Eric Butler
David Bell
There has been extraordinary interest in the life, death and influence of
Bob Santamaria in recent weeks. Politicians, journalists and church leaders
came out of the woodwork to heap praise upon him. There was very little said
in criticism of him, in spite of his long notoriety as a conservative
political activist. It seems that at the same time he was a thoroughly
decent human being. No one has yet noted that the career of Santamaria has
been mirrored by another extraordinary Australian, with a similar agenda,
and comparable influence. Eric Butler, leader of the Australian League of
Rights, has been on the scene for at least as long as Santamaria pursuing
many of the same ideals. Like Santamaria, Butler is a genuine intellectual
with an unswerving set of values and political commitments. Now in his 80s,
Butler still drives all over the country giving addresses to farmers,
conservative groups and anyone who cares to listen. He has boundless energy,
and a large loyal following. But will he ever be feted in the way that
Santamaria was? Will Prime ministers visit him on his deathbed? It is likely
that Butler will be ignored or villified for ever for the simple reason that
The League of Rights has become synonymous with anti-semitism, fascism, and
what Gerard Henderson calls the "lunar Right agenda". Phillip Adams
described Eric Butler as "toxic sludge". And most journalists find similar
language to consign him to the cesspit of Australian life. And it is
probable that the journalists have done their job well. Most people I meet
have already made up their minds that Butler and the League of Rights are
all these things. In 1988 the Uniting Church Victorian Synod even went so
far as to condemn the League of Rights and to warn church members to have
nothing to do with them. Santamaria is safe but Butler is poison so the
common wisdom seems to be. In 1988 I was happy to accept the common wisdom
about Butler. If anything I was slightly unnerved by the thought that a
Hitlerian type was loose in Australian life. Them in 1992 I met Eric Butler
personally and my whole view of the man and his movement changed completely.
During the year 1992 as a Parish minister in Mildura I became heavily
involved in a campaign to protect farmers from bank foreclosure. At the
time, banks were charging up to 28% interest on loans, and farms were
falling over by the thousand. Democrat Senator Paul McLean wrote a book
called Bankers and Bastards and that was exactly right. As part of my
campaign I organised a farmer's meeting in Mildura with Laurence Hoins(the
maddest, funniest, most courageous man I have ever met). The audience came
from all over the Mallee...farmers, clergymen and anyone interested in the
Bankwatch issue. And Eric Butler came too...all the way from
Melbourne....600 km. It was typical of the man. Because the League of Rights
was (and is ) deeply concerned about the family farm, they saw my meeting as
one to support. I thought that I should try to get to know Eric Butler so
he and I sat down for 2 hours in the Grand Hotel and discussed the League of
Rights. Out of that discussion I came to a better understanding of the
League of Rights and of Eric Butler. Interestingly, Senator McLean who was
also in Mildura at the time, also found himself with a new view of Butler. I
heard McLean say to Butler that he had completely changed his mind about the
League of Rights after meeting him. He also said that he found Eric Butler
to be quite different to anything the media had led him to expect. I can
only concur with this. I found Eric Butler to be charming, friendly, highly
intelligent, articulate and a wonderful conversationalist. Clearly he is an
exceedingly generous man. I believe that Butler is one of the most
interesting and courteous people that I have met. It does not surprise me
that many of his followers see him as a saint. And central to Butler's
motivation is his Christianity. The League of Rights purports to be a
Christian movement. Butler himself is an Anglican but seldom attends. He
says he cannot stomach the socialism that parades as Christian preaching
today. His is a Christianity of the individual, and for that reason the
church does not matter so much. The league of Rights is anti-collectivist.
It stands in defence of the rights of the individual against every kind of
collective mustering. For that reason it was stridently anti-communist. One
of its favourite texts is the saying of Jesus. "The Kingdom is within you."
The league is totally opposed to the kind of collectivism that we see
reflected in Globalism. It stands firm in defence of national sovereignty
and individual sovereignty. At the same time it is deeply committed to the
British Sovereign , her majesty the queen.
What few people appreciate though is that at its core, the League of Rights
is the modern evangelistic movement for what was once known as Social
Credit. The League of Rights is nothing other than the Social Credit
movement by another name...and that is where the story gets interesting for
me. For years I have been interested in the poetry and the story of Ezra
Pound, arguably the century's greatest poet. It was Pound for example who
edited T S Eliot's Wasteland and made it into the masterpiece we have before
us. And it was pound who devoted a lifetime to THE CANTOS..that extraordinary
long poem or is it a mountain of "fragments of our ruin"?
And Pound was a disciple of Social Credit, and a great believer in the
teachings of C H Douglas, the founder of Social Credit. In fact much of the
CANTOS is an exposition of the Social Credit theory of money and a
condemnation of the practice of usury. So in Butler I found someone with
whom I could discuss C H Douglas, Ezra Pound and the Spcial Credit movement.
In fact on Eric Butler's property "Runnymede" at Panton Hill in Melbourne,
there is a veritable shrine to C H Douglas in the memorial hall. So no one
in Australian journalism or Australian letters can hope to do any justice to
Butler or the League of Rights until they have made the efort to understand
Douglas and the Social Credit movement.
As for the question of
anti-semitism; I have my doubts that the League is anti-semitic, although it
is unashamedly anti-Zionist.
I wonder what you think?
Rev David Bell Uniting Church Melbourne
-- Bell, Book and Candle Internet Book Arcade "A great place to buy and
sell theological books"
http://www/starnet.com.au/belldj
-- Bell, Book and Candle Internet Book Arcade "A great place to buy and
sell theological books"
http://www/starnet.com.au/belldj
David S. Maddison
aus.politics added as discussion of Eric Butler has more to do with
politics than religion.
In article <ant14155...@belldj.starnet.com.au> Sat, 14 Mar 1998
16:59:55 +0100 (BST) David Bell <bel...@starnet.com.au> wrote:
>There has been extraordinary interest in the life, death and influence of
>Bob Santamaria in recent weeks. Politicians, journalists and church leaders
>came out of the woodwork to heap praise upon him. There was very little said
>in criticism of him, in spite of his long notoriety as a conservative
>political activist. It seems that at the same time he was a thoroughly
>decent human being. No one has yet noted that the career of Santamaria has
>been mirrored by another extraordinary Australian, with a similar agenda,
>and comparable influence. Eric Butler, leader of the Australian League of
>Rights, has been on the scene for at least as long as Santamaria pursuing
>many of the same ideals. Like Santamaria, Butler is a genuine intellectual
Please don't defame the dead by even _suggesting_ Eric Butler is
similar to Mr Santamaria.
[..]
>Santamaria was? Will Prime ministers visit him on his deathbed? It is likely
>that Butler will be ignored or villified for ever for the simple reason that
>The League of Rights has become synonymous with anti-semitism, fascism, and
I wonder why?
>what Gerard Henderson calls the "lunar Right agenda". Phillip Adams
>described Eric Butler as "toxic sludge". And most journalists find similar
>language to consign him to the cesspit of Australian life. And it is
I wonder why?
>probable that the journalists have done their job well. Most people I meet
>have already made up their minds that Butler and the League of Rights are
>all these things. In 1988 the Uniting Church Victorian Synod even went so
I wonder why?
>far as to condemn the League of Rights and to warn church members to have
>nothing to do with them. Santamaria is safe but Butler is poison so the
>common wisdom seems to be. In 1988 I was happy to accept the common wisdom
I wonder why?
[..]
>one to support. I thought that I should try to get to know Eric Butler so
>he and I sat down for 2 hours in the Grand Hotel and discussed the League of
>Rights. Out of that discussion I came to a better understanding of the
>League of Rights and of Eric Butler. Interestingly, Senator McLean who was
>also in Mildura at the time, also found himself with a new view of Butler. I
>heard McLean say to Butler that he had completely changed his mind about the
>League of Rights after meeting him. He also said that he found Eric Butler
>to be quite different to anything the media had led him to expect. I can
>only concur with this. I found Eric Butler to be charming, friendly, highly
>intelligent, articulate and a wonderful conversationalist. Clearly he is an
>exceedingly generous man. I believe that Butler is one of the most
So? What is your point? Adolf Hitler loved dogs and children and was
also said to be "charming".
>interesting and courteous people that I have met. It does not surprise me
>that many of his followers see him as a saint. And central to Butler's
>motivation is his Christianity. The League of Rights purports to be a
>Christian movement. Butler himself is an Anglican but seldom attends. He
So? He can call himself whatever he likes. Some of the most appalling
crimes in the history of the world have been committed in the name of
"Christianity". I am sure most Christians would be offended by Mr
Butler's views.
>says he cannot stomach the socialism that parades as Christian preaching
>today. His is a Christianity of the individual, and for that reason the
>church does not matter so much. The league of Rights is anti-collectivist.
The League is, itself, socialist. Social credit, remember? It doesn't
believe in the legitimacy of market forces.
>It stands in defence of the rights of the individual against every kind of
>collective mustering. For that reason it was stridently anti-communist. One
Well, the alleged rights of _some_ individuals - we'll discuss that
later.
>of its favourite texts is the saying of Jesus. "The Kingdom is within you."
>The league is totally opposed to the kind of collectivism that we see
>reflected in Globalism. It stands firm in defence of national sovereignty
>and individual sovereignty. At the same time it is deeply committed to the
>British Sovereign , her majesty the queen.
That should be "Her Majesty, The Queen".
>What few people appreciate though is that at its core, the League of Rights
>is the modern evangelistic movement for what was once known as Social
>Credit. The League of Rights is nothing other than the Social Credit
[..]
> As for the question of
>anti-semitism; I have my doubts that the League is anti-semitic, although it
>is unashamedly anti-Zionist.
I see, they're not anti-Semitic, they just don't believe the Jews
should have anywhere to live?
>I wonder what you think?
Do you really want to know :-) ........
>Rev David Bell Uniting Church Melbourne
Lets examine a few issues raised above.
o Who are the League of Rights?
The distribution of books, cassettes and videos, often of League of
Rights' functions' speakers, or antisemitic works such as The
Protocols of Zion, is an important League of Rights core activity.
Journalists interviewing leaders of the Australian League of Rights
report "a small room off the main office where their literature is
displayed" which is referred to as "the Jew room". "A visitor showing
interest is told the Talmud . . . endorses intercourse with children
who are non-believers and permits bestiality. The three men minding
the bookstore laugh about being not politically correct".
o What have the League's journals said on the subject of
anti-Semitism? Are they anti-Semitic?
League journals:
1996
* The League of Rights' New Times (January 1996) claimed that by late
1995 "All the parties" were "toeing the Zionist-Jewish line".
* The League of Rights' New Times (February 1996) attacked "the
Zionist-Jewish lobby" for its alleged influence over the Labor,
Liberal and National Parties.
* The League of Rights defended Neville Gruzman's decision to "deal
with clients whose sense of business ethics were nearer his own" than
"with Jewish clients" (On Target, 8/3).
* The League of Rights journal "On Target" Bulletin (8/3) declared
"Paul Keating's best contribution to traditional Australia will in
retrospect be seen as his sacking of Graeme Campbell, at the
instigation of Isi Leibler and his fellow Zionist Jews" and urged the
new federal government to "defy the Zionist Jewish lobby which was the
driving force behind the Racial Vilification legislation and the ban
on David Irving".
* The League of Rights' Intelligence Survey (March 1996) urged the new
Australian government to "defy the Zionist Jewish lobby".
* The League of Rights' On Target (29/3) contained a feature article,
"John Howard's anti-Christian friends" on "the anti-Christian Jewish
lobby" which it suggested included the Prime Minister's senior press
secretary. It claimed "John Howard is determined not to offend the
local Zionist lobby in any way", contrasting his record with that of
National Party Leader Tim Fischer.
* The League of Rights' New Times (March 1996) featured an article
from "Christian News", which it described as "an American Lutheran
publication", called "The 'Holocaust' as a New Religion". The article
supported Holocaust denial, claimed the US government was promoting
"the Holocaust religion", attributed Holocaust history to "Kabbalistic
and occultist" beliefs, claimed Jews support abortion as if "hastens
'the return' of the Jewish collective mass body, or messiah, according
to the rabbis, by depleting the supply of pre-existent souls", argued
Jews were "cashing in on war" and concluded that the US Holocaust
Museum is, "by definition", a Jewish temple, and "someone is going to
be very angry at this expose of the world elite's dark secrets". The
same issue carried an item "mixed marriage threat to Jews" which
asserted "big International Jewish bankers" are behind "Political
Zionism".
* The League of Rights' 'On Target' Bulletin (26/4) praised a
journalist who "dared to disagree with the Zionist-Jewish lobby";
promoted an address on the view that "the Christian Faith" is "being
challenged" by the claim that there was "Christian guilt for what
allegedly happened to the Jews in World War II" and a separate address
by Geoff Muirden of the Australian Civil Liberties Union on " 'The
Sellout of the Country' - how the Christian Churches are retreating in
the face of Zionist Jewish pressure".
* The League of Rights journal The New Times (April 1996) carried a
feature article "The 'Anti-semitic' Smear Against Christianity" which
criticised Christian-Jewish dialogue, claimed Jews are really Khazars,
attributed antagonism towards Jews to the "Chosen Race doctrine" and
concluded that "the 'anti-Semitic' smear should be exposed for what it
is: a diabolical form of psycho-political warfare" by "the Anti-Christ
in the shape of the modern Spiritual pharisees".
* "On Target" Bulletin attacked "Zionist Jewish organisations" for
"totalitarian arrogance which creates anti-Jewish feeling" (10/5) and
claimed David Irving's Goebbels Diaries "provide no evidence
whatsoever to support 'the Holocaust' myth about millions being gassed
to death" and for that reason has been censored by "the
Zionist:Jewish" propaganda machine (17/5), a claim repeated in "On
Target" Bulletin of 31/5.
* New Times (May 1996) wrote of "the mounting Zionist Jewish offensive
against Christendom", citing the French Catholic Bishop's condemnation
of Holocaust Denial as behaviour which will encourage this. The
newsletter also commented on "Jewish outrage" at David Irving.
* "On Target" (14/6) featured an "analysis" of the Israeli election,
which saw the anti-Christian United Nations'-defined Zionist State
elect a government intent on "causing violence" which they will then
"exploit".
* The League of Rights' New Times (June 1996) featured a discussion of
Jews' "racial characters", "Jewish financial power" and "the Jewish
sector of the Wall Street elite, and a promotion of David Irving's
"completely new edition" of Apocalypse 1945 - The Destruction of
Dresden.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This bit is particularly relevant to discussion on aus.politics!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* The League of Rights instructed its members not to criticise Adolf
Hitler's attitude to gun control, because only "Jews, Gypsies,
'vagabonds' and those with mental and criminal records were excluded"
from ownership and carrying of firearms ("On Target" Bulletin, 19/7).
The League's New Times (July 1996) and Intelligence Survey (July 1996)
also attacked Hitler's critics, commenting "Jews were not, of course,
listed as German citizens".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* The League of Rights' New Times (July 1996) in an article "Smearing
David Irving" claimed "No statement produces more outrage from the
Zionist Jews and their numerous dupes than that which stresses that
Hitler's basic policies were Jewish policies"; said that the "Second
World War" ended "in a victory for the very Judaism Hitler claimed to
be fighting"; and that David Irving is repeatedly "smeared" because
"he does not discover anything which supports the Zionist-Jewish
version of history".
* The League of Rights On Target sourced "the Marxist-Leninist
movement" to "International Finance", with the involvement of
"influential Zionist Jews" (30/8)
* The League of Rights' Melbourne Conservative Speakers Club meeting
on August 7 was on the topic "Are Christians responsible for 'The
Holocaust'?", given by Geoff Muirden. The League's 'On Target'
Bulletin pre-publicity claimed the meeting was important as "In recent
years there has been a mounting campaign by the Zionist-Jews to blame
Christianity not only for 'anti-semitism' but also for the alleged
systematic gassing of the Jews", (2/8). In the lecture, Muirden
referred to the Holocaust as "the big H", called Christians who
acknowledge that wrongs have been done to Jews "Shabaz Goyim (sic)"
and "Judaizers"; claimed Revisionist scholars such as Faurisson, Butz,
Irving and others have shown that gas chambers are a propaganda myth";
asserted "the gentilism (sic) suffered more in persecutions, such as
those of the Communists, under the Bolshevik regime, which was created
and sustained by Jews" than the Jews under Nazism (with which
"Zionists" collaborated); and that World War II was "the outcome of a
nationalist reaction against Jewish-led communist attacks in Germany".
* The League of Rights, in the weekly "On Target" Bulletin (18/10)
described social commentator Robert Manne as "one of the best known
apologists for the Zionist Jewish totalitarians". It called his
opposition to David Irving "talmudic dialectics". A non-Jewish
newspaper columnist was labelled a "veteran Zionist hit man".
* On Target (4/10) began "President Bill Clinton of the USA is a
captive of the most formidable Zionist Jewish influence in history",
claimed that British Common Law has been demeaned due to "the
influence of Political Zionism" and that only in America is there any
"genuine freedom" from "the Zionist Jewish lobby".
* On Target (15/11) claimed that, unlike "the Jewish lobby", David
Irving "does not" give donations "to Liberal Party campaign funds" and
that is why he has been kept out of Australia.
* On Target (29/11) printed a signed article by Eric Butler on the
subject of how "Clinton's global strategies reflect Zionist Jewish
strategy"
* "On Target" Bulletin (1/11) republished a letter by Ron Fischer
denying the Holocaust printed in The Courier (Ballarat)
* On Target article claimed that "Zionist-Jewish internationalists"
control the US's foreign policy and argued "the re-election of a
Clinton administration dominated openly by Zionist Jews" is "moving
the whole world towards an increasingly volatile and explosive
situation". (1/11)
* "On Target" Bulletin (8/11) attached "Zionist Jewish spokesman" for
opposing David Irving and asserted that "practising" Christians oppose
the concept of racial equality.
1997
* "On Target" (24/1) editorialised that much antisemitism "has been
deliberately promoted by Jews for political and publicity purposes".
* Editorialising on "The Middle East Crisis", The New Times claimed
"the USA, specially under the Clinton Administration, is completely
dominated by Zionist Jews" and that the mass media of the Western
World "almost unanimously" reflects "the propaganda of the Zionist
Jewish power groups" (January 1997).
* League of Rights "On Target" Bulletin (24/1) attacked "the
Zionist-Jewish totalitarians. "On Target" Bulletin (17/1) criticised
"Zionist thought-police" for criticising David Irving.
* On Target (14/2) attributed the "global programme" of its
"internationalists" (which it identified as a danger to Australia) to
"Zionist Jews", including "Madeleine Albricht (sic)", the daughter of
"the Jew Josef Korbel, a senior diplomat in the Czedoslovakian
Government before the collapse of Communism".
* New Times, (February 1997) claimed that a number of Jews are writing
letters arguing that everyone who wants to know the facts "must read
David Irving"; claimed "Zionist Jews" are able "to prevent a most
important historical work from being published"; argued "Switzerland
is the latest target of the Zionist Jewish power groups who, having
successfully built up the myth of the mass gassings of Jews, are using
it as an instrument of blackmail".
* On Target (21/2) published "the notes of a series of addresses the
author [Eric Butler] has been giving in northern New South Wales and
southern Queensland", which included comments on "the Zionist
invasion", "the Zionist Jewish domination of the Clinton
administration" and "Talmudic Madness".
* The Australian League of Rights argued that "Australian Zionists"
exercise "destructive influence" and are able to be so due to "their
mastery of Talmudic dialectics". (On Target, 28/3)
* New Times carried an article "Zionist Jews Blackmail Switzerland".
After criticising "the Zionist controlled Clinton administration", the
article concluded that "the Zionist assault on Switzerland and its
banking system may well open up a Pandora's Box with revelations
concerning the activities of International Finance in which Zionists
have played a prominent role". (March 1997)
* The League of Rights' "On Target" Bulletin (25/4) published a
promotion for David Irving's "imminent" book, Nuremberg, which it
claims "deals with the question of the Auschwitz gas chamber ("a
fake")" and "traces the origin of the Six Million to 1919"
* In the League of Rights New Times (April, 1997) Eric Butler wrote
"Irrespective of whether Hitler was of part Jewish background, or not,
as some reputable researches believe, as pointed out by C.M. Douglas
his policies were basically Jewish policies"
* On Target (11/4) was dedicated to attacking the "Zionist Jewish
media" (e.g. The Washington Post), "the Zionist factor in modern
history" and "Zionist leaders" who are "evil".
* The League of Rights "On Target" Bulletin (16/5) submitted "Any
investigation into the ugly violence which closed the [Pauline Hanson]
Hobart meeting should closely question what role was played by Zionist
Jews".
* Intelligence Survey (May 1997) published an (unsigned) review of
David Irving's Nuremberg: The Last Battle which included the paragraph
"Irving is accused by his ill-informed critics of having 'written
books denying the holocaust', although they are unable to refer to a
single such book. However, in Nuremberg, he deals with the question of
the Auschwitz gas chamber ('a fake'), the supposedly damaging
affidavit of Rudolf Hoss, the story of human soap from Jewish corpses
('a Propaganda lie') and traces the origin of the Six Million back to
1919. This is a balanced, factual and measured examination of 'the
holocaust', if not exhaustive in scope". In an article on Swiss
banks, the League concluded "The Swiss have been accused by the WJC
and the Zionist lobby of helping to finance the Nazi war effort, of
buying gold looted by the Nazis through the Swiss central bank,
selling war material to Hitler through Swiss companies, and turning
back 30,000 Jewish refugees at Swiss borders. But how are the Swiss to
be brought to heel? In a country where the people themselves have the
final authority, it is much more difficult for arrogant politicans to
betray their interests. This is why Australia needs initiative and
referendum". (Intelligence Survey, May 1997)
* New Times (June 1997), in an article "Germany's Role in the Struggle
For The World", Eric Butler claimed that the Jews of Germany destroyed
German traditional culture by 1848, and then imposed their plans on
the USA, which included the flooding of the country with immigrants
and has led to the domination of America by "Jews who slavishly follow
the Zionist programme". He claimed "today's Germany has been reduced
to virtually an instrument of Zionist Jewish international policies".
* "On Target" Bulletin (27/6) quoted its British equivalent On Target
(12-26/4/97), which maintained "leading Zionist-Jewish 'British'
businessmen are giving financial support to the Labour Party, thus
reducing it to the same position of political subservience as the
Republican and Democrat parties in the United States ...".
* The League of Rights' New Times (August 1997) claimed that The
Protocols of Zion was wrongly believed to be a forgery and claimed
Jews are "The Masters of the New Russia".
Do any of the above statements appear to be anti-Semitic to you
Reverend David Bell? If not, what do you define as anti-Semitic?
Supposing you do consider them anti-Semitic, how would you reconcile
your position of accepting the League or Rights with your own Church's
position on anti-Semitism and Judaism, which I have taken the liberty
to reproduce below.
o Here is your Uniting Church's position on relations with Jews
A STATEMENT INVITING THE UNITING CHURCH TO DIALOGUE WITH THE JEWISH
COMMUNITY
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
In presenting this statement to the assembly, the task group offers
the church an invitation to ongoing dialogue. The statement is not a
pronouncement of the nature, "we believe these things". It is,
rather, an indication that's "we want to talk with one another, and
with Jewish people, about these things". The Uniting Church has
adopted a consensus model in place of the process of debate and
majority. In keeping with this approach, this statement invites the
members of the Uniting Church to engage in discussion, to participate
in exploring the issues. The statement is not intended to be a
declaration of belief, it is an attempt to be open to new insights,
and to act accordingly. It is offered in the spirit of initiating a
process for the Uniting Church.
1. PREAMBLE
1.1 The Fifth Assembly of the Uniting Church (1988) resolved to
initiate a process leading to dialogue with people of other faiths.
1.2 Since 1992, regular dialogue has continued with representatives
of the Jewish community of Australia.
1.3 This has helped both communities to move towards a context of
mutual trust, in which to pursue frank and fruitful exploration of one
another's faiths, and of common concerns.
1.4 The Seventh Assembly of the Uniting Church (1994) resolved to
initiate a process throughout the church of developing understanding,
relationship and common action between Jewish and Christian people
towards a letter world.
1.5 This statement is presented to the Eighth Assembly (1997) as one
means of encouraging Uniting Church members throughout Australia to
engage more fully in such a process.
2. THE CONTEXT
2.1 It is widely recognised that theology is formed as people of faith
reflect on their experience. At the same time, it is recognised that a
people's theological perspective shapes their interpretation of
experience. These two movements belong together.
2.2 Two 20th century events have been central to the contemporary
Jewish experience. Many Jews suffered the horror of the Holocaust (the
Shoah), either directly or through family and friends. Many Jews also
remember the experience of having no homeland and then the
establishment of the State of Israel.
2.3 On the other hand, most Australian Christians have no direct
relationship with Jewish people. They have no direct memory of the
Holocaust or of the time before the State of Israel was established.
2.4 For a time now, some members of the Uniting Church have been
engaging in dialogue with Jewish people on a variety of matters,
through membership of the various state Councils of Christians and
Jews, through direct bilateral discussions, and as concerned
individuals.
2.5 Alongside this, the Uniting Church has been developing
relationships with Palestinian Christians in the land of Israel.
2.6 In spite of this informal dialogue with Jewish people and the
remarkable rediscovery and re-evaluation of scripture by biblical
scholars, theologians and ministers, many Christians are regularly
exposed to interpretations of scripture which denigrate the Jewish
people and Judaism.
2.7 These experiences have an important bearing on the way Jews and
Christians regard each other and relate to each other.
3. OUR HISTORY
3.1 For our part, as Australian Christians, our experiences and the
teaching of the churches have influenced of the churches have
influenced our perceptions of Jewish people and our attitudes towards
them.
3.2 When we look honestly at the history of relations between
Christians and Jews, we find that churches have consistently shaped a
negative perception of Jewish people and Judaism.
3.3 For much of our common history, many churches have ignored the
Jewishness of Jesus and downplayed the common heritage of the Old
Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures).
3.4 Jews have been persecuted by Christian authorities in many
countries, and often depicted negatively (indeed, sometimes vilified)
in sermons from Christian pulpits.
3.5 The relationship between Christians and Jews has had a sad and
tragic history.
3.6. Nevertheless, in the midst of this long history, there have been
shining examples of deep friendship and warm acceptance.
3.7 The step we, as Christians, now need to take, is to recognise the
regrettable aspects of our history, and to seek to move beyond these
in our relationship with the Jewish people.
4. THE RELATIONSHIP WE SEEK
4.1 It is therefore necessary for Christians, committed to seeking a
new relationship with Jewish people, to face the question: "What is
the relationship we seek?"
4.2 In doing this, we risk an openness to the questions that will
arise, and a willingness to explore and embrace new understandings
that may emerge from this process.
4.3 This will also mean that we are to be honest with ourselves and
with Jewish people, so that we might challenge cliches and
stereotypes, and move beyond these to a genuine, open relationship.
4.4 In so doing, we will become aware that the relationship we seek
will be accomplished through sustained dialogue with Jewish people.
4.5 In engaging in this dialogue, we bring the conviction that there
are particular doctrines which are central to Christian faith (namely,
the doctrine of the Trinity, and the belief that Jesus is the Christ).
4.6 We are aware that honest dialogue is possible only between people
who, whilst holding that own convictions, are nevertheless open to the
risk of deep engagement with other viewpoints, and new understanding
of their central convictions.
5. THE CHALLENGES BEFORE US
5.1 In this process, there are major questions which have to be
addressed.
5.2 "How do you see yourselves as a people?" is a fundamental
question for us to put to Jewish people; we need to give careful
attention to the answers.
5.3 "How do we see ourselves as a people?" is similarly important for
us; we need to our answers with Jewish people.
5.4 "How do we understand our own history?" is crucial to knowing who
we are; this must include the darker side of Christian history,
especially in relation to Jews.
5.5 "What have we done by intent or ignorance?" arises out of the
foregoing, and is essential to the discussion of our relationship with
the Jewish people.
5.6 "What might we learn from the Jewish people and Judaism?" will
give us a fuller understanding of Christian history and identity.
5.7 "What might we be able to offer you?" needs to be asked with
great sensitivity as to timing and intend.
5.8 "What can we do together now?" is a question which needs to be
constantly before us in this dialogue.
5.9 "How do we see ourselves together?" is the question we would
expect to develop our of the foregoing engagement.
5.10 The goal of this process is that a deep and genuine relationship
will develop as Jews and Christians together seek reconciliation and
justice for all peoples, in the hope generated by the coming kingdom.
6. A NEW RELATIONSHIP
6.1 The Assembly does not seek to prescribe specific answers to the
above questions.
6.2 Answers will emerge through the process of listening and talking,
reshaping understandings and acting together in unity.
6.3 The Assembly does seek, at this point, to signal that involvement
in the process outlined above will post an important question: "What
are the implications for us as a church, when we enter into a new
relationship with Jewish people?"
6.4 While we do not know the shape of the future, we believe we are
required to enter this new relationship as a faithful response to God
who has called both Jews and Christians to be People of God.
7. KEY ELEMENTS IN THE PROCESS
The Assembly invites members, congregations and councils of the
Uniting Church to give consideration to the points listed below and,
wherever possible, to explore them in patient and sensitive
conversation with Jewish people;
7.1 that Judaism is a living faith possessed of its own integrity and
vitality in its own developing traditions;
7.2 that Christians and Jews share a common heritage in the unique
testimony of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) to the One God,
Creator and Redeemer;
7.3 that Christians and Jews have kindred ethical frameworks,
founded in the Old testament (the Hebrew Scriptures), which allow them
to work jointly for the achievement of a just and responsible society;
7.4 that Jesus of Nazareth was born, lived, and died a faithful Jew,
looking to the establishment of God's kingdom as the fulfilment of
god's promises;
7.5 that many of the early Christian writings collected in the New
Testament were written in a context of controversy and polemic between
Church and Synagogue;
7.6 that Christian theology, preaching, and practice have been
influenced by the erroneous idea that the Jewish people and Judaism
were rejected by God and superseded by Christians and the Church; and
accordingly, that it is necessary to propose a new way for Christians
and the Church to relate to the Jewish people and to Judaism;
7.7 that an anti-Judaism which developed in Christianity created
fertile ground for the spread of antisemitism, culminating in the
Holocaust (the Shoah);
7.8 that, just as Jewish faith has been challenged by the Holocaust
(the Shoah), so Christian theology is challenged when it takes account
of the theological issues raised by this event, by questions such as:
the nature of God, the presence of evil, the means of salvation, and
Christian triumphalism and culpability;
7.9 that the Jewish people have a particular historical, cultural,
emotional and spiritual bond with the land of Israel, which is a
central element of the Jewish faith, and which is inextricably bound
to the history of the Jewish people.
7.10 That the historical roots, rights and aspirations of the
Palestinian people must be properly acknowledged.
7.11 that from a properly informed position, and in the light of the
moral tradition of Christianity, it can be appropriate for the Uniting
Church to have and express a view about both Israeli and Palestinian
policies and actions.
7.12 that the search for a just and lasting peace for all states and
peoples in the Middle East merits prayerful engagement on the part of
all Christians.
===
David Maddison
Mark Addinall
David S. Maddison wrote:
>
> aus.politics added as discussion of Eric Butler has more to do with
> politics than religion.
>
> In article <ant14155...@belldj.starnet.com.au> Sat, 14 Mar 1998
> 16:59:55 +0100 (BST) David Bell <bel...@starnet.com.au> wrote:
These people are a worry David.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> This bit is particularly relevant to discussion on aus.politics!
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> * The League of Rights instructed its members not to criticise Adolf
> Hitler's attitude to gun control, because only "Jews, Gypsies,
> 'vagabonds' and those with mental and criminal records were excluded"
> from ownership and carrying of firearms ("On Target" Bulletin, 19/7).
> The League's New Times (July 1996) and Intelligence Survey (July 1996)
> also attacked Hitler's critics, commenting "Jews were not, of course,
> listed as German citizens".
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
If my memory serves me right, Moshe Dayan was imprisoned by the British
for having an illegal gun, shortly before being given command of the
89th Commando
Battalion.
Mark (unabashed Zionist, not a Jew ;) Addinall.
Be well David.