Symbolic action – blood on the Rabin memorial

datePosted on 09:14, January 8th, 2009 by Anita

There’s been quite a lot of talk in recent days over Father Gerard Burn’s protest action of smearing his own blood and red paint on the memorial to Yitzhak Rabin. I have very mixed feelings, but I will stand up for Father Burns.

On the one hand, a statement that Rabin’s legacy has been tainted by the blood of innocents seems so very true, and would not be a criticism or attack on the Rabin himself. One can imagine Rabin’s shade weeping at the actions of the last few weeks.

On the other, it is hard to not hear the echo of at least some criticism of Rabin; perhaps for not going far enough, perhaps for the fish hooks in the Oslo accords, perhaps a stronger criticism. Whether that echo was intentional or not, it is there and Burn must have known it would be heard.

I wasn’t there, if I had been I would not have smeared the paint or cut my finger to join his action. But I would have stood there in support of Father Burn’s decision to take that symbolic action. It’s a line call for me, but a couple of things tip the balance: his use of his own blood fits a particular form of faith based protest; the act was not constructed as a ritual desecration; it is not Rabin’s grave; the act was for peace, it was not filled or framed with hate or anger. Perhaps as someone with a Peace Church heritage I give particular latitude to actions for peace that come out of faith and personal sacrifice… perhaps.

Like so many things about the Israel-Palestine situation this is a hard hard decision, but that makes it so much more important for us to stand up for what we believe.

Finally, can I recommend you go read Poneke’s contribution to the debate – he doesn’t agree with me, but as usual his arguments and well thought through and he stands up for what he believes.

categoryPosted in Social change | printPrint

31 Responses to “Symbolic action – blood on the Rabin memorial”

  1. Quoth the Raven on January 8th, 2009 at 11:24

    As a soldier who fought way back in the early forties – the beginning of all this trouble creating the Palestinian refugees that do not have a homeland to this day. Rabin has much blood on his hands. When Rabin was prime minister the second time around the Israeli settlers illegal settlements reached its peak. The great expansion of the settlements, the way numerous massacres were overlooked by Rabin’s government had a huge role in ruining the Oslo accords. The Oslo talks were started without the knowledge of Rabin. Rabin never believed in the Oslo accords. He was as deserving of a Nobel Peace prize as George Bush.

  2. erikter on January 8th, 2009 at 13:01

    I don’t have mixed feelings: I will not stand up for Father Burns.

    He’s shown a complete lack of judgement. His efforts will be better used in addressing the fundamental problems that beset his church and its lack of principles in dealing with fundamental human problems, e.g. sex education, AIDS, etc.

    Gerald Burns should be out there unmasking the many pedophiles that pass as priests, Catholics and other denominations. But hell no, he’s out there pleasing the media with stunts like this.

  3. Lew on January 8th, 2009 at 13:24

    Ok, so you (the indefinite article) want to make a point about the state of things in Israel. Fair enough. But why choose as the object of your protest a monument to a (you might argue the only) modern Israeli leader whose commitment to peace and justice was unprecedented at the time and recognised even by his supposed enemies? Doesn’t that make your point the opposite of what you perhaps intended?

    All I can figure it that it was the only Israel-linked memorial handy, and that makes the stunt seem like either cheap convenience or an expression of appalling historical illiteracy.

    L

  4. Anita on January 8th, 2009 at 13:47

    erikter,

    Are you saying that all people of faith should focus solely on addressing all the issues within their church before they look at the wider issues of the world?

    Or just that Catholics should?

    One of the beauties of faith, IMHO, is that it inspires many people to see the injustice in the world and act on it. While I often think their are other injustices that would matter more if it was me being inspired, and while I often feel that some churches create much injustice, I find it hard to to disapprove of someone acting to end the injustice that inspires them when so many others sit and do nothing.

  5. BLiP on January 8th, 2009 at 15:54

    Rabin has bathed in Palestinian blood since 1948 – http://www.radioislam.org/historia/zionism/rabin.html – there is absolutely no reason why his memory should be somehow sacred and above criticism.

    Rabin’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize is as obcene as Kissinger.

  6. Quoth the Raven on January 8th, 2009 at 17:22

    Lew – That’s utterly wrong. Shimon Peres pushed for the Oslo accords and had to fight tooth and nail with Rabin until Rabin got his feel good television moment in front of the White house and cut Peres loose. And on the other side Mahmoud Abbas was pushing for it. You cannot look at Rabin’s record as a soldier and the settlements when he was in power and think of him as a man of peace anymore than calling Napoleon the prince of peace. Rabin was a soldier and always remained so. A good book on the Oslo accords is Gaza first, written by one of the Norwegians actually involved in the talks.

  7. Janet Kingan on January 8th, 2009 at 17:25

    I am disgusted by most of these comments. First of all you have all bought into the Palestinian PR. Gaza was Egyptian before the six day war and yet I don’t see them anxious to get it back!! Likewise Jordan hasn’t made any overtures to take back the West Bank. So there never actually was a national enterprize called Palestine in the first place, unless you mean the Jewish Palestine, as in the “Palestine Post(Now known as the Jerusalem Post).

    Now on to this reprehensible priest. I am only thankful he isn’t posted to my parish! It doesn’t seem to make a damned bit of difference to apologists like you, that even the Gazans are putting the blame squarely on Hamas! (See Tuesday’s Guardian, the Samouni family) The fact that Hamas has been stealing humanitarian supplies at gunpoint is also conveniently forgotten. Why focus on facts when you can pick on Jews and Israelis? And to top it all off, he comits vandalism! Is there any episcopal spine in New Zealand? I hope his bishop warms his ear!

  8. akbar on January 8th, 2009 at 17:34

    As a symbolic protest the priest’s actions, although quite dramatic and reprehensible to some, is far more effective than the targeting of an Israeli tennis player. Desecrating the Rabin memorial has generated debate; protesting against the tennis player smacks of adolescent intimidation. Truth be told I found the priest’s subsequent comments to the press about Jews more alarming than his protest. Minto’s protest outside the tennis stadium diminishes his otherwise legitimate anti-status quo activities because he comes across as, well, unhinged.

  9. adamsmith1922 on January 8th, 2009 at 17:43

    For a so called man of god, the Vandal in Holy Orders only served to shift debate from the issue to the desecration of the memorial. How would people feel if someone went and poured red paint over a statue of the Virgin Mary.

    But it seems that it is OK to upset Jews.
    There is I suspect considerable latent, but increasingly overt anti-semitism in New Zealand coupled with rampant xenophobia.

    Perhaps it is not surprising that it was a Catholic priest who did this considering the Catholic Church’s record over the centuries as regards Jews.

  10. Quoth the Raven on January 8th, 2009 at 19:10

    adamsmith – Calling people anti-semetic or xenophobic for criticising Israel is ludricrous. It is an argument desinged to stultify discussion and I’m surprised to hear it from you. There are many Jews around the world who criticise Israel and zionism inclding the Jewish women who occupied the Isreali consulate in Toronto today or those that write for B’Tselem. Unless you subscribe to the bizzare argument that they are all self-hating Jews.

  11. Anita on January 8th, 2009 at 19:25

    Janet Kingan,

    First of all you have all bought into the Palestinian PR.

    Where have you seen me defend or condone Hamas’ actions? Firing missiles into Israel is totally unacceptable.

    Israel’s actions are also indefensible and unacceptable; they have escalated the conflict and attacked Hamas with a reckless disregard for the lives of innocents.

    Now on to this reprehensible priest. I am only thankful he isn’t posted to my parish!

    May I, respectfully, suggest you consider Ex 21:23-27 which counsels you (and all Christian and Jews, Sura 5:45 is provides the same guidance to Muslims) to restrict retribution to no more than mirror retaliation. Then consider Jesus’ exhortation in Matt 5:38-39.

    Can you find in those the teachings something which may have inspired the “reprehensible priest”? How can you take these teachings and bear witness to both Israel and Palestine?

    I don’t mean to lecture you on faith or biblical teachings, but I think that many Christians see in those words messages which are wholly relevant today.

    Personally I am thankful for every priest that looks into the words of God and acts on them.

  12. adamsmith1922 on January 8th, 2009 at 21:49

    adamsmith – Calling people anti-semetic or xenophobic for criticising Israel is ludricrous. It is an argument desinged to stultify discussion and I’m surprised to hear it from you. There are many Jews around the world who criticise Israel and zionism inclding the Jewish women who occupied the Isreali consulate in Toronto today or those that write for B’Tselem. Unless you subscribe to the bizzare argument that they are all self-hating Jews.

    I accept that there are many Jews who criticize the actions of the Israeli government. Indeed there are many Jews who are secular and others who are both secular and non-zionist. There are practising Jews who are not Zionists also.

    One the Holy Tagger was reported as saying various anti-Jewish statements.

    Two there are a number of reports of increasing anti-semitism in Europe and we regularly see skinheads active in NZ

    Three There was the desecration of the Jewish graves here in Wellington

    Four Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of the Israeli State and the Jews living there unless they and also Christians accept the supremacy of islam and abide by their laws

    see the Hamas charter
    http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm. therefore I would suggest Hamas is both anti-zionist and anti-semitic

    Five To my way of thinking, although I am far from supporting much of what Israel is currently doing because I think their approach is misguided as I referred to in an earlier comment and I am not pro Zionist as such, neither am I blind to the fact that many who say they are anti-zionist are also anti-semitic.

    Six, I did not say they were anti-semitic for criticizing Israel, I said they were anti-semitic for attacking Jews.

  13. MacDoctor on January 9th, 2009 at 00:07

    Anita: Glad you quote Sura 5:45. I am still waiting for an official muslim condemnation of Hamas’ actions based on it.

    I’m not sure if I understand how “an eye for an eye” translates into “vandalism is okay”. Or is that “Vandalism is okay as long as it’s for a cause I believe in”.

    As far as I can see, Father Burn had at least a dozen different ways he could have legitimately, effectively protested without defacing public property

    BTW. Jesus exhorted us to go the extra mile with our enemies. He envisaged defusing hatred by doing good to your enemies, even in the face of their hatred and abuse. That is a VERY long way from the actions of our priestly tagger.

    It would probably be good if Father Burns actually did look into the words of scripture and act on them.

  14. Janet Kingan on January 9th, 2009 at 03:56

    I’m thankful I don’t have any suras to quote back to you, and,the Lord willing, I never will. How is Israel’s action at all reckless? Do you know anything about urban warfare? Abou vigilantes in civilian clothing operating from tunnels under houses hospitals and schools? Gaza is a huge underground fortress. By now the West would have Daisy Cuttered them all to their 72 virgins!

    I think Israel has shown amazing restraint, and considering this is an actual war, not a TV show, the casualties are low. Looking at images of dead children is extremely distressing to all of us, but I might add, that most of the civilized world wouldn’t parade its dead before the cameras.

    I wish there was no such thing as war, just like you. But its all very convenient to point accusing fingers at Israel, whilst ignoring a host of other much more vile regimes who don’t have the PR the palestinians have.

  15. Anita on January 9th, 2009 at 06:31

    adamsmith,

    One the Holy Tagger was reported as saying various anti-Jewish statements.

    I looked for some and couldn’t find any, they would change my mind about his actions.

    Could you link to them and change my mind?

  16. Anita on January 9th, 2009 at 06:50

    Janet Kingan,

    I’m thankful I don’t have any suras to quote back to you, and,the Lord willing, I never will.

    The reasons I took the time to learn a little about the Quran include:

    1) Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a shared heritage and entangled cultural and religious roots.

    2) Many of today’s conflicts are described as religious conflict between those faiths. By knowing something about each and their religious texts it becomes clear that the conflicts are not between faiths; look a little further and you see that they are all about power and land and resources.

    3) The Quran is, as are many religious texts, a fascinating and beautiful piece of writing.

    But its all very convenient to point accusing fingers at Israel, whilst ignoring a host of other much more vile regimes who don’t have the PR the palestinians have.

    I am talking about Israel’s action because they are current and in the news. I’m happy to write about other things going on in the world that upset me, but I suspect people only care about the ones in the news. You may have inspired me to write the post about Sri Lanka I’ve been thinking about though – thanks!!

  17. adamsmith1922 on January 9th, 2009 at 07:26

    Anita

    I saw your respons and will look for the reference, it was in something I read, probably in print not on-line so will see if I can find it

    Adam

  18. Lew on January 9th, 2009 at 12:28

    QtR: Shimon Peres pushed for the Oslo accords and had to fight tooth and nail with Rabin until Rabin got his feel good television moment in front of the White house and cut Peres loose.

    Peres’ and Rabin’s roles in the Oslo accords were different. Peres was, if you’ll excuse the crass metaphor, the `trigger man’ – who could advocate with a degree of freedom which Rabin, having to hold together a fragile coalition of parties mostly opposed in principle to the peace process, could not. His was a tough course to steer.

    You cannot look at Rabin’s record as a soldier and the settlements when he was in power and think of him as a man of peace anymore than calling Napoleon the prince of peace. Rabin was a soldier and always remained so.

    The comparison to a megalomaniac who spread his empire across most of Europe by fire and steel is most absurd, and you do your credibility no favours by making it. By your `soldier’ logic there have never been any good Israeli leaders, since they’re all soldiers at heart and all have been responsible for military actions taken in the name of Israel. This is the nature of counter-insurgency warfare – none are innocent. Like most such conflicts it appears black and white from afar, but it’s actually a lurid technicolour in close.

    My fundamental point against Burn is not that Rabin is above reproach, but that there are other Israeli leaders against whom his protest would be better directed – the incumbents Peres and Olmert, for instance. Targeting a the leader who died for peace rather than the leaders who are currently commanding the war simply because his monument was handy was a cheap stunt, disrespectful to boot.

    Moreover, Israel’s supporters have a pretext upon which to cry anti-semitism when people who should know better blatantly conflate Jew’ with `Zionist’ and `Israeli’ with `Oppressor of Palestinians’. A wise protest is clear and direct about what and whom are its targets – Burn’s protest was neither, and on that basis it was foolish and misguided.

    L

  19. Lew on January 9th, 2009 at 12:34

    Janet: I’m thankful I don’t have any suras to quote back to you, and,the Lord willing, I never will.

    Why? Do you consider you have a better grasp of the issues in play here when speaking from a position of dogmatic ignorance than you might if you had a broader understanding? It seems to me that that attitude is the font of all enmity between the various semitic faiths.

    Reading and understanding the Quran doesn’t imply belief in it – and indeed, it grants basis for critique. The Quran itself admonishes its readers to be cognisant of the Talmud and Christian Gospels (though it claims to supercede their teachings); why should Christians be any less open?

    L

  20. Lew on January 9th, 2009 at 13:08

    Janet: How is Israel’s action at all reckless? Do you know anything about urban warfare? Abou vigilantes in civilian clothing operating from tunnels under houses hospitals and schools? Gaza is a huge underground fortress. By now the West would have Daisy Cuttered them all to their 72 virgins!

    I do know a bit about this sort of thing. In my view, Israel’s actions are reckless because they’re treating this like open warfare when in fact it’s an insurgency born of marginalisation and disenfranchisement. Treating it like open warfare will eventually turn it into open warfare, and cynics already think that this is the end-game – establish free-fire zones and conduct legitimised ethnic cleansing by labelling all non-IDF personnel as enemy combatants.

    Counter-insurgency is hard to win, and the best strategy for victory is to prevent the insurgency from emerging in the first place. Israel have repeatedly failed to do this, although it’s a strong argument that the way Israel was established from the Palestinian Mandate made it impossible. Failing prevention, however, counter-insurgency is best conducted with thorough intelligence, careful and patient target-selection and boots on the ground, establishing rapport and relationships with non-aligned or sympathetic civilian groups upon whom insurgents rely for supplies and succor. This is how Malaya was (eventually) won, and its failure was the reason Viet Nam was eventually lost. Israel states in every public forum that it is not at war with the Palestinian people, but with Hamas and the other insurgent groups among them. However Israel’s strategic fault here is in refusing to accept even the most trivial casualties in service of the project of turning the allegiance of the Ordinary Palestinian against conflict and toward peace – instead, by responding with hundred-fold force they turn those who could be part of the solution into part of the problem.

    I think Israel has shown amazing restraint, and considering this is an actual war, not a TV show, the casualties are low.

    I think Israel has shown hesitancy, not restraint. Restraint would be the patient application of a strategy with demonstrable and achievable end of solving the core problem of the conflict. Israel’s actions and doctrine are and have been mixed, and this promotes confusion and uncertainty as to their true intentions, alternately raising and dashing the hopes of Palestinians who by now crave stability more than they do justice. If they want to embrace peace, reconciliation and reconstruction, they should do so wholeheartedly. Until they do, it will never be so.

    L

  21. Janet Kingan on January 9th, 2009 at 16:24

    Just to clear a few things up, I have indeed read the Koran, and I speak a little Arabic, too. But I am still not about to quote Suras and what have you because, although you can find much tht is poetic and beautiful in the Koran, it is basically a supremist manual for war. And what’s more, there’s no comentary (midrash) allowed, there is no option to evolve without abandoning the core.

    Lew, I am not sure you are correct that the Palestinians crave stability more than “justice”. And just which Palestinians do you mean? The Jordanian ones? The former Jordanian ones? The former Egyptian ones in Gaza? A friend of mine who was born in Nazareth says he was always told he was Jordanian, and his father had a Jordanian Passport.

    I disagree that it is a counterinsurgency. How can you maintain this when Hamas is the elected government and has made no secret of it’s aims. Just a few weeks ago they held a war mongering rally at which there were at least 10,000 people. No exactly marginal. And what does
    “refusing to accept even the trivial of casualties” mean? Is this a rehash of the old “acceptable level of violence” rhetoric of the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland?

    When you then go on to add “in service to the project….” it begins to sound like you think a little human sacrifice might appease the angry “Palestinians”.

  22. adamsmith1922 on January 9th, 2009 at 16:58

    Anita

    I have not as yet been able to find the reference to Burn’s subsequent comments. Though I do note two Catholic bishops distancing themselves today from his remarks.

    Lew

    I do not conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I do think that anti-semitism is alive and well in sectors of New Zealand society as indeed anti-catholicism.

    Israel are in grave danger of winning miltarily and losing as you suggest.

    This is indeed in part due to their failure, like the Americans in Vietnam and probably in Iraq and Afghanistan to learn from the experience of the British in Malaya. General Sir Gerald Templer was of course the High Commissioner for Malaya, effectively head of government.

    Templer, was the author of the famous remark:-

    “The answer [to the uprising] lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the people.”

    It probably also helped that templer had been Director of Military Government in post war Germany and his head of defence had been in the Chindits in WWII.

    Key though was the fact that Templer a gifted soldier knew that the solution was not military in the long term, but political and thus planned and implemented to that end.

    This where I think Israel has failed. By their actions they have not learned from the past.

  23. Lew on January 9th, 2009 at 17:18

    Janet: I retract my assumptions about your relationship with the Quran, then. Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the fundamental problem with the Quran as a prescription for society is that its reinterpretation is so heavily circumscribed. But then, I’m not a theist, so to me, all such things are simply tools for humanity to use or discard in whole or in part as we see fit.

    I am not sure you are correct that the Palestinians crave stability more than “justice”.

    Perhaps I should define my terminology a bit more closely. `Stability’ in this case would constitute being part of civil society again. `Justice’ is rather more than that. After a couple of generations worth of constant occupation and subjugation, some Palestinian groups have made clear that they would accept a return to the 1967 borders; others that they would simply settle for an end to armed occupation. My point is that it’s the ordinary people – noncombatants, those with young families or older relatives, or who formerly had successful farms or businesses who are least inclined to fight but are being driven into the arms of Hamas and other groups.

    just which Palestinians do you mean? The Jordanian ones? The former Jordanian ones? The former Egyptian ones in Gaza?

    They’re not a heterogeneous group, indeed. But I’d say my argument above applies to most everyone in the occupied territories whose mind hasn’t already been permanently hardened against Israel.

    I disagree that it is a counterinsurgency. How can you maintain this when Hamas is the elected government and has made no secret of it’s aims.

    Israel has refused to accept Hamas as the legitimate government You don’t get to have it both ways and claim that Hamas are a state actor when engaged in conflict and an illegitimate actor when engaged in other actions. And upon their election, Israel enforced a regime of sanctions which further radicalised Hamas and marginalised the other alternatives. I accept, however, that Hamas are by no means innocent in this themselves.

    And what does “refusing to accept even the trivial of casualties” mean? Is this a rehash of the old “acceptable level of violence” rhetoric of the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland?

    To expect to win such a conflict as this without casualties is unrealistic. It’s not about an acceptable level of violence; it’s about an inevitable minimum of violence which might be tolerated for the short term in the interests of long-term peace.

    When you then go on to add “in service to the project….” it begins to sound like you think a little human sacrifice might appease the angry “Palestinians”.

    You’re twisting my meaning. The project is to convince the Palestinians that the extremists, not Israel, are the greater threat to their wellbeing.

    L

  24. Lew on January 9th, 2009 at 18:42

    Adam: I do not conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

    But I think many people who are more correctly anti-Zionist seem, through their ignorance, to be anti-semitic.

    I do think that anti-semitism is alive and well in sectors of New Zealand society as indeed anti-catholicism.

    Outside the usual fringe lunatics, I don’t really agree. I think there’s a lot of lazy generalisation and a great deal of insensitive and foolish reference to the Holocaust and Naziism, but I think that’s the mainstream extent of it. Again, I think a lot of what people consider to be anti-semitism is just imprecise anti-Zionism or anti-Israeli sentiment.

    As for anti-Catholicism, I agree even less. I think there’s a general fatigue with Christianity, but more of that is directed against the fundamentalist and and evangelical cults than against the Catholics. It’s a very far cry indeed from when my great-grandparents had to change their name from Kearns to Cairns and pretend to be Protestants in order to get work.

    Not that it would excuse either of the above, I think there’s a lot more anti-Muslim sentiment than anything else.

    Re. Templer and Malaya, we are in complete agreement.

    L

  25. Anita on January 11th, 2009 at 11:57

    adamsmith1922,

    I have not as yet been able to find the reference to Burn’s subsequent comments. Though I do note two Catholic bishops distancing themselves today from his remarks.

    I think they’ve distanced themselves from his action not his remarks.

    And in weirder news it appears that the apology of one of the Archbishops was a hoax.

  26. adamsmith1922 on January 13th, 2009 at 09:05

    Anita

    I now note that Burns faces no censure from the Church for his actions in defacing the Rabin memorial.

    That lack of censure from an organization that is so ready to lay down moral law as to right and wrong in all the minutiae of human life in normal circumstance is quite amazing.

    I trust they will be so accepting if and when someone defaces a Catholic monument.

    To my mind they have forfeited any claim to moral leadership through this action

  27. Anita on January 13th, 2009 at 09:32

    adamsmith1922,

    I trust they will be so accepting if and when someone defaces a Catholic monument.

    The Rabin memorial in Wellington is not a religious monument, it is a memorial to an Israeli politician.

    If someone were to smear their blood onto a monument to Sir Joseph Ward in protest at the possible end of passenger services on the North Island main truck line I’m pretty sure the Catholic church would be silent.

  28. adamsmith1922 on January 13th, 2009 at 12:58

    I realize that it is not a religious monument as such, but that is no excuse.

    Actually in many ways I am now more appalled at the attitude of the Catholic hierarchy, than Burns. I can understand his reasoning whilst not accepting his action.

    Further, he is correct that Rabin earlier in his career was not a dove.

  29. Jen on January 17th, 2009 at 08:14

    Lew:

    But I think many people who are more correctly anti-Zionist seem, through their ignorance, to be anti-semitic.

    I am always interested when people conflate the two; as an atheist, I find the notion that anybody can claim a ‘God-given right’ to land preposterous, but by that same measure, one cannot deny the historicity of the Jewish connection to Israel.
    As someone with Zionist, Orthodox family, formerly settled in Gaza (but now living in Australia), I find the implicit assumption that anti zionist=anti Israel=pro Palestine=antisemitic to be increasingly tedious, one dimensional, and false.

  30. Blood, monuments and the kiwi response to Gaza…

    I just watched a news report about a the defacement of an Israeli memorial plaque by a Catholic Priest in Wellington, in protest at the events in Gaza. A member of the local Jewish community was interviewed, clearly upset by the ‘vandalism’ of the…

  31. martin on October 27th, 2011 at 17:55

    Long story short. Gerard Burns is just th most recent in the steady stream ofChristians and Muslims, who willfully and knowingly desecrate anything relating to Judaism and then hide their true, anti-Hebrew intent behind the political sanctuary of anti-Zionism. Mr Burns will one day have to stand before his creator and defend his actions. He would do well to remember that Jesus was a Jew.

Leave a Reply

Name: (required)
Email: (required) (will not be published)
Website:
Comment: