Chapter 17: 
Race, Christianity and Judaism
From the earliest times that I can remember, I was a believing Christian. My father is a devout Christian who taught me the salvation that Jesus Christ offers and about His lessons for living. Father was never dogmatic about his faith, and over the years he led my family to different churches without worrying about the denomination. At one time or another, we were members of Presbyterian, Methodist, and Church of Christ congregations. The only important consideration for Father was the quality of the minister and the congregation. When I was in grade school, my family joined the Elysian Fields Methodist Church where Father taught Sunday school. When we traveled we would almost always try to attend Sunday school and church in whatever city we happened to be in. The new perspectives we received from the different Sunday school teachers and preachers were like shots of adrenaline for our Christian faith. 
At thirteen, I went to Clifton L. Ganus school, a strongly fundamentalist Church of Christ school in New Orleans. At this same time, my family and I began to attend services at the Carrollton Avenue Church of Christ, which had strong ties to the school. Although I had had an infant baptism in the Presbyterian church, my new teachers and friends convinced me that the Bible taught that a conscious decision about salvation was needed before baptism. I prayed about it and gave myself to Christ as I was lain back in the waters of the baptismal pool in our church’s sanctuary. Not long after my baptism, after much pleading from me, my father found his way to the baptismal pool as well. 
My experience of being a renewed Christian had a profound impact not only on my Christian beliefs, but also on my secular ones, for it seemed I saw everything in a fresh light. When a man has confidence in his own beliefs, he is unafraid to joust with contrary opinions. Being “saved” gave me a sense of security that made me more open to different ideas. When someone has doubts about the underlying validity of his beliefs, he feels threatened by challenges to them. The feeling of being “right with God and the world” gave me freedom to explore challenging ideas. It was only a few months after my baptism that I read Race and Reason,  the book that began my intellectual journey toward racial understanding. 
In the early ’60s, most churches in the South were still segregated, and even the Catholic church had segregated parochial schools and separate seating during Mass for Whites and Blacks. Accepting racial differences posed no moral dilemma for organized Christianity for its first two thousand years, but after only 50 years of an egalitarian-dominated media, racial attitudes began to change in the Christian establishment. Ironically, the source of this new “Christian” viewpoint came primarily from people who were, in fact, anti-Christians. At first, Christians were told that recognition of racial differences and segregation was inappropriate. When I graduated from college in the mid-1970s, increasing numbers of churches were maintaining that racism was a “sin.” By the 1980s, some churches that had been totally segregated just 20 years earlier even began to consecrate mixed marriages between Whites and Blacks.
When I first questioned the idea of racial equality, it never entered my mind that understanding racial differences could be incompatible with my Christian beliefs, for almost all Christian churches in the South were then segregated. My church and its private school were entirely White. 
Later, I did some real soul searching on the issue, for Christianity was not just my belief, but it was also my ultimate moral delimiter. I questioned whether my beliefs on the race issue were somehow unchristian. I began to reread the Holy Bible, paying close attention to the way it dealt with tribes, races, peoples, and nations, and I prayerfully thought about it. I read an article in a Methodist Sunday school magazine that maintained that racial segregation was unacceptable to Christians. The Scripture it used to justify its position was from Acts 17:26:
And he made from one every nation of men to live on the face of the earth… 
I remembered the deception used by the media concerning Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote: “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate that these people [the Negroes] are to be free.” When I thought of how they left out the next sentences affirming racial differences and supporting repatriation, I immediately opened my Bible and looked up the verse. It read: 
And he made from one every nation of men to live on the face of the earth, having determined their allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitations. (Acts 17:26)
Just as with Jefferson, important words — words that complete the meaning of the scripture — were left off. In Biblical terms nation is synonymous with people or race. I thought about the fact that God indeed made the many races of mankind and gave them their distinct characteristics and the “boundaries of their habitations.” As I read the verse in its entirety, it did not seem to me that God favors racial integration, or racial mixing. He himself made us distinct races and He separated us by kind. 
The more I reread the Holy Bible, the more obvious it became to me that God seemed very concerned about heritage. The Old Testament is about one nationality, one people: the Israelites, who are designated as a special people, a “chosen people.” Life and death struggles between the Israelites and the Cannanites, Jacobites, Philistines, Amalakites, Assyrians, Egyptians, and dozens of other peoples are recorded exhaustively. Even though, as I’ve mentioned, I was quite surprised and dismayed by the genocide, I continued to find many more verses of the Bible (such as Joshua 6:21 and 10:28-10:41)  detailing  the slaughter of entire peoples. 
The Jewish stormtroopers committed their genocide under the strict guidelines established by Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 20. He told them that in the lands set aside to become Israel, they should exterminate every inhabitant, while people in surrounding nations had to be killed unless they submitted themselves as slaves to Israel. 
When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you . . . you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies . . . Thus you shall do to all of the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. 
But in the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and Jebusites, . . . (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)
The wording is unmistakable. Even innocent children were to be killed simply because they were of an enemy nation.
Love Thy “Neighbor” 
Since my earliest Sunday and Bible school days, I had been taught that the greatest instruction of God was to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). Having grown up on the Ten Commandments, the most known passages of the Old Testament, I now wondered how such Old Testament genocide could be understood in light of “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” and “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house” (Exodus 20:13, 15, and 17). 
I decided to look up the scripture that discusses loving thy neighbor as thyself. I found it in Leviticus 19:18 in the Revised Standard Version Old Testament that had belonged to my grandmother. It read 
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but shall love your neighbor as yourself… (Leviticus 19:18) 
The following is the Jewish translation of the text for their bible according to Hebrew texts: 
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself. -TANAKH  
The verse made it clear that neighbors were “the sons of your own people” — in other words, neighbor meant a fellow Israelite and not other peoples. The most recent Jewish translation of the verse uses “your countrymen” in place of “the sons of your own people.”
The Talmud explains in Baba Kamma 113b that the term neighbor specifically does not apply to a Gentile. The Jewish Encyclopedia says it clearly, “Here the Gentile is excepted, as he is not a neighbor…” Years later I read an article by Dr. John Hartung in which he explained that the Ten Commandments’ legal proscriptions were clearly directed at offenses against a “neighbor,” which excluded non-Israelites. He pointed out that the scrolls from which the Ten Commandments were translated had no periods, commas, or first-word capitalization. Therefore, the part about “Thou shalt not kill” becomes part of a larger context. It could read:
Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt though commit adultery, neither shalt thou steal, neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor, neither shalt thou covet your neighbor’s wife and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
So who are the Israelites proscribed from killing? “Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor… the children of thy people, the sons of your own people, your fellow Israelites.” Now the mass killing and theft of other people's lands as commanded by Moses became very consistent with the laws of the Ten Commandments.
The Bible — Politically Incorrect
As much as it may surprise many of the Christians reading this, the Old Testament also supports wholeheartedly the institution of slavery. And again it is made clear that Israelites may forever engage in slavery of other peoples, but they are forbidden to enslave their own.
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you.
You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 
You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
In regard to inter-racial marriage there are unmistakable passages where God commanded, “You shall not make marriages with them.”
And When the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; 
Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. . . .(Deuteronomy 7:2-6)
The Bible goes on to say to Israelites who marry non-Israelites, “so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you.” (Deuteronomy 7:4)
Elsewhere the Old Testament decries the mixing of the “holy seed of Israel.” Jewish priests complain that “the people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations…(Ezra 9:1) For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands.” (Ezra 9:2) Ezra goes on to list 107 men who renounced their foreign wives and their children by them as part of their obedience to God. 
I also found that genealogies were used as proofs of untainted bloodlines. Racially impure genealogies were used to deny the priesthood to some who returned from Babylonian captivity. Every Sunday School child learns that one of the Old Testament proofs of the divinity of Jesus is his unbroken genealogy. I discovered that genocide and forbidding mixed marriages were not the only means used in biblical times to protect the bloodline of the Israelites. The Bible also clearly advocates separation or segregation. 
. . . I am the Lord your God which have separated you from other people. (Leviticus 20:24) 
. . . Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude. (Nehemiah 13:3) 
If the new egalitarian version of Christianity is right and racial separation is sinful, then by their logic God would have to be the first one condemned, for He is the one who created the racial differences of mankind. Whether one believes that God used a complex process of lengthy evolution or a simple act of immediate creation to make us, it is obvious that the different races exist and are geographically separated. If racial integrity is against the laws of God, why did he establish the races, geographically separate them, and give them distinct characteristics and qualities? Is God supposed to have made some big mistake that man in his conceit is now to rectify through integration and racial mixing? 
When I brought up the clear racial teachings of the Old Testament, my Sunday school teacher said that Jesus Christ brought a change by His coming for all mankind. I had to agree that the teachings of Jesus Christ do not concur with the harsh ethnocentrism of the Old Testament. The New Testament provides that the grace of God and the salvation of Christ are available to all people and all nations. Those who believe in Jesus Christ become the “children of God,” the new “chosen people” through their salvation. Following are some often-quoted verses from the New Testament. 
For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, male or female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 
And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)
Egalitarians frequently use these verses to justify their belief in racial and sexual equality. After pondering the verses carefully, I asked myself some questions. Do the verses mean that there are literally no males and females, no Jews or Greeks, and no slaves or freemen in the world? Obviously the answer is no. The New Testament repeatedly recognizes distinctions between men and women, Jews and Greeks, and servants (slaves) and freemen. In fact, although it may shock some who do not realize it, the New Testament routinely accepts the institution of slavery and says explicitly that slaveholders can be believing Christians and brethren. Examine the verses below. 
•	Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ... (Ephesians 6:5) 
•	Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. 
•	Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. (1 Timothy 6:2)
•	Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-1)
•	Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. (1 Peter 2:18)
I do not condone slavery or any kind of oppression of people. However, Jesus Christ obviously had no opposition to it, anymore than had God when he told the Israelites that they could keep their slaves (of other tribes) forever. (Leviticus 25:44-46) Jesus walked among slavery His entire life, reproaching all kinds of sin, yet He never uttered a word condemning slavery or slave owners. 
An excellent example of Christ’s attitude toward slavery is found in His encounter with a Roman Centurion and his slave (Luke 7:1–10). The story tells of a Roman Centurion who had a sick slave. He sent word to Jesus asking him to heal the slave, but he also sent word that the Lord need not come to him because he was sure Jesus could heal the slave from any distance. Jesus Christ did not condemn the slaveholder, nor did he instruct the Centurion to set his slave free. He simply healed the slave and praised the slaveholder effusively saying, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” (Luke 7:9) Passages such as that one suggested to me that the message Christ brought was one of personal salvation, not of liberal social activism. 
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female” does not call for racial integration any more than it calls for the elimination of sexual differences or even the end of slavery. The message is very clear and very simple: salvation of Jesus Christ is open to all who believe in him, male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free. 
It became clear to me that both the Old and New Testaments acknowledge the differences in mankind. Certainly, though, the New Testament expresses a climate of love and respect that represents a change from the harsher dictates of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ and the writers of the New Testament seem to accept slavery, but slaveholders are admonished to treat their slaves kindly, and although Jesus acknowledges the different races that God Himself created and the “bounds of their habitations,” He decrees that His salvation is open to all.
An illustration of how far afield some of the organized Christian churches have strayed from the words of Jesus is the push by many of them for gun control. He said in words one cannot mistake 
. . . and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36) 
How would the liberal media treat someone today who said, “If you do not have a gun, sell your coat if you must, but buy one!” The liberal, Marxist-oriented, social gospel that egalitarians say is in the Holy Bible exists only in their own minds. Liberal humanism has now been grafted onto the faith of our forefathers. The wimpish and almost effeminate popular portrayal of Jesus today is a good illustration. In truth, Christ Jesus was both gentle and manly. His love came from His inner goodness and great strength. One can contrast the flower-child, hippie, media version of Jesus with the Biblical account of Christ going into the temple, turning over the tables, and driving out the moneylenders with a cat-o’-nine-tails (a scourge usually made of nine knotted lines or small cords). 
In recent years, liberal radicals have so perverted the meaning of Christ’s message, that some church money has gone to support Communist revolutionaries. For instance, the National Council of Churches, a prestigious grouping of mainstream churches, sent money to Communists in Africa who were ultimately responsible for the murder of Christian missionaries.
Jewish Anti-Christianism
As I became more and more familiar with the role that organized Jewry played in Communism, Zionism, and liberalism, I also noticed their animosity toward Christians. Hollywood produces an abundance of movies that attack Christianity, and the publishing establishment generates prolific anti-Christian literature. For instance, in my college days I read a best-selling, highly promoted book called the Passover Plot, by a Jewish scholar named Joseph Schonfield. He alleged that Jesus had not died on the cross, but was actually drugged by His followers to fake His death and resurrection. Jewish organizations routinely lead the fight to ban Christian prayers from schools, prohibit the mention of Christ in public facilities, and even forbid the singing of Christmas carols in our schools. 
Once, when I criticized Jewish organizations for such actions on a radio talk show, a caller called me un-Christian for daring to criticize them. “After all,” he retorted, “the Jews are God’s chosen people.” I had already done enough biblical research to know that such a statement told only half of the story. For the New Testament makes it clear that believing Christians had become the ”heirs of God’s promise,” and that God no longer viewed the Jews as in his Covenant. 
Looking into the historical attitude of the Christian church toward Judaism, I found that it changed remarkably in this century. This was a period that also marked the rise of Jewish economic, political, and media power. The Christian church had a long record of conflict with the Jews. It is a record of which Jewish writers frequently complain. In the early fledgling days of Christianity, Jewish persecution of Christians, as referenced in the gospels, was still fresh in the minds of church leaders. A former Pharisee, Paul, was one of those cruel persecutors until his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus. Eventually, Christianity became an overwhelmingly Gentile faith, and organized Jewry became its implacable enemy, claiming that Jesus was a bastard and Mary a whore, and that Christians were to be boiled in excrement. On the other side, using the New Testament, Christians blamed Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus and widespread persecution of Christians.
Many Christians think that the Jews’ only religious books are those found in the Old Testament. As I described in my chapter on Judaic Supremacism, the Talmud is a collection of the chief books of Jewish commentary. The American Heritage Dictionary describes it as “. . . constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism.”
There are three main branches of the Jewish religion: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. The Orthodox is the traditional source of Judaism and is considered to be at its heart. Very similar to Orthodox Judaism is the Conservative branch, but it offers some greater leeway in observance of the stringent Jewish laws. More modernistic, the Reform movement is far less bound by Pharisaic traditions than either of the other branches. The Encyclopedia Judaica describes the current religious picture of the nation of Israel. 
There are very few Reform or Conservative congregations in the State of Israel. Orthodoxy is the official religious position in Israel with the majority of the rabbis belonging to the old school of talmudic jurists.  (“Judaism.” Encyclopedia Judaica, pg. 396) 
The tendency within the Jewish Theological Seminary [in New York] has been emphatically . . . toward a more orthodox stance than existed within it in the previous generation.  (“Conservative Judaism,” Enc. Encyclopedia Judaica, pg. 906) 
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia makes it very clear that the Talmud, not the Torah or Old Testament, is the supreme authority for Judaism. 
Thus the ultimate authority for Orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory.  (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, “Authority” pg. 637) 
The Talmud make it clear that Judaism regards Jesus as a “charlatan,” ”magician,” “seducer,” and “deceiver.” The Talmud also alleges that the biblical account of the crucifixion was a lie, maintaining that Jesus was strangled in a pit of dung, and that they hated him so much they executed him four different ways! Christ is portrayed as the bastard son of a harlot, and it even suggests that He was a Gentile. In some startling passages it boasts that the Romans had nothing to do with the death of Jesus, but that the Jews alone executed him for His idolatry. It also states that He has been conjured from the dead by a Jewish magician and then punished by being boiled in hot semen. 
Below are direct quotes I confirmed from the Talmud, dealing with Jesus and Christians: 
•	Balaam [Jesus] fornicated with his jackass. (Sanhedrin 105a-b)
•	Jewish priests raised Balaam [Jesus] from the dead and punished him in boiling hot semen.(57a Gittin)  
•	She who was the descendant of princes and governors [The Virgin Mary] played the harlot with a carpenter (Sanhedrin 106a)
•	[Jesus] was lowered into a pit of dung up to his armpits. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the tow ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead. (Sanhedrin 52b) Also, says they gave him four different executions in Sanhedrin 106a.
•	Hast thou heard how old Balaam [Jesus] was?”…bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. (Sanhedrin 106)
•	Those who read the uncanonical books [New Testament] will have no portion in the world to come. (Sanhedrin 90a)
•	Jews must destroy the books of the [Christians]. (Shabbath 116a) 
When I first encountered these Talmudic quotations in Elizabeth Dilling’s book The Jewish Religion, such as those above and those reproduced in chapter 16, I told myself that they couldn’t be accurate, that they had to be fakes or forgeries. Then I looked up the offending quotations and confirmed their presence in the Soncino Edition (the most popular 20th century English translation of the Talmud). The anti-Gentile quotations also received ample coverage in the Jewish Encyclopedia, enough so that no one could seriously doubt their authenticity. The Jewish Encyclopedia even details how the English translations use code words such as Amalakites, Cutheans, Egyptians, heathens, and other monikers to denote Gentiles in general, using these specific terms to hide from Gentiles how viciously the Talmud speaks of them. It also says clearly that the word “Balaam” is an alias for Jesus Christ.
As a younger man I reacted to this hidden Jewish racism first with shock and then with anger. How could the liberal Jewish pundits and media moguls condemn Southerners who simply wanted segregation, while their own Holy Writ taught hatred and violence against us, the non-Jews. When I began to talk publicly about the hatred that was in the Talmud, I was branded a hater, a bigot, and an anti-Semite by the media and by groups like the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL). The ADL is a multimillion-dollar, worldwide organization whose whole purpose is to defame and discredit those who simply tell the truth about Jewish supremacism and hatred against Gentiles.
I became very angry, not only at the hatred that I saw in the traditional Jewish writings, but also in the Jewish leadership’s hypocritical attacks on those who exposed that hatred. They attacked me for simply quoting the Talmud publicly, when I did nothing but simply read directly from their holy books. Yet, they called me the “hater.”
Ultimately, the unjust and hypocritical attacks I faced only sharpened my resolve to stand up, no matter how alone, for the cause I believed in. Unexpectedly, I found that there are a number of Jews who dare to speak out about the truth about Zionism and Jewish supremacism. A much-persecuted and slandered group, they were just as appalled as I was about the intolerant and hateful strains of Judaism that had arisen in the Jewish community and the Zionist State. They included Americans such as Alfred Lilienthal, Noam Chomsky, and a courageous Jew in Israel, Dr. Israel Shahak. These scholars had dared to stand up against Jewish intolerance.
Dr. Israel Shahak risks all to bring what he calls “decent humanity” to Judaism and the Zionist State. Professor Shahak was born in Warsaw in 1933 and was liberated from the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen; therefore, by the Jews’ own definition, he is a Holocaust survivor. He immigrated to Israel, served in the Israeli army, and became a respected chemistry professor. Dr. Shahak is a lifelong human rights activist who has written on aspects of Judaism in both Hebrew and English. He has written many books, his latest in 1994 being Jewish History, Jewish Religion.  Gore Vidal wrote an excellent foreword in the current American edition. Here are some excerpts from Shahak’s book exposing the attitude of the Jewish religion toward Christianity:
Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred toward Christianity, combined with ignorance about it. This attitude was clearly aggravated by the Christian persecutions of Jews, but is largely independent of them. In fact, it dates from the time when Christianity was still weak and persecuted (not least by Jews), and it was shared by Jews who had never been persecuted by Christians or who were even helped by them…
According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the [talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned. . . 
The very name Jesus was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular tradition still persists. The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not allowed to be quoted (let alone taught) even in modern Israeli schools.  
Professor Shahak reports that the Zionists publicly and ceremonially burned hundreds of copies of the New Testament in Jerusalem on March 23, 1980. They were destroyed under the auspices of Yad Le’akhim, a Jewish religious organization subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religions. To think that this is the same government that some Christian ministers say we should support with American tax dollars! Among other startling charges, Dr. Shahak