For the past few centuries, Western Civilization has dominated the world both culturally and economically. Why? Some point to imperialism, slavery, and colonial wars. But those sins are common to all empires throughout history. What separates the West from the rest? Stanford historian Niall Ferguson has the answer in this highly informative video.
Gandhi
Gandhi’s Racist Beliefs (or, Fallen Nature)
(Originally poste Dec 26, 2016, Updated May 2017 & Aug 5, 2019)
I have always quoted this without a real scholarly reference of where it came from, not any longer:
- “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve the interest, which is as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race…” — Gandhi
The book this came from is a large work, and the author stated his purpose and the resources he used to write his book:
There is no doubt that the market is flooded with Gandhi literature. The magnitude of Gandhi reading material, even for a Gandhian scholar, is overwhelming. Because of its incredible bulk, the Gandhi literature has been collectively named Gandhiana. In 1955 Jagdish S. Sharma cataloged 3,349 entries published by and about Gandhi in ten European languages. By his second edition in 1968, the number of entries had swelled to 3,671. In 1995 Ananda M. Pandiri compiled much of the Gandhian material published in English, listing references for 985 Gandhi biographies. The number of articles published on Gandhi is mind-boggling, as are the number of speeches about him by pastors, politicians, academicians, journalists, and others. The Gandhi literature comes in many shapes, sizes, and formats: some designed for juveniles, some for intellectuals, and much for the innocent adult population. It is spread all over the world by Gandhi propagandists. I will concentrate here on only the literature and the films in order to explore biographies, especially those that are known to have left an impact on their audiences. Since I am investigating a particular Gandhi traitracism—I will target my search on Gandhi’s role toward the black people of South Africa, where he lived almost twenty-one years. It does make sense to scrutinize him as he is depicted in these important biographies with regard to the Zulu rebellion in 1906. I offer a fair selection of biographies and other important articles related to this period, ranging from the earliest ones in South Africa, Gandhi’s autobiographical accounts, early biographies written in the West (considered to be the most famous), and those authored by reputable scholars. Given the incredible number of biographies available and the different publication times, it is easy to get confused while delving deep in the comprehension process. The solution to prevent such confusion and to aid understanding when reading the biographical materials laid out in chapters 2 through 7 is to juxtapose them in the timeline in the appendix. This will help the reader gain a better appreciation and comprehension of its historical settings and sequences.
For our discussion, the most important feature in the timeline—and the one often ignored—is the 1906 incident: “June–July: Gandhi participates in war against blacks.” This incident is paramount for those of us who wish to understand Gandhi’s core. Only once we have studied this can we move outward to untangle the rest of Gandhi’s mystery. Unfortunately, what we know of Gandhi is either through the eyes of the apologists or through the scholars. Collectively, they took the information about the 1906 incident from the pages of Gandhi’s autobiographical accounts penned in the mid-1920s, in this case a flawed method. We need to study Gandhi’s behavior toward blacks before, during, and just after the 1906 incident. Much of this book is woven around studying this phase before we study Gandhi during 1908-1909 and other time periods, including his thirty-two years in India.
G.B. Singh, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (New York, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 26-27.
So, the small portion I started with — the quote I have used in the past to show Gandhi’s core-beliefs that counter the “saint-hood” people afford him — is found within a larger contextual piece below. Enjoy:
…. Gandhi started a weekly newspaper in June 1903 at Durban called Indian Opinion. The paper started with a few stated objectives, including: to bring the European and Indian subjects of King Edward closer together. What was the harm in making an effort to bring understanding among all people, irrespective of color, creed, or religion? Gandhi knew that a huge population of blacks and other colored lived in South Africa. They were simply not in his equation, anywhere. Below, I have provided a few good examples of Gandhi’s racism. In response to the White League’s fear of the possible consequence of Asian mass immigration into Transvaal, Gandhi declared in the September 24, 1903 Indian Opinion: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve the interest, which is as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race…” (CWMG 3, #342, p. 453).
In the December 24, 1903, Indian Opinion, in response to similar fears voiced by the all-white Transvaal Chamber of Commerce Conference, Gandhi cited to his earlier petition, “The petition dwells upon ‘the commingling of the Coloured and white races.’ May we inform the members of the Conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type” (CWMG 4, #70, p. 89). The Indian underclasses evidently did not share Gandhi’s distaste for “commingling” the races.
In Ferreiras Township, a working-class suburb of Johannesburg, the population breakdown in late 1904 was listed as 288 Indians, 58 Syrians, 165 Chinese, 295 Cape Coloureds, 75 blacks, and 929 whites. Gandhi could do nothing about a place like the Ferreiras Township, but he claimed the right to speak on the racial composition of Indian locations. In February 1904, he informed the Johannesburg Medical Officer of Health, Dr. C. Porter that, “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess, I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.”
Ironically, the BIA backed away from its persistent demands about blacks from being removed from the locations, because many merchants profited from the black rental income; Gandhi had to follow suit. Similarly, in March 1906, in a clear contradiction of his previously stated principles, and on behalf of the BIA, Gandhi protested the proposed removal of blacks from the Pretoria location on the grounds that was harmful to merchant interests. He went out of his way to shield his vested interests from any encroachment. Maureen Swan aptly states:
He [Gandhi] strenuously protested against the proposal to import indentured Indians into the Transvaal, particularly if their contracts included a repatriation clause. He referred to the proposed scheme as slave labour. But his major concern was evidently the belief that the Indian “problem is complicated enough without their presence,” and that hostility to Indian traders would be fed by a vast influx of Indian workers. That his concern was for the future of the merchants, and not the “slave-labourers” per se, is obvious in that he offered sincere congratulations on the decision to import Chinese instead of Indian workers. In 1906 he actually recommended to the Colonial Secretary that Natal merchants be allowed to bypass the Immigration Restriction Act and import Indian clerks and domestics on the understanding that they must leave the colony at the end of the service with their masters. This was an attempt to break what was described as the “monopoly” created by local Indian clerks and domestics, and cannot be described in any other way than an indenture scheme complete with below market wage rates and a repatriation clause.
His views on Indian immigration were also exacerbated by another bizarre concern of his paranoid prejudice against black people, “Let us have a few of our best men to teach us, to bring the highest ideals with them, to advise and shepherd us, and to minister to our spiritual needs, that we may not sink to the level of the aboriginal natives, but rise to be, in every sense, worthy citizens of the Empire.”
Regarding work ethics, Gandhi held a low opinion of blacks, and even with time he never wavered on this issue, “It is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges” (CWMG 4, #152, p. 193). Commenting in an editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, in the March 18, 1905, Indian Opinion Gandhi was not enthused with the term “uncivilized races” being used to denote not just blacks but also the Indians. Gandhi was vehemently against including Indians (even underclasses) with blacks: “Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local blacks), resident and employed within the borough. One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs who will not work; but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much?” (CWMG 4, #319, pp. 379-81 [my italics]).
G.B. Singh, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (New York, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 191-193.
For a clear contrast one need look no further than Jesus:
The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great religious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strong-minded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been worshipped, even with multitudinous idols.
All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances.
Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the comprehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness.
Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286.
Christian Cliché
“Hate the sin and not the sinner.”
- As Christians, our faith and our actions in response to this faith must rely on the words of Jesus, not the words of unbelievers like Gandhi, no matter how appealing worldly wisdom appears to be. In no way is this phrase true. God hates sin and He hates the sinner, but not in the way we think “hate” means. (Rev. Garrick Sinclair Beckett)
I forget whom I was listening to years ago, I THINK it was Norman Geisler, and he mentioned that the often heard phrase “Love the sinner and not their sin” (or some derivative thereof) is not Biblical.
- MAN and his deed are two distinct things. Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked, always deserves respect or pity as the case may be. “Hate the sin and not the sinner” is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practised, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world. — Excerpts from The Law of Love by M.K. Gandhi (My Experiments With Truth : P. 337.) [via UK APOLOGETICS]
In USA TODAY, Jonathan Merritt notes the following:
Hate the sin, love the sinner. It’s a Christian cliché that has been used with increased frequency in recent years because it is often invoked by conservative Christians in debates about homosexuality and gay marriage. Many who use this phrase don’t intend to harm others but wish to express love for another at some level.
But the scriptural reasoning behind this phrase is unclear. Jesus never asked us to “Love the sinner, hate the sin” and neither did any other Biblical writer. The closest phrases to this in Christian history — as pastor and Bible scholar Adam Hamilton writes in Half Truths: God Helps Those Who Help Themselves and Other Things the Bible Doesn’t Say — are a letter from St. Augustine to a group of nuns (encouraging them to have “love for mankind and hatred of sins”).
The clearest use of this phrase actually derives from Mahatma Gandhi in his 1929 autobiography: “Hate the sin and not the sinner.” But Gandhi’s full statement has a bit different flavor: “Hate the sin and not the sinner is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world.” ….
(Video description) We don’t do people any favors when we downplay the wrath of God. From one of our live Ask Ligonier events, Stephen Nichols explains that people must understand the seriousness of sin in order to understand their need for the Savior.
UK APOLOGETICS, after quoting Gandhi (which was used at the beginning of this section), goes on to explain some of the differences in how God approaches sinners:
It is impossible for any one to do good when we are all wicked sinners and we will stand before a holy God as a wicked person. The human heart testifies to this. The concept of “Hate the sin and not the sinner” is clearly false, it was Gandhi who taught this heresy, Gandhi coined the term Harijan, this means Children of God and inferred term that means we are all Gods children. This is again false, what makes a person a Child of God ?
The Bible is clear that all humans are God’s creation (Colossians 1:16), but the Bible only talks about only those who are born again being exclusively Children of God (John 1:12; John 11:52; Romans 8:16; 1 John 3:1-10), in order to be a Child of God we must be saved.
Here Gandhi falsely teaches:
“We can only win over the opponent by love, never by hate. Hate is the subtlest form of violence. We cannot be really non-violent and yet have hate in us.”
Again the wisdom of this man is folly, it is foolish to believe that in order to hate sin and all that is evil is a form that will bring you to act violently against another, when God punished men of rebellion yes to people it was a violent thing to do, but this does not make God evil.
The problem is that Hindu Mahatma Gandhi’s quote is so often incorrectly attributed to Jesus Christ or, at least, to be of Christian origins.
So a modern “christian” way of interpreting these phrases is: “God loves the sinner and hates the sin.”
So, let us see what other important men of God in history had to say about this.
BROADMAN BIBLE COMMENTARY: “Yahweh takes no pleasure in wickedness and does not dwell with evil (or evil men). Insolent, boasting people have no position at all in the presence of Yahweh, who hates all ‘doers of sin.’ Indeed, Yahweh will annihilate those who speak deception: He detests the man of bloody deeds and deceits.”
F. DELITZSCH: “Of such (sinners – the foolish, and more especially the foolish boasters:)… such men Jehovah hates: for if He did not hate evil, His love would not be a holy love,” … “And His soul hates the evildoer and him that delights in the violence of the strong against the weak. And the more intense this hatred, the more fearful will be the judgments in which it bursts forth.” (Psalms, Vol.5, pp.122,189)
JONATHAN EDWARDS: “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much in the same way one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: His wrath towards you burns like fire: He looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire: He is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in His sight: you are ten thousand times more abominable in His sight than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.” (Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God, July 8, 1741)
CHARLES G. FINNEY: “The very thing that God hates and disapproves is not the mere event – the thing done in distinction from the doer; but it is the doer himself. It grieves and displeases God that a rational moral agent under His government should array himself against his own God and Father, against all that is right and just in the universe. This is the thing that offends God. The sinner himself is the direct and only object of His anger.” (The Guilt of Sin, pp.84-85)
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY: “But the wicked His soul doth hate … Their treacherous preparations…are all observed by Yahweh, and He hates them from His very soul. The soul is the seat of the passion of anger and hatred, for God as well as for man …therefore, Yahweh is trying the righteous man, and hating His deadly enemies..”
THE INTERPRETER’S BIBLE: “In vs. 5 the verb ‘trieth’ has its object both the righteous and the wicked, and means no more that the Lord watchfully observes them both and estimates them for what they are, hating the latter and ultimately pouring His destruction upon them.”
LAYMAN’S BIBLE COMMENTARY: “God’s Hatred of Evildoers (Psalm 5:4-5)… God is not said to love the sinner and hate his sin; He is said to hate both the sinner and his sin. This sounds harsh to modern Christian ears, but there is truth here we dare not overlook.”
MATTHEW HENRY’S COMMENTARY: “He is a holy God, and therefore hates them (the sinner), and cannot endure to look upon them; the wicked, and him that loveth violence, His soul hateth… Their prosperity is far from being an evidence of God’s love …their abuse of it does certainly make them objects of His hatred. He hates nothing that He has made, yet hates those who have ill-made themselves.”
J. VERNON MCGEE: ” If you think God is just lovey-dovey, you had better read this (Ps.11:5) and some of the other Psalms again. God hates the wicked who hold onto their wickedness. I do not think God loves the devil, I think He hates him, and He hates those who have no intention of turning to God. Frankly, I do not like this distinction that I hear today, that ‘God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.’ God has loved you so much that He gave His Son to die for you, but if you persist in your sin, and continue in that sin, you are the enemy of God. And God is your enemy.” (Psalms, Vol.1, p.72)
CHARLES H. SPURGEON: “Verse 5 – Note the singular opposition of the two sentences. God hates the wicked, therefore in contrast He loves the righteous.” (The Treasury of David, Vol.2, pp.57-58)
AUGUSTUS HOPKINS STRONG: “There is no abstract sin that can be hated apart from the person in whom that sin is represented and embodies. It is the sinner who is punished, not the sin.” (Systematic Theology, p.290f)
JOHN WESLEY (1703-1791, founder of Methodism): “But as for the wicked, God hates them, and will feverishly punish them.” (Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament, Vol.2, p.1639)
The idea that “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner” is a lie. Psalm 7:11 The Bible says that God is angry with the wicked daily and He will eternally judge both the living and the dead according to their deeds done in this life…..
BECKETT finishes off his opener with the ending of his article:
- God loved (agape) the world in that He sent His Son to die for the world (John 3:16) and placed our sins upon Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ, God turned His wrath away from us and placed it upon His only Son. Those who do not believe in His Son, therefore, remain under His wrath (John 3:36) because their sins have not been removed. We are also loved (philos) by the Father in that He dwells in us as the Holy Spirit, for we become His temples (1 Corinthians 6:19). And so, God shows His preferential treatment for us in that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).
