Anderson's theological writings

[mariab]

Whats important I believe is wether Anderson was more or less anti-semitic than most.

I'm not informed enough to say, but one would be able to tell if they compared Anderson's statements to Monro, Macnaghten, Swanson etc..

And was this anti-semitism based on theology? Or was it based on his experience of dealing with low class Jews as Assist Comissioner of the CID?

Possibly both, but even after reading the conservative quote on minorities attached in SPE's post #33, I wouldn't consider Anderson as more anti-minorities as the next non-socialist Victorian. Their anti-semitism appears to me more like a reflex.

[jason_c]

I'm not informed enough to say, but one would be able to tell if they compared Anderson's statements to Monro, Macnaghten, Swanson etc..


Possibly both, but even after reading the conservative quote on minorities attached in SPE's post #33, I wouldn't consider Anderson as more anti-minorities as the next non-socialist Victorian. Their anti-semitism appears to me more like a reflex.

Actually i just read Anderson's quote there, thanks for pointing it out. All Anderson is doing is humphing and hawing, largely sitting on the fence. Its fairly enlightened in parts. Its by no means the words of a little Englander.

edit: His economic dismissal of many Jews (and their benefits to a society) is way off.

[mariab]

All Anderson is doing is {...} sitting on the fence.

Typical politician.

His economic dismissal of many Jews (and their benefits to a society) is way off.

Yes, the Jews in the 19th century were either seen as a burden to society (as Alien working class immigrants) or as “holding up all the money“.

[jason_c]

Hello Jason,

Well, as we have two men, Anderson and Monro, in top positions in the force with the same extreme theological viewpoint, is it plausible that their theological views did influence the methodology that they tried to convey on to others below them within the force, without referencing to that specific theology?


kindly

Phil

I dont know enough of Monro's theology to really comment. Anything is possible but how successful would they be at this?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jason,

Well, here we speculate. I agree the main body of their religious fervour would certainly not be acceptable as a general line of enforcement.. but individual decisions on a watered down basis influencing things?...a little like (and I have not expanded upon this nor put weight upon it) Anderson's moral certainty lines perhaps? Just a mild thought.

I agree with you that any extreme theological basis of influence in the LVP would probably be slight though. It wouldn't wash on a general basis.


kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Hi Jonathan,
No, it wasn't directed at you but at Phil Carter's comment that Anderson "has been accused, if that is the correct terminology, of leaving hints of anti-semitism in some of his writings, whilst being a zealous Christian..."

Discussion of Anderson invariably degenerates into discussion of his religious beliefs and whether or not he was anti-Semitic; the former usually judged through modern eyes and from modern perspectives, and showing no real grasp of what Anderson's religious beliefs were and whether they were extreme in his day and age, and the latter usually lacking any supportive evidence beyond personal and generally subjective impressions derived in the main from his autobiography. It seems futile to attempt a rational discussion based on a knowledge and understanding, for soon we are told that Anderson was a religious zealot communing with the voice of God and such a Jew-hater that he'd pin the murders on a Jew with only the slenderest of reason. But nobody seems able to come up with any evidence or understanding set in the context of the time.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

I used the wording "leaving hints". Nothing more. I also said he has "been accused". Did I state here that I did that, i.e. accuse?
The rest of your summary is way way beyond that..which I did not say, nor mean, please note.

As far as your interpretation of what others interpret in another person's writing is concerned.. all you see here is odd snippets of comments to conclude from. Speaking personally, I have indeed read one whole book written by Anderson purely based on theology, and attempted a second. These are what I base my "hints" upon. And no, I do not intend to go through some of the most boring literature I have ever read again in order to list examples. Reading one book once, by dint of attempting a second, was enough for me. I doubt if many people have read all of Anderson's theological work in full. Have you?

kindly

Phil

[Roy Corduroy]

two men, Anderson and Monro, in top positions in the force with the same extreme theological viewpoint

extreme theological viewpoint

What

extreme theological viewpoint

do you mean, Phil?

That they believed in Christ? They read the bible?

This thread, consisting of a bunch of twenty first century atheists discussing Anderson's theological writings, is hilarious. Just the whole idea of this thread is hilarious.

Roy

[Phil Carter]

Hello Roy,

I am not knocking Christianity in any way.. but with all religions there are extremes that move away from the core of the norm, as it were. If one counts followers by the amount that follow each sub-division of any religion, then there are those who follow the more conservative viewpoint, and those who move more away from it. That is what I am saying.

And as I never express my own personal views on belief or nay on a public forum, you have no idea whether I am an atheist or not...lol


Hope you are well Roy, long time no see!


kindly

Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

I used the wording "leaving hints". Nothing more. I also said he has "been accused". Did I state here that I did that, i.e. accuse?
The rest of your summary is way way beyond that..which I did not say, nor mean, please note.

I know you didn't say it, which was why I initially didn't quote you or attribute the accusation to you, and why when answering Jonathan I took care to quote your comment in full. What followed in my response to Jonathan was an almost rhetorical point which is that assessment's of Anderson always end up with people (in general) arguing that Anderson was an anti-Semitic religious zealot, but never backing that up with factual evidence. It's all theoretical.

As far as your interpretation of what others interpret in another person's writing is concerned.. all you see here is odd snippets of comments to conclude from. Speaking personally, I have indeed read one whole book written by Anderson purely based on theology, and attempted a second. These are what I base my "hints" upon. And no, I do not intend to go through some of the most boring literature I have ever read again in order to list examples. Reading one book once, by dint of attempting a second, was enough for me. I doubt if many people have read all of Anderson's theological work in full. Have you?

I haven't interpreted anything and, as far as the rest of us is concerned, neither have you. I mean, okay, you've waded through one of Anderson's theological books, for which there should be an award as they are tough going, but unless you tell us what led you to reach specific conclusions and why then how can we possibly judge your conclusion? I'm not saying that you do consider him to be an anti-Semitic religious zealot, nor am I saying that you'de be wrong to do so if you did, but I [I]am[I] saying that I can't simply accept your word for it. Or, and this is the point I was making, anyone else's. Maybe if they were an authority on 19th century evangelical religious beliefs, but not otherwise. That's why we need facts. Myremark has nothing to do with you personally, unless you are laying that charge against Anderson, just a request for facts.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

I honestly thank you for the response.
Like I said in an earlier post somewhere..it was hard enough to wase through, as you correctly put it, one of his later volumes on religion.
I can also honestly say that I made no notes at all whilst reading, as I had to re.read almost every other paragraph to actually understand the point the man was trying to make. Reading was a nightmare. That was why I attempted to try another book to see if it was any better. It wasn't. That is when I gave up.

However, I realise the request is a fair one. I can only speak for the general impression I got, as the lines of anti (if I can call it that)-zionism were opaque, vague and almost like poison ivy covering a wall. Not totally covered I might add, just in patches, if that makes sense?

If this sounds like a cop out, it isn't meant to be, I can assure you.

I started reading Anderson to be able to make my own mind up, and not accept the learned word of Martin who maintained that Anderson.. etc etc etc. I do not take the word of any single man either...whomever they are.
Especially the word of someone not a specific expert in this one, specific department only.

So there is your answer. It's a general impression left after having tried to work out the meaning behind the meanings of the writings of one book and about 30 additional pages of a second offering.

It's better than not having read anything by the man, whether one is an authority or not on the man's favourite pastime. And I am honest enough to admit that it isn't a perfect answer, or done in a perfect manner.

Like you say.. anyone actually attempting to read one of his later works needs a medal. Then another to understand it's detailed meaning.. and yet another to decifer any hidden psychological meanings behind the written word.


Perhaps we do need facts.. but from my experiences they will be found in opaque sentences. Perhaps I am too old to drum up the enthusiasm to try again. lol However, it is the general impression I was left with. And I am being perfectly honest with that remark as well. I would never expect anyone to take my word or any individual's word for it.. but I do invite anyone to have a good rummage through a few of his theological books. Good luck I say.


kindly

Phil

[Archaic]

Definitions of "Anti-Zionism" and "Anti-Semitism"

Hi everyone. I noticed in a couple of posts the use of the term "anti-zionism" which seemed to be equating it with "anti-anti-semitism". The two terms aren't actually synonymous.

"Anti-semitism" is a prejudice or hatred against Jews, whether as a religion, cultural heritage, nation, etc.

The word "Zion" is not synonymous with the words "Jew" or "Jewish" or "Semite"; it's an old place name for Jerusalem; "Holy Zion".

"Zionism" as an ideology (pre-1948 especially) generally refers to the political movement reorganized by Theodor Herzl in the 1890's. Its goal was to achieve a Jewish state within a sovereign Jewish homeland, which the Jews as a people had lacked since the Diaspora. (The Diaspora is usually considered to have begun with the Babylonian Invasion & Captivity in 560 BC.) In Anderson's day "Zionists" were largely secular (non-religious) Jews. They urged "a return to Jerusalem"- Zion- and the founding of a Jewish state where Jews from all over the world would be welcome.

Particularly in Anderson's day, many Jews did not support the formation of a Jewish secular state. Some would have preferred a religious state; many preferred to remain where they had settled, whether it was England, the U.S., Germany, etc. (As we all know, the Jewish state of Israel was finally founded in 1948 after the Holocaust.)

I don't know what Anderson's views on Zionism were, or whether he addressed the subject in any of his writings, but I don't recall having seen it mentioned in the ones I've read. Maybe someone else will know. I just thought a little clarification of these terms might be useful to the discussion.

Best regards,
Archaic

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

I honestly thank you for the response.
Like I said in an earlier post somewhere..it was hard enough to wase through, as you correctly put it, one of his later volumes on religion.
I can also honestly say that I made no notes at all whilst reading, as I had to re.read almost every other paragraph to actually understand the point the man was trying to make. Reading was a nightmare. That was why I attempted to try another book to see if it was any better. It wasn't. That is when I gave up.

However, I realise the request is a fair one. I can only speak for the general impression I got, as the lines of anti (if I can call it that)-zionism were opaque, vague and almost like poison ivy covering a wall. Not totally covered I might add, just in patches, if that makes sense?

If this sounds like a cop out, it isn't meant to be, I can assure you.

I started reading Anderson to be able to make my own mind up, and not accept the learned word of Martin who maintained that Anderson.. etc etc etc. I do not take the word of any single man either...whomever they are.
Especially the word of someone not a specific expert in this one, specific department only.

So there is your answer. It's a general impression left after having tried to work out the meaning behind the meanings of the writings of one book and about 30 additional pages of a second offering.

It's better than not having read anything by the man, whether one is an authority or not on the man's favourite pastime. And I am honest enough to admit that it isn't a perfect answer, or done in a perfect manner.

Like you say.. anyone actually attempting to read one of his later works needs a medal. Then another to understand it's detailed meaning.. and yet another to decifer any hidden psychological meanings behind the written word.


Perhaps we do need facts.. but from my experiences they will be found in opaque sentences. Perhaps I am too old to drum up the enthusiasm to try again. lol However, it is the general impression I was left with. And I am being perfectly honest with that remark as well. I would never expect anyone to take my word or any individual's word for it.. but I do invite anyone to have a good rummage through a few of his theological books. Good luck I say.


kindly

Phil

Anderson is not a very precise or clear writer, which makes close analysis of his work difficult, and his theological writing, though still widely respected, many of his books being in print, is doubly difficult because we aren't as concerned by theological arguments as previous generations and the questions Anderson was often addressing aren't paramount for most of us, if, indeed, they are considered at all. Attributing ant-Semitism to Anderson, or anyone else, when it isn't overt and obvious, is perilous territory unless the religious and to a less extent the political and social landscape is fully understood. The holocaust and other obscenities cause us to identify and label any vaguely critical comment about the Jews as anti-Semitic, or any anti-immigrant argument as racist.

[mariab]

The holocaust and other obscenities cause us to identify and label any vaguely critical comment about the Jews as anti-Semitic, or any anti-immigrant argument as racist.

I agree with this. We should remember to consider the 19th century/early 20th century realities in the context of their time, not through events which had not occurred yet or through the looking glass of today's political correctness.

[PaulB]

Hi everyone. I noticed in a couple of posts the use of the term "anti-zionism" which seemed to be equating it with "anti-anti-semitism". The two terms aren't actually synonymous.

"Anti-semitism" is a prejudice or hatred against Jews, whether as a religion, cultural heritage, nation, etc.

The word "Zion" is not synonymous with the words "Jew" or "Jewish" or "Semite"; it's an old place name for Jerusalem; "Holy Zion".

"Zionism" as an ideology (pre-1948 especially) generally refers to the political movement reorganized by Theodor Herzl in the 1890's. Its goal was to achieve a Jewish state within a sovereign Jewish homeland, which the Jews as a people had lacked since the Diaspora. (The Diaspora is usually considered to have begun with the Babylonian Invasion & Captivity in 560 BC.) In Anderson's day "Zionists" were largely secular (non-religious) Jews. They urged "a return to Jerusalem"- Zion- and the founding of a Jewish state where Jews from all over the world would be welcome.

Particularly in Anderson's day, many Jews did not support the formation of a Jewish secular state. Some would have preferred a religious state; many preferred to remain where they had settled, whether it was England, the U.S., Germany, etc. (As we all know, the Jewish state of Israel was finally founded in 1948 after the Holocaust.)

I don't know what Anderson's views on Zionism were, or whether he addressed the subject in any of his writings, but I don't recall having seen it mentioned in the ones I've read. Maybe someone else will know. I just thought a little clarification of these terms might be useful to the discussion.

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Bunny,
As far as I understand it, Anderson believed that the restoration of the Jews to Palestine had to happen before the Second Coming prophesied in the Book of Daniel could take place. I assume he was therefore pro-Zionist.