Saturday, August 14, 2010

Statement from Michael Hoffman on the Mosque Controversy in New York

Synagogues Permissible, but not Mosques?


"I am reasonably literate on the subject of what the religion of Orthodox Judaism actually believes and teaches in the synagogue, including execution of those who preach that Jesus Christ is God. As an American and a Christian I affirm  that a Talmudic synagogue is no more or less appropriate anywhere near "Ground Zero" in Manhattan than a mosque. Where did the Founding Fathers, the Constitution or the First Amendment stipulate that synagogues were permissible and mosques were not? Right wing Republicans are willfully ignorant of the evils of Talmudic law and stirred to rage over Sharia law. But this ignorance does not make synagogues any more acceptable than mosques. If a mosque is banned then a synagogue is liable to the same interdict. Our Constitution does not, however, provide for any house of worship of any religion, to be singled out for obstruction or suppression.”
- Michael Hoffman, author of Judaism Discovered 


Under the Synagogue’s Talmudic Noachide law those who worship Jesus Christ are subject to execution. Here is the documentation:


The rabbinic legal authorities of Orthodox Judaism decree that the worship of Jesus Christ constitutes idol worship (avodah zarah).
—Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 9:4. Teshuvos Pri ha-Sadeh 2:4. Igros Moshe, Y.D. 3:129-6

Idol worshippers are liable to the death penalty under the Talmudic "Noachide Laws."
—BT Sanhedrin 57a

Rabbinic authorities decree that a building set aside for actual (rather than feigned) worship of Jesus Christ is a house of avodah zarah.
—Yayin Malchus, 234-237. Minchas Elazar 1:53-3. Yechaveh Da'as 4:45. Darchei Teshuvah 150:2. Tzitz Eliezer 14:91

Therefore, when passing a church, Judaics utter a curse upon it as follows: "Beis gee'im visach Hashem.”
—Birkath ha-Minim, 12th Amidah. BT Berakhot 58b




Research by Michael Hoffman 

Copyright ©2010 All Rights Reserved

The Talmudic Noah is not be confused with the Noah of the Bible. See Judaism Discovered pp. 496-499.

FREE OFFER
If you reside in the U.S., send your name and address and $1.00 for postage and handling for a free copy of our revised and updated flyer, The Truth about the Talmud: Judaism’s Holiest Book
 Mail to: Independent History & Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816.


The preceding documentation is excerpted from Michael Hoffman’s book Judaism Discovered 
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-hoffmans-online-revisionist.html

***

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Michael! Are you trying to be cute! Us followers of Palin, Beck and Limbaugh don't want this hideous building next to our friends from Israel who work on Wall St. It would be an offensive gesture that our Judaeo Christian culture should now be under Sharia Law! Don't you get the JUDAEO part, which is most important? Please join with the Tea Party and destroy all evil mosques, stop sharia law and that evil, evil anti-semite president in Iran! Once we accomplish all that, we will be truly free!
sarcasm intended

Anonymous said...

and you don't think Christianity is idol worship...what planet do you live on? it's obvious to any intelligent person that it is an extraordinary successful (at least was) example of idol worship.
fortunatley it's power is waning and over.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hoffman, Could you please translate this "Beis gee'im visach Hashem.” ? Many thanks.

Michael Hoffman said...

"Beis gee'im visach Hashem.”

Translation:

“May Hashem destroy the proud.”

(“Hashem” is an idiotic rabbinic name for God).

—Michael Hoffman

Anonymous said...

Thank you Mr. Hoffman. But, then it is dangerous for them, for, who are the proud? Not certainly Our Lord who is exactly the opposite. They must be out of their minds looking for their own destruction.

Kbaig said...

hmmm an informative post... It shows that all americans are not enemies islam as it is thought in islamic world. thanks for your support.
"All places of worship are respected", i don't know about others at least islam says that.

nice work. Thumbs up for you...

Anonymous said...

Actually I am inclined to agree with the bishop of the Diocese of Vermont, John Henry Hopkins, who wrote in 1857 in "The American Citizen: His Rights and Duties, According to the Spirit of the Constitution of the United States":

"The religious rights of the citizen of the United States consist in the enjoyment of his own conscientious choice, amongst all the forms of our common Christianity which were in existence at the time when the Constitution was established. This must be taken as the full limit of fair and legal presumption, as the two first chapters have sufficiently proved. Therefore I hold it preposterous to suppose that a band of Hindoos could settle in any part of our territories, and claim a right, under the Constitution to set up the public worship of Brahma, Vishnu, or Juggernaut. Equally unconstitutional would it be for the Chinese to introduce the worship of Fo or Buddha, in California. Neither could a company of Turks assert a right to establish a Mosque for the religion of Mahomet. But there is one case, namely, that of the Jews, which forms an apparent exception, although it is in fact supported by the same legal principle. For, the meaning of the Constitution can only be derived from the reasonable intention of the people of the United States. Their language, religion, customs, laws, and modes of thought were all transported from the mother country; and we are bound to believe that whatever was tolerated publicly in England, was doubtless meant to be protected here. On this ground, there is no question about the constitutional right of our Jewish fellow-citizens, whose synagogues had long before been established in London. But with this single exception, I can find no right for the public exercise of any religious faith, under our great Federal Charter, which does not acknowledge the divine authority of the Christian Bible."

Michael Hoffman said...

Anonymous 6:18 a.m. wrote, quoting Bishop Hopkins:

"For, the meaning of the Constitution can only be derived from the reasonable intention of the people of the United States. Their language, religion, customs, laws, and modes of thought were all transported from the mother country; and we are bound to believe that whatever was tolerated publicly in England, was doubtless meant to be protected here.”

What "was tolerated publicly in England, was doubtless meant to be protected here”?

Really?

Child slavery in factories?
Usury?
Aristocracy?
Tyrannical monarchy?
Suppression of the Catholic religion?
Establishment of a state religion (Anglicanism)?