The SPLC’s predictably slanderous report is online here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=782&printable=1
and the St. Benedict Center’s reply here:
http://www.catholicism.org/trouble-with-truth.html
While I applaud the St. Benedict Center for it’s unflinching opposition to the hateful, anti-Christian racket of Judaism I would urge them to consider avoiding identifying today’s Talmudist/Kabbalist, Zionist, Atheist, Communist, etc., persons of Judaic background as “Jews.” Adherence to these and other ideologies–all of which either turn the Bible upside down or outright reject it–render any spiritual claim to the title “Jew” void. Neither is there any merit to claims that these people are ethnic descendants of Judah or Benjamin or that they have ancestors from Judea.
There is hardly a word more misunderstood and misapplied today, and with such great consequences, than the word “Jew.” I believe that the authors of the articles at the St. Benedict Center website understand the distinctions themselves very well, however, it leaves room for misinterpretation among the lesser informed if the term “Jew” is used for expediency where “Zionist,” “Talmudist” or “Atheist of Judaic background,” for instance, would be clearer. There is so much confusion surrounding the title, “Jew” and so much at stake that we should be doing whatever possible to clarify it whenever possible.
Further, the rabbis teach their followers that the Gentiles hate “The Jews” no matter what they do, so if we criticize “The Jews” without clear distinction we’re validating the rabbis’ paranoid teachings and driving Judaic persons further under their control. Criticisms should be of specific individuals and organizations based upon specific acts of wrongdoing or adherance to the ideology of Judaism and it’s offshoots. These ideologies exist completely independent of any ethnicity. In truth, there is no “Jewish” ethnicity to speak of. Those who today call themselves “Jews” are of Khazar, Arab-Berber, Ethiopian ethnicity, among others, who converted to Judaism long after the destruction of the Temple. With the Temple birth records being destroyed along with the Temple 2000 years ago, only God knows who the true ethnic Jews are today. This tells me that after Christ, Jewish ethnicity is no more relevant to us than animal sacrifice or circumcision.
The reality is that today’s so-called “Jews” are people just like anyone else with no unique mystical identity either good or evil, but with the unfortunate circumstance of having a background in a tyrannical, tribalistic, anti-Biblical ideology which is extremely difficult to break free of. I believe that many would like to leave “the tribe” and the tyranny of the rabbis if they felt assured that we don’t hate all “Jews” as the rabbis claim. Many of these people would be severing familial ties and subjected to hostilities if they broke rank.
Let us be as clear as possible that our opposition is not to “Jews” but to the ideology of Judaism and it’s offshoots and the behavior which those ideologies engender. Consider, also, that the smearmongers exploit the conditioned response of the masses to loathe anything critical of “the Jews.” If they’re in a position of “defending” “the Jews” their work is easy. Better to put them in the position of having to either defend the genocidal racism of the Zohar, for instance, or leave you alone.
Maurice Pinay 
November 9, 2007 at 2:12 pm |
You said: “our opposition is not to “Jews” but to the ideology of Judaism.”
But aren’t Jews the practitioners of Judaism? Is it not correct to oppose the sinner as well as the sin?
This is like being opposed to prostitution, but not being opposed to “ladies of the night.”
Look, if calling them “Jews” was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for us too. Sure they can be referred to in other ways but the essence of who they are is captured in the word “Jew.” Always has been–always will.
November 9, 2007 at 2:12 pm |
You said: “our opposition is not to “Jews” but to the ideology of Judaism.”
But aren’t Jews the practitioners of Judaism? Is it not correct to oppose the sinner as well as the sin?
This is like being opposed to prostitution, but not being opposed to “ladies of the night.”
Look, if calling them “Jews” was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for us too. Sure they can be referred to in other ways but the essence of who they are is captured in the word “Jew.” Always has been–always will.
November 9, 2007 at 2:12 pm |
You said: “our opposition is not to “Jews” but to the ideology of Judaism.”
But aren’t Jews the practitioners of Judaism? Is it not correct to oppose the sinner as well as the sin?
This is like being opposed to prostitution, but not being opposed to “ladies of the night.”
Look, if calling them “Jews” was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for us too. Sure they can be referred to in other ways but the essence of who they are is captured in the word “Jew.” Always has been–always will.
November 9, 2007 at 8:39 pm |
You said: “our opposition is not to “Jews” but to the ideology of Judaism.”
But aren’t Jews the practitioners of Judaism?
Not all people of Judaic background practice Judaism. That is why distinctions should be made. I concede that most Judaic people who abandon the practices of Orthodox Judaism continue to maintain the tribalism inherent to Judaism even when they become Atheists, Communists, Buddhists, and sometimes even “Christians.” But this is not always the case, so we must make clear distinctions so as not to drive away those who sincerely desire to leave “the tribe.”
We want people to defect from Judaism and it’s offshoot ideologies, don’t we? Or would you prefer to build up the strength of these menacing ideologies by playing into the dialectic that feeds them? When we condemn all Judaic people wholesale that is the net effect. The rabbis tell these people that the goyim hate them without distinction. The best way to prove the rabbis wrong is to make distinctions.
Is it not correct to oppose the sinner as well as the sin?
If a person has sincerely attempted to distinguish himself from “the tribe” we cannot hold their background against them. It’s fruits that we judge by, not convenient titles.
This is like being opposed to prostitution, but not being opposed to “ladies of the night.”
On the contrary. Your line of reasoning is tantamount to arguing that all ladies should be called prostitutes.
Look, if calling them “Jews” was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for us too.
I am not arguing against the Gospel. Christ was speaking to citizens of Judea who were descendants of Judah and Benjamin some of whom were true followers of the Biblical religion. These are all valid qualifications for the title “Jew.” These qualities don’t apply to the people who today call themselves “Jews.”
Sure they can be referred to in other ways but the essence of who they are is captured in the word “Jew.”
I’m afraid that I have to disagree. Christ’s mother Mary and St. Paul were Jews and Judas and Caiaphas were Jews. What common “essence” do they have? Other than their ethnic lineage, the title, Jew has no value for making an account of the disparate qualities of these four people.
Yes, the term, “Jew” was used in the Gospel, and by the Fathers, but it was usually with qualification (“unbelieving Jew,” “true Jew,” etc.) and the different meanings of the word were clear from the context. The people hearing those words when they were spoken would have had a clear understanding of the term and it’s different usages. That is not at all the case today. The term “Jew” could possible be the most confused term there is.
Always has been–always will.
I’m afraid that since the the centuries after the destruction of the Temple and the Temple birth records the term, “Jew” has been of little to no value and a cause of great confusion.