Rabbi complains after being told to remove shoes in Heathrow multi-faith prayer room


rabbis jews judaism

 

Ed-note (Sabba) – The multi-faith prayer room in Heathrow is a simple room, very clean, very quite and peaceful, with no religious sign or ‘decoration’ and where any person, of any religion can go to for prayer, meditation, contemplation etc. I have personally seen Muslims, Christian nuns, Hindus, Buddhists visit that room. Every one removes his/her shoes and no one has ever complained nor even questioned why shoes should be removed.

Until  now. Enters the rabbi who does not understand that for other faiths, a prayer room is not a garbage bin and we have Heathrow ordered to apologize.

THE JEWISH CHRONICLE

A rabbi is demanding a public apology from Heathrow airport after being told to remove his shoes inside its multifaith prayer room.

Rabbi Shmuli Brown, Chabad rabbi of Liverpool Universities, landed at Heathrow after taking an overnight flight from New York. He went to make his morning prayers inside the airport’s multifaith prayer room before catching his connecting flight to Manchester.

However he was interrupted by “a person in uniform, though I am not sure from what department” who entered the room and asked him to take off his shoes, as is the practice in mosques.

Rabbi Brown said: “I replied that it was a multi-faith room, but he just told me again to take my shoes off. He gave me an uncomfortable feeling and made me feel very unwelcome, so I left the room.”

The rabbi contacted Heathrow airport’s Jewish chaplain, Rabbi Hershi Vogel, who told him that this was not the first time such an incident had happened.

“I want Heathrow to issue a public statement and make it very clear that this is a multi-faith room that caters for all religions, and is not just a mosque,” Rabbi Brown said.

“This was the first time I have used such a prayer room inside an airport, and I won’t be doing so again. I am very much into displaying my Jewish pride, so I won’t be going into a small room and cowering in the corner.”

Heathrow has said it is investigating the incident.

  1. #1 by mothman777 on 11/11/2015 - 9:34

    Hilarious

  2. #2 by PJ London on 11/11/2015 - 9:34

    “so I won’t be going into a small room and cowering in the corner.””
    He hasn’t visited the Heathrow Gents toilets then.

  3. #3 by multi@gmail.com on 11/11/2015 - 9:34

    what kind of crappy , globalist idea is this “..multi-faith prayer room.”??
    It is mental preparation for one. global ,satanic religion.

  4. #4 by Croeso on 11/11/2015 - 9:34

    Lord how are the mighty fallen.
    Perhaps he had a foot problem.

  5. #5 by Mustacq Abdullah on 11/11/2015 - 9:34

    Shame this Rabbi forgot to read his Torah. Moses was explicitly commanded by God Almighty to remove his shoes when he prayed. Maybe that Rabbi follows the ”holy” Book Of ZÏON. LOL
    Exodus 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

  6. #6 by D on 11/11/2015 - 9:34

    @multi@gmail..

    And they also have a shapeshifting-, reptilian-, anunaki-, Elvis-is-alive-room.. Specially for you..

  7. #7 by Stevicus on 11/12/2015 - 9:34

    Maybe his yellow toe nails were popping out his socks & his feet had an odour only a dog could like. Typical Jewish behaviour towards other religions…

  8. #8 by mystic444 on 11/12/2015 - 9:34

    I guess I’ll just have to be the ‘ornery non-conformist/libertarian’ on this issue. If the ‘prayer room’ is really a ‘multi-faith’ (or ‘inter-faith’) room, why should a non-Muslim user be expected or required to follow Muslim rules? The most that should be expected is that Muslims should be permitted to remove their shoes while in the ‘prayer room’; but no one else should be required to do so. Of course, anyone else who gives credence to the myth of Moses and the burning bush may remove his/her shoes because of the supposed ‘holy ground’ of the ‘prayer room’ if they wish to – but no one should be required to.

    It would be a different matter if the ‘prayer room’ were specifically a MUSLIM ‘mosque’/’masjid’. I visited a Muslim mosque on two occasions, and quite willingly acceded to the shoe-removal policy. I would still do so if I were to again attend a Muslim meeting. But I wouldn’t expect to have to do so if I went into a ‘multi-faith’ room. I would probably ‘make a scene’ about it as the Jewish Rabbi did if someone tried to compel me to take my shoes off.

    I grew up in Conservative Protestant Christian churches, which do not practice the removing of shoes when entering churches or prayer rooms. I ‘apostatized’ in the late 1980s; but prior to that I would no doubt have been shocked and offended if someone told me I had to remove my shoes to enter a ‘multi-faith’ prayer room.

    So although I despise Judaism, I say more power to this Rabbi in this particular instance. Perhaps I have too much ‘libertarianism’ remaining in me! 🙂

  9. #9 by mothman777 on 11/13/2015 - 9:34

    Buddhists and Hindus and Jains and Sikhs all take their shoes off before going into the temples, so I think it highly unfair for disease-carrying filth to enter the multi faith prayer room contained in street muck on their shoes from dog and cat faeces, or residues of urine from standing on public convenience floors etc.

    It is just an extremely obvious polite and healthy consideration for others to remove one’s shoes in such a place, and is not merely some vestige of a mere tradition with no practical value today to do so, as many people in various faiths bow their faces to the floor when praying, and don’t want their faces and hands to come into contact with such filth, especially when dogs and cats commonly carry toxicaria worms which can blind children especially, or adults with compromised immune systems.

    No, the rabbi is just a pig-ignorant dirty get, and he is deliberately expressing his utter contempt for those of other faiths by his bolshy actions. and he can filthy up somewhere more suitable for him.

    His Jewish pride evidently involves tramping traces of excrement from his shoes where other people put their faces and hands. People of other faiths who have touched the floors with that rabbi’s filth will then unknowingly touch the Bhagavad Gita, Sat Guru Sri Granth Sahib, Buddhist Sutras and so on with germs, worm eggs and other filth on their hands, and such a thing is utterly disgusting and extremely unacceptable, especially when the people will have been trusting others to respect the area and keep the floor clean from such filth, and be unaware how polluted the floor really is, such filth rendering the prayer room desecrated.

    I have seen two rabbis on television in different programs over the years openly stating with big smiles on their faces that their aim is actually ‘to destroy all other religions’, and that is verbatim.

  10. #10 by PJ London on 11/13/2015 - 9:34

    “Perhaps I have too much ‘libertarianism’ remaining in me! ”
    No sir, just too much “f** you” exceptionalism.
    It used to be called good manners, but as the great Noah Dearborn would say “I suspect your mother didn’t teach you manners”

  11. #11 by mystic444 on 11/14/2015 - 9:34

    For those of you who are so concerned about how ‘unhealthy’ it is to wear shoes in public places – particularly religious places – perhaps you are among those who feel it necessary to wear gloves when handling money, touching vending machines, etc., and refuse to shake hands with anyone for fear of germs. If so, more power to you; but I won’t be compelled by any such people to follow that practice myself. I’m in my mid-sixties now, and have never had any discernible health issues as a result of going into US churches where everyone wore shoes, handling money, shaking people’s hands, etc.

    People I know don’t go traipsing through animal dung or urine; in fact they deliberately avoid stepping in such matter. The sidewalks and streets I’m familiar with aren’t filled with such fecal matter. Animals generally choose grassy or otherwise ‘natural’ areas to ‘do their business’. People use toilets, and when they see splatter on the floor, they deliberately avoid stepping in it.

    I was in my late 30s when I ‘apostatized’ from the conservative, evangelical Christianity in which I was raised; prior to that I attended Church services as a general rule twice on Sundays, and on Wednesday nights. No one removed their shoes at those churches; but no one was ever noticeably harmed as a result. Children ran and played in the buildings, falling on the floor and rolling around on the floor; infants crawled around on the floor; but they didn’t get sick as a result. I still see this on a regular basis at the church my wife and son attend.

    From what I’ve seen and read, Muslims will bow down in prayer pretty much anywhere (parking lots, sidewalks, and other public places) – though many if not all of them put down prayer mats when they do so. I’ve never observed Hindus in prayer, but from what I’ve read (particularly in Paramahansa Yogananda’s “Autobiography of a Yogi”), HIndus are not generally much concerned about where they prostrate in prayer; they’ll bow down to stones outside without worrying about the health dangers. Some Hindus at least believe there are health benefits to drinking cow urine! So don’t go getting all holier-than-thou with me about the supposed religious or health benefits of removing your shoes in multi-faith prayer rooms! I have too much experience with the non-danger of wearing shoes in public places to be taken in by such propaganda.

    The airport prayer room referred to in this article is in England, an ‘officially’ Christian nation. The ‘official church’ is the Anglican Church (Church of England). Removing of shoes in churches and prayer rooms, to the best of my knowledge, is neither the cultural nor religious norm there (which is also the case in the USA where I live). The prayer room is supposedly multi-faith. For the people of one religious belief (Muslim) – or perhaps of a few others – to try to enforce a practice, in such a multi-faith prayer room, which is not part of the cultural or religious norm in that country, is completely unacceptable in my estimation.

    As I said, if I were to go into such a prayer room and someone there told me I had to remove my shoes, I would say no. If I were refused the use of the room as a result, I would probably ‘raise a stink’ about it. I would do the same if some over zealous Catholics insisted that I dip my hand in ‘holy water’ and make ‘the sign of the cross’ upon entering. You can accuse me of “f*** you exceptionalism” and insult my mother if you wish; but so far as I am concerned that reflects more on you than it does on me.

  12. #12 by PJ London on 11/14/2015 - 9:34

    Mystic is a very inapt name for someone who is concerned with himself, dirt and dog poo.
    a. Of or relating to mysticism or mystics
    b. Deeply or mysteriously spiritual; mystical
    c. Of or relating to religious mysteries or occult rites and practices.
    Nothing spiritual about you at all.
    You show that you do not care in any way for others.
    You are not a very nice person are you?
    You are right about my comments reflecting on me, I have a good upbringing and demonstrate good manners. Ask yourself, what do you bring to the discussion?

  13. #13 by mystic444 on 11/14/2015 - 9:34

    @ “P J London” – You certainly make a good example of the fact that those who don’t have a good argument with which to respond to someone can only resort to insult and ridicule. You have not responded to a single argument I made to support the right of the Rabbi (or anyone else) to enter a ‘multi-faith’ prayer room without removing his/her shoes – especially when the ‘prayer room’ is located in a country in which removing one’s shoes is NOT the religious or cultural norm. In both your ‘responses’ all you have done is throw insult and ridicule at me – even going so far as to focus on the “NAME” I choose to use rather than the arguments I give! It is THAT which is a true lack of “manners”, and it’s actually laughable.

    My references to such unpleasant things as “dirt and dog poo” were a RESPONSE to Mothman777. He is the one who brought up this unpleasantness in his response to my original comment (# 8). It is he who stated that wearing shoes into prayer rooms is supposedly extremely unhealthy because of what may be carried in on the bottoms of those shoes. I responded that I found that argument extremely faulty from my own experience in Christian churches – and from life in general.

    I believe that it is the person who insisted that the Rabbi take off his shoes who showed “bad manners”, in the context of a ‘multi-faith’ prayer room in a non-Muslim, non-Oriental culture. You show “bad manners” by responding to me with insults and ridicule. The “handle” (pen name) I use is completely irrelevant to this whole controversy.

  14. #14 by PJ London on 11/15/2015 - 9:34

    Oh dear Mystic, you don’t understand the difference between rights and being civilised.
    Nobody said he did not have the “right” to wear his shoes, he was “asked” to remove them. He “felt uncomfortable” and then he left.
    Aw shame, he felt uncomfortable.
    I felt uncomfortable wearing a Yarmulke, but out of respect, I wore one when attending a synagogue service for a friend’s Barmitzvah.
    You do not understand that showing the sole of your shoe or pointing it at someone, is the extreme insult in several cultures, it is used to show contempt. Nothing to do with dirt or dogs. By wearing shoes you are showing disrespect and contempt for others.
    If a person was to spit in church, or clear his nose onto the floor, would that be OK with you? Many cultures expectorating is common.
    The simple answer is for Heathrow to put up a sign saying “Worshippers are required to remove their footwear upon entering”. Then it is an instruction and if you don’t like it, you can go to the St Georges Chapel and not the Multifaith prayer room.
    As for the rest of your silliness, with regard to what you feel are insults, my mother used to say ” If the hat fits, wear it.” But then she was a wise lady.

  15. #15 by mystic444 on 11/15/2015 - 9:34

    Oh dear P J London, what you fail to understand is the difference between a religious center or room belonging to a particular faith, and a “multi-faith” room. If this were a Muslim mosque, then it would be very appropriate to “ask” or “tell” everyone to remove their shoes – and it would indeed be very impolite and disrespectful for anyone (such as the Rabbi) to refuse to follow that Muslim practice and make a scene about it.

    However the whole point is – as brought out quite clearly by the response of this Rabbi – that this ‘prayer room’ is emphatically NOT a Muslim mosque; and it is highly inappropriate and impolite to either “ask” or “tell’ any non-Muslim to remove his/her shoes “as is the practice in mosques”. Sure it’s the practice in mosques; but that is NOT a mosque, it is a “multi-faith” prayer room where people of all faiths may come to pray or meditate according to their own beliefs and practices. Again, in this instance it was NOT the Rabbi who displayed bad manners; it was the person who was insisting that the Rabbi act as if the prayer room was a Muslim mosque who was displaying bad manners.

    Apparently it is the opinion of “Sabba” and “Mothman777” that Christians treat their churches and prayer rooms like garbage bins because they keep their shoes on. I’m sure they’re entitled to their opinion, although I’m sure Christians generally will find that opinion quite offensive. Is it bad manners for “Sabba” and “Mothman777” to speak that way of Christians, when it will undoubtedly offend them? You may make up your own mind on that of course.

    There may be cultures where it is deemed appropriate to spit on the floor. I assure you that if I ever travel to such a culture, I will not “ask” or “tell” people not to do so even if I’m in a “multi-faith” room.

    You said that you donned a yarmulke when attending a Jewish synagogue service, even though it made you ‘uncomfortable’. That was certainly appropriate in a JEWISH SYNAGOGUE, and it would have been bad manners, no doubt, for you to refuse to do so and create a scene. As I said in my first comment (#8), when I twice attended a Muslim prayer service (at a mosque) I removed my shoes as was expected. That was appropriate AT A MOSQUE. But again, this “prayer room” was neither a synagogue nor a mosque, and it is quite inappropriate for people of one faith to attempt to require people of other faiths to follow their particular rules in such a setting.

    It appears to me that this whole stink being made by most commenters here is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that it was a Jewish Rabbi who contested the attempt to turn a ‘multi-faith’ prayer room into a Muslim mosque. Let’s say the situation was reversed, and a Jewish Rabbi was attempting to require users of the prayer room to don a yarmulke there “as is the practice in synagogues”. What if a Muslim or Christian visitor refused to comply and filed a complaint? I wonder if the responses of commenters on this TUT site would be the same in denouncing the Muslim or Christian person for being impolite or some other insulting or rude accusations? I doubt it. The comments would probably be castigating the Rabbi for seeking to Judaize a multi-faith prayer room – and that response would be correct. The situation is the same here: someone was attempting to ‘muslimize’ a multi-faith prayer room, and it was proper and in fact ‘courageous’ of the Rabbi to protest. Those who meekly give in to one faith group attempting to force its practices on others are better considered to be cowards than showing ‘good manners’!

  16. #16 by mothman777 on 11/16/2015 - 9:34

    You said “it was proper and in fact ‘courageous’ of the Rabbi to protest. Those who meekly give in to one faith group attempting to force its practices on others are better considered to be cowards than showing ‘good manners’!”

    I say, if a Sikh, Hindu, Jain or Buddhist airport staff member had been in attendance near the door of the multi faith room, he also would have requested all non-compliant visitors to take their shoes off, irrespective of their religion. It is not hard to do. I gladly take my shoes off whenever I go to a temple requiring that of me, just as I do whenever visiting someone’s house before walking on their carpets. What is the problem, where extra cleanliness is required for the already mentioned reasons?.

    Is the street dirt somehow holy and clean because it comes from the rabbi’s shoes? Are his shoes really automatically to be considered clean, whereas other people’s shoes are apparently not?

    I answered this time since you carry on bringing my name up and now lump me in with those you call cowards.

    I personally believe that the Jewish ‘religion’ is no religion at all, but a self-worshiping movement of the criminally insane, a terrorist criminal group that should be banned by worldwide human rights laws and anti-terrorist laws.

    What ‘movement’, or criminally insane band of murderous thugs should be allowed to say in their ‘scriptures’, “Even the best of Gentiles should all be killed”? No such movement can be evenly remotely considered either a religious movement or even a spiritual movement, except by the criminally insane themselves and those weak fools who pander to them through cowardice and abject dereliction of spiritual and moral duty to their own peoples.

    We presently live under Jewish military dictatorships, criminal terrorist governments that bomb an innocent country, Syria, whilst telling us they are ‘saving’ civilians there from being bombed to death by a criminal dictator, who is doing no such thing, as he is democratically elected and still actually enthusiastically supported by his population.

    These same criminal terrorist NATO governments did just the same with Gaddhafi, whilst also murdering his people by the hundreds of thousands, also claiming that was a ‘civil war’ also, when Al Qaeda mercenary thugs were brought in to fight shoulder to shoulder alongside NATO thugs against Libyan loyalist soldiers fighting for the true government of Colonel Gaddhafi. Al Qaeda,we had been told, were ‘terrorists’ yet here they were in the employ of NATO governments, quite openly, with much chutzpah, and when they were done, the first thing these ‘Muslim’ terrorists did, was to install a Rothschild usurious banking system in Libya, and an Israeli military base for their true masters.

    These Jewish military dictatorships that we are forced to live under, also not only lie whilst they tell us we are paying taxes to support armed opposition to ISIS, they actually criminally misuse our taxes without the general knowledge of the people paying those taxes, to provide military support FOR ISIS, which is utterly horrific. That is being done for the Jewish terrorist community around the world.

    Here are the beliefs of your ‘courageous’ rabbi;
    .
    “Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: “Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath.” At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: “The Lord alone will appear great on that day!…

    Zohar, Vayshlah 177b

    “All Israelites will have a part in the future world… The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell.

    Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha

    “Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.

    Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L

    Source article http://rense.com/general86/talmd.htm

    Check out the US 1991 Noahide Laws, and their true meaning and intention;

    http://www.takebackourrights.org/docs/Christians-full%20page.html

    To understand the actual beliefs of the most powerful and influential group of Jews in the world, unchallenged by the mainstream Jewish community around the world, their broad aims and beliefs being one and the same, who are behind the 1991 Noahide Laws in the US, who wish for these same laws to be be made law in all countries of the world, read Read Alison Weir, CounterPunch; ‘Why Is The US Honoring A Racist Rabbi?’

    In case you forgot;

    https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/jewish-dominion-video-must-watch/

    Karl Marx stated “The only purpose of all other races and peoples, both great and small, is to perish in a revolutionary holocaust”.

    The books of the Jew Karl Marx are held in the section of the British Library in London marked ‘racist literature’.

    Rabbi Stephen Wise stated “Some call it Marxism…, I call it Judaism” (The American Bulletin, May 5, 1935).

    All Jews are required to make aliyah, to return to the ‘holy land’ of the Jews, in order to be ‘spiritually’ and physically whole, thus, there is no such thing as a non-Zionist Jew. Such a term is actually a complete contradiction in terms. But, they are a God to themselves, with rabbis stating that God is every Jew in Earth, so they do as they will, in blind intoxication of complete madness.

    Would you agree that such a movement as Judaism, that spawned the insanely murderous Bolshevism, should be banned by international human rights laws and anti-terrorist laws all around the world? If so, then we need not quibble over the rights of rabbis to wear shoes in multi-faith rooms.

    Take your pick.

  17. #17 by mystic444 on 11/17/2015 - 9:34

    Thank you, Mothman777, for your reply. In most of what you say I am in complete agreement with you. The only exception is what you say about the dirt on the bottoms of shoes – and I gave my thoughts on that issue in comment #11, so I won’t repeat it here.

    The bulk of your recent comment, while true, is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. As I said in my first comment (#8), I despise Judaism. I would not commend Judaism as a ‘courageous’ religion. But it was an individual Jewish Rabbi whom I was commending as “courageous” with reference to one specific action – not for his Jewish beliefs in general. I am not so blinded by my hatred for Judaism that I am unable to recognize good and proper actions in Jewish individuals (even though such good and proper actions may perhaps be rare).

    Generally speaking, when my blog articles have anything to say about Jews, Judaism, Zionism, or “Israel”, they are very critical and disparaging. In one other case, however, I commended a particular group of Jewish parents in contrast to the actions of many “Christians” ( https://mystic444.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/practicing-the-first-amendment-of-the-bill-of-rights/ ). After commenting on three cases in which the non-establishment clause of the US Constitution was challenged (particularly by those who believe in Christian exceptionalism), I commended some Jewish parents in Glendale, Wisconsin who at least appear to “get” what Constitutional religious liberty and non-establishment are all about. When some Jewish students at a a public High School wanted to erect a “Sukkah” in celebration of “Sukkot”, their request was refused after the Jewish PARENTS asked the school NOT to allow the Sukkah. They understood that they would not appreciate Christian symbols – such as a ‘manger scene’ – placed at the school, so they didn’t think it was appropriate for them to place a Jewish symbol at the public school. I approved their sense of ‘fairness’, in contrast with the exceptionalism of many “Christians”.

    I will admit that the action of those Jewish parents stands in contrast to many other Jewish actions illustrating the Jews’ sense of exceptionalism and superiority. However, I do believe such ‘rare’ good actions should be commended whenever they occur.

    With reference to your comment that you would gladly remove your shoes when visiting a “temple” where it is required, I will say once again that you miss the point. As I said in comment #8, I also removed my shoes quite willingly when I attended a Muslim mosque. But this “prayer room” was NOT a “temple” or “mosque”, and it does not belong to any particular religious faith. It is a “multi-faith” room, where adherents of all religious faiths may meditate or pray in keeping with their own particular religious beliefs and practices. Muslims (and Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs) may remove their shoes if they wish; but Christians and Jews (and anyone else) may keep their shoes on if they wish (since the removal of shoes is not part of their beliefs and practices).

    If a Buddhist, Hindu, of Sikh person had insistently ‘requested’ that the Rabbi (or anyone else) remove his shoes – in that context of a “multi-faith” room in a culture [British] where removal of shoes is not the norm – such a person would be acting just as inappropriately as this Muslim person who wanted to insist on visitors following Muslim mosque practices. The prayer room simply is NOT a mosque or temple belonging to a particular religious faith, and should not be treated as if it were.

    If you want to consider Christians and Jews as “dirty” or “filthy” because they don’t take off their shoes in their churches and synagogues, you are welcome to that opinion. However, in a ‘multi-faith’ room in a non-“Eastern” culture, it is not wrong, inappropriate, or impolite for Christians and Jews to follow their own religious practice of keeping their shoes on – no matter how insistent a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. may be that they do otherwise. The impropriety is on the part of anyone who would insist that the Christians or Jews (or anyone else) follow a practice which they don’t normally follow. If a Jew were insisting that visitors to the multi-faith prayer room don a yarmulke “as is ;the practice in synagogues”, or a Catholic were to insist that all visitors dip their hands in ‘holy water’ and make the “sign of the cross” “as is the practice in Catholic churches”, it would be the same sort of situation – and in that case I’m sure that commenters on TUT would be outspokenly supporting anyone who refused to follow the request – even considering them “courageous” whether or not they approved of the religion represented by the “refusers”. Don’t let your hatred of Judaism (a hatred which I share) lead you to a knee-jerk reaction to an action of a Jew which you would approve if the person had been non-Jewish and protesting the “request” of a Jewish person.

  18. #18 by mothman777 on 11/17/2015 - 9:34

    Well, I thought that the prayer room was to be used as a multifaith temple in effect.

    As regards ‘hating’ Judaism, the truth of the matter is that I recognize Judaism itself as hatred of all other peoples, as they will not share their ‘spiritual ‘ station with any other people, never proselytizing, or welcoming others to join (who in their right mind would want to join such an insanely vile criminal terrorist black magic group, kapparot blood rituals and mass exterminations of all other peoples and all), rather plotting to exterminate many of them through the military implementation of the Noahide Laws and all the rest when their messiah comes, after which time the Jews will all be discarnate from this intentionally poisoned world themselves, to be given new bodily vessels, on a new planet, whilst all Gentile souls will have been totally subjugated and placed under spiritual bondage by occult methods, to be held trapped forever in a hellish plane of consciousness under the angel Duma by their black magic arrangement. That is hatred. All politicians who defend that should be removed from office as the most evil traitorous criminals.

    The Jews disguise their murderous hatred against all others by attempting to have us all believe that their violence is actually ‘defensiveness’, to protect them against existential threats, threats which actually do not exist. If Jews stopped doing whatever it is they do, then who would even know they were there anyway?

    Rather than ‘hate’, I recognize that all souls are eternal souls, in their original plane of beginingless origin, pure in love and concern for the happiness and welfare of each other in the light of God. I want the nightmare of Judaism proscribed by international law, and the diseased souls in that religion reeducated to become conscientious spiritual beings once again. I do not accept the existent of any eternal hell, or of any God that maintains such a place, or any God that would forever separate even a single soul from himself for all eternity. The hatred maintained by Judaism must be made to stop by worldwide law proscribing that religion if the world is to survive.

    I seek rather to call people to seek to make Judaism entirely unacceptable in light of these facts, as the Jewish religion is criminally insane. I read recently that Muslims, through not being considered idolaters themselves by Judaism, would not be subject to the Noahide laws penalty of death for idolatry such as the Christians will be.

    Interestingly, on the matter of Christian Churches, the New Testament says quite clearly that there should no longer be any temples made of stone, that the real temple is the temple made of living stones of the souls of Christians, with Jesus as the foundation stone. The stone outer temples and their stone inner holy of holies are to be made redundant, being merely analogous representations in base material substance of the real living temple to come, and with Jesus said to have come, all physical temples such as Churches and Cathedrals are now actually idolatrous themselves.

  19. #19 by mystic444 on 11/17/2015 - 9:34

    Once again, I would agree with almost all of what you say. One difference, perhaps, is that I’m not in favor of legal proscription of any religious faith, even Judaism (as hideous as it is). It seems to me that history shows that when legal action is taken against religions, it just creates ‘martyrs’ and actually eventually benefits the religion, helping it grow. I don’t know what the real solution to the problem should be, though. Simply trying to ‘educate’ Jews is not likely to work either – unless there is some ‘miraculous’ infusion of ‘light from on high’!

    So far as the first sentence is concerned (“Well, I thought that the prayer room was to be used as a multifaith temple in effect”), it really doesn’t matter what label you give to the ‘prayer room’, as long as the emphasis is on ‘multi-faith’. I would say it’s not a ‘temple’ in the sense that it doesn’t belong to any particular faith which labels its meeting places as ‘temples’ (Buddhist, Hindu, etc.); it’s not a ‘church’ (Christian); not a “synagogue” (Jewish); and not a “mosque” (Muslim). I figure they probably just call it a ‘prayer room’ for the very good reason that that totally ‘ambiguous’ term is acceptable to any faith.

    However evil Judaism is, until it disappears from the earth followers of Judaism will be considered welcome in ‘multi-faith’ prayer rooms such as the one at Heathrow Airport, unless one particular faith is allowed to commandeer the room (as the Muslim man tried to do in this case). And since it is no part of Jewish and Christian practice to remove one’s shoes when entering religious meeting places, nor is it part of ‘Western culture’, it is not wrong or ‘impolite’ for them to wear their shoes in such ‘prayer rooms’ even though someone may request that they act contrary to their own beliefs and practices by taking their shoes off.

    I definitely agree with the following two sentences: “Rather than ‘hate’, I recognize that all souls are eternal souls, in their original plane of beginingless origin, pure in love and concern for the happiness and welfare of each other in the light of God…I do not accept the existent of any eternal hell, or of any God that maintains such a place, or any God that would forever separate even a single soul from himself for all eternity.” Well, I make one qualification: I definitely don’t believe in a “personal God”, and I am very ‘uncomfortable’ with using the word “God” to refer to the impersonal ‘force’ I do believe in. My views are much closer to “Eastern religions”, such as the Vedanta you acknowledge. I would perhaps at present be closer to Buddhism with its agnosticism with reference to “God”, or Jainism with its “atheism” – while both acknowledge and seek ‘spiritual’ reality which is ‘eternal’. However, I probably have ‘major’ differences with both of those ‘religions’ also.

    I certainly deny all conceptions of ‘eternal hell’ or ‘eternal torture’, as well as ‘eternal destruction’ of souls. I agree with the “Gita” that the “atman” (soul) is without beginning and without end, unborn and undying. So you and I are very close in our ‘beliefs’. Those souls who are currently “Jewish” will eventually be ‘enlightened’ as will all other souls. At present though they are certainly in deep darkness. (Which of course does not change the fact that I consider the Rabbi in the article to have been in the right as far as this particular incident is concerned).

  20. #20 by mothman777 on 11/18/2015 - 9:34

    Thankyou for your reply. I am glad we share some similarity in compassionate nature of our beliefs.

    It is unfortunately the qualitative nature of the very substance of this restricted plane forming the substance of the gross and subtle material bodies of humanity that enables expression even of the darker belief system called Judaism, and spiritual nature permits that as a means of allowing all souls self-expression, each soul being a minute expansion of the gigantic central spiritual sun, and to teach the rest of us to get back out of such a plane, into consciousness of our true beginingless plane of being. But, ‘Those who gain the world lose their soul’, as it is said, and the central spiritual sun is the greater part of our spiritual cognitive ability ultimately. The practitioners of the Judaic belief system will merely hang back longer than the rest of us on the limited plane of perception, before resuming their natural eternal state of being.

    At the same time, excessive tolerance for that which is totally harmful to all others should not acceptable as a valid spiritual belief system, any form of genuine spirituality in that system of practice being entirely absent.

    It is surely better to make that belief system totally illegal before those cobalt nuclear doomsday bombs in Israel can be put to their intended use. That also is permitted by free choice of expression for the rest of us who are not Jewish and have no desire to mass suicide through acquiescing to our annihilation by allowing the insane use by the Jews of such demonic weapons.They would never have been designed if they were never intended to be used, and the rest of us only have this planet to live on, no matter what fancy occult methods the Jews may have for constructing some new planet for themselves, as their belief system says they intend to do in the Zohar. Jews alone invented the radioactive atom bomb, the radioactive nuclear bomb, and the radioactive neutron bomb, they are barking mad and should be physically restrained by law before the entire planet is destroyed by them.

    In this Kali Yuga, the ‘central spiritual Sun’ can manifest this world like this, to guide us by one method, and then in Satya Yuga, another grade of substance is substituted for that, to guide another way. Judaism most likely has it’s parallels on many other planets also. What is being spiritually tested here is our will, our attitude.

    On another note, the vedic understanding is extremely accommodating for all who wish to occasionally forget their personal existence and then have the sense of merging as one in the state of spiritual ecstasy, that state being the impersonal Brahman wherein all that can be perceived is an infinite expanse of unified consciousness, that some hold to be the original beginingless state of Being, whilst others, like myself, hold that that state is one that a soul merely enters into, and then leaves on repeated occasion however their desire takes them. Perhaps souls enter into that Brahman state, or similar, occasionally even from the higher spiritual planes above the impersonal Brahman light, but with a different understanding of what is happening, and then their full consciousness returns to being above the Brahman light as individuals once again.

    I do sense however that a greater Soul than us facilitates telepathy for instance in this world, and other forms of expanded consciousness that extend our awareness beyond the measure of any one of us, and I know that I myself am reliant upon that, or my consciousness would fade out completely in the absence of connection with that, just as if entering a pitch black room from having been in the full sunlight. I also sense a conscious personality and benevolence within that Soul, rather than it being a merely impersonal form of ‘energy’ that exists between us all. There is conscious loving intent in that Being, so I still view that Being as a Supersoul God, though I know these definitions appear somewhat hackneyed sometimes. Anyway, it is good to exchange some views with you there on that.

    ps in my last comment to you, it should have been “I do not accept the existence of any eternal hell”.

  21. #21 by mystic444 on 11/18/2015 - 9:34

    ‘ps in my last comment to you, it should have been “I do not accept the existence of any eternal hell”.’

    😀 I’m very familiar with slip-ups like that! I generally proof read my comments and blog articles at least twice before publishing them; yet I still frequently find typos and slip-ups afterward.

  22. #22 by cartiermccloud on 11/29/2015 - 9:34

    He was afraid of stinking up the room with his dirty feet. Jews aren’t the cleanest, ya know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: