Those who know that there is scientific proof that we all survive death know that losing a loved one is only a temporary tragedy.
These scientific discoveries bring hope and comfort to every person on Earth.
Dr Alan Gauld, who was President of the Society for Psychical Research from 1989 - 1992, also witnessed this happening.
Pretend it did not happen
Everyone in the world has a right to know about these exciting discoveries in physics, especially parents who have lost children.
We have all lost loved ones, and we are all going to die one day.
Broadcast on BBC TWO Television on Saturday, August 9, 2014: 21:15.
Thomas Paine's Rights Of Man and The Age of Reason charged British radical thinking throughout the 18th century, and were a key intellectual influence on the American Revolution, which brought independence from Britain. Paine lit the fuse for the American Revolution, was an active participant in the French Revolution, and laid the foundation for political reform in Britain. His influence - both literary and political - has continued long after his death.
For this broadcast, Melvyn Bragg travels from Norfolk to Philadelphia, and New York to Paris, as he follows in the footsteps of one of the great champions of democracy and human rights. Along the way, he explains how the freedoms we all enjoy grew out of 18th- century Enlightenment thinking, and were given popular voice in the works of Thomas Paine.
At last people in their millions are going to find out just how badly they are being deceived by their leaders and teachers - that there is no such thing as Christians, Muslims, and the Jewish religion.
Article about Melvyn Bragg's Radical Lives: Rights of Man – Thomas Paine:
(…) His first book, Common Sense, written in 1775, was taken by the American leaders of what became their Revolution – especially George Washington – as a summons that it was their duty to throw off the colonial yoke.
His next publication, The Rights of Man (1791), had, like Common Sense, startling success, and also attacked the English constitution. It sold more copies than the Bible and it turned the British government against him.
In his third book, The Age of Reason he dismantled the Bible stories with a ferocity of reason which again infused the imagination of an immense audience.
He was far ahead of his time. “When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy… my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive… then may that country boast its constitution and its government.”
But yet again he attacked those who had elevated him. He objected to all capital punishment including the execution of the King and Queen of France. The French threw him out of Parliament and into prison, where he just escaped the guillotine.
He died in America in 1809, having been given a small pension by a few of his friends. Even fewer turned up – six – at his funeral.
From the Comments:
"An illiterate mechanic, when mistaking some disturbance of his nerves for a miraculous call proceeds alone to convert a tribe of savages, whose language he can have no natural means of acquiring, may have been misled by impulses very different from those of high self opinion ; but the illiterate perpetrator of " the Age of Reason," must have had his very conscience stupefied by the habitual intoxication of presumptuous arrogance, , and his common sense over-clouded by the vapours of his head"
Coleridge on Paine and his ilk.
The interview covers how Michael Roll first became aware that there is scientific proof that we all survive the death of our physical bodies. Michael Roll explains the role of Sir William Crookes, who, in 1874, published the results of his repeated laboratory experiments that proved survival. Also, the role of Sir Oliver Lodge, who, in 1894, became the first person to send a radio signal, although most people would, if asked, say that it was Marconi. The interview also covers materialisation mediums and the story of Helen Duncan, and how survival has nothing to do with allegiance to a religion.
Why has hardly anyone heard of two of the most prominent scientists of their time, Sir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge, and Arthur Findlay, one of the most prolific historians and philosophers who ever lived?
Michael Roll also responds to questions sent in by listeners.
The Mode of Future Existence - 1933 Lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge FRS
A First-Hand Account of Materialisation Mediumship
Relativity - Joke or Swindle? - by Dr Louis Essen D.Sc. FRS. OBE (Electronics & Wireless World, 1988)
To some extent, the "doing God" echoes the faith position of Tony Blair:
In 2006, Tony Blair said that his decision to go to war in Iraq would ultimately be judged by God.
Ironically, Blair had previously said that he did not speak openly about his devout Catholicism because people would think he was a "nutter".
Cameron's recent statements are not overtly driven by the same evangelical zeal of Blair.
And, unlike Blair, Cameron considers himself to be "a bit vague on some of the more difficult parts of the faith".
Perhaps Cameron thinks he will be thought of as a generally more amenable "nutter" if he remains suitably vague and does not go head-on with the difficult parts.
Such as war.
Could it be merely a matter of time before Cameron also uses God to justify his role in current and future wars?
Cameron's Minister for Faith and Communities, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi (a former chair of the Conservative Party), has declared the governing Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition to be “the most pro-faith government in the West”. The unelected minister Baroness Warsi, whose brief is to promote religion in politics, has said that religious groups must be allowed to provide public services without the State being “suspicious of their motives”.
There is the suggestion here that people of religion are victims - that their right to openly practice their faith is under attack.
Last week, in the House of Commons, when Prime Minister Cameron was asked about the plight of Christians in Pakistan, he said:
‘In the run-up to Easter, it is important to remember how many Christians are still persecuted around the world.’
It has been pointed out that Cameron is attempting to curry favour with the established Church, and that this is motivated by political expediency.
Cameron is depicting Christians as the goodies, and non-Christians as the baddies.
Though he has been keen to emphasise that he is in no way "doing down other faiths". Many non-Christians, even atheists, he admits, live by a moral code. However, as Polly Toynbee points out, "those who feel threatened on account of their non-Christian faith won't find Christian branding reassuring."
The Prime Minister is going against a huge tide of public opinion that is at last starting to get the number of these brainwashed religious nuts.
Slowly but surely, people are beginning to realise just how badly they are being deceived by their leaders and teachers.
Media Comment about David Cameron's Easter Message
I also wanted to say I’m proud this year to have completed a small pilgrimage, which is I have finally made it to the place where our Saviour was both crucified and born. And it’s a very special moment the first time you go to the Church of the Holy Nativity; it’s a remarkable, extraordinary place, and I think something that will stay with me.
And as Eric Pickles said this week, we should be proud of the fact that we are a Christian country, and I am proud of the fact we’re a Christian country and we shouldn’t be ashamed to say so. But I think the 3 things I want to focus on – and I hope we can all work on this – the first is to expand the role of faith and faith organisations in our country. This has been a consistent theme of this government; I’m sure there’s more we could do to help make it easier for faith organisations.
People sometimes say, you know, “You talk about the Big Society; don’t you realise this is what the Church has been doing for decades?” And I say yes, absolutely. Jesus invented the Big Society 2000 years ago, I just want to see more of it and encourage as much of it as possible. And that is something I think we should all want to see: a bigger role for faith-based organisations in our society. And if there are blockages, if there are things that are stopping you doing more, think of me if you like as a sort of giant Dyno-Rod in Whitehall: I want to make it easier, I want to unblock the things that help you do what you do. So please let’s do that."
Read More on www.gov.uk...
First, being more confident about our status as a Christian country does not somehow involve doing down other faiths or passing judgement on those with no faith at all. Many people tell me it is easier to be Jewish or Muslim in Britain than in a secular country precisely because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths, too.
Crucially, the Christian values of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, and love are shared by people of every faith and none - and we should be confident in standing up to defend them.
People who, instead, advocate some sort of secular neutrality fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality, or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code. Of course, faith is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality.
Many atheists and agnostics live by a moral code - and there are Christians who don't. But for people who do have a faith, that faith can be a guide or a helpful prod in the right direction - and, whether inspired by faith or not, that direction or moral code matters.
So, in being confident about our Christianity, we should also be ambitious in supporting faith-based organisations to do even more.
That is why we are not just investing £20 million in repairing our great cathedrals, but also giving £8 million to the Near Neighbours programme, which brings faith communities together in supporting local projects. I welcome the efforts of all those who help to feed, clothe, and house the poorest in our society. For generations, much of this work has been done by Christians, and I am proud to support the continuation of this great philanthropic heritage in our society today.
I am a member of the Church of England, and, I suspect, a rather classic one: not that regular in attendance, and a bit vague on some of the more difficult parts of the faith.
But that doesn't mean the Church of England doesn't matter to me or people like me: it really does. I like its openness, I deeply respect its national role, and I appreciate its liturgy, and the architecture and cultural heritage of its churches.
As politicians, I hope we can draw on these values to infuse politics with a greater sense of evangelism about some of the things we are trying to change. We see our churches as vital partners. If we pull together, we can change the world and make it a better place. That to me is what a lot of the Christian message is about - and it is a confidence in our Christianity that we can all reflect on this Easter.
Read More on www.churchtimes.co.uk...
In a declaration of his personal beliefs, he said he had experienced the “healing power” of religion in his own life and insisted that Christianity could transform the “spiritual, physical, and moral” state of Britain and even the world.
Writing in the Church Times, the Anglican newspaper, he heaped praise on the Church of England and described the UK as a “Christian country” despite saying we live in an increasingly “secular age”.
He also attacked those who demand a strict “neutrality” in public life on religious matters arguing that it would deprive Britain of a vital source of morality.
His comments amount to an olive branch to the churches in the wake of rows over issues such as welfare cuts and gay marriage. His Government has also been accused of failing to stand up for Christians.
Mr Cameron’s overt expression of allegiance to Christianity is also likely to help shore up Tory support lost to the UK Independence Party.
It suggests that the Prime Minister, who once described his own faith as being “like Magic FM in the Chilterns” – meaning that it periodically fades and reappears – has found greater strength in religion since entering office.
Bishops said his choice of words was “striking” and signalled a new willingness to espouse faith but added that many Christians would still continue to challenge some of Mr Cameron’s policies.
Listing a series of policies he said reflected Christian values, such as combating modern slavery, he said: “Greater confidence in our Christianity can also inspire a stronger belief that we can get out there and actually change people’s lives, and improve both the spiritual, physical, and moral state of our country, and even the world.”
Admitting he was probably a “rather classic” Anglican who was “vague” on some of the church’s more “difficult” doctrines, he said: “But that doesn’t mean the Church of England doesn’t matter to me or people like me: it really does.
“I like its openness, I deeply respect its national role, and I appreciate its liturgy, and the architecture and cultural heritage of its churches.
“I have felt at first hand the healing power of the Church’s pastoral care.”
The Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, Rt Rev Kieran Conry, head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales’s evangelisation department, said the comments would strike a chord with many.
“I think people will be glad to see the gospel getting back into politics – or explicitly back into politics, it is there in a lot of what the Government tries to do, in looking after people."
Prof Linda Woodhead of Lancaster University, one of Britain’s leading authorities on religion in modern Britain, said: “There has been a shift recently, it is much more common and acceptable to express your faith.”
But Mr Sanderson said: “Mr Cameron needs to understand the value of religious neutrality in Government.
“If Britain becomes a nation where Christians have special privileges, then social cohesion and fairness will be at risk.
“Nor should we forget that, according to the Church of England’s own figures, only 800,000 people attended church on a Sunday in 2012 – half the number that attended in 1968. The Church of England does not have the wherewithal to do what Mr Cameron wants it to do.”
Read More on www.telegraph.co.uk...
Being a Christian nation does not mean 'doing down' other religions
Britain should be 'more confident' about its status as Christian country
Defends criticism from senior clergy over Government's welfare reforms
Read More on www.dailymail.co.uk...
At the same time Cameron tries to appeal to the more progressive elements of the church, which he has alienated with austerity and welfare reform. He dedicates extensive passages of his Church Times article to defending his decisions in language church-goers will understand.
Finally, he reiterates the broader argument – accepted by most religious people – that faith is being swept out of the public sphere by a new 'militant atheism' which insists on firm secular standards.
The appeal suggests Cameron has a religious problem, or at least that he believes he does.
He is blamed by the religious right for gay marriage, by the religious left for welfare reform and by most people of faith for the sneaking suspicion he has failed to stem the tide of secularism in British society.
The Church Times article suggests he intends to rectify that problem, but he will need to tread carefully: what appeals to one side of the church may not appeal to the other.
There is another, more substantial danger. The British public will be wary of religious rhetoric from a prime minister – especially if it seems it is being used for political advantage.
Read More on politics.co.uk...
David Cameron has declared himself an "evangelical" about his Christian faith as he criticised some non-believers for failing to grasp the role that religion can have in "helping people to have a moral code".
It comes after several big clashes between the coalition and the church, including a letter this week from 40 Anglican bishops and 600 church leaders calling on all political parties to tackle the causes of food poverty. Previous tensions have been caused by Cameron's decision to introduce gay marriage, and deep cuts in welfare benefits.
Traditionally, UK political leaders have been more reticent than their American counterparts about religion, with Tony Blair's former spin chief Alastair Campbell once famously proclaiming that New Labour did not "do God". However, both Blair and Gordon Brown have always professed strong religious beliefs and Cameron has been clear that he is a churchgoer. In contrast, Nick Clegg is an atheist, while Ed Miliband on a trip to Jerusalem last week set out his desire to become the first Jewish prime minister, although he caused confusion by forgetting about Benjamin Disraeli.
"I have a particular faith. I describe myself as a Jewish atheist. I'm Jewish by birth origin and it's part of who I am. I don't believe in God, but I think faith is a really important thing for a lot of people," the Labour leader said.
In a separate article for the Church Times, [Cameron] argued that some atheists and agnostics did not understand that faith could be a "guide or a helpful prod in the right direction" towards morality.
While acknowledging many non-believers have a moral code and some Christians do not, he added: "People who advocate some sort of secular neutrality fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality, or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code.
"I believe we should be more confident about our status as a Christian country, more ambitious about expanding the role of faith-based organisations, and, frankly, more evangelical about a faith that compels us to get out there and make a difference to people's lives."
Cameron said he was a classic member of the Church of England, "a bit vague on some of the more difficult parts of that faith", but insisted the church "really matters" to him.
He also defended the Church of England's "perceived woolliness when it comes to belief".
"I am not one for doctrinal purity, and I don't believe it is essential for evangelism about the church's role in our society or its importance. It is important – and, as I have said, I would like it to do more, not less, in terms of action to improve our society and the education of our children."
Previously, the prime minister has said his faith is "a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes".
But on Wednesday Peter Tatchell, the LGBT rights campaigner, wrote to Helen Grant, the minister in charge of the issue, to urge her to extend civil partnerships to all.
"Both civil marriages and civil partnerships embody the same core values of love, commitment, loyalty and stability," he wrote. "Why does it matter if a straight couple choose a civil partnership? How does their choice undermine the marriages of the others and the authority of an institution that still enjoys majority support? Civil partnerships may be a different institution from marriage but they are, in most respects, marriage-like. So why maintain the ban on female-male civil partnerships?"
Read More on www.theguardian.com...
David Cameron this week has been love-bombing the Church of England with a radio interview about his children's faith, a speech at an Easter reception for Christian leaders in Downing Street and an article in the Church Times.
It's mostly toe-curling stuff. Alastair Campbell never gave better advice than in warning politicians off doing God: it's horrible to behold. Sincere or not, they become as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals, as did Cameron talking of "our saviour", claiming "My government has a sense of evangelism" and even that "Jesus invented the big society 2,000 years ago". John Major's "back to basics" should flash warning lights. No politician can ever be Christian enough – an elastic creed stretching from the Tea Party to Christ's anti-capitalist hippy injunction to consider the lilies of the field and never think of tomorrow.
So why God now? His core message, "This is a Christian country", dog-whistles to key voters. Ostensibly, it soothes the noisy but electorally few affronted folk in the pews angry about gay marriage, whose fury he had underestimated. For them Cameron ladled out syrupy retro-visions of the C of E of his Oxfordshire upbringing, its liturgy and heritage, his love of early morning eucharist at his children's school's church. But his "Christian country" message is really whistling to the errant flock fled to Ukip. They may never attend, but the C of E is a cultural identity marker for those sharing Nigel Farage's distaste for foreign tongues on his commuter train.
Naturally, Cameron is careful to say "this is not somehow doing down other faiths". But those who feel threatened on account of their non-Christian faith won't find Christian branding reassuring. This week, an article on this site described how the far right is using pork to persecute Jews and Muslims, as Marine Le Pen stops schools serving non-pork options in the French towns she now controls. More horrible still, members of the Flemish Vlaams Belang party reportedly stormed into a school and forced pork sausages into children's mouths.
Such abuse by the right in the name of "secularism" outrages British secularists and humanists who stand with Voltaire, ready to die for the right of anyone's beliefs, so long as they don't impose it on others. At a time of anti-Muslim attacks, when Islamist extremism is feared for its terrorist potential, Cameron's "Christian country" is soaked in white nationalist significance. He has great verbal agility in sounding eminently moderate and reasonable while planting darker ideas. (…)
Politically, using the church as a St George's flag of convenience may not fly. (…) Look at the 40 bishops' raspberry of an Easter message to Cameron, with their strong rebuke against the "national crisis" of hunger so much worsened by his welfare policies. They know because their churches house the food banks used by almost a million people.
Even the Rev Steve Chalke has taken up arms, though his Christian organisation runs many Gove-approved academies and contracted-out social services. He was incandescent at Cameron's refusal to let a girl at one of his schools stay in the UK just a few months longer to take her A-levels. "The Bible is clear: it is our God-given responsibility to take care of the widow, the fatherless and the refugee," he said. Which is why it's unwise for politicians to tangle with God.
The WIN/Gallup International survey finds the UK among the least religious: only a third say religion plays a positive role. Asked in the 2011 census "What is your religion?", 59% said Christian – surprisingly few as most people saw it as a question of culture rather than belief. Asked by YouGov more specifically, "Are you religious?", only 29% said yes and 65% said no.
That's good news for us humanists (I am vice-president of the British Humanist Association). Religion imposed on the rest of us is profoundly resented by the great majority. Take schools, where a third are under religious control. They take many fewer free-school-meals pupils and pews near good C of E schools swell unnaturally with new parents. Selection makes them popular, yet even so a majority want them abolished.
Or this: Lord Falconer's bill on assisted dying comes to the Lords in June, but it's almost certain to be killed off again by the bishops and the religious lobby, despite overwhelming public support over many years. The right to die when we choose is the last great individual freedom yet to be won. Every year thousands of people approach death through a torture chamber when they would prefer to die in peace at their own right time. This cruelty is ordained not by a "Christian country" but by a religious grip on parliament unrepresentative of the people.
Like all humanity, the religious are both good and bad. The C of E is good on food banks, bad on sex and death. Faith makes people no more virtuous, but nor do rationalists claim any moral superiority. Pogroms, inquisitions, jihadist terror and religious massacres can be matched death for death with the secular horrors of Pol Pot, Hitler or Stalin. The danger is where absolute belief in universal truths, religious or secular, permits no doubt. Politicians do well to stay clear of the realm of revealed truth. Cameron will win back few voters by evangelising for Britain as a "Christian country", while antagonising many.
Read More on www.theguardian.com...
The Archbishop of Canterbury the Most Rev Justin Welby singled out the experiences of people turning to food banks in the UK as an example of suffering in the world, alongside the crises in Syria and Ukraine.
He also said those who quietly man food banks were making a more powerful statement of the Christian message than figures such as himself who “shout” about religion on a national stage.
Britain’s most senior Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, also singled the issue out, speaking of those in Britain and elsewhere who feel “excluded from the fruits of the Earth”.
The new Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Paul Butler, highlighted the demand for food banks in a sermon on the theme of fear.
Meanwhile the Bishop of Truro, Rt Rev Tim Thornton, criticised Government cuts directly, saying they were having “sinful consequences”.
Read More on www.telegraph.co.uk...
"There's a terrible, frightening lack of substance about Cameron. You can listen to him for an hour - honestly, I don't know what he's about. He loves his family. It's all so trite. You know, he's against wrongdoing. There's nothing really there. That's the sort of sense I get with him. There's nothing much in there. So a jellyfish is quite a useful way of getting it across."
Paxman told how a medium contacted Sir Oliver Lodge, giving evidence that his son Raymond, who had just been killed, was still very much alive.
Paxman reported that the book that Sir Oliver Lodge wrote was a bestseller and it gave great comfort to millions of grieving people:
‘Raymond or Life and Death’ by Sir Oliver J. Lodge (1916) Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Incredibly, no professional wreckers were brought on to rubbish the very idea that any person could possibly survive the death of their physical body.
Here is a television history programme that will live on in infamy.
It is the Vatican’s take on the history of mankind, and the cause of the First World War.
Thankfully, Ferguson gave the game away in the beginning when he gave us a crash course in the history of mankind on this planet. He showed, by horrific graphics, Christians torturing their victims to death. The Holy Inquisition, which he called “The Spanish Inquisition”.
The Jesuit’s idea of history, that this was nothing to do with those nice people in the Vatican, it’s all to do with those nasty Spanish people.
Then he played the Jesuit’s ace of trumps. At great expense, in graphics, we were treated to the historical lie that it was Marconi who invented radio, instead of Sir Oliver Lodge.
It is so important to the Vatican that nobody must read the work of Sir Oliver Lodge. They know they are done for if this ever happens.
Sir Oliver Lodge made a very careful study of survival after death as a branch of physics, chemistry and mathematics – natural and normal forces in the universe, and nothing to do with supernatural religious absurdities invented in the dark age of ignorance by priests, mullahs and rabbis. Sir Oliver Lodge was no more dabbling in the one-god religion of Spiritualism, as we have been criminally led to believe, than Professor Richard Dawkins is.
‘The Mode of Future Existence’ by Sir Oliver Lodge can now be read by every person who has access to the Internet.
Then we came onto the cause of the First World War.
The usual rubbish, there was not a hint that there was any religious hatred in the Balkans.
Just that the Russians came in on the side of their fellow slavs in Serbia.
The American Professor Gerald Pollack has made it clear that Flat Earth scientists are blocking the discoveries of Round Earth scientists.
We can now state, loud and clear, that Flat Earth historians and blocking the findings of Round Earth historians.
There are journalists in the hot spots of religious hatred all over the world.
They are no longer going to play the establishment game that all this killing is nothing to do with religion.
This programme covered the whole of the build up to the First World War.
It was just the same as the rubbish that we were taught at school in England where the Church and the state are still established. The programme makers just pretended that nobody had noticed the terrible religious killing in the Balkans that had recently been covered over a number of years on their television sets.
We were told that the Serbs were Slavs and that the Russians came in on the side of their fellow Slavs.
We were not told that the Serbian people had been brainwashed to actually believe in Orthodox Christianity, just the same as the hierarchy in Russia.
The word religion was not even mentioned in the programme.
We were not told that the Austrians were brainwashed Catholics.
Nor were we told that in the middle of this lot were brainwashed Muslims, just that they were Turks left over from the Ottoman Empire.
There is a good reason for this deception.
It is because if it was made clear that it was Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians killing each other, then people may ask what is it that divides them?
Thanks to the Internet this can be found out very quickly. This terrible hatred is all over a bust up in the 11th century over the Holy Ghost. All the killing was over nothing whatsoever apart from supernatural religious mythology that had gone completely mad.
The programme did get it right about the reason why Britain and France joined in.
They saw this religious killing in the Balkans as the perfect excuse to smash the German war machine that was a threat to all the countries that they had pinched throughout the world.
Selfish imperial agreements between Britain and France, combined with the publication of the contradictory Balfour Declaration of 1917, fuelled hostilities in the Middle East
It was, wrote historian James Barr, “a shamelessly self-interested pact, reached well after the point when a growing number of people had started to blame empire-building for the present war”. Britain would come to regret the land-grab bitterly, for it set off a conflict that, like an active volcano, would erupt intermittently down the succeeding years and even today shows no signs of cooling.
The Allies created a terrible mess in the Middle East. As well as the Israel-Palestine struggle, they bear a measure of responsibility for the inherent instability of the states that emerged from the post-war settlements. Decisions that produced the disorder were often taken hastily, heedless of long-term considerations. It soon became clear that there would be plenty of time to regret at leisure.
The deal from which much of the mischief sprang was known as the Sykes-Picot agreement. It was worked out by Sir Mark Sykes – a land-owning Yorkshire baronet and MP with a taste for the Orient – and a truculent and Anglophobe French diplomat, François Georges-Picot. Between them they split the Ottomans’ Middle Eastern empire, drawing a diagonal line in the sand that ran from the Mediterranean coast to the mountains of the Persian frontier. Territory north of this arbitrary boundary would go to France and most south of it would go to Britain.
Men like former prime minister and now foreign secretary Arthur Balfour, who had been brought up on the Bible, believed the Jews had a right to return to the Promised Land. They also harboured the conviction that Jews exercised enormous hidden influence in the world and particularly in America and Russia. By making a promise that would gladden Zionist hearts, they might win their co-operation in achieving British war aims. After the conflict was over, it could be useful to have a Jewish entity in the region that felt it owed a debt of gratitude to the empire.
In November 1917, a document was issued in Balfour’s name that laid the foundations for modern Israel. It stated that the government “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”. The Balfour Declaration, as it became known, made no mention of the Arabs who, at the time, made up about 90 per cent of Palestine’s population. It did, however, utter the pious proviso that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities”.
The Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917): The then UK Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour believed that the Bible was the word of God, and thought it would be a brilliant idea to put the Jews back in the Holy Land.