious that they were themselves Jews and were not in fear of themselves.

    This collective unity and responsibility can also extend (Biblically and Qur’anicly) to things done in the past by former members of that collective, particularly when the present members support and are proud of the former actions. As long as they do not forcefully renounce the actions of their forebears, declaring them wrong in no uncertain terms, they can be held accountable for the past actions.

    As examples: from the “Gospels” – “Matthew 23:31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Mat 23:32 FILL UP, THEN, THE MEASURE OF YOUR FATHERS. Mat 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Mat 23:34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, Mat 23:35 SO THAT ON YOU MAY COME all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Mat 23:36 Truly, I say to you, all these things WILL COME UPON THIS GENERATION.”

    If you don’t agree with that, your argument is with the prophet Jesus Christ – not me.

    Again, note who the disciples of Jesus Christ blamed for the murder (or attempted murder) of Jesus Christ: “Act 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel”. It was “the Gentiles” and “the peoples of Israel” without any qualifying phrases – despite the fact that it was obvious that not ALL Gentiles nor ALL of the people of Israel had taken part in the conspiracy. Collective statements ARE appropriately used, despite the fact that qualifications must be understood where not specifically stated.

    From the Qur’an: “[2:91] For when they are told, “Believe in what God has bestowed from on high,” they reply, “We believe [only] in what has been bestowed on us” and they deny the truth of everything else, although it be a truth confirming the one already in their possession. Say: “Why, then, did YOU slay God’s prophets aforetime, if YOU were [truly] believers?”

    Notice that Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) was instructed to ask the disbelieving Jews of his generation why THEY had killed God’s prophets previously. This was because they were continuing in the footsteps of their forefathers, and therefore could be considered as having cooperated in the murders previously committed.

    “[5:13] Then, for having broken their solemn pledge, We rejected them and caused their hearts to harden – [so that now] they distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context; and they have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind; and from all but a few of them thou wilt always experience treachery. But pardon them, and forbear: verily, God loves the doers of good.”

    Because of what the forefathers had done, God hardened their hearts to the extent that the present generation continued in the transgressions of those forefathers by distorting the meaning of the Scriptures; and the prophet is told that he would ALWAYS find all but a few of the Jews to be treacherous. (The instruction to pardon them, and forbear, is the equivalent of Jesus’ instruction to love one’s enemies and pray for those who persecute you). If you are offended by that, take it up with God and His prophet, not me. I can’t and won’t repudiate what I believe God has revealed through His prophets just because someone takes offense at it.

    Here’s one more quotation from the Qur’an, which I will most certainly refuse to repudiate: “[7:167] And lo! Thy Sustainer made it known that most certainly He would rouse against them, unto Resurrection Day, people who would afflict them with cruel suffering: verily, thy Sustainer is swift in retribution – yet, verily, He is [also] much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. [7:168] And We dispersed them as [separate] communities all over the earth; some of them were righteous, and some of them less than that: and the latter We tried with blessings as well as with afflictions, so that they might mend their ways.” From the viewpoint of the Hebrew prophets, the Christian teachings, and the Qur’an, the afflictions which have accompanied the Jewish people throughout history have occurred because of their transgressions. God did them no wrong; they brought it on themselves. Does that offend people? I don’t care, because that’s what God’s prophets have always said. And the perspective of God’s prophets is that this will continue until “Resurrection Day”!

    If you are offended by that, then openly repudiate God’s prophets as the Jewish people have continuously done; but don’t pretend to be a follower of Jesus or Muhammad (peace be with both of them) while disparaging the things they have said.

    I have found that, generally speaking, people of every other major religion besides Judaism tend to honor Jesus Christ. Islam proclaims him to be among the greatest of God’s prophets; Buddhism acknowledges him as one of the Buddhas (Enlightened Ones); and Hinduism believes him to be a “Divine Incarnation” as they do Krishna and the Buddha. Only Judaism (in general) despises that wonderful man. It is a proof of the proverb quoted by Jesus “no prophet is without honor except in his own country”!

    Nevertheless, there have been among the Jews (and there still are) those who “march to the beat of a different drum” (even though they amount to “a very few”). Many years ago I read a book entitled “When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity” by Richard E. Rubenstein ( http://www.amazon.com/When-Jesus-Became-God-Christianity/dp/0156013150 ). Richard said that from childhood he had for some reason been fascinated with the person of Jesus of Nazareth. So as an adult he decided that the best way he had to understand the man was undertake a study of the great controversy in Church history over the “Deity of Christ”. The Book concerns the controversy between the Arians (who believed Jesus to be just a man – or at least something less than God) and the Athanasians (who believed in what is now the “orthodox” Christian belief that Jesus was fully God). As I recall (it’s been quite a few years) Richard came to the conclusion that he could be quite comfortable with an Arian view of Christianity; he could accept Jesus as a great Hebrew prophet so long as he is recognized to be just a man, not Deity. That is obviously not far removed from the Muslim viewpoint.

    Again, I have in front of me a book which I have checked out from the library entitled “Awakening to the Sacred: Creating a Spiritual Life From Scratch” ( http://www.amazon.com/Awakening-Sacred-Creating-Personal-Spiritual/dp/0767902750 ) by Lama Surya Das. This Buddhist Monk is Jewish man who became a convert to Buddhism back in the 1960’s or 1970’s. While he does not dissociate himself from his former Jewish culture, he is now a Buddhist through and through; and as such he greatly admires Jesus as one of the Buddhas.

    On one of my previous blog articles I gave a number of quotes from Jewish people who spoke in a very honorable way of Jesus, even calling him a prophet and “Christ”. Some said such startling things as that Jews today must come to realize that their forefathers were terribly wrong in crucifying that wonderful man; and they must start teaching in their synagogues the wonderful truths taught by Jesus Christ. (They didn’t try to deny that it was Jewish people who were primarily responsible for the crucifixion because they were the ones who incited the Romans against him by falsehoods).

    So I certainly recognize that “not all Jews are alike”. Nevertheless, as one of the quotes from the Qur’an said, such people are only “a very few” among the Jews. I firmly stand by those who recognize that “the Jews” in general are the enemies of Jesus Christ and those who follow him (especially those who specifically refer to themselves as “Christians”). They continue in the footsteps of their forefathers, and consequently share in the blame for the lies and murders of those forefathers (as well as their own transgressions).

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    ….and how do you know all the jews wanted the death of jesus ?…..
    The priests ok not keen on this rabble rouser but I must have missed the bit about the high priest being voted in by the general population .
    Sir David

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    So the difference between blaming the jews for the death of christ and Muslims for 9/11 is ?
    Or do you blame all the germans for the Hollocaust too ?
    Sir David

  • Stephen G. Parker

    How to respond to the comments directed at me, without writing a book? My comments almost always are lengthy, which I regret; but to respond in a short reply is probably not possible.

    There most certainly IS such a thing as collective unity and collective responsibility. We speak in collective terms all the time. “The people of the United States elected George W. Bush for two terms as President”; and “the people of the USA elected Barack Obama for two terms as President”. We of course all understand that many people did NOT vote for those Presidential candidates; but because the majority of those who voted DID, we without hesitation say “the people of the USA” voted them into office.

    The same is true in the Bible and the Qur’an. And in response to Sir David, I don’t know how you missed the fact that I pointed this out in my previous comment when I said that Peter, James, and John – as well as the other disciples and also other people – were obviously Jews who did not oppose Jesus Christ and seek his murder. Nevertheless the majority of the blind leaders and followers DID do so, and it is quite appropriate to speak in collective terms saying “the Jews” sought to kill him; and “the Jews” have continued to boast about it throughout the following centuries.

    Consider a couple of examples from the Biblical ‘Gospels’. “John 7:11 THE JEWS were looking for him at the feast, and saying, “Where is he?”
    John 7:12 And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, “He is a good man,” others said, “No, he is leading the people astray.” John 7:13 Yet for fear of THE JEWS no one spoke openly of him.”

    Obviously those who were afraid were themselves Jews, and it is almost certainly true that they did not refuse to speak out of fear of themselves. Nevertheless, the Gospel writer was not hesitant to say that their fear was of “the Jews”.

    “John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

  • SarahAB

    It’s a tricky one. It seems that there really are crimes, such as arson and intimidation, coming from left/anarchist sources in relation to the issues Kaviaar is exercised by. On the other hand, yes, a voice like Wilders’ is a dangerous one, because he is so high profile. Indirectly his impact is very damaging – Fitna was a horrible and tendentious film – but I don’t believe he condones violence even if violence might be felt to be the logical outcome of what he says, likewise Geller and Spencer’s stuff. I’m reminded a bit of the debates between those who leap to condemn violence (mostly just against property) by those angered by cuts in the UK on marches – and those who counter that it’s the cuts themselves which are, indirectly, most ‘violent’ because it could be demonstrated they will cause harm and even loss of life.

Powered by Loon Watchers